Kevin Drum: The newest Wise Old Man.

"As usual these days, [the hunter's apology] did no good. The slavering hordes were unappeased and he's now out of a job, has lost his sponsorships and his TV show, and might as well move to a desert island to live out the rest of his years now. He's a pariah.... I have a feeling Hillary is well aware of this."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/20...

The analogy Drum is spinning out of whole cloth is clear: fair-minded Jim Zumbo:crazed right-wing loons :: fair-minded Hilary Clinton: anti-Iraq War Democrats. To Drum, those who are against the Iraq war, and hesitant to support a candidate for President who supported/supports it are JUST LIKE the Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, and all the LGF troupe. More generally, from the fact that the right wing acts a certain way, Drum concludes that ALL OF AMERICA is that way. To Drum, America is as the crazed right does ("But it's evidence of something else too: the utter futility of the apology in modern day America.").

With this tripe, Drum clearly places himself in the Old Wise Men of D.C. camp - anti-Iraq-war folks who criticize Clinton for her vote, and subsequent refusal to acknowledge that she has learned from her error (few, if any, are interested in Drum's strawman "apology") are *slavering hordes*. I stopped reading Drum because of his incessant showcasing of concern-troll Amy Why-Oh-Why-Do-Democrats-Hate-Religion Sullivan. Occasionally, I wonder if I'm missing out - I'm thankful to now have an answer.

One might conjecture that Drum is gunning for fucktard Broder's WaPo position when he retires/dies. Or maybe he'll run for the Senate in Connecticut - he's just the kind of guy their fuckwipe electorate would go for.

Fuck Kevin Drum.

Two quick thoughts before we embark on a Magical Mystery Tour into Iran...

Oh yeah - I'm back! (Trumpets triumphantly blaring)

I call these Cause and Effect.

Thought 1:

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it's washed to the sea?
Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?
Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

I think the interplay between a man's intra-personal demons (convincing himself of his manliness, unrest, baseless discontent) and the those demons' effects, via the man, on the inter-personal world is worthy of special note in this thought.


Thought 2:

Oh, a storm is threatning
My very life today
If I dont get some shelter
Oh yeah, Im gonna fade away

War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

Ooh, see the fire is sweepin
Our very street today
Burns like a red coal carpet
Mad bull lost its way

War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

Rape, murder!
Its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

Rape, murder!
Its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

Rape, murder!
Its just a shot away
Its just a shot away

The floods is threatening
My very life today
Gimme, gimme shelter
Or Im gonna fade away

War, children, its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
Its just a shot away
I tell you love, sister, its just a kiss away
Its just a kiss away
Its just a kiss away
Its just a kiss away
Its just a kiss away
Kiss away, kiss away

On thought 2, I especially like (a) the inclusion of a gesture towards a solution at the end, and also (b) some attention to how this crap relates to particularly to women about two-thirds of the way through.

Boy, what fuck-ups those dirtyfuckinghippies (DFHs from here out) were, huh?

Yah, yah... ok, ok... - so I had a little bit of help with these thoughts - frickin' sue me.

(Deliberately not providing links to the thoughts' sources, since anyone who doesn't already know is an complete, unmitigated jackass. That, and there aren't enough people reading this blog for me to get in trouble anyway.)

With which party do you associate an anti-death penalty stance?

If you said the Democratic party, you're on the same page as me.

I find it odd that ABC News reports on REPUBLICAN former Governor Ryan's conviction on 22 counts of cronyism, racketeering, yadayadayada as:

Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, a strong death penalty critic, was found guilty of fraud, racketeering, and tax evasion

Not only do they NOT mention which party he belongs to, but they went out of their way to put something in the headline THAT HAS NO RELEVANCE to the topic of the headline. And it just so happens that the irrelevant part is most commonly associated with Democrats.

Oh - almost forgot - nowhere in the entire article does it mention that Ryan is a republican. This is so as of 11:30am PST.

Criticism of the civilian leadership of the military in General

There's been quite a hubbub over the last few days concerning the six retired generals critizing rummy, and calling for his resignation.

Factually, the generals are surely in the right. Rumsfeld IS an incompentent leader, allowing fantasia-style ideology free reign over actual facts. And the military, as well as the country, is the worse for it. I feel for the generals under his command - because of rummy's "war on the cheap", the soldiers have not been properly outfitted, there aren't enough of them, and there WON'T be enough of them (recruitment sucks these days).

I strongly support the generals' efforts to dislodge rummy from his imperially incompentent position, and fully believe that they have nothing but benevolent intentions for the military, and for America.

That said: were I the next President, my first act would be to replace every single active duty general involved with this "critical insurrection" - despite the fact that the generals are in the right. It is my view that the institution of civilian control of the military is too fundamental to the very concept of America to permit even the smallest baby-step in the direction of a poltically active military. Moreover, a politically active military is too much of a "one-way street" - you can't just vote out a military if you don't like it anymore.

Some might think that I'm exacting punishment from those who don't deserve it - since it was retired officers who voiced dissent - and I'm going after active duty personnel. Silliness. It's perfectly obvious that those retirees didn't just come up with the criticism after they retired. Nor is it reasonable to suppose that the criticism was only amongst the retirees - that the active duty officers didn't participate. Consider Richard Holbrooke's WaPo OpEd:

"First, it is clear that the retired generals -- six so far, with more likely to come -- surely are speaking for many of their former colleagues, friends and subordinates who are still inside. In the tight world of senior active and retired generals, there is constant private dialogue."

This is what I do not think can be permitted - I believe this is Step .001 on a slippery precedent slope of allowing the military a voice in political matters. I'll say it once again: The generals are RIGHT on the current issue. But it doesn't matter.

An analogy may be helpful in understanding why I think it doesn't matter that the generals are in the right on this matter. Harriet, the wisest most benevolent person EVER is the President of the World. With someone so benevolent, and so wise, why on earth would we NOT want to cede dictatorial power to her? A sufficient reason is that: we don't know who will take her place once she's gone - and it's notoriously difficult to take back power once given.

Similarly with the generals' criticism of their civilian superiors. The generals are correct, NOW. But allowing their criticisms to go without response opens the door for the military to question FUTURE civilian leadership. What guarantee do we have that future questioning will be so deserved? None. What guarantee do we have that future questioning will be so polite? None.

The political power of the military, mild though it may be, is siphoned in the first instance directly from the electorate's power. The electorate's principal direct power is over the executive (you can't gerrymander states) - and the military steps on the electorate's toes in seeking a political voice. It is not to serve the interests of the executive branch that I believe reprimanding the military is in order - it is to serve the interests of the electorate, whose political power has been encroached upon.

I believe that we must never lose track of the fact that the military is the group people with the guns in this country, and we essentially never want them to do anything without being so directed by civilians. Therefore I am inclined to clear house - a strong reminder to the military as a whole that civilians run things, and, more importantly, that civilians are SUPPOSED to run things.

There is absolutely no rancor towards either the retired or active duty generals involved with my stance here - I already mentioned my belief in the goodness of the generals' motives. I would even, for example, be open to campaigning for some of the very generals I fired/reassigned, after they left the military. It's simply the princple of the matter that I believe needs to be protected and reinforced: the military MAY NOT criticize its civilian supervisors. America's guns must ALWAYS be under the TOTAL control of civilians.

Am I being paranoid? Possibly. But out of the two possible errors, it seems like the prudent one. And after 10 or 15 years of lackadaisical voters leading to a King George situation, I think a little extra caution is warranted.

And of course, rummy's resignation is priority #1. Like I said - I agree with the generals. But then, I'm a civilian; it is MY place to criticize the executive.

They keep one-upping themselves....

barbara bush gives money TO HERSELF and calls it a tax-deductible chariatable contribution.

Disaster profiteering - what a bitch. What an evil, morally bankrupt family.

What crappy people republican voters are.

Just a quick remark about going to war with Iran.

Um, we don't have any money, guys.

In fact, we're about $9 trillion away from having any money. How much money is that you ask? It's SOOOOOO much money that the people in charge of, um, spending it DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH THAT IS.

It would be nice if that were the end of that topic.

Operation Swarmer, or Potemkin village? (updates: 1)

As noted, about 1,500 troops were involved, 700 American and 800 Iraqi. But get this: in the area they’re scouring there are only about 1,500 residents. According to my colleague and other reporters who were there, not a single shot has been fired.

If true, and this operation is simply being staged, then wow. They're actually willing to make up entire battles in their quest to lie to the American public. Just when you thought they couldn't out-do themselves...

By the way: doesn't that violate US anti-government-propoganda laws, in the highest possible manner?

UPDATE 1:

Confirmation that it was all a hoax from the BBC:

In this instance, key terrain may have been seized but no enemy forces were apparently engaged.

But the massive press coverage was not just the result of a semantic misunderstanding.

Unusually, high-quality photographs and video footage of the initial deployment were made available to the press towards the end of Day One of what was billed as a campaign that would last several days. Some international media were given unusually swift military "embeds" to the area.

Pure propoganda.

Bush voters sicken me.

Everything you need to know about gw....

A staffer talking about rumors that gw may add an "elder statesman" onto the staff:

The more it becomes public, the more unlikely it is that it will happen.

If you think about it for a minute, you realize this answers almost EVERY question you might have about gw - cowardly, power-hungry, petty, immature, ...