commies from mars

we know now that in the early years of the twenty-first century this world was being watched closely by socialists browner than we real americans and far less moral than our own. terrorists lusty, stoned and sociopathic, regarded the land of the free and the suburbs of the brave with envious eyes and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. in the twentieth year of the twenty-first century came the great awakening.

it was near the end of may. stocks were better. the covid scare was over. more men were back at work. cities were re-opening. on this particular evening, may 31, internet world stats estimated that 4.65 billion people were cruising the internet ...

donald j. trump @realDonaldTrump, may 31

the united states of america will be designating ANTIFA as a terrorist organization.

anonymous, may 31

i am not one to spread false information, i have been informed by numerous realizable resources. the protest planned for tonight at 8:30 in downtown klamath falls, IS GOING TO BE DANGEROUS. there are two buses heading this way from portland, full of ANTIFA members and loaded with bricks. their intentions are to come to klamath falls, destroy it, and murder police officers. there have been rumors of the ANTIFA going into residential areas to 'fuck up the white hoods'.

do not get me wrong. i am all for peaceful protesting. infact i was going to attend the protest tonight believing it was going to be peaceful.

the real 3%ers idaho, may 31

ATTN ada county BUSINESS OWNERS in boise and surrounding areas:

we have credible intel tonight that antifa and other groups are planning a riot tonight in the boise area. their plan is to destroy private property in the city and continue to residential areas. we are calling on all business owners to contact us if you are concerned for your business and your private property immediately. we are here to protect you, your private business, and have teams on the ground standing by.

ghost 117 @ThomasMerrick16, jun 1

Antifa is now in klamath falls Oregon my home town we the people of klamath falls #Patriotsforlife let's get these terrorists out of our town

cory johnson @cjohnsondubai, jun 1

time to lock and load to protect our home. two buses of antifa showed up in klamath falls and with in an hour the citizens were on the street heavily armed.

pacificriver @pacificedge541, jun 1

3 buses of BLM/antifa dropped off in klamath falls oregon. residents out too protect thier town.

i climbed a small hill above the pond at sixtieth street. i looked in vain for the monsters or the buses that reportedly had brought them.

it was later found that they were killed by the disinfecting agents against which their systems were unprepared. slain, after all man's defenses had failed, by the two humblest things that god in his wisdom put upon this earth: time ... and the cold hard light of reality.

(apologies to h.g. wells)

[nbc news]
in klamath falls, oregon, victory declared over antifa, which never showed up

...still others remain convinced that antifa had been there that night, run off by the sight of hundreds of armed patriots.

and that’s the story spreading online.

"antifa retreats from suburb after business owner and neighborhood show up with guns," stated the headline on the website newspunch, one of the internet’s most notorious fake news destinations. the article quotes a facebook post by dan kline, the owner of a local billiards bar.

"i have never felt a threat to my business as i did last night," kline wrote in his post. "antifa didn’t make it to the courthouse and my bar had no incidents. antifa walked into a hornet’s nest. it was like a sixth grade football team walking into the oakland coliseum to take on the raiders."

orange alert

with election day 2012 just around the corner, america's enemies just seem to grow bolder:

'credible threats' made to US government
homeland security studying two-hour video from wednesday night

WASHINGTON (the borowitz report) — the department of homeland security said today that it was studying several "credible threats" made to the united states government in a two-hour broadcast wednesday night from a location believed to be the reagan library in simi valley, california.

homeland security spokesman harland dorinson said that the department did not want to alarm the american people, "but whenever you have a group of individuals threatening to dismantle the US government piece by piece, it has to be taken seriously."

in reviewing the two-hour tape, homeland security officials said they found threats to some of the most essential functions of the US government, from social security to the federal reserve.

while stopping short of saying that the speakers were engaged in some sort of jihad, mr. dorinson did note that a tone of religious extremism dominated the video.

"one speaker in particular, seemed bent on rolling back the advances of science and plunging america back into the dark ages," he said.

but the most terrifying moment in the tape came when that same speaker received thunderous applause from the audience after threatening to execute people.

"we're posting pictures of this individual on our website," mr. dorinson said. "hopefully he will be captured before he can carry out any of his plans."

and a meme is born

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.

the friendly skies

(photo by m. trombly)

quote of the day

john cole @ balloon juice:

why the hell do we even make pilots go through security screening in the first place? if they want to bring a plane down, they don't need nail clippers, a lighter, four ounces of hand lotion, or the rest of the stupid shit the TSA morons confiscate from the rest of us. all they need to do to bring a plane down is to ... point it down.

kobayashi morituri

the rest of task force 141 brought in the ACS, allen. two men took down an entire base. i ask much more from you now. yesterday you were a soldier on the front lines, but today, front lines are history. uniforms are relics. the war rages everywhere and there will be casualties. this man makarov is fighting his own war and he has no rules, no boundaries. he doesn't flinch at torture, human trafficking or genocide. he's not loyal to a flag or country or any set of ideals. he trades blood for money. he's your new best friend. you don't wanna know what it's cost already to put you next to him. it will cost you a piece of yourself. it will cost nothing compared to everything you'll save.

that was your mission commander speaking. you're a covert cia operative inserted into a freelance russian terror group.

their plan: kill everyone in a busy moscow airport during broad daylight.

your mission?

for some reason, you're never actually told.

and that's the set-up to the graphic and controversial airport massacre scene in infinity ward's latest first-person shooter call of duty: modern warfare 2.

*** warning: spoiler alert ***

the faint of heart have the option of skipping this mission. those who choose to participate have only two options: to idly watch or to shoot. you may shoot bystanders or you may shoot your teammates.

either way, the scene ends the same. you die.

star trek fans will be reminded of the kobayashi maru scenario:

the infamous starfleet academy test challenges the cadet to rescue a defenseless ship under enemy attack. however, despite the superficial similarities, the airport massacre is no kobayashi.

that's because your mission is not to save innocent lives and/or to stop the terrorists. you're not there to learn how to conquer fear in a no-win situation. you're not there to stare down death and go out a hero.

your mission is to die, so that your corpse can trigger the next world war.

according to the game's story arc, each of the characters you inhabit is only the unwitting pawn of your mission commander, who is ultimately exposed as a traitor. at the end of the airport massacre, the terrorists leave your corpse as evidence of american treachery, which provokes the new ultranationalist government to launch a massive surprise invasion of the U.S.

so the airport scene was made a no-win situation not as a character-building exercise. it's no-win because the game simply can't move forward without it, even if you are allowed to skip it. and unless you enjoy the methodical, withering, loud and joyless mowing of screaming civilians, you might want to.

not just obama (expanded)

with the tragically lengthening string of killings of public servants bringing the predicted resurgence in right-wing violence into sharp focus, both digby and the booman ponder its apparently cyclical nature:

digby: were unbalanced people driven to act by all the crazy talk about clinton? are unbalanced people being so moved by obama’s rise today? by crazy and semi-crazy talk about him? von brunn, who killed a decent person, apparently believed obama isn’t a citizen. but then, corder and duran may well have thought that clinton kept murdering people. not to mention his drug-dealing ways!

booman: ever since the modern GOP started taking shape during the mccarthy era, i cannot think of a time except the beginning of the carter administration, when the democrats have been control of everything and the right didn't start acting crazy.

as someone who's recently made something of a hobby following right-wing narratives about the crooked kenyan usurper, i think part of the right-wing propensity to shoot up the joint during democratic administrations can be attributed to their deeply-held and sincere belief that only conservatives are fit to lead and that only a lazy and ignorant public could ever vote otherwise.

why do urban centers vote democrat, and rural republican? urban = those who get money from the government for sitting on their butts. rural or suburban = those who actually produce and have money confiscated by the government to give to the urban population so they will vote for the liberals who gave it to them.

because urban folk think meat comes out of a plastic wrapper. think about it.

if black voters voted like normal americans, that wouldn't be the case.

it's not just obama who's illegitimate; liberals as a class have never been legitimate.

liberals and anybody else who aren't conservative are only second-class citizens, while conservatives only ever lose their place at the helm through the treachery and outright thuggery of the left.

it's an evolution of patronage and the subversion of the system at the ward level which is the historic province of the democratic party. the democrats have always had a less-than-stellar respect for the franchise. they treat it as a form of currency, to be controlled and doled out to those they favor. this evolved throughout the 20th century with the largesse-campaign-vote cycle that centered around welfare. they buy votes with money in the form of 'entitlements'. it is a simple and odious evolution of patronage since it makes the patron the master and the voter into a slave. democrats buy votes with threats of mob agitation and promises of free lunch. of course, throwing in a bit of class envy for all to indulge in as they indoctrinate their starving audience in class warfare is just considered 'light' entertainment. in short, the cities vote democrat because the people there have either been bribed, been titillated with hate, been bought outright, or have been told they have no hope but the party. actually, now that i've summarized it - i am struck with the hideous, precise evil of it all.

any "conservative" thought to be helping liberals obviously was never a true conservative to begin with.

we already knew what george HW bush was, and that is Not a True Conservative and Not a True Republican.

and anyone who discredits conservatives can only be a liberal.

please. help me out here. is president [george W] 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.

bring it on lurkers and moonbats........... james von BRUNN. LIBERAL assassin, SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST, MOONBAT al Qaeda supporter born in amarica, american hater.

(von brunn might not appreciate the irony of being branded a ni**er by his erstwhile fellow freepers after shooting a couple ...)

since america is a free country, liberals are allowed to live here, but america will remain a free country only as long as they are never free to run it, because to ever allow them to exercise any real hold on power is to invite civil suicide ...

. . .it is nonetheless incumbent on us to recognize that, where they would obstruct policies and practices that shore up the freedom and security of america’s citizens, liberal democrats are no less dangerous to the freedom that we continue to enjoy than are islamist terrorists.

... therefore any means that can be used to break that hold is justifiable and necessary. keeping the world safe for conservatives is every conservative's patriotic duty as a citizen.

the proper time and place

... for astounding hypocrisy.

yesterday, conservative commentator michelle malkin on the murder of dr. george tiller:

president obama is right about this: "however profound our differences as americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence." unfortunately, some are not content to leave it at that for now. they fail to respect that there is a proper time and place to indulge in political battle. ... tiller's family is grieving. those who have jumped to score political points before tiller is even buried are no better than the phelps family thugs of the "westboro baptist church" who respect no bounds of civility. unfortunately, it's too much to ask the cable news networks and hyper-partisan snipers on the internet to have the decency to restrain themselves. prepare for a wall-to-wall onslaught of gleeful finger-pointing on the left and heated responses on the right.

today, conservative commentator michelle malkin on this morning's murder of a military recruiter and wounding of another:

i wonder if the justice department will send marshals to beef up protection at recruiting centers — especially given the past targeting of military centers on campuses and elsewhere across the country. too early to say anything about suspect, motives, etc. but these facts are worth bearing in mind: flashback: special report: tracing the left's escalating war on military recruiters flashback: the continuing war on recruiters that the left doesn't want to talk about flashback: document drop: unclassified memo warns military personnel of anti-war threats to recruiters, army installations/facilities flashback: bastards: vandals strike at berkeley marine recruiting center again ... posted in: they don't support the troops, veterans

breaking, part deux: pot, kettle death-cage rematch!

christian-philosopher-king-in-chief george w. bush, speechifyin' before the dept. of homeland security, and indulging in a texas-sized dose of good ol'-fashion projection:

we're in a battle with evil men — i call them evil because if you murder the innocent to achieve a political objective, you're evil.

... unless, of course, you're someone engaged in "constructive chaos". biiiiig difference, folks. like huge.

quote of the day

craigie @ sadly, no!:

i never get tired of reading how our beautiful, advanced civilization of love and fairness cannot survive unless we kill all the brown people while they sleep.

dubya foreign policy 101

josh marshall:

even more interesting is another argument president bush is poised to make: namely, that vietnam is more than just an analogy. he will argue that the terrorist threat we face today is in some measure the result of our withdrawal from vietnam, as it emboldened the terrorists to attack us. the president will also make the argument that withdrawing from vietnam emboldened today's terrorists by compromising u.s. credibility, citing a quote from al qaeda leader osama bin laden that the american people would rise against the iraq war the same way they rose against the war in vietnam, according to the excerpts. i'm not sure i've ever seen a better example of president bush's comically inept strategic thinking. actually, lack of strategic thinking. i'm sure you've noticed how, as the president's policies go further and further down the drain, he more and more often cites the authority of osama bin laden as the rationale for his policies. in this case, we must stay in iraq forever wasting money and lives and destroying our position in the world because if we don't we'll have proved osama bin laden right. it's like a very sad version of a sixty year old falling for that dingbat head fake ten year olds used to play when i was a kid in elementary school in which: kid a says he wants the football kid b says, 'fine, but if you take the football, you're gay.' and then kid a stalks off hopelessly bamboozled and unable to parry this paralyzing riddle. apparently we have permanently ceded our foreign policy to the whim of osama bin laden's taunts.

josh's schoolyard analogy is amusing, but it's actually not quite accurate, especially if the football is intended to represent u.s. withdrawal from iraq.

bush clearly intends to stay in iraq until the end of his term, if no one forces him out, an event which, at this late stage, seems less and less likely. so bush clearly doesn't want the football. it's the other kids in the yard, the good, sensible, tired, restless public, who really want the football and have been badgering poor dubya to get it for them.

bush's vietnam analagy is just one more in an endless (at least until january 2009) series of lame excuses for not getting the football that everyone else wants but dubya has no intention of delivering.

bait

noun:

1. food used to entice fish or other animals as prey.

   related terms: sitting duck. decoy. cannon fodder. chum.

2. our fighting men and women in iraq, thoughtfully served up on a platter for the bloodlust of our insatiable enemy.

   ... according to disgraced-clintonite-turned-pundit dick morris, who extolled the virtues of the occupation from the comfort and convenience of his studio desk at fox news:

i think that withdrawal from iraq, it obviously gives al qaeda a huge victory — huge victory. on the other hand, if we stay in iraq, it gives them the opportunity to kill more americans, which they really like. one of the things, though, that i think that the anti-war crowd has not considered, is that if we're putting the americans right within their [the terrorists’] arms’ reach, they don’t have to come to wall street to kill americans. they don’t have to knock down the trade center. they can do it around the corner, and convenience is a big factor when you’re a terrorist.

(btw dick, you may not have been told, but i heard that something may have already happened to the trade center ...)

you'll of course remember dick morris from his last appearance on this blog, when in the wake of hurricane katrina he boldly predicted that president bush's ratings "are gonna soar!"

if by "soar" he meant sore or sour, he's been vindicated.

but it may be that time of day when, like that proverbial stopped watch, dick might actually be onto something, since his bff in iraq, nominal al qaeda deputy ayman al-zawahiri, admitted that he knows too well where his care packages are coming from:

in a new video posted today on the internet, al qaeda's no. 2 man, ayman al zawahri, mocks the bill passed by congress setting a timetable for the pullout of u.s. troops in iraq. "this bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the american forces which we have caught in a historic trap," zawahri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer. continuing in the same tone, zawahri says, "we ask allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in washington and europe an unforgettable lesson."

and who says al qaeda aren't grateful?

time for a change, pt. iii

ok, it's time for a last-minute election eve post for simple posterity.

the democrats will take both the house and the senate.

the momentum clearly belongs to the democrats, for whom it's been building for months. most significantly, republican incumbents both nationwide and up and down the political hierarchy are trailing their challengers. i'll go so far as to say that any surprises coming tomorrow will break for the democrats. that's what momentum does.

conversely one could say that the republicans have been unable to gain momentum, despite their best (or worst, to be more apt) efforts to control the direction of the race.

the republicans and their enablers have not only been beset by a seemingly endless barrgage of viscerally disturbing late-developing scandals, but they are also bereft of any accomplishments to boast of and any message to trumpet — at least any the electorate still finds compelling — exactly what they have so srtridently accused their soon-to-be-masters of lacking.

the republican's still-favorite whipping boy, ex-president bill clinton, today in maryland summed up the gop message in his characteristic plain-spoken style:

clinton: ... that you have to vote for us because our opponents are no good. and because they'll tax you into the poor house. and on the way to the poor house, you'll meet a terrorist on every street corner. and when you try to run away from the terrorists, you'll trip over an illegal immigrant. isn't that their thing? that's what they're sayin' ...

but the main reason the republicans' short-lived "permanent majority" is coming to an end is their unrestrained corruption and incompetence. as i wrote in march ("cry uncle") and april ("the only thing we have to fear") in two of my numerous posts on republican malfeasance:

but it is far too late for this regime to save 2006 and 2008. bush's ratings have already dropped into the range of the worst presidents and the poisonous drip-drip-drip of scandal betrays no sign of abating. as long as the white house insists on treating its problems as a matter of perception, they will continue their pointless pantomine of leadership and never adopt the substantive remedies that might regain the public's trust. thus the drip-drip-drip will torment them to the bitter end.

the republicans had a choice; they always did, but they chose naked power over good governance and forgot that in a democracy power alone isn't enough to maintain power.

poll pall

virtually overnight the washington post has generated a poll showing twice as many supporters than objectors to bush's illegal nsa spying program, which only yesterday was revealed to have been accumulating records on "tens of millions of americans", contrary to the administration's repeated assurances. bush supporters are of course ecstatic at any news that can be wrung into kool-aid while bush critics seem to be reflexively retreating into their ready disenchantment with the apathetic hordes.

i was planning to post my own analysis of the poll, whose construction raises serious questions regarding the framing of issues, and which completely ignored the central issue of warrants, court orders and oversight, but glenn greenwald's "polling hysteria and the nsa program" nimbly beat me to the punch:

... when the nsa eavesdropping scandal was first disclosed, rasmussen reports quickly issued a blatantly flawed poll purporting to show that "sixty-four percent (64%) of americans believe the national security agency (nsa) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the united states." the question mentioned nothing about warrants. it mentioned nothing about fisa. and it specified that the government would be eavesdropping only on conversations "between terrorism suspects." the only surprise with the results was that only 64% favored that. One would think that virtually everyone would favor eavesdropping on terrorism suspects. nonetheless, since that was the first poll, it was held up by bush followers as proof that the nsa scandal was political suicide for democrats ... as the debate over the nsa scandal became more informed and more americans understood the issues at stake, virtually every poll thereafter showed that a majority or plurality of americans oppose warrantless eavesdropping and/or believe the president broke the law, and some even show that a plurality favors the censure resolution. opinions change when people stand up and explain why what the government is doing is wrong and dangerous, and americans respect politicians who are willing to do that even when — especially when — they are not guaranteed by the consulting class ahead of time that they will win. all other issues aside, there is nothing for bush opponents to lose here by pursuing this issue. nobody who has abandoned george bush is going to again become a supporter of his because he is keeping track of the telephone calls of every single american.... ... meanwhile, in the real world, ever since the nsa scandal was revealed, the president's approval rating has done nothing but plummet. that, of course, does not demonstrate a causal relationship, but it certainly proves that scandals of this type do not remotely help the president in any way. all of those frightened beltway democrats who were anonymously screeching that russ feingold's censure resolution played right into karl rove's omnipotent hands, that it destroyed the grand democratic plan, that it would allow the president to recover by forcing the debate back onto his turf — how wrong were they, as always?

i encourage you to read the entire post.

meanwhile, for a no-nonsense takedown of the poll's questions themselves, be sure to also check out former telephone pollster krazypuppy's "worst poll ever: americans do care" at daily kos.

our worst fears

elizabeth dole is afraid. very afraid. the country is headed toward disaster.

as in a terrorist attack? another katrina-sized storm? an incurable pandemic? financial collapse?

not exactly — but the enemies are at the gates.

as in osama? zarqawi? iran? north korea?

not exactly —

associated press: washington — the head of the senate republican committee paints a dire picture of democratic congressional control, warning that the opposition party would "put the war on terrorism on the back-burner" and maybe even impeach president bush. in a fundraising appeal this week, sen. elizabeth dole, r-n.c., asks for immediate financial help "to prevent the most left-wing democrat party in history from seizing control of the united states senate" in the november elections. ... in the fundraising letter, dole rails against liberal democrats in the senate and warns that if they prevail, "our worst fears" will be realized. she argues that empowered democrats would "increase your taxes, call for endless investigations, congressional censure and maybe even impeachment of president bush, put the war on terrorism on the back-burner" and "take over the white house in 2008!" she assured the recipients of the fundraising letter that she was working around the clock "to help our country avoid this disaster."

all hyperbole aside, while the country might not be on the edge of extinction, senate republicans most certainly are, and who would know better than their own nervous staffers, whose continued well-being depends wholly on their bosses' uninterrupted incumbency, as related by one purported congressional insider:

as many of you know, when congress is in session, most of my working days are spent on the hill. i have contacts on both sides of the hill and both sides of the aisle on both sides, people i have known for years and chat with. the republicans on both sides of capitol hill are running scared right now. very scared. the staffers i know on more than one committee have been told that if the republicans lose the majority in november, they will lose their jobs, so now is the time to start making connections with representatives and senators in safe seats, republican organizations, friendly lobbyists and the like and putting together resumes. there is a mood of despondency in republican circles, and the conventional wisdom in some of those circles is that loss of at least one house is inevitable. the conventional wisdom is also that loss of one chamber will be disastrous because the resulting investigations will bring the whole house of cards crashing down around the party's ankles.

if i were looking at not just unemployment, but probes and trials and sentences, i'd be scared too. come november, a lot of republicans may be grabbing their ankles.

gobsmacked

it's not easy defending positions you've never actually thought about.

sully erna, frontman of top-of-the-charts grunge metal band godsmack, attempts to explain to jay babcock of arthur magazine why he doesn't have a problem with licensing his songs to the military for their recruitment videos:

jb:	well i have a quote from you here: "we've always been supportive of our country and our president, whereas a lot of people i thought" — and you said this in 2003 to mtv news, you said — "a lot of people i thought lashed out pretty quickly at what we did and i thought the government did everything pretty cleanly and publicly as possible."
se:	yeah ... ?
jb:	well, what are you talking about?
se:	that was my opinion at the time. the whole war thing, and trying to keep us up to date like ... if you remember, back in other wars, we didn't have the opportunity to follow it through the media, and cnn, and the news — live updates and that kind of thing. and i thought that for the most part you know we were allowed to follow it as best we could through the media sources that were feeding us information.
jb:	[incredulous] you didn't think the media was being controlled by the military?!?
se:	well, it could be. i don't know.
jb:	you didn't look into it?
se:	listen, are you a fucking government expert?

oh shit, another one of these friggin' experts! man, i couldn't get outta high school fast enough to get away from these geeks!

se:	so i just feel, well, you know, whatever we can do to say 'thank you for protecting our country' is what we try to do. i'm not trying to make this a big political issue.
jb:	okay. have you done anything to prevent people from joining the military?
se:	no.
jb:	to maybe educate them as to what's in store for them?
se:	i don't have enough education in the military to educate them in anything.

besides, it's not like there's any possible reason you wouldn't jump with both feet on gettin' your song in a recruiting vid, right?

se:	we just simply — an opportunity came up, they wanted to use some music for a recruit commercial. what are we gonna say, no?
jb:	yeah. how hard is it to say 'no'?
se:	why would we, though?!?
jb:	because —
se:	is it because you don't feel the same way about the government that we do, makes you right and us wrong?
jb:	yeah. what do you feel about the government? tell me what —
se:	aw, that's crazy, man! that's just an opinion.
jb:	i can back my opinion up from here to tomorrow if you would like to talk to me all day long.
se:	well, obviously you've done a lot of research and you've —
jb:	that's right, because —
se:	— got a different opinion. we don't know that stuff that you know, so —
jb:	why don't you do some research before you get involved with these sorts of things? you're talking about young kids' lives. you're talking about kids —
se:	[yelling] would you rather not have us be protected so they can come and overrun our country?!?

because, after all, if we were to actually do some research, the terrorists would win! but if you like your fuckin' research so much, they still got libraries in iraq!

jb:	you know what i'd like, sully? a department of defense. not a department of offense that attacks other countries — sovereign nations — who do things in a different way than us, who we have no right to go over and invade and change their governments. would we want someone else to do that to us?
se:	i'm not saying —
jb:	how hard is that to think about?
se:	i'm not saying that we were right on every war that we've created. i know that we've been damn wrong at times about stuff —
jb:	when have we been wrong?
se:	[yelling] but they have also been wrong too!
jb:	when have —
se:	i don't trust someone like fuckin' sadaam and osama to come in here and try to control —
jb:	[incredulous] when did sadaam try to come in here and control our country?
se:	dude, [yelling] why don't you go live in iraq then if you have such a problem with america? why are you here?

because, you know, you can love it or leave it, you osaddama-lovin' geek! love it or leave it!

now, if you'll excuuuse me, i have some recruiting song$ to cut.

now i could care less whether sully erna supports the troops, or how he chooses to demonstrate his support. there's a broader issue on display here.

the issue here, which jay babcock clearly illustrates, is that sully's position is completely bankrupt because he's made no effort to think about it in anything but the shallowest terms.

whatever your beliefs, especially if you actively promote them in order to influence the behavior of others, you have a responsibility to learn what all the facts are. because sully hasn't made any effort to learn anything about the military or the war, he's unable to offer any credible or coherent rebuttal to jay's arguments. all he has are cheap slogans.

sully obviously has no interest in the military beyond indulging himself in some kind of feel-good give-em-hell rock-and-roll fantasy that he's getting paid to promote. and not being in the military himself makes him not just an idiot but a hypocrite.

the only thing we have to fear

(cross-posted at daily kos)

less than 200 days before judgment, the state teeters on ruin. the masses, having reiterated their anemic approval — a glum 32% — begin to gather their pitchforks and torches. brass-plated generals, once dutifully mute, parade forth in open mutiny. on the hill and in the provinces, caesar's retinue draws fewer invitations. meanwhile his beleaguered aides, having retreated to their washington stronghold, resign themselves to a carefully stacked round of russian roulette.

yet the left, despite their opponent's pathetic flailing and reeling, insists on keeping a cautious distance, seemingly unable to cast off a debilitating malaise, born of fear of a regime cornered like an wounded animal. wary of a rove free of distracting policy tasks, the left waits transfixed in dread of what sorcery might spew from the white house belfry.

e. j. dionne: here's the real meaning of the white house shake-up and the redefinition of karl rove's role in the bush presidency: the administration's one and only domestic priority in 2006 is hanging on to control of congress. josh marshall: the key is subpoena power. little of what's happened in the last five years would have been possible were it not for the fact that there was no political institution with subpoena power in washington not under the control of the white house. ... the white house and the entire dc gop for that matter is just sitting on too many secrets and bad acts. the bogus investigations of the pre-war intel is just one example, if one of the most resonant and glaring. keeping control of the house and the senate is less a matter of conventional ideological and partisan politics as it is a simple matter of survival. they have too much to cover up. they could not survive sunlight.

yes, the left has ample real reasons to harbor such dread, having impotently and angrily watched it crystallize during the last five years. bush's judicial coronation, his reichstag legislations and congress' potemkin investigations have all sparked in the loyal opposition a host of stifling fears.

fear that the bush regime in its desperation will stop at nothing to abort its impending emasculation. fear that it will steal or suspend elections. fear that it will revoke the constitution in part or in whole. fear that it will exile dissenters to fema prison camps. fear that it will stage deadly terrorist attacks, unleash virulent plagues and launch global nuclear armageddon — all in the name of retaining its slipping grasp on power.

but the left should not let even legitimate reasons cloud its ability to follow its irrational fears to their logical conclusions. while any attempt by the bush regime to realize those fears of course cannot be completely discounted, the successful fulfillment of any one of these strategeries does not resound with any ring of plausibility:

the "october surprise"

as the reasoning goes, a message from bin laden or a terror alert or attack will rally the country back into the comforting arms of big brother. but more likely, it will blow away any dangling shreds of his mantle as the "great protector", especially if an attack is both destructive enough and dramatic enough to influence the voting of millions of people. bush will not have the benefit of doubt afforded him after 9-11 as a relatively new and untested leader; worse, he'll be forced to again defend a proven record of failure. fortunately, bin laden's april message gives us (and the white house?) an opportunity to test this theory. it could even inoculate the electorate against the impact of an october message. however, pulling bin laden himself out of a hat could have a beneficial effect on his slide, similar to the effect of saddam's capture. but if all the public gets out of it is osama, with no accompanying relief from the violence, then the slide will inevitably resume.

martial law

as the reasoning goes, suspending elections and/or revoking the 22nd amendment, especially in the wake of an attack or an outbreak of disease, will legally lock the regime's stranglehold on the body politic into the forseeable future. but more likely, further attempts to subvert the law will only further inflame the masses, who have grown tired of the rationalizations, which have now become either too convoluted ("i'm not the leaker 'cause it's not a leak 'cause already i declassified what i leaked.") or too childish ("i'm the decider!").

in the face of ever-restrictive inventions of law dispensed by the justice department, progressives have missed no opportunity to equate the regime with genuinely militant fascist dictatorships [guilty as charged!] and have made no secret of their dismay at the apparent passivity of the man on the street. but are we to believe that a nation of 300 million will meekly accept the yoke of an overt dictatorship? not bloody likely. the active-duty forces would finally have a justifiable reason to openly defy the regime and a citizenry indoctrinated from the cradle in the worship of the very concept of freedom will not greet such a naked theft of birthright without the kind of resistance many will argue is obligated under the declaration of independence, the 2nd amendment and the star spangled banner. rockets red glare indeed!

however, i forsee no kent states, especially if the regime loses the military; once directly challenged on its lawlessness — a situation that has not yet been permitted by bush's congress — the regime will sensibly retreat.

election fraud

as the reasoning goes, the republicans could steal the elections the old-fashioned way, and more efficiently than ever with their new-fangled machines. but more likely, any instances of significant fraud will be quickly unmasked. irregularities in each of the elections since 2000 have been followed by claims of fraud, but all kinds of fraud has dogged elections since the birth of the republic. however, dismissing such claims becomes much harder as the gap between the projected and actual results widens. election tampering that might survive a challenge over a 2% margin between candidates, as in 2004, would be impossible to explain over today's 10% margin. and a washington post - abc news poll puts the margin at 15% — reporting that 55% plan to vote democratic and only 40% republican — representing more than 18 million votes if the turnout matches 2004. moving this many ballots would require chicanery of truly herculean proportions.

imagine the scandal: systematic nationwide election tampering and vote supression favoring republicans in all instances. now imagine the reaction: not quiet acquiescence but seething outrage and chaos dwarfing that following the 2000 races. "republican culture of corruption" would emerge as the central recount (revote?) meme and republicans would lose even more the second time around.

war with iran

as the reasoning goes, military action against iran will serve to invigorate bush's grumbling base, which has been steadily suckled on the same twin teats of propaganda and hate that nourished them for the iraq invasion. but more likely, conventional action will only provide a reenactment of the deathtrap in iraq and the vastly more dire repercussions of nuclear action will quickly rebound out of anyone's control. in both cases, the longed-for instant telegenic panacea of righteous blitzkrieg will turn into the bitter wormwood of yet one more unholy quagmire. without a draft, for which no meaningful support exists, ground operations remain the stuff of chickenhawk wetdreams. convention air operations are at best a blunt club. nuclear weapons do not carry any guarantee of success but do carry the price of worldwide opprobrium; america would be branded an international criminal and any lingering vestige of moral authority would be swept offstage by a tall bright column of ash. even if the regime exhibits no interest in courting the admiration of the international community, the majority of the nation does care about its image in the world mirror.

and unlike iraq, iran boasts the capability of striking back at its attacker, both with and without warning. its long shadow across the straits of hormuz and its purported international network of sleeper cells have been thoroughly dissected in other publications, so suffice it here to say that most americans would prefer that iran's boasts remain untested.

---

it is already apparent to any member of the "reality-based" community that none of these gambits has any chance of success. but many still fear an attempt to implement them, convinced that the injured animal under the brush is both pained and crazed enough to risk a suicide bid. as loathsome as i find this regime, i remain unconvinced that they are possessed by some evangelical messianism or are otherwise insane. none of their actions cannot be explained by basic greed and cynicism and sheer venality. besides, in the end, as they walk out the door, to continue their larcenies in the private sector, they can simply sue to grant themselves pardons.

but it is far too late for this regime to save 2006 and 2008. bush's ratings have already dropped into the range of the worst presidents and the poisonous drip-drip-drip of scandal betrays no sign of abating. as long as the white house insists on treating its problems as a matter of perception, they will continue their pointless pantomine of leadership and never adopt the substantive remedies that might regain the public's trust. thus the drip-drip-drip will torment them to the bitter end.

josh bolten's new five-point "recovery plan" for the white house: deploy guns and badges: harass illegals make wall street happy: more tax cuts! brag more: more speeches! reclaim security credibility: harass iran court the press: rehire armstrong williams

what has wounded the regime the most is the exposure of its fundamental ineptitude. the king is naked and his reign is littered with tattered policies, discarded initiatives and, most odious of all, wasted sacrifices. if bush could do just one thing right he might win back some support, but that's the catch when it comes to incompetency. even if any of the desperate strategeries discussed had more than a snowball's chance of success, chances are more than certain this regime would blow it and blow it big. but today there aren't enough kool-aid drinkers left standing and the rest of the electorate is wary and suspicious but most of all very pissed.

unfortunately that anger extends to the other side of the aisle; progressives have grown weary of their leadership's aversion to confronting a political risk that diminishes with each day. against demonstrably corrupt opponents there is no danger in taking the high ground. while the pols have exhibited some ability to push back from behind the scenes, clearly the necessary tonic for the anxieties of their constituents is some grandstanding and good old-fashioned theater, at least until they regain some subpoena power. no one ever believes you have a spine when you refuse to exhibit it. the republicans know this too well.

booman tribune: if only we could trust the democrats to know how to take of advantage of the gop's obvious disarray. after all, we saw similar concerns back in the spring of 2004 with the torture scandal, yet come november somehow the evil empire pulled out another elctoral victory by hook or by crook. i'd like to believe this time will be different.

distrust of the democratic leadership only compounds the fear that the regime will escape unpunished for its sins. more medals than paddles have been dished out to its cronies. fatigued at seeing one unpunished crime follow another, the disenchanted become easily seduced by the fear that the theft of november is not beyond the republicans' reach. admittedly, to resist the fear and the fatigue, one must indulge in a little hope that the agents of justice will eventually catch up with the regime. i believe that the mechanisms of our legal system, the brazenness and incompetence of the criminals and the growing revulsion of the masses do warrant it. the only thing we really have to fear is that we stop trying.

groundhog day

yes, america, you can stop pinching yourself, this, unfortunately, is not a bad dream. as you know — to paraphrase secretary of defense donald rumsfeld — you get to relive the past you have, not the past you might want or wish to have at a later time.

april 11, 2003: rumsfeld addressing the press regarding the growing alarm over the continuing violence in iraq:

i picked up a newspaper today ... and i couldn't believe it. i read eight headlines that talked about "chaos!" "violence!" "unrest!" and it was just henny penny, "the sky is falling!" i've never seen anything like it ...

those pesky newspapers — just a bunch of noisy old ladies. chaos? violence? unrest? puh-leez!

and we all know how that so-called chaos, violence and unrest never materialized, don't we?

now fast forward three years later to the very same day ...

april 11, 2006: rumsfeld addressing the press regarding the growing alarm over a preemptive nuclear strike against iran:

you know, someone comes up with an idea ... runs it in a magazine or a paper, other papers pick it up and reprint it, editorialists then say: "oh, henny penny, the sky is falling!" and opine on this and opine on that ...

those pesky newspapers ...

i just can't wait for april 11, 2009. assuming we're all still here, of course.

hat tip to crooks and liars; video courtesy of jon stewart's the daily show.

connecting the dots

courtesy of professor pollkatz, i bring you a graph of president bush's approval rating, as reported by 14 leading polling organizations, during the life (and tortured death) of his ongoing presidency. click either the graph or the following link to see the graph in full size.

notice that i've taken the liberty of mapping the key events that i believe triggered the various crests and troughs in the public's perception of their dear leader.

also notice the scatter in public opinion prior to the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001.