Thursday, November 30, 2006

The Tom Friedman solution:
And it's not just in the pages of the New York Times where Friedman is making that case. He's out there on television (Today Show, as Crooks and Liars shows us 1 and 2).


Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Let's re-invade Iraq!

Who said that? None other than Tom Friedman: (emp add)
Given this, we need to face our real choices in Iraq, which are: 10 months or 10 years. Either we just get out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 10 months, and try to stabilize it some other way, or we accept the fact that the only way it will not be a failed state is if we start over and rebuild it from the ground up, which would take 10 years. This would require reinvading Iraq, with at least 150,000 more troops, crushing the Sunni and Shiite militias, controlling borders, and building Iraq’s institutions and political culture from scratch.
Full essay and biting commentary by Chris Floyd here (via post at Tom Tomorrow).


Predictable outrage is boring:

It's that time of year, again, when Bill O'Reilly is fighting against the "War on Christmas". This time his target is retailer Crate & Barrell, which he has apparently muffed due to carelessness in determining the facts.

When this anti-"War on Christmas" stuff first appeared (2004?) it carried some punch, even if it was wrong and misguided, because it was a fresh outrage the right could get excited about. But times have changed. This year, some folks (like this blogger) were openly wondering back in October when the defenders of Christmas would get started and what retailers and groups they would pick on. And that's a sign that this particluar "outrage" is a spent force.

Considering we are in holiday season, it's like a family gathering where uncle Joe is invited and everybody knows he's a grouch and always complains about "kids these days, with all their electical gizmos". And he shows up. And he complains about "kids these days", and everyone tunes him out.

O'Reilly is going to be tuned out as well.


Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Hey, wait a minute!

Bush in Latvia today (28 November 2006):
Tomorrow, I'm going to travel to Jordan where I will meet with the Prime Minister of Iraq. We will discuss the situation on the ground in his country, our ongoing efforts to transfer more responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces, and the responsibility of other nations in the region to support the security and stability of Iraq. We'll continue to be flexible, and we'll make the changes necessary to succeed. But there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.
But isn't the mission, you know,


Dennis Prager has crossed the line:

In a essay, Prager writes: (emp add)
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.
That ranks with the best of them (Richard Cohen's "In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic."). Let Prager's words hang around his neck like an albatross.


"Bush blames al Qaeda for the violence in Iraq"

That's the lead story / headline in NBC's Nightly News. And much the same can be found in a New York Times story.

This is Bush internalizing the "we're fighting terrorists in Iraq" message that was part of the public campaign over the last three years. But it's not correct. Al Qaeda is a minor part of the troubles in Iraq, but as long as Bush is proclaiming that al Qaeda is the enemy, you can be damn sure that he won't tackle the Iraq problem in any competent way.


Wednesday, November 22, 2006

TAPPED: "Mueller's argument is basically off-message for just about everybody"

Boy, isn't that the truth. What message are we talking about? The one this blog has pushed for years: (and more recently here: 1 2 3)
The threat to the United States from Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated, and may be close to non-existent.
Here's the full TAPPED entry:
OVERBLOWN. David A. Bell wishes more people were discussing and debating John Mueller's new book Overblown, which makes the strong case against considering terrorism a genuinely dire, let alone existential, threat to the United States; I share Bell's wish. Mueller's argument is basically off-message for just about everybody, but has always stuck me as a truly useful contribution to debates over terrorism and American policy. Cato Unbound held an in-depth exchange with Mueller back in September that's worth a look, and so is this very strong New York Review of Books essay by Max Rodenbeck, reviewing (sympathetically) Mueller and a few other related books.
David A. Bell at TNR: (excerpts)
It's a pity that John Mueller's book Overblown isn't getting more attention. Its provocative--and certainly debatable--thesis is very simple: The threat to the United States from Islamic terrorism has been exaggerated, and may be close to non-existent. There is little evidence that Islamic terrorists have the capacity (as opposed to the desire) to carry out further attacks on the scale of 9/11 on U.S. soil, let alone anything more destructive. Anxieties about chemical, biological, and radiological weapons are particularly unjustified. There is little evidence that terrorists have access to such weapons, and in any case, they almost certainly could not use them in such a way as to kill large numbers of Americans. Nuclear weapons pose a much greater threat, but the difficulties involved in procuring and delivering them are far greater than most observers recognize.

He quotes endless "expert" predictions that terrorists would "definitely" strike the U.S. again in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. He reminds us that even in the worst possible case--which is itself almost entirely unlikely--the terrorists do not pose anything like a threat to the existence of the United States, in the way the Soviet Union once did. And he concludes that our overreaction to 9/11 has done the U.S. far more harm than the terrorists themselves.

I'm no expert on terrorism, and would not presume to say whether Mueller's argument is ultimately sustainable. But the debate does seem worth having. For one thing, at the present time it is clearly in the interest of almost everyone to maximize the threat that terrorism poses. It is in the interest of the administration, which can reap a political dividend, and is also desperate to cover its collective rear end, should another attack actually transpire. It is in the interest of what Mueller calls the "terrorism industry" of consultants, contractors and security companies. It is in the interest of the media, which thrives on fear. And it is in the interest of the terrorists themselves, whose reputation is thereby inflated, allowing them to recruit and raise money.
Alas, Mueller's book seems to have shortcomings (more from David A. Bell):
Unfortunately, a great deal about Mueller's book is frustrating, and some of it is patently absurd. In particular, he places his argument about 9/11 in the context of a potted history of America since 1941 that sounds (unintentionally, I think) like the worst sort of Chomskyan rant. Before we overreacted hysterically to 9/11, he asserts, we overreacted hysterically to Soviet Communism, and to Soviet client states. And before that, we even overreacted to Pearl Harbor! Instead of responding to the Japanese attack with full-scale war, we should have tried containment! ... This section of the book comes close to discrediting the whole project.
Those are notions this blogger doesn't suscribe to. Also, Mueller engages in Rush Limbaugh-like argumentation ("the chance of an American dying in a terrorist attack is less than that of a bee sting") which ignores the scenario of murderous attacks on key facilities and personnel, which might be low in actual numbers killed but result in tremendous damage to the economy or infrastructure (e.g. blowing up Hoover Dam). So maybe he's not the best messenger. More Bell:
But the rest of it is still worth reading. Might we actually be safer than we think? Is this something we can contemplate?
Still, someone has to argue for making an analysis of the capabilities of terrorist groups, instead of running scared by their pronouncements. Remember that Fox News Channel pre-election special, Obsession, that quoted all sorts of al Qaeda grandiose visions? From the Fox News webpage on the documentary: (excerpt, emp add)
“Obsession” is filled with fiery speeches, from the Middle East to the streets of London and New York, in which Islamic extremists offer a stark choice for the world: either convert to a Taliban-like form of Islam or face death.
And many people were impressed with Obsession, even after five years without an attack on the U.S.   Is this country changing its view on the threat posed by terrorism? Apparently not. Witness the recent round-up of six Muslim religious leaders that were taken off a US Airways flight in Minneapolis. Many people are still fearful, and suscribe to the thinking of people like Annie Jacobson, author of Terror in the Skies: Why 9/11 Could Happen Again. That's right, "9/11 could happen again". So much for the notion that 9/11 was a one-time exploitation of a vulnerability which has now been closed (taking over a plane in order to use it as a missle).


Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Hippies still trying to ruin the country:

They certainly are, right?

That is the title of an essay by Jenean Mcbrearty in the Kentucky Lexington Herald-Leader. It's wrtings like this that give full meaning to the word "ridiculous". Straw-men galore, a 1960's John Birch Society outlook, along with high school level wit.

There is a good reaction post over at The Spencerian. Well worth a read.

ALSO: Reaction letters sent to the LH-L. Not everyone in Kentucky is nuts.


Sunday, November 19, 2006

Joshua Muravchik, fool or knave?

This guy, a "scholar" at the American Enterprise Institute, has two OpEds in major newspapers this Sunday. In the Washington Post, in an essay titled, Can the Neocons Get Their Groove Back? we read: (excerpts, emp add)
... is neoconservatism dead? Far from it. Neoconservative ideas have been vindicated again and again on a string of major issues ...

... even if the invasion of Iraq proves to have been a mistake, that would not mean that the neoconservative belief in democracy as an antidote to troubles in the Middle East is wrong ...

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 ... [confronted] the United States with a deadly enemy and an urgent need for a strategy. ... What could we do to change all this?

... neocons did have answers. ... The neocon solution involved overhauling the way the region thinks about politics so that terrorism would no longer seem reasonable. This was a wildly ambitious idea, of course, but similar transformations had occurred in Europe and much of Asia over the previous half-century. If democracy had shown its potency in discouraging war elsewhere, it stood to reason that it also could be a cure to terrorism in the Middle East.

This latter extrapolation, admittedly, was just a hypothesis, but Bush embraced it because it was the only strategy on offer.

As badly as things have gone in Iraq, the war has not disproved neoconservative ideas.

... American woes in Iraq may be traced to the conduct of the war rather than the decision to undertake it.

Until someone comes up with better ideas ... the neocon strategy of trying to transform the Middle East, however blemished, remains without alternative.
His essay constructed a straw man, that "liberals" think the way to stop terrorism is to look at "root causes", but many non-neocons advocated the police/criminal-gang approach to finding, catching, and stopping terrorists. Muravchik ignores this and instead says the neocon approach to "root causes", which involves toppling governments, was the only alternative and it's just bad luck that it didn't work out.

But it's not all "root causes" for Muravchik and the Middle East. Here, if you can believe it, is a second OpEd on the same day, in the Los Angeles Times, titled, Bomb Iran. And that's not just an editor's choice of a provocative title. The first sentence in the essay reads:
WE MUST bomb Iran.
And continues with: (excerpts, emp add)
It has been four years since that country's secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.

Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it.

The reality is that we cannot live safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man, Saif Adel, to become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?

The only way to forestall [various scenarios of] frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.

Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.
The United States is already paying a price for heeding the neocons. And Muravchik is eager to have the country pay more. Enough is enough. These AEI "scholars" have been proven wrong time and again (in the first essay he incorrectly claims neocon policy was why we won the Cold War). Yet they get prime space in the editorial pages of major newspapers. That's how they are able to continue guiding policy in the wrong direction.

CODA: In the first essay, Muravchik writes:
Let me confess to the obvious: I am a dyed-in-the-wool, true-believer neocon.
When you are a true-believer neocon, that is your starting axiom. Never mind the facts. They are secondary. And that's why you can end up with unrealistic policies that fail.


Saturday, November 18, 2006

Related essay by Jamison Foser at Media Matters.


Friday, November 17, 2006

Thank goodness!

Bravo to the PBS show Washington Week in Review for spending a substantial amount of time during Friday's show discussing 2008 presidential candidates. It filled in a much needed void, at least for those who don't watch Chris Matthews show.

What could be more relevant than discussing Hillary's war chest, Obama's charisma, and whatever McCain happened to say this week.


Tuesday, November 14, 2006

The Washington Post on the state of Utah:

In an editorial this Monday about the lame-duck Congress, the Post suggests a move to give voting rights in the House for the District of Columbia, and (one more vote) for the state of Utah. Here is how they put it:
Another pressing task should be to give the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House. The moment is right for this to happen, thanks in large part to the efforts of Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) to broker an agreement that would create a new seat in the District along with a new congressional district in Republican-leaning Utah. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. has said he will call a special session of his state's legislature to create a new, at-large congressional district.
"Republican-leaning Utah" ?!

Utah is the most Republican state in the union. In the 14 presidental elections beginning in 1952 it has cast its electoral votes for a Republican every time except once (in 1964 for Johnson over Goldwater). That's not Republican-leaning. It's as solid as it can get.


Sunday, November 12, 2006

NPR - Radio for conservatives:

Here is how the first 30 minutes of the second hour of NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday played out:
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · Guest host Andrea Seabrook speaks with Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of conservative Democrats. These centrists helped bring the Democrats to power in last week's elections and will influence the agenda as the new Congress takes the reigns. (5:48)
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · Host Andrea Seabrook speaks with Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, a conservative Republican. Over the last few years, Flake has criticized the party's leadership, especially its handling of recent GOP scandals and an explosion in congressional earmarks. (5:13)
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr discusses the elections and what they mean for the Republicans. (2:41)
  • UTAH
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · While the rest of the nation elected a new batch of politicians, Utah remained largely the same. Host Andrea Seabrook takes a brief look at the Beehive State. (1:22)
(The audio will be available at the NPR website by about mid-day today.)

Here is the lead-in commentary before the twin interviews with Matheson and Flake:
SEABROOK: Now that the balance of power has shifted in Congress, politicians from both parties are vowing to work together to get things done. And with moderate to conservative Democrats picking up a number of seats in the House, and many Republicans fed up with the direction of the party, there is at least a chance of bipartisan cooperation. With that in mind, I spoke with two prominent congressmen, one from each party.
You had to hear the NPR reports to believe them. Andrea Seabrook chatting it up with the co-chair of the Blue Dog Coalition. She said:
I'm reminded of the fact that Nancy Pelosi's majority is, in fact going to be a majority, in part because of so many new Blue Dog Democrats.

One of the criticism that moderates of both parties have had in recent years of the Congress is that the leaders of both sides, Nancy Pelosi, Tom DeLay, are to the far extremes of their party.

How do you see Blue Dogs, moderate to conservative, pro defense, pro fiscal conservatism, these Democrats - how do see yourselves being led by a Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco? Many say she's the most liberal member of Congress, leading the Democrats.

There will be forty-four Blue Dogs, is that correct? The forty-four Blue Dogs could, in fact, swing the majority in the House of Representatives. Would the Blue Dogs consider voting with the Republicans - Republican bloc on a bill?
The interviewee, Utah Congressman Jim Matheson, helpfully noted that in his opinion:
The Blue Dogs are all Democrats. ... In terms of wearing the Democratic label, I think they're the true Democrats. ... I characterize Blue Dogs as true Democrats.
That was followed by an interview with a conservative Republican. After Dan Schorr's commentary, the fourth story was a pean to Utah's unchanging conservative politics! From the Utah segment:
SEABROOK: The Democratic tide that drenched America last week left one state as dry as an island in the stream. Utah. The beehive state. Whose politics after the midterms remain as red as the rock monuments in its national parks. ... What does this say about Utah? Not easily swayed by peer pressure? ... Whatever the reason, Utah politics remain rock-solid, and about as likely to go blue as thos same red rock monuments. And perhaps the rest of the nation should take heed. After all the lyrics to Utah's state song say "Utah getting bigger and better. Utah, always leading the way."
But that's not all! In the first half hour of Weekend Edition Sunday, what do we find?
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · The Wednesday announcement of Rumsfeld's resignation may represent the first step in a new approach to the Iraq War. Host Andrea Seabrook speaks with Richard Perle, who has served as chairman of the Defense Department's Defense Policy Board during this administration and is seen as one of the architects of the Iraq War. (5:21)
There was this lovely exchange:
PERLE: I don't believe it's correct to say that his [Saddam's] ties to terrorists have been discredited. There were numerous links between Iraqi intelligence and various terrorist organizations including al Qaeda. Those have been documented, and I frequently hear people say there's no evidence. It's simply wrong. I've seen the evidence.

SEABROOK: But much of that evidence that I've heard other analysts say, on both sides of the aisle, from several different policy views, has in fact been discredited. That most people are saying now that Saddam Hussein didn't have any serious connections with terrorists.

PERLE: Well I simply think that's wrong. I've looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion.
Was there any time for a non-conservative viewpoint? Yes. One.
    Weekend Edition Sunday, November 12, 2006 · To get the specifics on the Democrats' agenda, Weekend Edition's Andrea Seabrook spoke to Democratic Congressman George Miller of California - the man tapped by Nancy Pelosi to head up some of the party's most important policy initiatives. (4:15)
That's your NPR. In the weekend after the Democrats win both houses of Congress with an anti-war and progressive economic message, four conservative profiles, and one liberal one.

ADDENDUM: Who is Andrea Seabrook? She sounded like a complete idiot. Do NPR weekend anchors write their own script? Whoever set up the stories and the narrative was, literally, out of touch with reality. It sounded almost as if NPR had been taken over by Fox News Channel.


Friday, November 10, 2006

What a joke:

Meet the Press this Sunday:
Sunday, Nov. 12
Two key leaders of the new, closely-divided Senate will join us in exclusive interviews: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) & Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT) discuss the midterm election results, the Iraq war, the Gates nomination and setting the stage for 2008.
Lieberman a key leader in the Senate? And McCain isn't part of the Republican mainstream (Trent Lott would be a better pick).

These two guys are of a passing generation, not part of the new political dynamic, and an embarrassment in many ways (McCain on torture, Lieberman for being a pompous ass). What the hell are they doing on the show?

UPDATE: Think Progress has is right:
First Post-Election Meet the Press Features Exclusively Pro-War Politicians
ABC's This Week has Carl Levin and Joe Biden, who are going to be influential in the next Senate. Even Fox News Sunday has Howard Dean and Dan Bartlett, who are in the thick of things.

Meet the Press is becoming more irrelevant with every week.


Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Ladies like shoes and home decor and new hairdos:

From Bush's opening statement during his press conference:
I told Congresswoman Pelosi that I look forward to working with her and her colleagues to find common ground in the next two years. As the majority party in the House of Representatives, they recognize that in their new role they now have greater responsibilities. And in my first act of bipartisan outreach since the election, I shared with her the names of some Republican interior decorators who can help her pick out the new drapes in her new offices.
First act of bipartisanship. Nice.

White House transcript has that remark followed by:
There was no laughter. Only complete and utter silence.


Washington Post endorses asymmetrical political warfare:

From their editorial, The Voters' Message:
The Democrats won the House, and, as of this writing, at least narrowed the GOP majority in the Senate, but not because voters necessarily agreed with their program. How many voters, we wonder, could name even one of the Democrats' vaunted "Six for '06" legislative proposals? As they prepare to wield power, Democrats don't have capital from voters; at most, they enjoy a line of credit.

The right way to draw on that will be to resist the partisan temptation to act as the other side did, highhandedly and unilaterally. Instead, Democrats need to reach out to congressional Republicans as well as to Mr. Bush ...
Resist the temptation to act as the other side did!


Thank you Rush Limbaugh:

Thank you for making fun of Michael Fox on the stem-cell issue. You might even be be responsible for the Democrats taking the Senate.

More, please!


Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Party asset?


Monday, November 06, 2006

Tom Reynolds speaks for the Republican party:

On yesterday's Meet the Press, Tom Reynolds, head of the Republican House Campaign Committee had this to say in an exchange with Russert: (emp add)
MR. RUSSERT: Now, here are the facts, and they’re not disputed by anybody, from the local Utica, New York, newspaper. “What the record shows: A bill ... shows a call costing $1.25 to the number 800-457-8462. The call was made at 3:26 p.m. Jan. 28 and was billed for one minute. ... Phone records show a call made at 3:37 p.m. using his calling card to the number 518-457-8462”—the same numbers exactly are right. “That number, he said, is for the office of the New York state Department of Criminal Justice Services.” An aide inadvertently dialed the wrong area code. Everyone admits it, and yet you put an ad on suggesting that this guy is calling sex hotlines. Is that fair?

REP. REYNOLDS: Well, first of all, chairman of the committee doesn’t know what the IE’s actually producing when it goes on, we pay for. Second, that ad is now down.

MR. RUSSERT: You said you’re responsible, that’s what the banner says. You can take it down if you wanted to.

REP. REYNOLDS: I paid for it. The committee paid for it, it was pulled down.

MR. RUSSERT: Is it, is it fair? Is it fair?

REP. REYNOLDS: Politics isn’t always fair, Tim, as both the DCCC and the NRCC know full well ...

Politics isn't always fair, and the Republicans are proving it every day.

More unfairness here (about the deceptive robo-calls).


Friday, November 03, 2006

Neocons are "combatting anti-Americanism in the United States"

So says Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar at AEI. You have to read it to believe it. Start with this post over at Belgravia Dispatch.

UPDATE: Here are some selected quotes from the AEI Short Publication: (emp original)
  • We neoconservatives have been through a startling few years. [...] The left had driven us from the Democratic Party, stolen the "liberal" label, and successfully affixed to us the name "neoconservative."

  • One area of neoconservative thought that needs urgent reconsideration is the revolution in military strategy that our neocon hero, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, has championed.

  • We need to give more thought to how we aid Middle Eastern moderates. [...] [W]e should develop and fund training programs back at home that allow Middle Eastern democrats to come to the United States--free of charge--to hone their electoral, organizational, and public relations skills. James Carville and Karl Rove should be the titular heads of this program.

  • The Bush administration deserves criticism for its failure to repair America’s public diplomacy apparatus. No group other than neocons is likely to figure out how to do that. We are, after all, a movement whose raison d’être was combating anti-Americanism in the United States. Who better, then, to combat it abroad?

  • Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office.

  • Recruit Joe Lieberman for 2008.Twice in the last quarter-century we had the good fortune to see presidents elected who were sympathetic to our understanding of the world. [...] As for vice presidential candidates, how about Condoleezza Rice or even Joe Lieberman? Lieberman says he’s still a Democrat. But there is no place for him in that party. Like every one of us, he is a refugee. He’s already endured the rigors of running for the White House. In 2008, he deserves another chance ...
Neocons are the real liberals. Rummy is a hero. Have Carville and Rove train Middle East politicans. Keep combatting anti-Americanism in America. Bomb Iran. Lieberman in '08.

Yeah, makes complete sense.


Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Bush + Limbaugh:

Digby reports that Bush is scheduled to be on Rush Limbaugh's radio show this Wednesday. Bush wants to be in the company of somebody who is thoroughly disgusting. From this blog's post of May 2005:
Rush Limbaugh has made some remarks about Abu Ghraib recently. They are, as you might expect, repulsive. Digby and Light of Reason make their points. But we found what Limbaugh said to be rambling and loose in construction - and therefore hard to get to the essence of what he was saying. It needed tightening up. So here is an ultra-compressed version of what Limbaugh said: (all items are direct quotes)
  • "[Today is] the anniversary of the Abu Ghraib scandal."
  • "The Democrats are actually celebrating the one year anniversary of the Abu Ghraib scandal!"
  • "What kind of gift to give Democrats here on the anniversary of Abu Ghraib?"
    • "handcuffs"
    • "A whip."
    • "you might give them a little pyramid game, something that is in the shape of a pyramid."
    • "A pair of jumper cables—superb idea"
    • "Give them a German shepherd."
    • "give them the empty bags with the eye holes cut out"
    • "a leash"
    • "a water board would be a great gift"
Let's not mince words. Limbaugh is saying:
Instruments of torture should be given, as "gifts", to people upset about the brutality at Abu Ghraib.
This is the guy Bush wants to hang out with.


Kerry Headlines:

These are headlines from major media outlets. All for basic stories, editorial staff opinion, or centrist commentary.They say a week in politics can seem like a lifetime. Let's hope so, so that this nonsense can fade away.