"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
Monday, December 01, 2008

By this logic, holding up a bank because you need to feed your family is acting in good faith
Posted by Jill | 6:31 AM
Can William Kristol possibly get more stupefyingly, mind-bogglingly, Oh God Please Make Teh Stupid Stop dumb?

Now he's calling for not just pardons, but the Medal of Freedom for everyone who tortured, illegally spied, or did any of the Bush Administration's dirty work in the name of the so-called "war on Terror":
One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning–and should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in the war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. The lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that the best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But the idea is this: The CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of these public servants the Medal of Freedom at the same time he bestows the honor on Generals Petraeus and Odierno. They deserve it.


I realize that Kristol runs the Weekly Standard, having created it with fellow neocon lunatic scion John Podhoretz using Rupert Murdoch's money. But you'd think that in trying to make his rag pass as a legitimate, mainstream publication, he'd at least try to not sound like a complete idiot?

This is a perfect example of what Neal Gabler was talking about in the article I linked to earlier -- that modern conservatism has nothing to do with the documents on which this country was founded, nothing to do with the Founding Fathers or the Constitution, or any of the patriotic foofarah they trot out every time they want to make political hay, while they squat and squeeze out turd after turd all over what this country stands for. No, theirs is the conservatism of fear -- fear of change, fear of those who look different or behave differently or who have different cultural customs, or worst of all, think differently. It's a conservatism that has somehow managed to turn living in a constant state of fear into a kind of macho toughness. It's Joe McCarthy conservatism, and guys like Kristol are his heirs.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Just like a criminal that goes my many aliases...
Posted by Jill | 7:28 AM
...so are the neocons who were associated with or supported the Project for a New American Century. They're back, with a spanking new name: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Yes, democracies...like, say, Qatar, which is controlled by an unelected emir. And it's got an associated organization, Defense of Democracies, which is devoted entirely to advocacy of the U.S. government spying on its own citizens in the name of "keeping America safe." The group's mission:
The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) is the only nonpartisan policy institute dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that drive terrorism.
FDD was founded shortly after 9/11 by a group of visionary philanthropists and policymakers to engage in the worldwide war of ideas and to support the defense of democratic societies under assault by terrorism and Militant Islamism.

FDD uniquely combines policy research, democracy training, strategic communications, and investigative journalism. We focus our efforts where opinions are formed and, ultimately, where the war of ideas will be won or lost: in the media, on college campuses, and in the policy community, at home and abroad.


I wonder how they reconcile "democratic values" with authoritarian government spying on its own people.

Its Board of Directors is a who's who of neocon crazies:

Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick (founders)
Louis Freeh, Newt Gingrich, Max Kampelman, Holy Joe Lieberman, and R. James Woolsey, "Distinguished (sic) Advisors."

Check out the rest of them.

Why don't these guys don uniforms, pick up guns, and go defend democracies in a REAL way?

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, June 20, 2007

These are the people with whom Zionists have decided are their allies
Posted by Jill | 8:13 PM
Why on earth any Jew, no matter how Zionist, would think that the Christofascist Zombie Brigade is their friend, is a mystery.

Christian support of Israel is based on one thing: conversion or annihilation of the Jews.

Cernig uncovered this little tidbit from Jesusland that explains it all:

Prophecy continues to unfold. The Bible has warned about Middle East turmoil increasing "in the latter times."

In Ezekiel 36-39, God speaks of bringing Jews from around the world to Israel, not because they deserve their own land but to vindicate His holy name. They besmirched deity's holy name by repeatedly sinning over centuries; but God will not tolerate His holiness smeared without vindication, hence Jews gravitating to Israel "in the end times."

So look to the divine miracle: May 14, 1948, when Israel became a nation for the first time in centuries. Jews from all over the globe went to Israel, their homeland.

Ezekiel predicted Israel's flourishing: herds, flocks, fruitage, ruined cities rebuilt.

With Israel having settled in, however, biblical predictions go on to state that the enemies surrounding Israel attack Jews mercilessly. Blood flows like rivers.

Natural calamities come also upon Israel, convincing Jews and Gentiles alike that God is God and that His holiness must be recognized.

At the close of the Church Age — "in the latter days" — Israel will then come under the blessing of the returned Messiah Christ's peace.


This is with who Joe Lieberman and William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the Jewish neocons break bread. This is whom they think are "friends of Israel."

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, February 08, 2007

So why the hell are we even bothering to save for retirement?
Posted by Jill | 6:23 AM
Thanks to George W. "God's Anointed Architect of the Rapture" Bush, it's looking increasingly likely as if none of us are even going to be around. If you thought the Iraq misadventure had discredited the neocons, guess again:

"Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn't happened," says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion. "And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president's neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.' But after you've lost x number of times at the roulette wheel, do you double-down?"

By now, the story of how neoconservatives hijacked American foreign policy is a familiar one. With Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld leading the way, neocons working out of the office of the vice president and the Department of Defense orchestrated a spectacular disinformation operation, asserting that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction posed a grave and immediate threat to the U.S. Veteran analysts who disagreed were circumvented. Dubious information from known fabricators was hyped. Forged documents showing phony yellowcake-uranium sales to Iraq were promoted.

What's less understood is that the same tactics have been in play with Iran. Once again, neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D. Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington—this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom.

Meanwhile, a series of recent moves by the military have lent credence to widespread reports that the U.S. is secretly preparing for a massive air attack against Iran. (No one is suggesting a ground invasion.) First came the deployment order of U.S. Navy ships to the Persian Gulf. Then came high-level personnel shifts signaling a new focus on naval and air operations rather than the ground combat that predominates in Iraq. In his January 10 speech, Bush announced that he was sending Patriot missiles to the Middle East to defend U.S. allies—presumably from Iran. And he pointedly asserted that Iran was "providing material support for attacks on American troops," a charge that could easily evolve into a casus belli.

"It is absolutely parallel," says Philip Giraldi, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism specialist. "They're using the same dance steps—demonize the bad guys, the pretext of diplomacy, keep out of negotiations, use proxies. It is Iraq redux."

The neoconservatives have had Iran in their sights for more than a decade. On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's newly elected prime minister and the leader of its right-wing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative luminary Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. The subject of their meeting was a policy paper that Perle and other analysts had written for an Israeli-American think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper contained the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the U.S. could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.

"It was the beginning of thought," says Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-American policy expert, who co-signed the paper with her husband, David Wurmser, now a top Middle East adviser to Dick Cheney. Other signers included Perle and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy during George W. Bush's first term. "It was the seeds of a new vision."

Netanyahu certainly seemed to think so. Two days after meeting with Perle, the prime minister addressed a joint session of Congress with a speech that borrowed from "A Clean Break." He called for the "democratization" of terrorist states in the Middle East and warned that peaceful means might not be sufficient. War might be unavoidable.

Netanyahu also made one significant addition to "A Clean Break." The paper's authors were concerned primarily with Syria and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but Netanyahu saw a greater threat elsewhere. "The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran," he said.

Ten years later, "A Clean Break" looks like nothing less than a playbook for U.S.-Israeli foreign policy during the Bush-Cheney era. Many of the initiatives outlined in the paper have been implemented—removing Saddam from power, setting aside the "land for peace" formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon—all with disastrous results.

Nevertheless, neoconservatives still advocate continuing on the path Netanyahu staked out in his speech and taking the fight to Iran. As they see it, the Iraqi debacle is not the product of their failed policies. Rather, it is the result of America's failure to think big. "It's a mess, isn't it?" says Meyrav Wurmser, who now serves as director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute. "My argument has always been that this war is senseless if you don't give it a regional context."

[snip]

According to Sam Gardiner, the most telling sign that a decision to bomb has already been made was the October deployment order of minesweepers to the Persian Gulf, presumably to counter any attempt by Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. "These have to be towed to the Gulf," Gardiner explains. "They are really small ships, the size of cabin cruisers, made of fiberglass and wood. And towing them to the Gulf can take three to four weeks."

Another serious development is the growing role of the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom), which oversees nuclear weapons, missile defense, and protection against weapons of mass destruction. Bush has directed StratCom to draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran, at a time when CentCom has had its hands full overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Shifting to StratCom indicates that they are talking about a really punishing air-force and naval air attack [on Iran]," says Lang.

Moreover, he continues, Bush can count on the military to carry out such a mission even without congressional authorization. "If they write a plan like that and the president issues an execute order, the forces will execute it. He's got the power to do that as commander-in-chief. We set that up during the Cold War. It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it."


OK, I'm going to say it, under the "It's OK to knock your own team" rule, so I don't want to hear anything about being an anti-Semite, OK? Bibi Netanyahu has no business making American foreign policy. The U.S. is under no obligation to risk global thermonuclear war because a few Israeli lunatics and their neocon think tank allies in the U.S. has some idea that creating a conflagration throughout the Middle East somehow is good for Israel. There comes a point where what's good for Israel -- or more accurately, what a couple of paranoid lunatics think is good for Israel -- has to be taken out of the equation of American foreign policy. If AIPAC doesn't like it, too bad.

If Bush goes ahead with this madness, the 2008 election is likely to be moot anyway, because either we'll all be dead or the situation will be so unstable that the Bush Administration is likely to declare martial law and stay on "for national security reasons." But on the off chance that the messianic crazy in the White House and his insane neocon Vice President and his neocon buddies at the Heritage Foundation do allow an election, any candidate who does what John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have done -- stand up in front of AIPAC and saber-rattle at Iran, loses my vote. Period.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share