Dicko
There's Dick. And then there's Dick.
As to the first one, Mr. Cheney, don't forget to catch the final and fourth installment of the WaPo's opus on the vast power he has accumulated and exercised. The whole thing is starting to read like a bad joke. Whatever the worst thing is you can imagine, he's done it. Wednesday's published tease on his influence on environmental issues:
"Dick Cheney steered some of the Bush administration's most important environmental decisions -- easing air pollution controls, opening public parks to snowmobiles and diverting river water from threatened salmon."Hack. Hack. Add that to promoting torture, trashing the Geneva Coventions, and seceding from the executive branch and you've got one loo-loo of a legacy. As to the other Dick, Mr. Lugar, well I assume that just about now Mr. Cheney would like to be feeding The Gentleman from Indiana through a wood chipper. Lugar might not be much of a national figure anymore, if he ever was, but he's still taken quite seriously in Republican foreign policy circles. His rather open break with the White House this week has already prompted support from the much more influential Senator John Warner who praised Lugar's statement as "an important and sincere contribution" to the Iraq debate. Lugar's defection, I think, could radically re-order that debate. Republicans can read polls as well as the next jackasss, and the numbers in the latest national CNN survey are rather striking. Here's the way CNN bullet-points them:
• Support for Iraq war at all-time low of 30 percent, according to latest CNN poll • Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe the war is going badly • GOP opposition growing and 42 percent support some form of troop withdrawal • Sen. Lugar, a prominent foreign policy voice, says war needs to change courseThere are three possible questions raised by the rising, if still modest, Republican dissent. 1) Is the already laughable September date of re-evaluating the war now rendered inoperative? Answer: 75% yes. It's gonna be very, very hard for anyone other than the most gung-ho war boosters to sit through another 10 weeks of the status quo. More than 25 U.S. battle deaths last week -- and rising. It's the wrong surge. 2) Will Republicans like Lugar and Warner somehow outflank the hesitant Democrats in opposing the war? That is to say, will the Republicans take the anti-war issue away from the timid Hillary-oids? Answer: Very unlikely. The Republican defection will, hopefully, harden the stance of the more resolutely anti-war Democrats thereby exercising some gravitational pull even on the ever-calculating Ms. Clinton. 3) But doesn't this new GOP dissent make a Plan B for Iraq sort of inevitable? And will the Democrats now capitulate to a new "bi-partisan" middling course? Answer: Yes to the first part. And a who knows but I hope not to the second part. What Lugar was basically saying to the White House was, "Look, we want to support you and we can but only if you make some sort of compromise now. But if you wait till the fall or winter, we'll cut you loose." That means that in the coming days it's likely that Warner and friends could fashion some sort of bass-ackwards, face-saving, compromise that would strike a middle ground between the White House and the pro-withdrawal Democrats. What happens then? Someone call Harry Reid and find out.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
I think you’re dreaming, Marc, if you think Bush is going to back off because of a speech by Richard Lugar. My prediction is that we’ll still be deep in this mess next year unless a significant chunk of GOP Senators are willing to align themselves legislatively with the Dems. Lugar as much as said that his views wouldn’t be reflected in his actions in the Senate, so it looks like some sort of impasse will continue. I doubt Petraeus will do anything other than ask for more time, which is all Bush needs to hear to “stay the course”. And the Dems will still be split over pulling the plug without being given a chance to shape the exit.
I honestly don’t understand how Clinton even figures in the calculation, since she’s already moved to the anti-war camp with her last vote. You seem obsessed with her. She’s just one Senator who’s already voted against the funding.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
1) September is too long, but we did only get to full “surge” strength last week. After watching Frontline’s “endgame” I am willing to give this clear and hold plan an honest try. But if it fails, we should get straight out.
2/3) Yes, the Republicans are out-flanking the Dems on their best issue, hurting them in 08. This will happen in a 2 party system where principles mean nothing. The dem candidate will indeed be pushed “left,” but in proportion to the GOPs – and the result will be a (likely convoluted) comprimise. Things are trending positive but Republicans will take cover in the (likely) negative surge report many have staked themselves to. Clear and hold has many positives on the neighborhood level, but cannot prevent well planned bombings, infiltration, bubbling hatred and lack in faith in the central government…
June 26th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
“I honestly don’t understand how Clinton even figures in the calculation, since she’s already moved to the anti-war camp with her last vote. You seem obsessed with her. She’s just one Senator who’s already voted against the funding.”–reg
Hmm, something about leadership, her running for president–oh, never mind, she’s just another Senator.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:01 am
The Department of Defense has identified 3,556 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans this week:
BROWN, William E., 25, Sgt., Army; Phil Campbell, Ala.; First Cavalry Division.
BYRD, Henry G. III, 20, Pfc., Army; Veguita, N.M.; Third Infantry Division.
CALHOUN, Derek A., 23, Specialist, Army; Oklahoma City; First Cavalry Division.
DAVIS, Chris, 35, Sgt., Army; Lubbock, Tex.; Third Infantry Division.
HOUSE, Joel A., 22, Sgt., Army; Lee, Me.; First Cavalry Division.
MALONE, Jimy M., 23, Sgt., Army; Wills Point, Tex.; First Cavalry Division.
MONTPETIT, Michael J., 31, Sgt., Army; Honolulu; First Cavalry Division.
MOODY, Michael D. Jr., 31, Staff Sgt., Army; Richmond, Va.; Third Infantry Division.
PALMER, Eric C., 21, Specialist, Army; Maize, Kan.; 82nd Airborne Division.
RIORDAN, Daniel P., 24, First Lt., Army; St. Louis; First Cavalry Division.
RODRIGUEZ, Dominic N., 23, Specialist, Army; Klamath Falls, Ore.; First Cavalry Division.
STINSON, Shane M., 23, Pvt., Army; Fullerton, Calif.; Third Infantry Division.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:30 am
The problem is the Republicans may have already fashioned their best possible (terrible) compromise: once in awhile they will strut and fret to let you know how pointless the occupation is while still voting for it. What’s the percentage in this reactionary White House to reverse itself? Will the seventy five percent of Americans who have woken up suddenly give it some credit? More likely, they would be deserted by the twenty five per cent of bone stupid enders who are allready fairly ticked off over immagration.
Yet 25 to 30 American deaths per week are going to be tough to take…. perhaps an attack on Iran just to get our minds off it? Clinton’s now voted with the anti-war camp, and dressed down Bush big time… in the context of Iraq “ever calculating” is a dubious insult… would that the ever calculating Kennedy had lived, and been cynically savvy enough to relize he had screwed up big time in Vietnam, and crassly manipulated a withdrawl.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Who is most likely to do what is right rather than what is popular–someone running for re-election or someone who has reached his term limit? What would Lugar and others be saying if they didn’t have to run for their offices periodically and had term limits themselves (which I favor)?
On the chances of Democrats in 2008, they’ll find some way to screw up, just like they typically do, and their unfulfilled promises from the 2006 election will be held against them by their own supporters.
June 27th, 2007 at 6:38 am
Yeah, Michael. Hillary Clinton is all-powerful. She controls the Democrats in the Senate. All she has to do is amp up her stump speech on the war a bit and everyone falls into line.
How bizarre…
June 27th, 2007 at 6:44 am
“oh, never mind, she’s just another Senator.”
Yeah – kind of like Dick Cheney.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Woody….. by what could generously be called “your logic”, the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do when the Press, The Congress, and the public (well, sort of) were behind it. I know, I know, you only apply these great ideas when they fit a given situation. Doesn’t say much for your Grand Old Party, though, that they are abandoning the right thing to do just to win elections.
As far as the Dem’s “screwing up” what might be a fun parlor game is to predict now “What will the phony right wing indignation story the press will beat to death the week of the election?”
” Micheal Moore buys a Large Cheese Pizza: Mary Matlin
asks for an apology to the troops.”
“Christopher Dodd rents “Cat Ballou”:” DNC chairman explains
affection for Fonda hit the same as spitting on Nam Vets.”
“Rosie shops at Costco: extra large box of corn dogs
suggests weird beliefs about 9-11, supported by
Dems.”
And Marc Cooper will wring his hands: how can the
Democrates be so stupid??
June 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
reg, either we are having a miscommunication or you are being dense. What would be the effect if Hillary Clinton got really militant on the war instead of being so cautious? If you think negligible, then you have even less faith in the Democrats than I do.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Hillary has gotten more “militant” on the war. Not as militant as you would like, but even if she gets more “militant” I can’t see how it changes Senate votes. Do you really think the “swing” Democrats vote according to how “militant”‘ Hillary Clinton has become ? The reason most of them are as tepid as they are on the war is because of local/regional political calculations. Do you think that Democratic Senators are in the business of looking like they march to Hillary’s tune ? For instance, if Hillary started speaking more “militantly” on the war, how would Joe Biden use that ? Would Evan Bayh or Mary Landreiu get into step behind her ? The Democratic party at the congressional level is a very contradictory coalition that reflects mostly a lot of different folks local strategies for getting elected in their states or districts. I think you’ve got some serious illusions about how politics in the USofA actually works. Frankly, I’m GLAD the Democratic party doesn’t revolve around Hillary Clinton, although I’m disappointed that sometimes the parliamentary leverage falls to people even more centrist than she is.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:36 am
It seems that Dick Cheney is a far better executive than Al Gore was, at least as far as getting HIS agenda accomplished as VP. Demonizing Cheney as a power-monger for successfully accomplishing what he wants to get done, just because you don’t like his agenda, seems childish at best
One of the reasons I did not vote for Gore in 2000, was that after 8 years, he had accomplished NOTHING on the environmental front as VP, with the possible exception of saving a few trees from the loggers, which later burned in forest fires.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:40 am
And please don’t cite national polls as an argument that Hillary Clinton isn’t militant enough on the war and “the Democrats” are trailing the people. I think the Democrats as a whole are just about where the “anti-war” majority actually is – a mix between folks who want a cautious, measured withdrawal and folks who have had it up to here and just want out. It’s a fantasy to imagine that the two-thirds or whatever of Americans who have turned against the war would support the Dems just digging in their heels and letting funding run out. Especially once the spin machine and the hacks in the press ran with that one.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:45 am
That sure was a smart vote as an environmentalist, Pokey.
Also, I think it’s childish to demonize HItler as a power-monger, when he was so good at accomplishing his agenda. I mean, I sure don’t agree with his agenda, but give credit for being an effective executive where credit is due.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:58 am
“That sure was a smart vote as an environmentalist, Pokey.”
Reg, you beat me to it. Hands down, funniest comment of the week. Lucky I hadn’t refilled my coffee mug yet.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:15 am
I am reproducing reg’s post but substituting the name of another Senator and another party. Let’s see how this sounds:
LUGAR has gotten more “militant†on the war. Not as militant as you would like, but even if HE gets more “militant†I can’t see how it changes Senate votes. Do you really think the “swing†REPUBLICANS vote according to how “militantâ€â€˜ LUGAR has become ?
Hope, doesn’t make much sense this way either.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:18 am
To put it another way: reg is still falling all over himself making excuses for the Democrats’ lack of leadership on the war AND showing us what a stagnant and passive view he has of the political process. Thanks God the world doesn’t really work that way.
June 27th, 2007 at 8:53 am
It would appear that the Vice Presidency under Cheney is organized a tad bit differently than it was when Gore occupied it. Note, ‘under’ and ‘occupied.’ That’s purposeful. If you want to measure efficacy in terms of accomplishing an agenda, Cheney does seem to come out on top. However, in terms of the effects of the two, on environmental issues, I’d be inclined to consider the dictum, First do no harm. If Gore had reorganized the office of VP as Cheney has done, and accomplished advances in environmental concerns, would that make those accomplishments laudable? Which do we want to promote; means or ends? In my estimation, Cheney is amoral. And, I don’t feel particularly childish for holding that view.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Michael – how about speaking to my argument ?
Also, the notion that Dick Lugar is changing the equation by his own incredibly tepid critique of Bush, which he’s already delivered behind closed doors, is another example of “magical thinking”.
I also made no comment about my own personal feelings about Hillary – just the fact that your notions of how politics work are predictably trivial and naive.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I should have said “personal feelings about Hillary’s position(s) on the war”, since they’re as irrelevant as MB’s to the question of how the gaggle of Dem Senators shift and shimmy in the world outside of his or my head.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Incidentally, MB, I heard Lugar himself say that he wouldn’t be voting against any funding. He’s hoping that his public comments swing BUSH. There may be some shifts in the Senate over the next months on both sides of the aisle in their rhetoric – and more likely than not if Bush shifts at all it will be toward some incredibly bullshit “benchmarks” language in the next funding bill to assuage critics. Of course, that will have ZERO impact on his intent to prosecute the war – except to make it easier – and it will have next to no impact on the situation on the ground.
I don’t see this thing moving toward a clear exit policy until 2009. Sorry. No ponies.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:18 am
It’s amazing how often the alleged “Left” assumes some Republican is going to outflank the Democrats on a “progressive” issue and save America.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I’m also amazed that Balter thinks that more “militant” rhetoric from Hillary Clinton on Iraq is going to move us away from a “stagnant and passive” politics.
Clearly the only thing that will move us away from “stagnant and passive politics” is sitting on one’s, recycling all of the cliches about Democrats and joining the Rightwing spin machine in demonizing a pol named Clinton.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Who is most likely to do what is right – someone who:
a) started a war based on lies (for reasons only dick-vader understands)
b) bankrupted the country
c) lost an American city
d) is a bumbling drunk who can’t speak English
- or –
a) anyone else.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Could someone here please explain to reg why it is so significant that a tepid guy like Lugar has broken with the White House over Iraq? Oh wait, didn’t Marc already do that in his post? reg, scroll to the top please.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:43 am
K Nardy: Woody….. by what could generously be called “your logicâ€, the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do when the Press, The Congress, and the public (well, sort of) were behind it.
K Nardy, if everyone is singing out of the same hymn book, then there is no political advantage–similar, to some degree, like everyone being behind amnesty for illegal aliens. Therefore, it’s likely to be the right thing, too.
However, in the case of amesty, there is one difference. The voters overwhelmingly are not on the same page as the Republicans and Democrats, so it is not the right thing to do, but the political costs may be neutralized.
—–
If you do a search for “how democrats will lose 2008,” you get a number of articles, but here’s one from a source that you might respect.
—–
Aunty, there is nothing in your list of propandist statements that American people couldn’t have known at the last presidential election. What does that say about the Democrats if the voters selected that drunk guy over their French guy? Do you really have any more confidence in them for 2008? I’m pulling for the Democrats to let MoveOn.org lead them to ruin.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Richard Lugar’s comments yesterday are “important” because David Broder, James Mann, and Joe Klein say they are.
This has been a simple answer to a simple question.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:48 am
And of course Richard Cohen. Thanks for reminding me Woody!
June 27th, 2007 at 9:53 am
As much as I’m enjoying the tete-a-tete between Michael Balter and reg, I suspect that the only reason that Ms. Clinton has voted against the funding (knowing full well that it would pass) is to establish her credentials with the Koss kids and the MYDD as well as the puffingtonhosts. When she gets the nomination (as she likely will especially given Obama’s performance over the last several weeks) she will swing back more to the center. This is classic politics and has nothing to do with reality, and that applies to both parties.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Richard Cohen is about as butt stupid as they get. His analogy is so lacking in logic that it practically begs to be filleted. here are a few that jump out at me:
All Cohen does is cherry pick facts, put them together and show us only that he can put two and two together and get five.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am
reg: I honestly don’t understand how Clinton even figures in the calculation, since she’s already moved to the anti-war camp.
The only Democrats that can remotely described as antiwar are the ones – which I can count on my hand (impressively includign Bill Richardson) who want ALL troops out, not maintenance of a force to deal with “Al Qaida” in other words the oil supply.
I’m surprised Leftside is giving the “surge” the benefit of the doubt.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Wouldn’t you know it. Marc writes a post about a couple of Dicks, and that got Randy’s attention.
Let’s try this one about how Democrats will screw up:
or, The Democrats 2008 Choice: Sell Out & Lose, Or Stand Up & Win, which shows a likely scenario.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Wouldn’t you know it. Marc writes a post about a couple of Dicks, and that got Randy’s attention.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
As for Kudlow, after reading that it appears he’s gotten back on the nose candy.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Only Woody would consider Lawrence Kudlow a credible source. He’s still shilling Arthur Laffer’s napkin curve!
June 27th, 2007 at 11:42 am
MB – Lugar has ALWAYS been a foriegn policy moderate. The only surprise to me is that he hasn’t gone farther and much earlier. I used to have a modicum of respect for the guy and thought he totally dropped the ball. This is no big deal in the scheme of things. He’s the Vice-Principal. Nobody gives much of a shit what he says. Except for the hate-Hillary crowd, for whom he’s the new hero and Lone Ranger. LOL. Now if he’d done this when the GOP was in the majority and he was a committee head, maybe it would have mattered more. Now…not so much. You think that his getting publicly whiny about Bush in Iraq is a great social rupture and Hillary isn’t militantly “anti-war” enough. I’m underwhelmed. Lugar’s being “tepid” is precisely why this is no shock. He’s Mr Tepid. He was a tepid supporter (although not really, as he’s already made clear to Bush in private) and now he’s the most tepid of critics.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I guess the reason Lugar’s comments are so important is because another GOP hack who’s probably known better but has been too much of a chickenshit to forthrightly oppose Bush when it might have mattere, John Warner, says it’s a big deal.
Again, “could somebody please explain to reg, blah, blah, blah…”
Probably not.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Only Woody would try to Google himself out of the GOP’s deep, deep hole. What’s remarkable, other than the fact that he’s picked two of the dumbest pundits on the planet, Lawrence Kudlow and Richard Cohen to “convince us” the Dems are doomed, is that the also tosses in lefty Cassandra David Sirota. Bizarre. If there’s a point to all of this, other than sheer desperation, I don’t get it.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Randy, you are absolutely correct on your analysis of Cohen’s position. the 72 vote was a cluster F*** from the getgo, Eagleton should never have been replaced, especially after McG. pronounced himself behind Eagleton was it 1000%? McGovern did himself no favors by stating he would go on his knees to North Vietnam and Nixon was far more popular at the time than Bush could be in his current iteration.
Too, the ’72 election was at the height of the anti-war movement and though the war was officially winding down, it still had a ways to go.
Lastly, many folk including me who voted for HHH in ’68 because we thought Nixon a crook, couldn’t stomach McGovern in any way shape or form.
Different decade, different circumstances and different players. Wonder what about that that Cohen couldn’t understand.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The offered reasons for electing Nixon over McGovern ignores the main reason–McGovern was out of touch with main stream Americans. He was the Triple-A candidate: Amnesty (for draft dodgers), Acid (legalize marijuana), and Abortion. The rest is a smoke screen from that reality. The Democrats make that mistake regularly and likely will again.
—–
reg: I don’t get it.
I’m glad that you admit it. Never have, never will. Those “dumb pundits” make a lot more money than I suspect that both of us make, and they present analysis other than “he’s stupid,” which makes them appear a little smarter.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
How are the Democrats going to make this group happy and stay in touch with normal Americans? Code Pink: Women for Peace Holy shmoly. I hope they’re not having PMS on election day. Don’t talk to me about conservatives.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Woody, you’re the master of claiming that Democrats are “dumb”, “humorless”, “irrational”, and whatever else pops into your recycle bin that day. If you think Richard Cohen is an insightful man, it’s your problem. The establishment punditry has about the same record of analytical brilliance as the stock pickers who infest cable TV “market” talk. Dart boards work about as well for figuring out what’s going to happen next. My comment spoke to the fact that anyone who lumps Kudlow, Cohen and Sirota together as some proof of the Democrat’s weakness and dumb strategies going into 2008 is grasping at straws. Nothing more. There’s very little coherence to those opinions, and especially not as an odd, internally dissonant chorus.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
The mainstream Democrats don’t give a crap about Code Pink. Again, you don’t have a clue…
June 27th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Man, someone should tell those Code Pink women that. Those ladies (?) are wasting their time and money. When will the DNC announce this?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I wouldn’t sell Woody short this time… it would be nice to believe the Republican’s will face the wrath of the voters; but as much as Bush has surfed the bottom of the barrel, it’s nothing to count on.
The Dems are running some effective oversite, and the moral rot that covers the right is slowly being dragged out in to the light of day. Boy/Men like Woody, who think that winning at any cost (ha ha, he killed Vince Foster!)is ever so cute will have their sick souls dragged into daylight. Will it be enough? We shall see…
June 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
It seems to me that if you cannot differentiate between LSD and marijuana then you probably have no credibility commenting about either one.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
K Nardy, Don’t forget that Clinton raped Juanita Broderick.
I certainly don’t believe in winning at any cost. However, I do believe in fighting to keep a socialistic, corrupt party from controlling the White House.
Hey want to know what’s fun? Look at old comments from this blog picked out of a hat.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
George McGovern ran one of the most disorganized and crummy presidential campaigns in history. He got only 38% of the Dems primary vote that year and he so mismanaged his convention that he gave his acceptance speech at three in the morning! Thank him and Chicago ’68 for the boring coronations that conventions have become.
That said Woody – and to a lesser extent GM Roper – give away their game with their comments. Roper voted for Humphrey because Nixon was “Crook” but he couldn’t stand McGovern so pulled the lever for “Tricky Dick”? Don’t leave him alone around sharp objects! What did Nixon do in the preceeding four years to win his trust? Oh, I get it. He listened to all those Wisemen who poopooed Watergate, ITT, Dita Beard, etc. And Woody. I’m growing nostalgic – The “Triple A Candidate” – boy memory lane.
Here’s a fact guys. Mcgovern was an honorable man. He was a war hero – see Steven Ambrose’s book – who flew missions in a B-24 out of the 15th Air Force. And in those days that was one of the most dangerous jobs in the service. But you know what? This winner of the distinguished Flying Cross never mentioned it in that campaign. I guess the only reason he wasn’t swift-boated as Nixon hadn’t thought of it. Give Bush the draft dodger and deserter credit for inventing that!
But I’m sure that Woodrow doesn’t mind. After all he’s a southerner and therefore dumb and illiterate – see Ann Coulter’s remarks on HARDBALL yesterday. Yeah there’s your spokemodel and you’re welcome to her!
June 27th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
And Dick Lugar? He’s already been to the Woodshed – I mean White House and pledge fielty to his liege lord, won’t vote to end the funding.
Get it straight guys for I’m only going to say this once: the Withdrawal begins on or about Jan 20 2009 when the Boy-King and his “Evil Wazir” leave the scene and not a moment sooner. I was burned by the ISG but not again. Bush will NEVER NEVER admit that he screwed the pooch – and certainly not with Cheney whispering in his ear of glories to come if he stays the course.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Cummings, as I hope I made clear, I think “clear and hold” on surge-lite is doomed to failure, or at least will not provide anything resembling victory. But it does deserve a fair chance as I think it is the one military strategy being used over there that at least is based on some evidence of worth (in other insurgencies and in Tall Afar, Iraq). As I said, if it fails to produce, we must get straight out and concede military strategies have failed. I think we owe this honest try (which Rumsfeld and Cheney argued against the whole time) to our troops, who deserve to know there was nothing they could have done in making their sacrifices worth it.
But I must be off my meds as Cooper diagnosed me (and you) as one who must always be to the left of everyone else…
When are we gonna get a movie review of Sicko?? 50-1 Cooper (or his daughter) will pooh-pooh it because it dares paints Cuba in a positive light. In response to the claim they were treated differently, Moore said last night on Leno that one Spanish speaking 9/11 responder actually went to a different clinic as a Cuban on her own and was treated the same as when with the Moore group.
Moore also disclosed that in 1997 NBC censored the results of a TV Nation bit that had Cuba scoring better in a “broken arm olympics” vs. the US and Canada. NBC’s “standards and practices” banned Cuba from winning and made Canada the winner. They did the dirty edits over Moore’s objection. Raw political censorship in America??? Naw….
June 27th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
rlc, McGovern didn’t mention that he had been in the military because left-wing protestors would have spit on him. (Are we allowed to say that?)
June 27th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I was well aware of McGovern’s outstanding service record when I campaigned for him at age 13. It was not a hudge deal, Wood for brains, because Nixon had an honerable, if not as heroic, service record too.
Your party’s love of gold plated, chicken hawk draft dodgers came later….
June 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
It’s just another example of how polluted all our thinking has become. From the most trivial (Depends on what no means.) to the the serious (VPOTUS not a part of the of the executive branch.) our society is awash with people trying to find some ridiculous semantic wiggle room to excuse whatever it is they wish to excuse. Democrats and republicans alike have lost whatever morals and ethics they may have once had. Stop the cultural and moral relativity arguments on both sides. Cheney is no more than another example.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Richard Lugar was one of the first Republicans to express any doubts about the Iraq War. He stated at a very early point in 2003 that he did not see preparation for the post-mission mission of building and rebuilding Iraq. The problem is that he has raised these points occasionally for the last 4 years, then proceeded to refuse to go along with any active response. He and Chuck Hagel, in fact, spoke out just about together in 2003. Lugar then figuratively just shook his head and went back to his jigsaw puzzles, while Hagel took on the entire Republican establishment.
Btw, what happened to the Hagel presidential campaign? He was the antiwar alternative in the party before Ron Paul.
I think the problem Lugar has had is that he is fundamentally not a confrontational person, and he became used to presidents taking his opinion seriously. He is not prepared for the response he has received from the incumbent Republican president, which is to ignore him utterly.
Lugar has had a problem saying “no” throughout his career. Back in 1973, as mayor of Indianapolis, he submitted to an interview by the editors of a brand-new sort-of underground newspaper. I happened to be one. At that time we were playing around in our pages with the idea of UFOs. One of us asked Mayor Lugar what he would do if he were confronted by a UFO and its inhabitants. Rather than throw us out of his office, he said he would probably shake tentacles and award the beings the Key to the City.
As a more significant example, he found it impossible to cut his ties to those of his supporters who were identified as being tied to organized crime.
My guess as to why Lugar has “spoken out” this week is that he has heard the rumors coming out of the White House that Bush is, for the first time, considering a reversal of the momentum for a heavier and heavier commitment in Iraq. Maybe he is signalling that there will be significant Republican support for Bush if he does “turn tail and run.” Perhaps he is signalling, on the other hand, that there will be little Republican support in the Senate for any plan that does not include definite steps toward withdrawal.
If it is the latter, though, Lugar characteristically cushions his own blow by saying he’s not going to vote with the Democrats on any substantive withdrawal plan.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Matt Yglesias in the Guardian: “So were Lugar’s words a shot across the bow? A warning that he’s had enough and is ready to switch sides? Not according to Lugar’s spokesman Andy Fisher who told the Associated Press that ‘the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or embrace Democratic measures setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.’”
June 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Leftside,
I really disagree, but I admire your heterodoxy, as a Pro-Venezuela hawk.
June 27th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Did I miss anything while the Paris Hilton interview was in progress?
June 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Yeah Woody, the Angels got swept by the goddamn Royals!
June 27th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
http://www.slate.com/id/2169292/
Impeach Cheney sez Slate.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,560 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
CRAIG, Andre Jr., 24, Pfc., Army; New Haven; First Infantry Division.
DAHL, Joel A., 21, Sgt., Army; Los Lunas, N.M.; Second Infantry Division.
DIXON, Derek C., 20, Cpl., Marines; Riverside, Ohio; Second Marine Division.
MORETTI, Trista L., 27, Sgt., Army; South Plainfield, N.J.; 25th Infantry Division.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
what wanking
June 28th, 2007 at 7:04 am
rlc, McGovern didn’t mention that he had been in the military because left-wing protestors would have spit on him. (Are we allowed to say that?)
One wonders if Woody believes in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny and Santa Claus as well:
Link here: http://tinyurl.com/78eg3
June 28th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Randy, you sure go to a lot of trouble to dispel a tongue-in-cheek joke, in part related way back to when our friend “steve” used to comment here. See, liberals have no sense of humor.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I’ve got a sense of humor. I just don’t find you funny, as I have yet to see a picture of you.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:12 am
“‘the speech does not mean Lugar would switch his vote on the war or” discontinue daily fellating of President Bush or His Majesty Mr. Cheney.
June 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
On the Vietnam Vet vs. protesters phenomenon more generally, I was listening to To the Point recently and they were talking with a soldier and several people closely dealing with the psychological wounds of war, and several of them described how Iraq veterans have been treated warmly by both the pro-war and anti-war crowds and yet, just like in the Vietnam War, soldiers feel extremely alienated from and rejected by society. Makes you wonder how much of soldiers’ resentment of anti-Vietnam war protesters had to do with PTSD.
June 28th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
It’s hard for soldiers to feel acceptance when the Senate Majority Leader tells them that they are failures and lost the war at a time when they are still fighting–and, don’t claim that he was talking about policy vs. ground action.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:58 am
On the subject of Cheney, I hope, in addition to reading the excellent WaPo series, that everyone has seen the “You Don’t Know Dick” segments that were featured all week on the Daily Show. I just caught up and they are hilarious….in a terrifying sort of way.