A Caring Fellow

The AP reports (link via Pam’s House Blend):

Accused of being insensitive to U.S. soldiers in Iraq and their families, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld received a fresh endorsement Monday from President Bush, who called him "a caring fellow."

"I have heard the anguish in his voice and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way," Bush said at a White House news conference.

[…]

Bush, who personally signs condolence letters, was asked why he was willing to overlook Rumsfeld's failure to do the same.

"I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart," Bush said. "I know how much he cares for the troops," adding that Rumsfeld and his wife visit hospitalized soldiers "all the time to provide comfort and solace."
I never cease to be amazed by this administration's evident belief that simply by virtue of declaring someone has a particular trait automatically makes them so. Granted, the media has indulged this tedious little habit ad infinitum, so I suppose I ought not to be as surprised as I am that they believe it works. It has, it fact, become quite the useful spinning technique for them.

Today, we have been told that Rumsfeld is caring, and, if it’s not too late for him – if the cries for his head have not already drowned out the decree – then surely soon the conventional wisdom will be that he is most certainly the gentlest, kindest Defense Secretary we’ve had.

Similarly, we’ve been informed that Condoleezza Rice is competent, though all other evidence points to the contrary. Yet her appointment as Colin Powell’s replacement was met with little scrutiny of her qualifications in the mainstream press.

And perhaps the most egregious offense are the “truths” we’re told about President Bush – that he is an ordinary guy, that he is a good Christian, that he is instinctually wise, if not book-smart. These characterizations are oft-repeated as realities about the man; ordinary – despite his upbringing as a child of privilege, his attendance at Yale and Harvard, and his having been captured on tape describing his base as “the haves and the have-mores;” Christian – despite his very irregular church attendance, his renowned penchants for profanity and mockery, his contempt for the poor, ill, and marginalized as evidenced by his policies, and the very real possibility that he authorized torture; and instinctually wise – despite his significant miscalculations about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One if left to wonder if the men and women behind these constructed facades do not ever feel compelled at all to attempt to match their actions with their designated attributes. It is a different country indeed that one imagines if our war in Iraq were governed by a truly caring Rumsfeld, our security was overseen by a genuinely competent Rice, and our domestic and international agendas were constructed by a leader who was the good, salt-of-the-earth man he claims to be. Perhaps as the next term begins to unfold, these pretenders ought to try on their carefully selected adjectives and see how they fit.

Like every aspect of liberalism they reject and despise, they have turned their backs on self-analysis and –reflection. Navel-gazing is for hippies, for do-nothings, for losers. They are winners; they don’t have time to stop and reflect. It’s a convenient state of affairs, as it also requires no admissions of guilt, and no apologies.

And so it is again with Bush’s defense of Rumsfeld. He is not a pompous ass with more concern for the war itself than the soldiers who fight it. He’s a caring fellow. Repeat after me: a caring fellow. And thus it shall be, because they're wonderful at improving each other with labels, but self-improvement seems sorely out of reach.

Open Wide...

Time Ain't on My Side

So Time has named George Bush its Man of the Year. Well, they're nothing if not consistent:

1938 Man of the Year - Adolf Hitler
1939 Man of the Year - Joseph Stalin
1942 Man of the Year - Stalin again!
1979 Man of the Year - Ayatollah Khomeini

What makes me think if Time had been around in 1215, Ghengis Khan would have been their Man of the Year?

Keep up the good work there, Time.

Open Wide...

Next, on Pimp My Ride...

...Xzibit and the gang turn Airforce One into a phat aviatin' machine, a la Soul Plane.



Photo via Digby.

Open Wide...

Yeesh

President Bush on the Kerik brouhaha: "The lessons learned is continue to vet and ask questions.”

Next up: a lesson on matching your subject and predicate. A singular is, and plurals are, George.

Open Wide...

Well, Whaddaya Know?

Check it out:

Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and Bush environmental official, says in an upcoming book that Republican moderates must speak up or the party could move so far to the right that it will lose its influence and strength.

[...]

The main focus of Whitman's book "It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America," is on her desire for moderate Republicans to regain control of the party. The more conservative wing of the party has claimed much credit for Bush's re-election.

"A clear and present danger Republicans face today is that the party will now move so far to the right that it ends up alienating centrist voters and marginalizing itself," Whitman writes in the book, obtained Friday by The Associated Press. The book is to be released by The Penguin Press in late January.

Whitman says fellow moderates, such as former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, were instrumental in Bush's re-election win, often campaigning with him in battleground states.

The role of moderates is to bring the party back to its center, she says.

"It is time for Republican moderates to assert forcefully and plainly that this is our party, too, that we not only have a place but a voice, and not just a voice but a vision that is true to the historic principles of our party and our nation, not one tied to an extremist agenda," she says.
It will be interesting to see whether Republican greet this book with the praise it deserves or the usual smear campaign for those who refuse to toe the Bush party line. If I were a bettin' woman, I'd be willing to bet the ranch on the latter.

Open Wide...

Wake Up the Sleeping Elephant

John Rogers laments “I Miss Republicans” at his blog, Kung Fu Monkey:

No, seriously. Remember Republicans? Sober men in suits, pipes, who'd nod thoughtfully over their laterst paen [sic] to market-driven fiscal conservatism while grinding out the numbers on rocket science. Every one of those serious-looking 1950's-1960's science guys in the movies -- Republican to a one.

[…]

How did they become the party of fairy dust and make believe? How did they become the anti-science guys? The anti-fact guys? The anti-logic guys?
I read the whole post not long after I had written about the shame of Republican Senators who scrounged up the courage to lambaste Rumsfeld only after a soldier had made any lesser reactions disgraceful. The issues are one and the same. The Republican Party is being lost to blind partisanship, which includes loyalty to a President who represents none of values of the traditional Republican Party. And it’s not just their elected officials; it’s the people of the GOP, too.

Far too few traditional Republicans (which I will use as shorthand to refer to the Republicans of yore John describes) echo the same sentiment. I'm not sure why it seems to be only people on the Left screaming bloody murder about how the Republican Party has been hijacked by total fuckwits. It’s akin to the moderate Christians I know who seem relatively unfazed by the radical element that, if left unchecked, will forever define American Christianity as a religion of intolerant zealots. No one on the Right appears moved to try to prevent this steady slide into political and religious extremism.

I was disgusted by some traditional Republicans I know who held their nose and voted for Bush, simply because they wouldn't vote for a Democrat. No matter how much you pointed out to them that - as bizarre as it may have seemed - the party of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, states' rights, and conservation (particularly environmental) was, this time, the Democrats, they still cast a vote for Bush.

Their party is slipping (has permanently slipped?) away from them, but they say nothing, do nothing. When America has fallen into the inevitable morass that is its unavoidable destination with Bush at our helm, I won't blame the Democratic voters, and I won't even blame the wingnuts on the Right, who at least voted as they believe, foolish as it is. I will blame the large swath of traditional Republicans who refused to acknowledge that their party had left them, and made no noise about its failed leadership, choosing instead to keep handing new strings to Nero for his fiddle.

Open Wide...

Save the Endangered Species Act

Evlhrb4 directs us to this petition to Save the Endangered Species Act. Come on – you’ve got two minutes…

Open Wide...

Review This

In his indubitable, no-bullshit way, Upon Further Review’s JRH examines why Kerry really lost…and what Jesus would do:

What would Jesus do??? Well, probably not kill a whole assload of people in the name of Democracy (which I still fail to see any semblance of in Iraq).
You have to admire a post that works “assload” into a religious rumination.

Open Wide...

For Shame

In his new L.A. Weekly column, David Corn examines the bungled mess the Bush administration is making of things, before they’ve even reached the inauguration for term two.

Recent events have once again proved the truism that it’s easy to run for office, it’s hard to govern — especially when you’re an arrogant fellow pursuing bad policies.
Ain’t that the truth.

I was, however, most struck by the following passage:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld became the administration’s Bonehead Number One when he dismissed a soldier’s question about the lack of armor for the troops.
Since that incident, Senate Republicans have been trampling each other as they scramble for the news vans, nobody wanting to be the rotten egg. Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Senator Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Senator John McCain, R-Ariz. have all issued public criticisms of Rumsfeld within the last few days.

While the White House’s continued defense of Rumsfeld is both unfathomable and nauseating, the decision of these Senators to speak out only now is even more despicable. This was not the first contemptible story out of Iraq that aptly characterized this administration’s mishandling of the war. In fact, it was not even remotely the first story about “hillbilly armor.” Where were these righteous Senators three, six, twelve months ago?

There is no new information upon which these condemnations are based. What is new is only the political situation; the election is over. Take note, red state America—the men and women you elect on a Republican ticket, the ticket of virtues and real Americans—feel not a tingle of shame about letting your sons and daughters die, until pointing the finger at the man responsible becomes politically expedient.

They are compelled to criticize Rumsfeld now, not because of his disastrous leadership, which has always been patently apparent, but because they were made to look like fools by Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team (and the reporter who coached him). Had Wilson never challenged Rumsfeld, the honor-seeking Senators who now pat themselves on the backs for their brave denouncements would still be wrapped in the silent complicity that has kept them warm for the past four years.

As David Corn correctly states, the shit started hitting the fan when Rumsfeld “dismissed a soldier’s question about the lack of armor for the troops,” not when he failed to provide it in the first place. This is the great sin of Donald Rumsfeld—he looked bad on TV, and made the administration look bad by extension. The soldiers without proper armor wasn't a problem, you see, until old Rummy took a hard question and came back with a poor sound byte.

So fuck you, Senators, for your empty disapprovals and contrived virtue. You don't care about soldiers. You don't care about anything except staving off embarrassment-by-association by reminding us that you can still affect convincing righteous indignation on TV. Well done. We'll see you after the next media debacle.

Open Wide...

Brock Gets Feisty with Bill

No, falafel you!

Open Wide...

This Just In...

Chevy Chase is unfunny. I have never found him funny (except, perhaps, the first Vacation movie, when I'm feeling generous). I've always thought he comes across as a smug, arrogant prick who's out of his depth.

The groundwork thus laid, I present the following from the Takes One to Know One Files:

Even certified Hollywood liberals were reeling after Chevy Chase's potty-mouthed Bush-bashing Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, where the actor hosted an awards ceremony staged by People for the American Way.

For most of the evening, Chase was his usual comedic self, delivering lines like "This just in -- resignations in the upper echelon of the Bush administration. The Bush sisters have resigned and are being replaced by Paris and Nicky Hilton. Back for more news later."

After actors Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon delivered speeches accepting their Defender of Democracy awards, Chase took the stage a final time and unleashed a rant against President Bush that stunned the crowd. He deployed the four-letter word that got Vice President Cheney in hot water, using it as a noun. Chase called the prez a "dumb [expletive]." He also used it as an adjective, assuring the audience, "I'm no [expletive] clown either. . . . This guy started a jihad."

Chase also said: "This guy in office is an uneducated, real lying schmuck . . . and we still couldn't beat him with a bore like Kerry."

[...]

Sen. Tom Daschle, the former minority leader, looked taken aback when he went on directly after Chase. His opening line: "I've had to follow a lot of speakers, but -- "

The movie star didn't return for a curtain call or to savor dessert at the reception after the event. We were told he hurt his back and needed to call it a night by 9. Chase's PR rep told us yesterday she was unable to reach him.

I also enjoyed Reliable Source's use of the term "certified Hollywood liberals." A not-so-flattering double-entrendre was meant to be inferred, methinks.


UPDATE: Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha! Woo. I almost spit my falafel all over the screen.

Open Wide...

Quayle Returns

Bush casts a magic spell.

Open Wide...

The War Comes Home

From the AP (link via AMERICAblog):

Police have arrested a soldier they say had his cousin shoot him so he wouldn't have to return to Iraq.

Army Spc. Marquise J. Roberts, of Hinesville, Ga., suffered a minor wound Tuesday to his left leg from a .22-caliber pistol, police said. He was treated at a hospital, then arrested after he and his cousin allegedly admitted making up a story about the shooting.

[…]

Police said Roberts, a supply specialist who had spent seven months in Iraq, was distraught about having to return to combat duty and wanted to stay with his family.

Open Wide...

The Point

In a post delicately titled Bernard Kerik Is a Fuckwad, the Rude Pundit reminds us not to get distracted by the details:

Oh, my, some pundits say, how could the White House vetting process have missed anything that a solid Lexis-Nexis search would have picked up. But that misses the point.

It's not that Bush's vetting failed or that Alberto Gonzales is an incompetent piece of shit. The point here is that they just didn't care. The Bush administration thought it could do whatever it wanted in the wake of the election and that nobody would fucking care. And the other point is that it doesn't matter. Bush could have a cabinet made up of deaf-mute quadriplegics who shit themselves on a regular basis, and they'd be as effective as whoever Bush appoints. But the Kerik nomination, among so many other things, lays bare the arrogance and contempt the Bush administration feels for the American public. We just happened to catch this one. How many others get by us?
If there’s anything the Left can’t learn fast enough, it’s that all of it is smoke and mirrors and red herrings. The point is always that they don’t care, that their only feeling toward the American people is contempt. And while the Left and the Right struggle to lay claim to the mantle of The Real Americans, while we’re busy bickering about frigging Christmas displays, Bush and Co. are quietly laying the groundwork to dismantle every social program the Left has worked for since The New Deal, because they disdain all Americans who aren’t them, including (and perhaps especially) those who voted for them. That’s the point. And we can’t forget it.

Open Wide...

Get Comfy, Part II

Sorry, I really lost the plot on that last post. (A little slap-happy today; I need a vacation.)

What I meant to say was that the framing of the question is all wrong. To those who would deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, I would ask not about their comfort level with granting this one right, but instead: How comfortable are you continuing to deny multiple rights to a part of the American populace? These include the fundamental rights to:

    • visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;
    • inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;
    • obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
    • enter joint rental agreements;
    • make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
    • take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;
    • choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
    • obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
    • get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
    • have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
    • determine child custody and support in a divorce;
    • have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
    • file joint tax returns;
    • obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
    • apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries; and
    • obtain domestic violence protective orders.

And beyond that, the National Center for Health Statistics has released a report finding that couples who live together, but are not married, are more likely to have health problems than married couples.

There are two major theories as to why, said the researchers.

"Marriage protection is the theory that married people have more advantages in terms of economic resources, social and psychological support, and support for healthy lifestyles,' the report says.

"Marital selection is the theory that healthier people get married and stay married, whereas less-healthy people either do not marry or are more likely to become separated, divorced, or widowed."

Considering gays and lesbians can’t get married regardless of health, the former theory is, obviously, the only one applicable. Denying marriage, then, is also to deny the economic, social, and psychological resources and benefits that we married heterosexuals take for granted, undermining the very health and stability that someone as foolish as I might think a phrase like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is meant to include.

So, to those of you who aren’t quite comfortable with gay marriage yet…how comfortable are you with that?

Open Wide...

Get Comfy

In this column, Ellen Goodman asks if gay rights must wait for everyone else’s “comfort,” and decides that the answer is no (which, I admit, is a bit of a “duh” for me, but, okay, I can acknowledge that maybe there are a lot of people, even liberals, who toil to overcome ingrained homophobia). The only gay marriage with which I’ve ever been uncomfortable is Liza Minelli’s and David Gest’s.



But frankly, they may have been wise to wait until at least one remotely humanoid form was comfortable with their union before taking the big leap.

Open Wide...

The North Polarization

Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog gets real:

If you want to know why conservatives win as often as they do, examine how quickly they've gotten into formation on the subject of "Christmas under siege" -- all of a sudden there's denunciation after denunciation after denunciation after denunciation of evil Christian-hating liberals whose preference for pluralism and objection to publicly financed sectarianism are signs that they (we) want to scrub every trace of faith from America, with jackboots on. And also note that conservatives have been pushing the "Christmas under siege" line for years; it didn't catch on in 2003 or 2002 or 2001, but they didn't give up.

I worry that conservatives are going to dominate U.S. politics until liberals learn to launch precision assaults like this. Now I'm not sure I want to live in a country dominated by two political wings that do nothing but generate line-of-the-day two-minute hates, but I worry that it may have to come to that, or the Right will just continue to win.
Somebody explain to me exactly how politicizing Christmas is indicative of a belief in its sanctity.

Open Wide...

Oh Goody

MSNBC reports:

Wednesday, U.S. military officials conceded that, far from broken, the insurgents are actually getting better at devising new, more efficient methods of killing.

"A very, very sophisticated enemy — an enemy that does not have a conscience," says Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes, deputy commander for operations of the Third Infantry Division.

While abstaining from commenting on the conscientiousness with which this invasion was exacted—ahem, shock and awe—I will remind said U.S. military officials that, according to Commander Codpiece, our mission was supposedly accomplished long ago. Me, now I would have thought that part of our mission was quelling insurgency, as opposed to allowing it to mature and improve, but then again, I’m no military expert.

Open Wide...

Pop Goes the Weasel

Osama’s poked his head out to look for his shadow again. At least 6 more weeks of war.

Remember when we were going to get this guy, dead or alive? Yeah, me too.

Open Wide...

War Notes

Nearly 900 children have lost a parent in Iraq, according to this story (link via Kos):

Although comparably specific historical data is not available for other U.S. wars, military experts said the proportionally higher number of American children left bereaved by the Iraq war is unprecedented.

"This is a new state of affairs we have to confront," said Charles Moskos, a leading
military sociologist and Northwestern University professor.

Overall, Americans in uniform today are far more likely to be married and have children than in the military of the past, Moskos and others said. And the reliance in Iraq on reserve forces _ who tend to be older and even more settled than active-duty soldiers _ also means more offspring at home.

[…]

"As much as we are concerned about veterans' programs, we now have to be concerned about orphan programs," Moskos said. "This is the first time we have crossed this threshold."
This story just about tore me in two. I’m left swimming in images of the children who will never see their parents again, and images of orphaned and dead Iraqi children, and I wonder what the hell is the point of this whole goddamned mess.

Perhaps most heartbreaking are the more than 40 troops who died without ever seeing their children. At least 34 wives were pregnant _ four with twins _ when their husbands died, and another 15 had babies while their spouses were deployed. While some of the latter were able to return home on paternity leave, most died before they could.

Among those who never once held their babies was Army 1st Lt. Doyle Hufstedler, 25, of Abilene, Texas, who was killed in March when a roadside bomb hit his armored personnel carrier near Habbaniyah. In his uniform pocket, Hufstedler carried a sonogram picture of his unborn daughter, the only image he would ever have of Grace Ashley, who arrived six weeks after his death.
While the thought of a man who never got to see his child, a child who will never get to meet her father, is indeed truly heartbreaking, the part of the article that was the most difficult for me was this:

Despite their losses, [most] surviving spouses say they still support the war. They say they are profoundly proud of their loved ones' willingness to give their lives for their country and to help bring democracy to Iraq. That pride helps their children cope as well.

Virginia Collier, of Harrison, Ark., found great solace in her husband's undimmed belief that the Iraq war was not only justified, but also engendering more good than the media has portrayed. A father of four, her husband, Army National Guard Sgt. Russell Collier, 48, was killed Oct. 3 trying to help a fellow soldier under fire in Taji, Iraq.

"He died doing what he loved," Veronica Collier told a local newspaper.
I am genuinely glad that the widows and widowers of these soldiers can comfort themselves by believing their spouses died for a just cause. I’m glad that the soldiers felt they were fighting a necessary war. I’m proud of and grateful for the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line on behalf of people like me, who enjoy the fruits of their sacrifice without having to compromise anything of our own.

But I don’t feel like we’ve become safer because of this war, and I don’t believe the Iraqi people are better off because of this war. I think the entire thing is a tragic folly designed by a group of very self-interested and misguided men, and that it was completely avoidable. I believe that we are ignoring greater threats while our focus is kept on this increasingly unwinnable conflict.

So what comfort do I have that soldiers are giving their lives for this madness, that children are giving their parents? I have none, and perhaps some would say I deserve none—that I have no right to want comfort.

But I do have a right; this war is being waged in my name, in the name of all Americans, and I can find no solace as long as it rages on.

Open Wide...