putin's amerika

there was a time when a vision of america like this scared the literal jesus into a lotta americans. but under the trump regime, the meaning of being a "red-blooded" conservative has come full circle:

and a new amerika deserves a new capital ...

reliving doonesbury's watergate

only the names have changed ...

original 1973 artwork © g.b. trudeau:

and then we fell in love

at a rally in west virginia last saturday, president trump told the crowd about feelings he has developed for kim jong un. remember when the president mocked north korea's supreme leader as "little rocket man," and kim ridiculed trump as a "mentally deranged u.s. dotard"?

something else was going on.

trump said, "i was really being tough. and so was he. and we'd go back and forth. and then we fell in love. ok? no, really. he wrote me beautiful letters. and they're great letters. we fell in love. but you know what? now, they'll say 'donald trump said they fell in love, how horrible. how horrible is that? so un-presidential.'"

at least unprecedented.

(inspired by real twitter account president supervillain, who puts real trumpSpeak into real comics. art by jim starlin & dan green, from captain marvel #28)

yes, we have no collusion, part two

washington post:

a few days after the attack, the now-former secretary of state, rex tillerson, called the poisoning "a really egregious act" and linked it "clearly" to russia. by contrast, the president himself has said nothing so definitive. on his twitter account, where he comments regularly on islamist terrorism, he has not mentioned the use of a chemical poison in an english city. nor did he mention it during a telephone conversation with the russian president.

the headline practically writes itself ...

yes, we have no collusion

ripped from the headlines of tomorrow's soon-to-be-not-so-fake news: the name of the one country that the trump crime family™ most definitely has not been guilty of conspiring with:

"wolf!" they cried, this time with feeling

even as the benghazi gasbags crumple under their own morbidly obese weight, from the outset it was never possible to take republicans seriously on it. first, the point man just wants to throw his weight around in front of the cameras one last time before the next senate takes it away from him. second, four years ago the GOP proudly and loudly proclaimed that their number one priority was to make obama a one-term president. to win 2012 obama needed to fail. at everything. thus began a nonstop and ultimately futile campaign of single-minded obstruction, condemnation and sabotage of every act, nomination and proposal obama has attempted to make. that is now historical fact. the GOP came to raze him, then to bury him. in all of four years obama wrested from them but a single moment of respite — after disclosing the death of bin laden, where even the most rabid partisans could find no safe purchase from which to continue their attacks.

when a party adopts a nakedly self-serving program of categorical obstruction, they also loudly announce that the merits of any particular issue do. not. matter. one. whit. quite foolishly they surrendered all credibility on anything and everything they object to, since they were planning to object anyway. everything becomes a "crisis" and the critics become the old men that cried wolf. so despite their loud moral opprobrium at the deaths of four americans, does anyone believe, had benghazi never happened, that the GOP would not now be organizing some kind of "crucial" hearings about some other administration "scandal"? does anyone believe, had rice's name never been floated, that the GOP would not now be obstructing this nomination, as they have every other?

foreign policies

the 70's called — they want their foreign policy back!

♬ all mitt is saaaying, is ... ♬

a tale of two campaigns

and this is the way the debates end:

for the record

via steve benen @ the washington monthly:

IF CANTOR REALLY WANTS TO GO THERE.... house majority leader eric cantor (r-va.), shortly after president obama's remarks on [the death of] osama bin laden, issued a related statement. it included this gem:

"i commend president obama who has followed the vigilance of president bush in bringing bin laden to justice."

there's a fair amount of this rhetoric bouncing around this morning, and it's not especially surprising — republicans aren't going to credit president obama, regardless of merit, so it stands to reason they'll try to bring george w. bush into the picture.

if this is going to be a new gop talking point, we might as well set the record straight.

in march 2002, just six months after 9/11, bush said of bin laden, "i truly am not that concerned about him.... you know, i just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you."

in july 2006, we learned that the bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin laden.

in september 2006, bush told fred barnes, one of his most sycophantic media allies, that an "emphasis on bin laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism."

and don't even get me started on bush's failed strategy that allowed bin laden to escape from tora bora.

i'm happy to extend plenty of credit to all kinds of officials throughout the government, but crediting bush's "vigilance" on bin laden is deeply silly.

update: donald rumsfeld added this morning that obama "wisely" followed bush's lead. he either has a very short memory, or he's lying and hopes you have a very short memory.

meanwhile, from every birther's favorite faux-wingnut talking hairpiece:

i want to personally congratulate president obama and the men and women of the armed forces for a job well done. ... i am so proud to see americans standing shoulder to shoulder, waving the american flag in celebration of this great victory.

we should spend the next several days not debating party politics, but in remembrance of those who lost their lives on 9/11 and those currently fighting for our freedom.

god bless america!

after months of flinging racist birther-poop at obama, the donald once again demonstrates, through well-timed magnanimity, that he knows how to separate himself from the crowd.

domino theory

the hammer

when you have a hammer, people will bring you nails:

what’s the point of you saving this superb military for, colin, if we can't use it? — former un ambassador madeleine albright

george on my mind

stephanopoulos:	you’ve now met with president obama many times, at least fifteen meetings and phone calls —
medvedev:	sixteen times.
stephanopoulos:	sixteen, ok, i knew it was fifteen, i wasn’t sure about the sixteenth. ah, what do you make of barack obama the man?
medvedev:	he's a very comfortable partner. it’s very interesting to be with him. the most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people — i won’t name anyone by name — he’s a thinker. he thinks when he speaks.
stephanopoulos:	[laughing] you had somebody in your mind, i think!
medvedev:	obviously i do have someone on my mind, i don’t want to offend anyone.

(hat tip to think progress)

bombs of love™

atrios @ eschaton:

our Very Serious foreign policy community seems to think that "winning" a war involves leaving behind paradise, and then are a bit surprised when our Bombs of Love don't produce that outcome.

the handshake

what josh said:

they got issues we keep the chat shows running through the day at TPM HQ. and i've been listening to a constant stream — mainly but not only on fox — of talk through the day about whether we should feel weak or ashamed or tarnished or any other number of things because president obama had a friendly handshake with huge [sic] chavez of venezuela. the whole idea seems so deeply silly to me that it's hard to know how exactly to even comment on it. but i'm struck once again by the sort of psychologically arrested mentality and extreme emotional insecurity that seems at work in the minds of many foreign policy conservatives — or more specifically, so as not to paint with too broad a brush, those of the neo-conish flavor. sure, a lot of this is just political posturing — trying to sound the story out for possible political vulnerabilities on obama's part. throw a bunch of mud up against the wall and see what sticks. what's striking to me though is that a lot of it seems like a very genuine, gut-level emotional response. (a related example is what matt yglesias pointed out a few days ago — how many right-wingers seem to have convinced themselves that north korea, a borderline failed state on the possible brink of economic collapse somehow has the us over a barrel.) in the course of our normal lives, few of us have much difficulty identifying habits of defensiveness or a penchant for histrionic or petulant interactions as signs of weakness, not strength. really powerful people don't need stunts and usually signal their power by a certain graciousness and indifference in such interactions. they have nothing to prove. but american power, respect, command of public opinion — however you want to define it — must be in these people's minds an extremely brittle thing. they really do seem like extremely insecure people.

comical nonsense a bit of follow about on right-wing paranoia. i'm just watching andrea mitchell interview michael o'hanlon about whether president obama showed some sort of dangerous weakness in happily shaking hands with hugo chavez. mitchell played a clip of the always cartoonish newt gingrich and then noted that conservatives are drawing the analogy to john kennedy's famous meeting with nikita krushchev in the latter sized kennedy up as a lightweight and — so the argument goes — thus believed he could be pushed around during the cuban missile crisis. now, kruschev? really? i'm not sure i can imagine a better illustration of the sort of parodic paranoia i'm talking about. we do realize that the us has the most powerful military in the world and venezuela has little ability to project military power beyond its own borders. it's a non-entity militarily, even compared to iran and north korea. will he be emboldened into calling obama el diablo?

update:

the shocking truth fresh off our earlier national humiliation, we just received a note from TPM reader SR. and SR points out that in the second image of our obama at the summit of the americas slideshow we see president obama shaking hands with the dog of the president of mexico. he even seems a bit to be bowing to the dog.