ap: charles dharapak
(hat tip to watertiger @ firedoglake)
Sunday, October 15, 2006
ooh, ooh that smell
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
foley night football
just when it seemed the tastiest juice had been already squeezed out of the foley congressional page scandal (not that the squeezing itself was anywhere near abating), another spirited exegesis has blossomed from steve gilliard's news blog, this time from commenter lowermanhattanite, in the spirit of steve's warhammer 40k series:
what with monday night football being on, players stomping each other in the grille and thoughts of half-*ssed collegiate griddder [sic] george "macaca" allen jr. dancing in my head all weekend, the gop's handling of this whole foley thing brought believe it or not — football to mind for me.
some of you may be too young to remember those scary san diego charger teams of the late 70's, but let me tell you — they were probably the most frightening passing offense you'd have ever seen — with john jeffferson [sic], charlie joiner, chuck muncie, wes chandler and kellen winslow catching balls hurled all over the field by the toss-happy dan fouts at qb.
my god, but they were a sight to behold. a breathing 11-man textbook on passing power 101. folks called 'em "air coryell", after their "rain man-esque" offensive savant of a coach don coryell. watching them seeming to effortlesssly run up scores via air power, you'd think they were the greatest thing ever to grace turf and chalk.
but you know what? the mother-f*ckers never won a super bowl — much less even made iit [sic] to one. wanna know why?
son-of-a-b*tches couldn't play a lick a' defense.
folks, the gop's defense on this pig-f*ck of a scandal is "air coryell, 2006" — a team used to passing, passing and mo' passing its way to easy, demoralizing regular-season victories, but in the end, unable to win the big game/truly govern.
i mean, it really is kind of amazing to watch this team of supposed bruisers, so used to dominating in their usual way, getting their *sses handed to 'em on this story. again, baack [sic] to "air coryell", that squad sought to beat you down with long offensive drives that would keep their defense off the field. their p*ss-poor, hole-filled, sub-par defense, that is. and what this little debacle is showing us all is what happens when the gop actually has to defend for any length of time.
they really don't know how.
all this mad scrambling, unable to control the tempo because they don't have the ball in their hands as usual? they look a little lost.
"uh. rep. hastert didn't know about this."
"well, he did, but only the clean e-mail."
"er ... not even that, really. he might've been told, but he doesn't really remember it."
"oh, it was just a few naughty e-mails"
"whoops! did i say naughty? i meant reprensible! [sic] reprehensible, vile — fill in the blanks."
"it's the pages fault!"
"it's the dems fault!"
"it's the holder of the ims fault!"
"they're adults!"
"um ... pay no attention to us getting busted scrubbing all the child endangerment stuff from hastert's website — in spite of this being about 'adults'".
there appears to be no coordinated defense on this at all — just a bunch of individulsl [sic] running around aimlessly after whoever they think is carrying the ball at the moment. and that vaunted offfense [sic] can't do a f*cking thing here. can't outscore the other side — because offense don't mean sh*t when you ain't in possesssion of the ball, baby.
a position this crew is sorely un-used to. even drudge — usually so canny with his poison darts — took to crow-barring his target upside the head with that egg-zaggerated "beast" sh*t he spouted. and man ... when you get him, the gop's star ball-carrier (pun unintended) that far off his game and screaaming [sic] on the sidelines? they have got a serious f*cking issue on defense.
i don't mean to boil the seriousness of what foley and his enablers did by equating it to a mere "game". rather, i'm talking about the craven team of bullies who've been trying to as usual, dodge this heinous sh*t by "offense-ing" their way out of some really serious trouble here. more than 72 hours into this blow-out and they can't as yet conjure up a equally troubled democrat to equivocate this sh*t with? wtf? three quarters in and these f*ckers are still getting shut out? i ain't used to seein' this team!
it is a wonder of sorts though, watching all the old gimmick plays — "88 flea-flicker media misdirect", "swift boat shake-off on 04" and "baby-fake power trap r-dc" all get thrown for f*cking losses over the last few days.
f*ck that "best defense is a good offense" sh*t, eh?
are you ready for some football?
to be fair, the republicans are not merely lacking a defensive plan: there simply exists no defense for the odious trap they've so carefully constructed for themselves. the doomsday scenario they've been quietly postponing has detonated in their faces, at the worst possible moment. the only way the survivors can leave the field with honor at this late date is to remove themselves as hastily as decorum allows. but knowing this crew, and their pathological hatred of even the appearance of defeat, they'll go painfully down in protracted overtime, whining all the way like babies.
Monday, October 02, 2006
torture logic
if anyone is still a little puzzled why president bush has invested so much of his waning political capital into an end run around the geneva convention, it's not just to save himself the cost of a trip to the hague, although that alone would certainly be reason enough.
juan cole relates a most enlightening lecture delivered by former uk ambassador to uzbekistan craig murray at a recent academic symposium on central eurasia:
the bush administration has been about "the greater middle east" (including central asia). it has been about basing rights in those areas. it says it is fighting a "war on terror" that is unlike past wars and may go on for decades. it has been about rounding up and torturing large numbers of iraqis, afghans and others. this region has most of the world's proven oil and gas reserves.
why is the bush administration so attached to torturing people that it would pressure a supine congress into raping the us constitution by explicitly permitting some torture techniques and abolishing habeas corpus for certain categories of prisoners?
... boys and girls, it is because torture is what provides evidence for large important networks of terrorists where there aren't really any, or aren't very many, or aren't enough to justify 800 military bases and a $500 billion military budget.
boys and girls, is there any doubt that when this chapter of american history has been committed to ink that it will catalogue the war on terror with the spanish inquistion and the salem witch trials?
Sunday, October 01, 2006
separated at birth
disgraced former boston cardinal bernard law
disgraced soon-to-be-former house speaker denny hastert
(hat tip to jeffrey feldman @ dailykos)