predictions

a mere twenty-four hours ago:

guess what is up for today?

first on the news will be: O-BOMB-A-CARE!

next on the news will be: holder won't be holding his job!

what a beautiful day this will be!!!:)

by seekthetruth

the whole law will get tossed because there is not enough pretzel logic on earth to find the mandate constitutional. and there is no severability clause. and there is no way in hell the court is going to wade through a 3000 page bill to try and create one.

the result will be much wailing, crying, and stamping of feet, culminating in a long-range leftist plan to undermine the supreme court (an FDR court packing scheme or something similar). it will become the bush v gore bloody shirt of the next decade.

electorally though it will actually help obama, as it will remove a huge unpopular albatross from around his neck. it will also get the catholic church to shut up about the mandate and many catholics will go back to voting democrat.

by buckeye mcfrog

SCOTUS will strike it down, POTUS will ignore the ruling.

by kosciusko51

by hotlanta mike

obama's responses usually have the flavor of vindictiveness, as in the arizona case. whatever his response, it will have to be an executive order, because most dems in congress just want this thing to go away.

of course, he will lash out verbally at both the republican party and the supreme court, but as to politically effective actions he could take, he may be boxed in. the most politically effective thing he could do would be to graciously accept the supremes' decision, but he won't do that. i hope he tries something, because it's just going to make it worse for his election chances.

by wayoverontheright

i predict there will be much sadness...

by vrwcArea51

me too, but not for us or this grand nation

by bornToBeAmerican

a constitutional crisis is about to be created, and obama, i hope, will be clapped in irons.

by candor7

and the rest, as they say, is history ...

you just might be a birther if ...

...	you're just now realizing bill o'reilly, ann coulter and glenn beck are idiots.
...	you think a clever alias for a stealth muslim is "barack hussein obama".
...	you prefer online grand juries 'cause it gets kinda stuffy under your white hood.
...	your boycott of hawaii doesn’t interrupt any of your plans.
...	you're sure all birth certificates are printed in australia.
...	you think the "white house" means exactly that.
...	the deli counter guy asks "american or swiss?" and you say "vattel!"
...	hawaii's health dept has your phone number on call-blocking.
...	you're "damn shure" you're a natural born citizen — 'cuz both your parents are brother n' sister!
...	your lawyer takes payment in fillings.
...	your team's down 0-60 and you're still betting.
...	you think "usurper" is a quaint southern euphemism.
...	susan herbert can count on your vote in 2012.
...	you pray nightly for the usurper's downfall — to the same god that ignored you on election day.
...	you think "dismissed without prejudice" means your case wasn't racist enough.
...	you think it's long past time we closed the border — with hawaii.
...	you learned a moving and historic lesson about democracy last year — from honduras.
...	you won't be satisfied 'til you see the death certificate.
...	you don't believe everything you read on the internet — just the really friggin' stupid stuff.

who, us?

faux fox news' bill o'reilly and bernie goldberg seem to be having a hard time understanding all the fingers pointing at their network:

o'reilly:

[time magazine's joe] klein writes, quote: "fox news peddles a fair amount of hateful crap. some of it borders on sedition. much of it is flat out untrue." unquote. but even though he has plenty of space, klein fails to illustrate his point, providing no examples of what he says is untrue ...

goldberg:

who exactly at fox news is inciting a rebellion against the government?

sigh.

this is just too easy.

keith? you wanna do the honors?

when another of the hannity faithful noted that armed insurrection and coups would be treason, someone else posted at hannity.com, quote: "only if the insurrection or coup fails." sean "you might want to check if this constitutes incitement to treason" hannity: today's "worst person in the world"!

denied w/o comment

oh well ... despite much hand-wringing from the right, who were looking for the strongest validation available, and as well from the left, who no longer trusted the supreme court after bush v. gore, few folks can say that this result wasn't wholly predictable.

as we heard this morning, the diehard obama derangement syndrome sufferers just lost their latest attempt to get the land's highest court to grant real weight to their legal challenge to obama's november victory. this was an important loss because without the court's attention, the case has little if any opportunity to merit attention from the media. even "respected" "mainstream" conservatives such as limbaugh, hannity and o'reilly have kept their distance on this one. had the court accepted the case, the media rollercoaster would have jumped its rails.

it was an entertaining if not entirely suspenseful weekend, watching the semper fidels of free republic twist themselves into knots waiting for this decision. as an unabashed freeper-voyeur, i posted friday's entry "the supremes and the certificate" and sunday's entry "still room under the bus" to invite you to grab some popcorn with me ...

... and join me on the couch for what had to be the first really great sporting weekend since the election. after eight years of tolerating unfettered right-wing contempt and vitriol, few things provide such cathartic entertainment as watching freepers in turmoil.

so how is freeperville taking the news? silly question, i know.

first a statement from the applicant himself, leo donofrio:

the main stream media should stop saying scotus refused to hear the case. it was distributed for conference on nov. 19. they had the issue before them for for sixteen days. yes, they didn't take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. but they certainly heard the case and read the issues. the media is failing to acknowledge that. the case and issues were considered. getting the case to the full court for such consideration was my goal. i trust the supreme court had good reason to deny the application. despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. please remember that. it's important for history to record that.

of course, by dismissing the application, i'd say that the court just put it out of their minds.

surprisingly, at least one freeper agreed with me:

LOL ..., who is this "baghdad bob"???

sure, "i won because 'it's in their minds ...' "... that's a pretty good one ...

but in the land of the free(per), a true patriot never lays down his arms:

nay sayers, hold on now. as the MSM slowly starts picking this up, it's going to titillate the uneducated masses. there still is time ... but buy your guns and ammo anyway. no reason to take any chances.

well, if the masses find this soap opera as genuinely titillating as i do, then obama has nothing to worry about, if he ever did.

but as they say, never say die. after all, there are other cases in the pipeline waiting to be rejected considered:

[the wrotnowski case] makes number two, another was filed this morning makes three and then there is berg's, makes 5. sometimes in order to break the ice on the lake one must keep piling little rocks on top until it breaks.

hmm ... sounds like four to me, but who's counting?

it can be inferred now that you have two justices interested in moving this case. you need four justices.

all that is necessary is for one lowly judge to issue a preliminary injunction on either the electoral college casting its votes, or them being certified by the congress, or the issuance of an oath of office to 0bama. once that happens, all hell will break loose!

i guess it's not over until the "fat judge" sings.

clearly, what these long marginalized voices badly need and what conservatives have long been denied is a platform to get their message out:

what this screams to me is DUHHH! there is a HUGE opportunity for a conservative to buy up a few of these dying media outlets and start a conservative network. there's a lot of pent up demand. there's freepin' money on the table.

i know it's a long shot, but perhaps this is an idea we could get someone like ... i dunno, say, rupert murdoch interested in?

still, throughout greater freeperville, there was much gnashing and wailing and rending of garments:

the chicago tribune is reporting this? do we have a more reliable source of information this morning?

four justices had to vote to hear the case????? so you are saying that roberts, thomas, alito and scalia was not enough or worse are not really conservatives?????

this means that it is no longer the democrats fault for what is to come. blame is and will be placed squarely at the feet of the supreme court of the united states.

i would say "god help us".... but it looks like his response is "i have seen how you (usa) would thank me". bring your judgement god ... we deserve it!

i think we should swarm obama with copies of our birth certificates (i know ... stupid idea) ... but, i'd LIKE to swarm him with copies of our birth certificates. ... something is fishy for him to fight this so much ... anyone know the statue of limitations on what the hawaiian governor did (sequestering his bc)???

we will be hard pressed to deny anyone the presidency in the future. this ruling means that swartzenegger can run for president. maybe even valiente fox or cesar chavez.

oh, the horror! that even someone born in arizona (even a dead one at that), could possibly become president!

well it's OFFICIAL: the united states constitution is NULL and VOID! it's been fun while it lasted!

great. now nutroots on the right are as apoplectic about the SCOTUS decision IRT OHB as the nutroots on the left were about bush v. gore. time to by stock in the companies that produce paxil, zolof, etc, etc.

the nation that the founding fathers turned over to us is dead.

i just hope that they won't now say that the "donofrio case" sets a precedent and deny all subsequent claims ... if they make it to the SCOTUS in the first place.

if it ever comes to pass that his not eligible, I don't want to hear squat from the press or congress, or the DNC ... cowards all.

why can't the SC ask BO to show THEM his BC?

i'm afraid the political climate has changed beyond the point where those in power care about the rule of law or what the public thinks. representative democracy is nearly dead. peasants don't count for much in an elitist's eyes, until they pick up pitchforks and storm the palace. things will have to become very much worse and intolerable before that will happen here.

i'm at a loss. is president bush in the tank for obama? does he not realize that he, the commander in chief, swore an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states? why is he not spearheading the move to get to the bottom of obama's birth certificate issue if he is not part of a conspiracy to destroy our society and make us all a part of his daddies "new world order?"

please. help me out here. is president bush really so vane and worried about his own legacy that he won't do what is right or will he go down as the last great liberal to let the supreme court decide america's fate.

what good is electing a leader that purportedly defends us and our constitution abroad if he is letting our enemies destroy both the constitution and us from within?

"george w. bush: the last great liberal" — who knew? sounds like a bestseller ...

no longer is it: "we the people" but rather..."you people!" (kooks, nuts, radicals, on-the-fringe fruitcakes")

we might as well kiss the us constitution and the freedoms it grants americans goodbye. this proves the supreme court justices are part of the conspiracy to force an illegible alien, marxist, muslim on the american people.

if scotus lets this pass ignoring the constitution, then i guess that gives everyone carte blanche to ignore all laws.

there are times i have a secret desire the next wot attack is in LA, SFO, or D.C.

umm ... not so secret anymore, creep. thanks for sharing.

still, there is one consolation prize they can take home — at least the case is finally getting the prime-time attention it deserves:

funny how the MSM is picking up the story that it was denied — front page at HuffPost, MSNBC, DU, et al. maybe they were worried after all?

this is the end, beautiful friend

when you've lost bill o'reilly ...

alright, more economic choas today ... don't panic! uh, it'll, uh, flip around, but, uh, this is the end of president bush’s legacy. that's — he's done, he’s through. ... um, y'know, i like president bush personally, i think he's done some good things in the war on terror, but he will now go down in history, alongside jimmy carter, as a, uh, ineffectual leader, particularly with the last four years in iraq, and now the economy just imploding. and i’ll tell you the reason why, it's, it’s poor leadership on his part, and the people that he picked, uh, to run certain things have been disastrous. and no leadership and now americans are getting, getting hurt. and it's my job to, uh, put an end to that, and i'll do the best i can. we'll start today ...

it's true — if you've got no leadership skills and you can't even choose the right people to delegate to, what else is there to being president? charm? well, let's not go there, folks ...

so welcome aboard, billo, but this bus left the station seven years ago.

that's insultainment

in•sul•tain•ment [in'sәl-tãn'mәnt]

noun

print, broadcast or online content, especially when distributed by a commercial entity, that is so stultifyingly stupid and/or devoid of actual news or information that it can only be considered an insult to the intelligence of (and may — or should — even induce fits of rage in) the viewer.

origin: november 10, 2007 (you heard it here first, folks!): blend of insult and entertainment: my doctor tells me i need to start watching something other than the o'reilly factor. he says all that insultainment's no good for my blood pressure!

see also: infotainment.

stacy and laci peterson: the eerie similarities (cbs) it's like deja vu all over again. this missing woman might not be pregnant, but the similiarities in the stacey peterson and laci peterson cases are eerie at best.... and not just because of their names. laci peterson what the husband said: scott said laci took the dog for a walk. murder in the first: police have been investigating whether a college student, kristin smart, who went to cal poly at the same time of scott peterson might have been murdered by him. a watery grave: police found the remains of laci after they washed up in the san francsico bay. the remains of the couple's unborn son, connor, washed up days before. in the family way: laci rocha peterson was eight months pregnant when she was killed on december 24, 2002. i'm not guilty: scott peterson is on death row in san quentin for the murder of laci and their unborn child. he maintains his innocence. ironically: laci's best friend, since third grade, was a woman named stacey (boyers.) stacy peterson what the husband said: drew said stacy left voluntarily. murder in the first: police now think drew peterson might have had something to do with his third wife's (kathleen salvio) mysterious bathtub drowning. a watery grave: search crews are still looking for stacy. they recently dredged a nearby lake but found nothing. in the family way: stacy peterson had two children with her husband drew when she was reported missing. i'm not guilty: while he was officially called a "suspect" on november 9th for the october 28th dissapearance of his wife, drew maintains his innocence. ironically: stacy peterson has a daughter named lacey.

i see that whoever at cbs news filed this brain-free fluff had just enough sense of professional self-preservation not to sign it.

nonetheless they should be dragged out into the sunlight and roundly flogged for the crime alone of contributing to the further corruption of the much-abused term "ironically".

thirsty?

this one's on the house, you republican gasbags!

bob cesca has a long-overdue message for all those oh-so-deserving and soon-to-be-irrelevant professional pundits, politicians, prognosticators, proselytizers, preachers, peddlers and outright propagandists who've been proven so horrifically wrong for the past six years:

last week, i described a nightmare scenario in which the republicans won the midterm prompting the president, high on mandate juice, to form the department of shut the f*** up, headed by a sock puppet named secretary fiddlesticks. now that the democrats have taken back the congress and 51+ percent of america finally has a voice in government again, i think it's time to seriously let fly. so at the risk of sounding contentious in this all-too-genuine era (several days) of bipartisanship, here now is a roll call of people who must officially shut the f*** up. republican trolls who wrap up their anonymous and incomprehensible criticisms of progressives with the phrase, "and that's why your party never wins," need to shut the f*** up. the cowards who so easily disregard our liberties by shrugging off the president's illegal wiretapping; the cowards who shrug off the military commissions act and the death of habeas corpus; and the cowards who shrug off torture with the phrases, "i'm not doing anything wrong, so i have nothing to worry about," or, "you can't [blank] if you're dead," ought to shut the f*** up. [yes, we're calling you out pat, jeff and john, you buncha li'l skairdy k-k-kats!] anyone who still believes that global warming is a myth? shut the f*** up. rush limbaugh must shut the f*** up. on second thought, strike that. the more we see violet beauregard flapping his arms and mocking parkinson's patients, the better off the rest of the nation will be. in ann coulter's latest column, he wondered when the democrats would be fitting senator-elect jon tester with a "leotard." speaking of tards, mr. coulter needs to shut the f*** up. and this order stands for anyone who claims senator-elect tester is a "conservative democrat." he could very well be the face of the new progressive democrat and one of the most genuine lawmakers elected tuesday. prediction: if he isn't already, tester will quickly become a rock star in this party. i think it was bill maher who mentioned this but it stands repeating here: neocons who have made multiple rosy predictions about iraq need to shut the f*** up and are forthwith banned from making any more predictions. sean hannity, bill o'reilly and other homophobes who use the "san francisco liberal" label for speaker-elect pelosi must... you know. we all understand that it's right-wing code language meaning "homo-values." if that's what you mean, just say it. that is, unless you're not man enough. if you still believe that karl rove is a genius, wizard, architect or anything short of overrated, you must shut the f*** up. one popular vote loss, one win, one near loss to a disorganized opponent and one outright loss means one thing and one thing only: mediocrity. racking up this kind of record by means of dirty tricks, race-baiting and questioning the patriotism of decorated war veterans makes rove a mediocre hack at best. [hmm ... i believe said something along those lines over a year ago.] ed gillespie, the man who's just a neck with a mouth, is officially ordered for the last time to shut the f*** up. the devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the democratic party as the "democrat party" need to stop it. shut the f*** up. the official name of the party is the democratic party, with the "ic" at the end. yeah, i know. newt gingrich and frank luntz invented the idea of saying "democrat party" or "the democrat leadership" or "the democrat voters" in order to emphasize the "rat" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. president bush, in his so-called "conciliatory" press conference wednesday, used this incorrect pronunciation several times. "and while the ballots are still being counted in the senate, it is clear the democrat party had a good night last night, and i congratulate them on their victories." "this morning i spoke with republican and democrat leadership in the house and senate." "... we'll begin consultations with the democrat leadership starting thursday and friday." "... and now work with democrat leaders in the congress because they control the committees and they control the flow of bills." "we got some tax cuts passed with democrat votes." and finally ... mr. president. saying that you're going to work with congress and compromise for the sake of the nation doesn't mean shoving your unconstitutional terrorist surveillance act and your bellicose anti-u.n. u.n. ambassador through a lame duck session. so if you don't really intend to be bipartisan, then shut the f*** up. you pride yourself on letting people know exactly where you stand and, despite the fact that you routinely stand on dangerous principles, there's at least some cold comfort in knowing what you're up to. but it's clear that that president bush is long gone — replaced by a man who can't even be honest with his own base about things like the iraq war, subsequently leaving his allies alone, confused and scrambling to assuage the anger of an increasingly hostile constituency. this last part? keep it up, thank you. and that's the roll call. i've spent the last several days not only breathing in the sweet aroma of real-life governmental checks and balances, but i've also been evaluating where we go from here. clearly speaker-elect pelosi and the democratic leadership have the daunting task of working with the white house to not only push through vital pieces of legislation, but they also must do so in a way that doesn't raze their chances for further pickups in 2008. it goes without saying that any misstep in the face of this republican party (and its media lapdogs) could spell disaster. so they have to play nice in some ways, but you and i are best served by remaining on the attack and never hesitating to tell those who deserve it to shut the f*** up. update: i've been told that joe mccarthy was the first to use the "democrat [sic] party" misnomer. however, its use became much more pervasive when gingrich and luntz practically made it mandatory in the ranks of the gop.

tough guys don't carry umbrellas

we can all sense that the war is coming. it is vital for america to seize the initiative and fight it on our terms, when we have the maximum advantage. it's five minutes to midnight. the time to strike iran is now. — robert tracinski, "five minutes to midnight: the war is coming, no matter how hard we try to evade it."

tracinski tries his level best to sound calming and reasoned, yet still strident and imperative — but james wolcott, left blogistan's resident ginsu expert, knows the sound of trash talk when he hears it:

i have a theory on why the war party rhetoric has gone skittish and skyhigh, a theory based on casual observation of new york streetfights (streetfights everywhere, really). what i've noticed is that the trash talk in a street altercation escalates in proportion to the expanding distance between the two protagonists. when two potential fighters are almost literally in each other's faces, their words are few, their expressions fierce. it's when the fist fight has been avoided (or tabled) and they're putting distance between each other that the taunting becomes louder and more florid. "get back in my face again, motherfucker, and i'll pound your face into hamburger meat, motherfucker." "come back and say that to my face, lame-ass motherfucker." etc. you can supply your own david mamet expletives and challenges. one of my favorite verbal showdowns occurred on 14th street one rainy day when two non-pugilists kept up the trash talk until one of them said, "you're carrying an umbrella, motherfucker — how tough can you be?" which i must say got quite a chortle from us idle bystanders. now what has this to do with the posings of our militaristic muscle mouths? this: it is an index of the frustration and impotence they're experiencing at not getting their way. they're waging rhetorical escalation because de-escalation is the unacknowledged order of the day, and there's nothing they can do about it. steve clemons published a dispatch from the nelson report indicating that despite all of the cheneyesque bluster, the bush administration is pursuing the diplomatic route with iran. to the dismay of the hard nosers, bush is also reeling back his use of "islamic fascists", which will be interpreted as a capitulation to political correctness. you even have rumself whining that his recent appeasement slur was taken "out of context," and calling for "constructive" dialogue regarding the situation in iraq. and then there's the happy novelty of rudy giuliani blowing the whistle and calling a foul on "partisan bickering", which will not endear him to the more strident dickheads in his party. there has been a major shift in the mood climate, one which the war party and its bloggers are resisting at the top of their lungs. but resistance is futile. as john robb writes in an important post at global guerrillas, "playing at war", we're not going to the get the grand, conclusive world war iii (or iv) that same [sic] neocon ideologues crave.

newt gingrich: look at all the different connectivity. you'd have to say to yourself, "this is in fact world war iii." john gibson: world war iii. bill o'reilly: world war iii, right? john gibson: this is world war iii. sean hannity: ... world war iii. the start of world war iii! michael leeden: more like world war iv ...

red alert

boys, it's time to duct tape the windows, strap on your diapers and man the keyboards — the islamo-irani-talibani-qaeda-o'fascists have taken connecticut!

chuck roberts, anchor @ cnn headline news:

how does this factor into the lieberman/lamont contest? and might some argue, as some have already argued, that lamont is the al qaeda candidate?

tony snow, press secretary @ the white house:

... the real question for the american people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously? with all the developments around the world — and, if so, how do you fight it to win? there seems to be two approaches, and in the connecticut race, one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. now, when the united states walked away, in the opinion of the osama bin laden in 1991, bin laden drew from that the conclusion that americans were weak and wouldn’t stay the course and that led to september 11th.

dick cheney, vice president @ the white house:

the thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the american people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. and when we see the democratic party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the democratic party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't — we can't be.

bill o'reilly, talking head @ the o'reilly factor:

i believe this is a chilling indication of what lies ahead in american politics. iran’s betting we americans have no will to restrain their jihad, and judging from the connecticut vote last night, they might be right.

cal thomas, columnist @ the washington times:

the narrow primary defeat of veteran sen. joe lieberman in connecticut's democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. it is a loss for his party and for the country. it completes the capture of the democratic party by its taliban wing. they used to be "san francisco democrats," a phrase coined by former u.s. ambassador to the united nations jeane kirkpatrick to describe the party's 1984 convention. but they have now morphed into taliban democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.

joe lieberman, sore loser @ the new york times:

if we just pick up like ned lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in england. it will strengthen them, and they will strike again. i'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to american security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as nazism and probably more dangerous than the soviet communists we fought during the long cold war. how the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as democrats and republicans against each other, when these terrorists certainly don't distinguish based on our party affiliation? they want to kill any and all of us.

what if they had a war and nobody came?

it looks like recruitment woes are plaguing even plum keyboard commando deployments such as the catered and festooned tour-of-duty billed as "the battle for american values" — even with tough-as-nails front-line desk veteran bill o'reilly leading the charge:

the thomas more law center's "the battle for american values" cruise with bill o'reilly has been canceled. an automated message at corporate travel service, inc. didn't try to hide the fact that there was little interest in spending eight nights on boat with fox news channel's top personality: "hello and thank you for your interest in the thomas more law center cruise with bill o'reilly. unfortunately, the cruise did not have the participation that all parties anticipated. although the guest appearance by mr. o'reilly and the other speakers have been canceled, the ship will still sail ..." corporate travel service told sweet jesus, i hate bill o'reilly, intl. that the goal was to get 800 people onboard for a caribbean fantasy week with o'reilly. even though the cruise was promoted heavily on the o'reilly factor television program, the radio factor, and o'reilly's web site, they sold only a fraction of the tickets available. according to the thomas more law center, the response was surprisingly poor. the organization ultimately renegotiated with holland america cruise line in an attempt to pare down the expected guest list but maintain the event as scheduled. sales continued to trickle in and finally, after two more negotiations with holland america to reduce the group size, the event was finally scrapped. sadly, "the battle for american values" will be hard for mr. o'reilly to win if he can't manage to launch a single ship.

(report courtesy of sweet jesus, i hate bill o'reilly, international)

"on the ground"

i have a small request.

i would prefer that folks refrain from using the expression "on the ground" since it is a bushism that adds zero information to whatever statement it is added. the term is a kind of rhetorical olestra; it imparts a dubious flavor to the discourse without any benefit of nutritional value. and, quite frankly, abuse of the phrase is starting to drive me a little batty — consider this quote from white house press secretary scott mcclellan during a recent press conference:

well, i think that general casey and the vice president talked about that very issue yesterday. they talked about their views of the situation on the ground. general casey is someone who is on the ground and has a firsthand account of what is taking place, as is our ambassador, ambassador khalilzad and they've expressed their views of the situation on the ground. — white house briefing, march 20, 2006

i believe that the bush administration has strategically adopted the use of this expression to short-circuit criticism of its spin on events in iraq, by implicitly bestowing an unearned authenticity to its deployed personnel that stateside critics cannot claim.

certainly authenticity is more a function of accuracy and transparency than of mere location. certainly credibility has more to do with whether one is a responsible journalist (or any other type of news source), who presumably would be just as credible from wherever "on the planet" he reports.

would we imagine a report by bill o'reilly or brit hume to be any more credible were they to choose to broadcast from iraq — admittedly a not very likely scenario — rather than from the safety of their comfortable studios in new york? one might hope, but not if they and their ilk simply choose to shovel more of the same distortion and propaganda that their networks substitute for honest news.

"on the ground" however has become no longer exclusively the administration's favorite press whip. quite ironically, as the white house in march stepped up its campaign to blame the messenger for the bleak news coming from iraq, reporters in iraq to their credit quickly took up the gauntlet, throwing the expression right back in the president's face:

gregory: do we miss the overall story about what's going on in iraq, or does security remain the overall story? engel: i think the security problem is the overall story and most iraqi's i speak to say — actually most reporters get it wrong — it's the situation on the ground is actually worse than the images we project on television. — nbc today, march 22, 2006

unfortunately the occurence of the expression has metastasized, its use now reflexively employed to convey any sort of authenticity, even when physical location is completely irrelevant to the issue, as blogger jonathan singer does in his recent article on the senate fight over the now-defunct immigration bill:

in his weekly radio address today, george w. bush strenuously worked to spin his own party's immigration bill disaster by pinning blame for the legislation's downfall on harry reid. unfortunately for the president the facts on the ground do not support his claims, as is often the case. — "bush wrongly tries to shift blame ...", april 8, 2006

i doubt any meaning would have been lost on us if singer had instead written:

unfortunately for the president the facts do not support his claims, as is often the case.

my continued sanity may soon depend upon it.

for whom the bills toll

"in truth i tell you, this very night, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times." — matthew 26:34

november 1967: in response to the growing demonstrations that culminated in the october peace march on the pentagon, president lyndon johnson launched a press blitz aimed at shoring up flagging support for the vietnam war. johnson relit "the light at the tunnel" and flew general william westmoreland, commander of u.s. forces in vietnam, to washington to personally assure the national press club that "we have reached an important point when the end begins to come into view." johnson received a nearly 10-point bounce in the polls for his efforts, from 40% to 48%.

however, johnson's bounce in the polls was quickly turned into a dive by the startling tet offensive, launched by the north vietnamese at the start of february 1968, which demonstrated that they were far from their last throes. during the offensive american audiences were also treated to a brutal street execution and were introduced to the now-famous phrase "we had to destroy the village in order to save it", attributed by many to the destruction of the city of ben tre.

by february's end a turning point in the war of domestic public opinion had arrived, made explicit when cbs evening news anchor walter cronkite, considered by viewers, "the most trusted man in america" — even as late as 1995 — concluded that "it seems now more certain than ever, that the bloody experience of vietnam is to end in a stalemate." in turn, johnson reportedly concluded that "if i've lost walter cronkite, i've lost middle america." the "light at the end of the tunnel" had been rudely snuffed out in homes across america.

johnson's approval sank back down to 38% and approval for his handling of the war hit 26%. comprehending the hole he was in, on the last day of march he withdrew his bid for reelection.

♠
38 years later
♥

november 2005: nearly three years into the war, with support for the occupation and the president at its lowest ebb — a familiar 38% — george w. bush launched his public relations blitz, dubbed the "national strategy for victory in iraq". while the speeches may have earned him a modest bounce of 5 points, one could argue instead that it was the december 15 iraqi elections that gave america a glimpse of hope. but bush could not escape johnson's fate and his bounce too came crashing down in late february when the golden mosque in samarra was destroyed, dashing any hope that civil war could be averted.

by that time venerable walter cronkite, long retired but still active at the ripe age of 89, had already made his case for withdrawal in january:

"it's my belief that we should get out now," cronkite said in a meeting with reporters. ... the best time to have made a similar statement about iraq came after hurricane katrina, he said. "we had an opportunity to say to the world and iraqis after the hurricane disaster that mother nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the united states," he said. "therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home."

but his pronouncement was no "cronkite moment": in fact the journalist had come out against the war at least as far back as december 2003:

kurtz: let's talk a little bit about your views. you were opposed, no question about it, to the war in iraq. why? cronkite: well, not so much the war in iraq, as the way we entered the war in iraq. without any support from our previous allies, or the united nations as a whole. it seemed to me that this was — this unilateralism is a very serious breach of diplomacy, of strategy.

having remained largely out of the public eye for twenty years, cronkite no longer holds the nation in the thrall he once enjoyed as television's preeminent newsman, despite the continued respect of the public and the absense of any clear heir. furthermore, his advanced age, his having "outed" himself as a "social liberal" and his having endorsed 2004 democratic presidential hopeful dennis "moonbeam" kucinich's proposal for a federal "department of peace" gave ruthless war boosters fodder that they could use to dismiss the news legend as a doddering "leftie" loon.

---

but there can be little doubt that america had reached a "cronkite moment", even if the man himself was unable to deliver it personally. no, today's proliferation of network and cable news options no longer affords a single voice that kind of power over the national conscience. but three noteworthy voices did chime that week in february when the golden mosque was destroyed — noteworthy because they all were vocal supporters of the invasion.

bill o'reilly, fox news host and the most watched personality on cable news, could certainly lay claim to an audience the size of cronkite's, but no one save o'reilly himself would lay claim to any of cronkite's gravitas. quite the opposite: o'reilly is a sanctimonious screeching cartoon. nevertheless, on february 21, the day before the bombing of the golden mosque, a flummoxed o'reilly proclaimed:

here is the essential problem in iraq. there are so many nuts in the country — so many crazies — that we can't control them. and i don't — we're never gonna be able to control them. so the only solution to this is to hand over everything to the iraqis as fast as humanly possible. because we just can't control these crazy people. this is all over the place. and that was the big mistake about america: they didn't — it was the crazy-people underestimation. we did not know how to deal with them — still don't. but they're just all over the place.

bill buckley, jr., called "the father of contemporary conservatism", founder of the national review, is known to the layperson as the longtime host of firing line, his public policy arena. buckley's real audience however is the washington beltway; the professional narcissists in the nation's capitol want to know what buckley thinks of them. two days after the bombing a morose buckley concluded:

one can't doubt that the american objective in iraq has failed. ... our mission has failed because iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 americans. ... different plans have to be made. and the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.

bill kristol, scion of a founder of neoconservatism and the founder of the weekly standard, is familiar to viewers as a regular commentator on the fox news circuit. as a founder and chairman of the project for the new american century (whose members had included neo-apostate francis fukuyama), the think tank behind much of bush's suicidal foreign policy, kristol is the rightful father of the iraq adventure. speaking on the weekend following the bombing, as would a step-parent to a brood of half-wits, a testy kristol complained:

kristol: there would not be civil war if zarqawi had not spent the last 2 1/2 years — had ex-saddamists with him, very skillfully going on the offensive slaughtering shia in karbala, now blowing up the mosque. wallace: they’re there. there are going to be more mosques to blow up. what do you do about the terrorists? kristol: kill them. defeat them. wallace: we’ve been trying. kristol: we’ve been trying, and our soldiers are doing terrifically, but we have not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war in iraq as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out. connelly: i think that really begs the question then: what have we been doing over there for three-plus years? you say there hasn’t been a serious effort to rid that region of the terrorists. i just wonder what secretary rumsfeld would say in response to that or all the u.s. soldiers who have been over there all this time. kristol: secretary rumsfeld’s plan was to draw down to 30,000 troops at the end of major activities.

in less than a week, after civil war could no longer be denied, a popular champion of the war and a respected opinion leader publicly abandoned the mission and one of its key architects publicly disparaged its execution. the bills have tolled. the cock has crowed. despite his claims to disregard polls and pundits, there can be no doubt that george bush has heard the knell and the caw. sadly for those still destined to suffer the gravest mistake of his presidency, bush has yet to exhibit any of johnson's powers of comprehension and appears intent only on abandoning any reckoning or resolution to his ill-starred successors.