"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Friday, March 02, 2007

What I'm reading today
Posted by Jill | 8:36 AM
Cernig discusses the right-wing outrage about some people leaving blog comments about wishing Dick Cheney had been killed in Afghanistan -- and includes some interesting statistics about how wingnuts talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

BlueGal wants to know how like-minded groups can reach out to the blogosphere.

Melina has some choice words for Maureen Dowd in regard to Al Gore.

At Blue Jersey, 5th District Dweeb Wuss-Boy Candidate Paul Aronsohn, apparently not understanding any part of "44%-in-a-Democratic-year-really-sucks" is already whining about people saying mean things to him.


Dave at The Galloping Beaver
warns about being happy about Marty Peretz being out of the picture at The New Republic.

Larisa Alexandrovna calls (correctly) for the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales, who fired a federal prosecutor after he refused to accede to Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici's demand that he indict a Democratic state Senator prior to the election.

And speaking of wingnuts with the vapors, ShakesSis talks about the wingnut blogger whose balls are no doubt being squeezed into oblivion by his twisted panties after spending his masturbation time analyzing how many progressive blogs use how many of George Carlin's Seven Words You Can't Say on Television.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, March 01, 2007

Network news viewers still want to see father figures
Posted by Jill | 7:42 AM
While the trend in cable television news is towards vapid-eyed, poufy-haired, lantern-jawed men and vapid-eyed blond botoxed women, all around the age of 35, it seems that among those who still watch network news in the evening, the mature, father figure still reigns supreme:

he looming change in the control room at “Nightly News” and the ratings surge by Mr. Gibson are but the latest developments in the most tumultuous two years in the recent history of broadcast news.

Mr. Williams succeeded Tom Brokaw in December 2004. After that, Dan Rather resigned as anchor at CBS in the midst of a reporting scandal, and was soon succeeded by Katie Couric. Peter Jennings died of lung cancer while still the lead anchor at ABC, and one of Mr. Jennings’s designated successors, Bob Woodruff, nearly died in a roadside bomb explosion in Iraq, setting off a sequence of events that ultimately led to Mr. Gibson’s move to the anchor desk at “World News.”

Only six months before Mr. Gibson got the evening news job, he was effectively passed over for it, in favor of two much younger journalists, making his current run at Mr. Williams’s broadcast all the more remarkable.

Even as some young viewers forsake television for the Internet, the three network newscasts continue to attract a collective audience of nearly 25 million viewers most nights. The programs are also among the most lucrative for the networks, with advertisers planning to spend nearly half a billion dollars on them this year.

More than a few viewers, and advertisers, choose their broadcast based on the personal strengths of those anchors. That has left some people at the networks wondering whether Mr. Gibson — who, at 63, is the oldest and most established of the three — may be proving more attractive to more viewers than Mr. Williams and Ms. Couric.


The network news viewer tends to skew older than the audience for cable news, and this undoubtedly counts for part of Gibson's rise. Elderly audiences don't want to be read the news by their kids. But I can't help but wonder if some of the loss of Brian Williams' audience doesn't come from his frequent presence at the side of Jon Stewart. Stewart's growth as a news personality is baffling to him, but it's more an indicator of the state of television news than a reflection on Stewart's own gravitas. The problem with Williams is that his role as a fixture of fake news/comedy indicates a healthy snark and lack of reverence for the traditional role of news anchor as father figure. Gibson, being a bit older, seems to embrace that role, and therefore his older audience is more comfortable receiving the news from someone who better accepts the "reassuring parent" role.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

They ran it up the flagpole and no one saluted
Posted by Jill | 7:38 AM
And they have no personnel with which to attack Iran and North Korea at the same time:

The Bush administration is backing away from its long-held assertions that North Korea has an active clandestine program to enrich uranium, leading some experts to believe that the original U.S. intelligence that started the crisis over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions may have been flawed.

The chief intelligence officer for North Korea, Joseph R. DeTrani, told Congress on Tuesday that while there is "high confidence" North Korea acquired materials that could be used in a "production-scale" uranium program, there is only "mid-confidence" such a program exists. Meanwhile, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill, the chief negotiator for disarmament talks, told a conference last week in Washington that it is unclear whether North Korea ever mastered the production techniques necessary for such a program.

[snip]

When Bush took office in 2001, a number of top administration officials openly expressed grave doubts about the 1994 accord, which was negotiated by the Clinton administration, and they seized on the intelligence about the uranium facility to terminate the agreement. The CIA provided an unclassified estimate to Congress in November 2002 that North Korea had begun constructing a plant that would produce enough "weapons-grade uranium for two or more nuclear weapons per year . . . as soon as mid-decade."

David Albright, a respected former U.N. inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, issued a report last week in which he likened the intelligence on North Korea's uranium facility to the discredited intelligence before the invasion of Iraq that Baghdad was building a nuclear program. "The analysis about North Korea's program also appears to be flawed," he wrote.


This is now the Bush Administration's modus operandi. Claim that you have the intelligence, invoke mushroom clouds, then attack. The problem is that Americans aren't buying it anymore. Of course, this disbelief has its own problems, because it means that if and when here IS a legitimate threat, we won't believe them then either.

Sounds like a perfect setup if you want to allow another attack to take place on U.S. soil, doesn't it? Especially one timed to allow you to cancel the 2008 election.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Walter Reed: the military scandal no one was supposed to know about
Posted by Jill | 7:27 AM
I don't ever again want to hear another Republican accuse anyone of not "supporting the troops". It is the Republicans who have looked the other way while returning wounded veterans lived in squalor. It is the Republicans who want to cut veterans' medical benefits to continue to feed the corporate war machine. It is the Republicans who regard these kids as just so much breathing carrion -- nameless, faceless (except when needed for a photo op), expendable.

The Army's own surgeon general knew about conditions at Walter Reed -- and did nothing:

Top officials at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, including the Army's surgeon general, have heard complaints about outpatient neglect from family members, veterans groups and members of Congress for more than three years.

A procession of Pentagon and Walter Reed officials expressed surprise last week about the living conditions and bureaucratic nightmares faced by wounded soldiers staying at the D.C. medical facility. But as far back as 2003, the commander of Walter Reed, Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley, who is now the Army's top medical officer, was told that soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were languishing and lost on the grounds, according to interviews.

Steve Robinson, director of veterans affairs at Veterans for America, said he ran into Kiley in the foyer of the command headquarters at Walter Reed shortly after the Iraq war began and told him that "there are people in the barracks who are drinking themselves to death and people who are sharing drugs and people not getting the care they need."

"I met guys who weren't going to appointments because the hospital didn't even know they were there," Robinson said. Kiley told him to speak to a sergeant major, a top enlisted officer.


Every day there is another horror story about this Administration's callousness where the men and women who fight is completely gratuituos wars are concerned. Every day hey give lip service to patriotism and supporting the troops, and every day they show that these kids mean no more to them than the kid in the rat-infested tenement does. And through cuts in edcation, in Pell grants, in health care; though policies that encourage plant closings and outsourcing, they are making damn sure that the kid in the rat-infested tenement grows up with no other options but to be cannon fodder for them. It would be one thing if these kids really were being sent to defend their country. But it's criminal when they are being sent to fight corporate wars -- and then neglected when they are wounded in the line of duty.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

This is huge
Posted by Jill | 5:31 AM
Up to this point in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, we had the counterintuitive phenomenon of Barack Obama having the women's vote, and Hillary Clinton having the black vote. But that seems to be changing:

The opening stages of the campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination have produced a noticeable shift in sentiment among African American voters, who little more than a month ago heavily supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton but now favor the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton, of New York, continues to lead Obama and other rivals in the Democratic contest, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. But her once-sizable margin over the freshman senator from Illinois was sliced in half during the past month largely because of Obama's growing support among black voters.

On the January weekend when she announced her candidacy, Clinton led the Democratic field with 41 percent. Obama was second at 17 percent, Edwards was third at 11 percent and former vice president Al Gore, who has said he has no plans to run, was fourth at 10 percent.

The latest poll put Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 24 percent, Gore at 14 percent and Edwards at 12 percent. None of the other Democrats running received more than 3 percent. With Gore removed from the field, Clinton would gain ground on Obama, leading the Illinois senator 43 percent to 27 percent. Edwards ran third at 14 percent. The poll was completed the night Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award.

Clinton's and Obama's support among white voters changed little since December, but the shifts among black Democrats were dramatic. In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.

African Americans view Clinton even more positively than they see Obama, but in the time since he began his campaign, his favorability rating rose significantly among blacks. In the latest poll, 70 percent of African Americans said they had a favorable impression of Obama, compared with 54 percent in December and January.

Overall, Clinton's favorability ratings dipped slightly from January, with 49 percent of Americans having a favorable impression and 48 percent an unfavorable impression. Obama's ratings among all Americans improved over the past month, with 53 percent saying they have a favorable impression and 30 percent saying they have an unfavorable impression.


The trend is that the longer Hillary's campaign goes on and the more arrogantly it behaves, the less people like her. But what's more important is that the "not really black" argument against Obama seems to be losing strength -- as well it should.

Polls this early are still about name recognition, and Hillary Clinton is still the household name in this race. John Edwards would seem to be an early casualty of the two milestone candidates and noncandidate Al Gore sucking up all the oxygen in the room. -- and his weak response to the likes of Bill Donohue hasn't helped him. But it would seem that if the mudslinging from Camp Hillary continues, Edwards stands to be the primary beneficiary if Gore does not run. I'm not one of those who sees Gore's entry into the race as inevitable. I think at this point he is very comfortable in his own skin and with his own role, and probably realizes that he can make as much of a difference without sitting in the White House -- and not have to deal with the smear machines of either the Republicans or Mrs. Clinton.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Perhaps if Bush had stayed focused on Afghanistan, this wouldn't be an issue
Posted by Jill | 5:20 AM
NY Times:

The audacity of a suicide-bomb attack on Tuesday at the gates of the main American base in Afghanistan during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney underscores why President Bush sent him there — a deepening American concern that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are resurgent.

American officials insisted that the importance of the attack, by a single suicide bomber who blew himself up a mile away from where the vice president was staying, was primarily symbolic. It was more successful at grabbing headlines and filling television screens with a scene of carnage than at getting anywhere near Mr. Cheney.

But the strike nonetheless demonstrated that Al Qaeda and the Taliban appear stronger and more emboldened in the region than at any time since the American invasion of the country five years ago, and since the Bush administration claimed to have decimated much of their middle management. And it fed directly into the debate over who is to blame.

The leaders with whom Mr. Cheney met on his mission to Pakistan and Afghanistan have appeared increasingly incapable of controlling the chaos, and have pointed fingers at one another.

Mr. Cheney said the attack was a reminder that terrorists seek “to question the authority of the central government,” and argued that it underscored the need for a renewed American effort.

His critics, on the other hand, said the strike was another reminder of how Iraq had diverted the Bush administration from finishing the job in Afghanistan.


I might remind David E. Sanger, who penned this article, that "his critics" are, in fact, correct. The Iraq war was completely unnecessary, fed by the lunatics at PNAC and a president's psychosexual issues with his father -- and it has made the entire world less safe as a result.

Instead, we have a war that is a black hole for American debt spending, as yesterday's stock market dive should remind us. This administration has not only turned the world into a more chaotic place, it has already destroyed the future of every American now living, from infants to the elderly. If it were only the remaining 28-31% of Americans that still persist in believing in this bunch that were affected, we could say it's no less than they deserve. But they are going to drag the rest of us down with them.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

You know what "emboldens the enemy"?
Posted by Jill | 5:16 AM
Short-changing the troops that are involved in this so-called "surge" in Iraq by not giving them the appropriate counterinsurgency training:

Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases.
Some in Congress and others outside the Army are beginning to question the switch, which is not widely known. They wonder whether it means the Army is cutting corners in preparing soldiers for combat, since they are forgoing training in a desert setting that was designed specially to prepare them for the challenges of Iraq.

Army officials say the two brigades will be as ready as any others that deploy to Iraq, even though they will not have the benefit of training in counterinsurgency tactics at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., which has been outfitted to simulate conditions in Iraq for units that are heading there on year-long tours.


What this tells me is that either Army officials are lying, or NONE of the soldiers coming out of this training center have been appropriately trained.

This Administration gives lip service to "pertectin" the troops only when it is to its political advantage to do so. But in terms of actually protecting them by providing armor, adequate food, water that isn't polluted, medical care, and training, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the other neocon advocates of empire couldn't give a shit. They sleep the quiet, dreamless, guiltless sleep only the most evil of men know.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The successful un-presidency of Al Gore
Posted by Jill | 7:43 AM
Richard Cohen, who was one of the first Mean Grrrrlz, along with his good friend Maureen Dowd, to decide in 2000 that Al Gore's taste in clothing made him somehow unfit for the presidency as compared to the faux cowboy drag of George W. Bush, has had a change of heart:

Now, somebody ought to make a movie about Al Gore. I would call it "An Uncomplaining Life."

The movie would be about a man who did not quit, who came off the canvas after a painfully close election -- he won the popular vote, after all -- who accepted defeat graciously and tried to unite the nation, who returned to the consuming passion of his earlier days, the environment, and spoke endlessly on the topic, almost always for free, who starred in a documentary based on his speech and who Sunday night, before a billion or so people, won an Academy Award for his effort. This may or may not be a stepping stone to the presidency, but Gore gives us all a lesson on how to live one's life.

[snip]

Gore would not have taken the United States to war in Iraq. He would have finished the job in Afghanistan -- it was al-Qaeda and its Taliban enablers who were responsible for the attacks on us on Sept. 11, 2001, not Saddam Hussein, no matter how vile he might have been. Gore would not have dealt with the Iranians and the North Koreans in such a juvenile fashion -- axis of evil, after all -- and all over the world, wherever you and I went, we would not detect such anger toward America.

[snip]

Jimmy Carter said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he thought Gore ought to run and had told Gore so insistently. "He almost told me the last time I called, 'Don't call me anymore,' " Carter said. What Gore told me was something similar: "I think there are other ways to serve."

We'll see. After all, Gore -- the son of a senator himself -- was raised for the presidency. But for the moment at least, he is showing all the irritating signs of a man at peace with himself. He abandoned Washington for Nashville. He has made a bundle in his investments, and he has set out to show that there is life after a failed candidacy, a purposeful life in which a man can do some good. His movie and his speeches are -- to paraphrase what Clausewitz said about war -- a continuation of politics by other means. He cannot make war but he can still make a difference.

I know -- and so does Gore -- that all this will change if he enters the race. Maybe that ol' devil of uncertainty will come creeping out of his skin, and maybe he will become shrill, and maybe he will somehow throw his voice so that it seems to be coming from outside his body. But the woman I love tells me that life is a series of little lives, and no one has proved the truth of this better than Gore. With an Oscar in his fist and triumph on his face, Al Gore is a man you can tell your kid about. That, maybe, is even better than being president.


...and more effective, too. For I'm not sure that whoever succeeds George Bush as president (and I am not certain that anyone will, as this president and his Dark Overlord in the #2 spot seem to be arming the very terrorists who will attack us again just in time for them to declare martial law and cancel the 2008 election) will be able to accomplish even half of what Al Gore can do outside the executive branch.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

STFU
Posted by Jill | 7:04 AM
Last night they took Laura Bush off the thorazine long enough to make an appearance on Larry King to try to convince people that Iraq isn't completely FUBAR. C&L has the sorry video.

Money quote:

This is their opportunity to seize the moment—ahhh—to build a really good and stable country. And many parts of Iraq are stable ahh..now. But, of course, what we see on television is the one bombing a day that discourages everybody


And Keith had a few choice words for Condi Rice.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, February 26, 2007

Quote of the Day
Posted by Jill | 8:38 PM
Paul Slansky at HuffPo:


We had no trouble calling the suicide bombers crazy for believing that seventy-two virgins would be waiting for them in Heaven. Is born-again Bush any less nuts to believe he'll be rising up to Heaven during the Rapture? For all we know, Armageddon has been his intentional goal from the start. It's almost the only explanation that makes sense. America is Flight 93. It's been hijacked and it's about to crash, and every single one of us has to charge the cockpit.

[snip]

Again, to recap, one of the nation's foremost experts on the subject of Osama bin Laden says that al Qaeda is "going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States." If that doesn't scare you, you are no longer scareable.


Well, if that doesn't scare you, maybe the fact that the Bush Administration is now funding the very Sunni extremists that are not only connected with al-Qaeda, but are also killing American troops in Iraq, will:

Sy Hersh in The New Yorker:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.


Let's pause and ponder that for a moment, shall we? Because the Bush Administration wants to attack Iran, which is Shiite, it is sucking up to the very Sunni extremists that they claim attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

Let's repeat that one more time: The President and Vice President of the United States are using our tax dollars to fund the very people who want to attack us again.

Do you still think that those of us who think the Bush Administration had some kind of complicity in the 9/11 attacks are crazy?

More:

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran.

[snip]

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser.


That's old "Bandar Bush", the Bush family's best buddy in the House of Saud.

The article is dense and detailed, because if you're going to expose this administration for what it is -- an infiltration of our government by enemies of America -- you'd damn well better do your homework, and Hersh has done exactly that. This makes Iran Contra look like a tea party, and the stakes are much higher.

So when that al-Qaeda nuclear weapon that is being funded by the Bush Administration using your tax dollars goes off in New York and kills Mr. Brilliant and leaves me a widow, or kills your loved one; or it goes off in Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Chicago, or wherever it goes off, then see if you still believe that no government in the U.S. could do such a thing.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Obligatory Oscar® Post
Posted by Jill | 6:57 PM
I really don't have much to say, but ModFab does. So go read his recap of last night's Academy Awards. Besides, he does it better than I do anyway.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Posted without comment
Posted by Jill | 7:24 AM
WaPo:

Dozens of high-level officials joined in a White House drill yesterday to see how the government would respond if several cities were attacked simultaneously with bombs similar to those used against U.S. troops in Iraq.

White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend and the Homeland Security Council that she heads mapped out in advance a massive disaster involving improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. The attack targeted 10 U.S. cities, both large and small, at the same time, said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Townsend presided over the three-hour exercise, which brought the government's top homeland security officials to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House. All Cabinet agencies were represented by their secretaries or other high-ranking officials, with about 90 participants in all, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

[snip]

President Bush went on a bike ride yesterday morning and did not take part in the test.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Why would Al Gore want to clean up Bush's mess when he's having so much fun?
Posted by Jill | 7:11 AM

"Living well is the best revenge." -- Dorothy Parker

"Revenge is a dish best served cold." -- Oscar Wilde


Congratulations to Al Gore for An Inconvenient Truth's Oscar® win. And how much fun was it to watch him play with the whole "announcement" foofarah? The one question I have is, where the hell was this guy in 2000? If there is one lesson that this year's Democratic candidates should learn from this is to not listen to the consultants. Be yourself, and let the chips fall where they may.

As for Gore, well, I don't fault him one bit for not wanting to step into this particular cesspool again. Sometimes it's the presidency that DOESN'T happen that's the most successful.

(C&L has video.)
Bookmark and Share

LIHOP, MIHOP -- will it matter when it happens again?
Posted by Jill | 6:40 AM
I think it's possible that our unwanted basement tenant, which we have pretty much decided is a squirrel, may be deceased. This of course brings an entirely new set of problems, and I have a call into an animal control guy (as opposed to an exterminator) to evaluate the extent of the other rodent problem.

But since so far the cats are alive, there are no mice on the main living level, and there's nothing much I can do at this point, let's go back to the real world and Frank Rich's bloodcurdling column in yesterday's New York Times.

Highlights:

The ratings rise of “24” has stalled as audiences defect from the downer of terrorists to the supernatural uplift of “Heroes.” Cable surfers have tuned out Iraq for a war with laughs: the battle over Anna Nicole’s decomposing corpse. Set this cultural backdrop against last week’s terrifying but little-heeded front-page Times account of American “intelligence and counterterrorism officials” leaking urgent warnings about Al Qaeda’s comeback, and ask yourself: Haven’t we been here before?

If so, that would be the summer of 2001, when America pigged out on a 24/7 buffet of Gary Condit and shark attacks. The intelligence and counterterrorism officials back then were privately sounding urgent warnings like those in last week’s Times, culminating in the President’s Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” The system “was blinking red,” as the C.I.A. chief George Tenet would later tell the 9/11 commission. But no one, from the White House on down, wanted to hear it.

The White House doesn’t want to hear it now, either. That’s why terrorism experts are trying to get its attention by going public, and not just through The Times. Michael Scheuer, the former head of the C.I.A. bin Laden unit, told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann last week that the Taliban and Al Qaeda, having regrouped in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States” (the real United States, that is, not the fictional stand-in where this same scenario can be found on “24”). Al Qaeda is “on the march” rather than on the run, the Georgetown University and West Point terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman told Congress.

[snip]

The surge supporters who accuse the Iraq war’s critics of emboldening the enemy are trying to deflect attention from their own complicity in losing a bigger battle: the one against the enemy that actually did attack us on 9/11. Who lost Iraq? is but a distraction from the more damning question, Who is losing the war on terrorism?

The record so far suggests that this White House has done so twice. The first defeat, of course, began in early December 2001, when we lost Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora. The public would not learn about that failure until April 2002 (when it was uncovered by The Washington Post), but it’s revealing that the administration started its bait-and-switch trick to relocate the enemy in Iraq just as bin Laden slipped away. It was on Dec. 9, 2001, that Dick Cheney first floated the idea on “Meet the Press” that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It was “pretty well confirmed,” he said (though it was not), that bin Laden’s operative Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague months before Atta flew a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center.

In the Scooter Libby trial, Mr. Cheney’s former communications aide, Catherine Martin, said that delivering a message on “Meet the Press” was “a tactic we often used.” No kidding. That mention of the nonexistent Prague meeting was the first of five times that the vice president would imply an Iraq-Qaeda collaboration on that NBC show before the war began in March 2003. This bogus innuendo was an essential tool for selling the war precisely because we had lost bin Laden in Afghanistan.

[snip]

It is precisely by pouring still more of our finite military and intelligence resources down the drain in Iraq that we are tragically ignoring the lessons of 9/11. Instead of showing resolve, as Mr. Bush supposes, his botch of the Iraq war has revealed American weakness. Our catastrophic occupation spawned terrorists in a country where they didn’t used to be, and to pretend that Iraq is now their central front only adds to the disaster. As Mr. Scheuer, the former C.I.A. official, reiterated last week: “Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that’s where it is.” It’s typical of Mr. Bush’s self-righteousness, however, that he would rather punt on that threat than own up to a mistake.

[snip]

Yet Mr. Bush still denies reality. Ten days ago he told the American Enterprise Institute that “the Taliban have been driven from power” and proposed that America help stabilize the Pakistan border by setting up “Reconstruction Opportunity Zones” (remember that “Gulf Opportunity Zone” he promised after Katrina?) to “give residents the chance to export locally made products to the United States, duty-free.” In other words, let’s fight terrorism not by shifting America’s focus from Iraq to the central front, but by shopping for Taliban souvenirs!

Five years after 9/11, the terrorists would seem to have us just where they want us — asleep — even as the system is blinking red once again.


I disagree with Rich on just one point -- that Americans are asleep or obsessing about Anna Nicole Smith's corpse. I think that Americans have begun to despair that anything can be done to end the relentless march to ruin on which this Administration has embarked. We had an election last November that seemed to promise change, and yet all we've seen is a House that passes legislation which in turn gets bogged down in the Senate. The Senate, deadlocked between ineffectual and cowardly Democrats, Republicans who put their own careers and party loyalty ahead of the good of the country, and Joe Lieberman, who will gladly fuck whichever party gives him the most bling.

And now, as we look ahead to a presidential election, what do we see? The presumed Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, whining because a Hollywood mogul is giving money to someone else.

This is leadership?

The Democrats have been unable and unwilling to take on this Administration in the forceful way that's required because to do so requires that one admit what no one wants to admit: that the terrorism threat which met this Administration at its inception; the threat it "ignored", the threat that continues because this so-called "tough on terror" administration has instead fertilized and watered and cultivated terror not to end the threat, but to make it worse. And why would they do this? Is it sheer ineptitude? Well, that's the kindest interpretation. But when you look at Bush Administration policy in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, and you ask "Who benefitted from the attacks?", there is only one answer that you can come up with, and that is administration complicity in some form with an attack on the United States. It doesn't have to mean that the attacks were some sort of psyops exercise, and that the people supposedly killed are living under assumed names in Argentina. What it does mean is that a cost/benefit analysis indicating potential gains for an administration already in trouble in the summer of 2001, with the added benefit of huge financial gains for the Vice President and the duo's campaign contributors and cronies, resulted in the attacks playing out.

I don't believe that the Bush Junta banked on the World Trade Center collapsing, but I don't think they shed a whole lot of tears for it either. But if you look at who gained from the attacks, you have:

George W. Bush -- his presidency saved, his re-election in 2004, and for a long time, skyrocketing approval ratings at the same time as he gutted environmental and consumer protection laws and gave huge tax cuts to those who needed them least.

Dick Cheney -- huge financial rewards from his continued investment in Halliburton.

The oil industry -- skyrocketing fuel prices, and now the biggest prize of all -- 75% of the profits from Iraqi oil.

PNAC -- Its empire agenda proceeding according to plan

The defense industry -- huge contracts from a war in Iraq with little to no accountability for costs or quality.

Add to the equation a frightened population willing to give all of its Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms to this bunch in return for the delusion of safety, and you can't deny that whether it was ineptitude or deliberately turning the other way and allowing the attacks to play out, it certainly worked for the Administration.

And now, once again, we have an administration on the ropes and a Republican party in disarray, poised to lose power for a generation unless something drastic is done. Yesterday, Frank Rich outlined just how eerily similar this winter is to the summer of 2001. Those in the intelligence community who are free to speak are appearing on those talk shows that will have them, with their proverbial hair on fire. And the Bush Administration continues to tell us that we're winning the Iraq war, that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are on the run, and worst of all, that Osama bin Laden just isn't that important.

Only now the situation is worse, because we no longer have allies. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, even the French said "We are all Americans." No longer. The next time the U.S. is attacked, you can count on all the allies we snubbed, all the allies that this president brushed off as if they were pesky flies, will stand by and watch. And it will be no less than this president deserves.

The problem is that he's taking the rest of us along with him.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Sunday, February 25, 2007

Greetings from Casa La Freakout
Posted by Jill | 4:44 PM
It's hard to blog when you're having a nonstop anxiety attack.

Yesterday I was doing my normal yoga workout in the basement when I heard what sounded like an animal scurrying overhead in the drop ceiling. I thought maybe I imagined it until I saw said animal through the plastic cover of the fluorescent fixture. Freaked out, called the first exterminator I could find by leafing my shaking hands through the Yellow Pages that said "24 hour emergency service." Guy came out, tore out some ceiling tiles to put a net up there, couldn't catch it. I thought it might be a squirrel, he thought it might be a rat. He said we also have mice because he saw droppings on the fixture cover.

Great. Just great.

Based on what he could tell from the droppings, WHICH WERE IN MOST CORNERS OF THE LAUNDRY ROOM, he said we have many, many mice -- too many to handle with snap traps or glue traps -- and possible rats as well. So now I have a basement laundry room full of rodenticide bags, what I still think is a squirrel dying slowly of starvation in my drop ceiling, possibly rats as well, and I have to keep the cats out of the basement entirely -- and hope the mice don't come upstairs. This has to go on for 4-6 weeks.

And they're predicting snow tonight.

And I'm headed out of town for a few days on Wednesday, and Mr. Brilliant is counting the hours till I leave because I am driving him crazy freaking out about the vermin and obsessing about whether the cats will be safe. And no, there's no way I can farm them out to someone else.

And the exterminator said I can't go out with a caulking gun and seal up cracks until we get rid of the mice, because they have to go out to get water, which activates the poison.

So that's why you haven't seen me blog today on the generals who plan to quit if Bush orders a military strike against Iran; Sy Hersh reporting on how an attack plan to be kicked off within 24 hours of a presidential order to go ahead is being developed; and Frank Rich noting how the media obsession with the Anna Nicole/Britney circus is just too reminiscent of the summer of 2001, and how the Bush Administration has made us MORE, not less, likely to be attacked.

But I have new sympathy for those in charge of that KFC/Taco Bell in New York that was shut down because of rodent infestation. I'm told that this is what happens when you have a milder-than-expected winter that suddenly turns cold -- the assorted wildlife that is increasingly migrating to suburbia as its habitat is destroyed go looking for places to keep warm.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share