How do you define ‘supporting the troops?’

While conservative politicians, pundits and bloggers argue that Congress' timeline on withdrawing from Iraq shows lack of support for our troops, a study of the not-so-distant past illustrates the true hypocrisy of such a concept.

 

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold writes about the predictable Republican resistance, drawing parallels to the biggest pre-Iraq US military failure in my lifetime.

 

…in [October] 1993, senators overwhelmingly supported successful efforts to cut off funding for a flawed military mission. …76 senators voted for an amendment, offered by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to end funding for the military mission in Somalia effective March 31, 1994, with limited exceptions.

 

None of those 76 senators, who include the current Republican leader and whip, acted to jeopardize the safety and security of U.S. troops in Somalia. All of them recognized that Congress had the power and the responsibility to bring our military operations in Somalia to a close, by establishing a date after which funds would be terminated.

 

The same day that the Senate voted on the Byrd amendment, 38 senators -- myself included -- supported an even stronger effort to end funding for Somalia operations. The amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.

 

Then as now, by setting a date after which funding for a military mission will be terminated, Congress can safely bring our troops out of harm's way. As Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time, "The McCain amendment provides the president with the flexibility needed to bring our forces home with honor and without endangering the safety of American troops."

 

Wow – Republicans voted overwhelmingly to "surrender" and yet, they were supporting the troops? How is that possible? Oh yeah…when you put soldiers' well being ahead of your own political welfare, so-called surrender starts to look like an awfully noble option.

 

Feingold recognizes the "big differences between the military missions in Somalia and Iraq," but, he says, "Congress' constitutional power to end a military mission hasn't changed, and neither has the fact that this power can be used without jeopardizing the safety of U.S. troops." And that's the key, isn't it?

 

Iraq has been a nasty place for a long time, and it will remain a nasty place. I don't buy the "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" argument, as intelligence and military experts agree, we are in truth fighting them in Iraq so we can fight better trained terrorists at home and abroad in the near future.

 

Too many unfortunate people have and will continue to live and die in Iraq; can't we all agree that it is time to stop adding American soldiers' names to that regrettable list?

thoughts from an airport

I am enduring a delay at O’Hare, drinking at Chilis and thumbing through this week's Newsweek (blogging from my Treo). I am sick. I am dumbfounded. I am weeping. Openly.

Contrast that with a blog I read today that attributed America's success in Iraq to George Bush, but its failure to our troops. Has there ever been a more reprehensible opinion?

Right now I am reading soldiers' own words, in their own handwriting, on their own stationery, and I know they have a courage I'll never know.

And yet, somehow these letters from the front lines have posthumously reached this privileged (and half drunk) liberal, and I know that I need to do more to ensure that no one has to read more letters like this in the future.

I say that supporting our troops does not mean supporting their mission, but ending it. I say that opposing our president does not embolden the enemy, but weaken their cause.

I say that my tears over an Awesome Blossom pale in comparison to the tears shed over thousands of caskets...and that every additional tear is one too many.

Joe Dirtbag

The always prolific Glen Greenwald has narrowed his sights on one of PatRoW’s favorite targets – “Independent Democrat” Joe Lieberman. At the center of Greenwald’s fury is a Lieberman Op-Ed that appeared in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, and how the senator’s new stance seems to stand in direct conflict with the one he espoused in the Journal fifteen months ago.

…whereas Lieberman is claiming now that everything is different today because we had no real strategy before for ensuring security, it was Lieberman himself who promised Americans in 2005 that we did have exactly such a strategy and that it was working so well that "we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007."

…On what conceivable basis is Joe Lieberman accorded even the most minimal respect or credibility? He is obviously a person who will say anything at any time in order to defend this war, and, now that everything he said in the past is revealed to be completely false, he does not have even an iota of integrity or honesty to admit any of that. Instead, he stands up and pretends that he never said any of those things -- he actually pretends that he knew all along that our military strategy was wrong -- and simply makes the same promises and commitments as he has been making all along with a sense of entitlement that he has credibility on these matters and should be listened to.

Now you may be asking – what good does it serve to continually point out Lieberman’s hypocrisy and dishonesty? And if you are asking that question…you don’t know me very well.

Joe Lieberman continues to spew lies and convenient mistruths, and continues to caucus with congressional Democrats while he sabotages the Party’s platform in the media and Senate floor. Every time he talks about the war, the man insults the intelligence of the American public (hey – that’s my job!) and betrays our troops in Iraq. But for the capper, Greenwald says it best:

Worse still, people like Joe Lieberman attempted -- and are still attempting -- to bully and stigmatize those who were trying to alert Americans of the reality of what was going on in Iraq by depicting anyone who challenges the rosy-eyed deceit of the President and Lieberman as the ones who actually bear responsibility for the failures in Iraq, even as subversive and traitorous.

Calling Lieberman a douchebag no longer seems strong enough, and “Interloper Enabler” has potential, but is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe there’s a simpler word: responsible. Surely he shares blame with a stable full of culpable fucks (conveniently, most of them work together at the White House), but Joe Lieberman is responsible for our Iraq clusterfuck quagmire, he is responsible for America’s rapidly vanishing esteem in the global community and he is responsible every time another American soldier comes home in a box.

'The infallible pope can say he's sorry, but this recovering alcoholic can't even say he's wrong'

Comedian/talk show host Bill Maher is promoting the upcoming season of his HBO show, and as usual, had some interesting things to say about a few topical issues. Read a full interview here , but if you're short on time, check this out:

On a certain surge:
The people in Iraq don't want this. The people in America don't want this. The Iraq Study Group doesn't recommend it. The Democrats are against it. Most [Republicans] are against it, even though many of them wouldn't say so out loud. But George Bush, he knows better. That is a kind of arrogance that is very hard to swallow at this point, especially when it's costing this many lives. Even the pope -- remember he said something bad about the Muslims a few months ago? The infallible pope came out and said, "Geez, my bad. That came out wrong. I didn't mean that." Yeah, the pope can say he's sorry, but this recovering alcoholic from Midland, Texas, he can't even say he's wrong.

Why are we in Iraq, anyway?
It's so over. The country is ethnically cleansing itself. It's already a partitioned country. What are we fighting for over there? Why are we fighting to keep Iraq together? Iraq has only been a country since what, 1932? That's seven years younger than Paul Newman. Why are these drawn-on-a-map borders worth one more American life? I have no clue. And I don't think [Bush] does, either.

On Hillary, Bill and effective government
The Clintons have a reputation for a number of things that baffles me. Yes, he's got a wandering eye, and yes, he's oversexed or whatever. But really, Bill Clinton is a policy wonk. He's the kind of guy who gets into the details of it, and so is she.

Government -- they used to teach it in college. It's actually something you should study and learn and know how to do. The Republicans always run on the idea that government isn't very effective. Well, not the way you do it. But it can be effective.

Does anyone doubt that if Bill Clinton was president during the Katrina storm that he would have been on top of that? He would have been all over that situation! He would have had the right people. He would not have slept for a week. That's the kind of guy he was.

I'm not saying there wouldn't have been problems -- it was a storm -- but as well as it could have been handled, he'd handle it. These people know how to do government; that is their passion. And it is something that can actually be done effectively.

What we're seeing with the Bush administration is that when you outsource government jobs to private contractors, both here and in Iraq, that's where the trouble is -- those are the people who are greedy and unchecked and corrupt and inefficient.

46 Heads in the Sand

A wise man once called the US Senate "the place where charisma and charm go to die". Sounds good…but what about integrity?

 

On Monday, the Senate voted to discontinue debate on the three proposed non-binding resolutions opposing the war in Iraq. Let me say that again: they voted to NOT DEBATE any of three prospective resolutions that would express disapproval yet carry no legislative clout. They voted to avoid conversation; they voted to stick their collective heads in the sand and pretend that the conversations happening in homes, schools and workplaces across America isn't happening.

 

Blaming the entire Senate is not exactly fair, but I refuse to pin the fault exclusively on Republicans…even though 45 of the 49 GOP Senators voted against continued debate (bravo to Minnesota's Norm Coleman and Maine's Susan Collins for adhering to the will of the people despite pressure from party bosses; Florida's Mel Martinez and presidential hopeful John McCain were strategic no-shows). In contrast 47 of the 49 Democrat Senators voted to move forward with debate ( South Dakota's Tim Johnson remains in a hospital after his brain hemorrhage and Louisiana's Mary Landrieu honored a previous commitment in her state after it was clear her vote would not make a difference in the final tally). Vermont's Independent Bernie Sanders voted with the Democrats and – shock of shocks – Connecticut "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman voted with the Republicans.

 

Republicans (and Jo-mos) are to blame for their hypocritical votes, but my problem is the resolutions themselves. None of the three proposals had any legal teeth, and none were hard enough on Dubya's Folly. And here's the thing – Democrats seemed to be OK with that. Their harshest suggested "disapproval" of the Interloper's surge. One plan suggested benchmarks for the Iraqi government (even though that resolution's author, the absent McCain, admitted that there were no real consequences to not meeting those benchmarks). All agreed that the government would not cut off funding for troops already deployed, even if it withheld funds for a surge.

 

George W. Bush dug us a hole that we can't easily crawl out of, especially not with a measly non-binding Senate resolution. But that would still be a start. Don't we owe it to the 3,000+ American soldiers who have lost their lives in this unnecessary conflict? What about the hundreds of thousand of non-insurgent Iraqis who have been injured/displaced/killed due to our instigating this war?

 

Can't we all agree that what's happened should not have? How can we sit back and let the Interloper to compound his many mistakes by adding fuel ( i.e. American lives) to the fire? And where, Senate douchebags, do you get off voting to stop the debate?

George Bush makes sense about Iraq! Uh, not *that* George Bush

One of the great things about the internet is that nothing ever goes away – and yes, I realize that will come back to haunt me when testifying in front of Congress (or trying to persuade the parole board) 30 years from now.

Anyway, an essay co-written by George H. W. Bush in the March 2, 1998 issue of Time Magazine has resurfaced, despite an apparent conspiracy to cover it up. In it, the former president gives some fairly solid reasons why he did not, despite significant pressure, force Saddam Hussein's ouster in the first Gulf War. And guess what? The rationale seems applicable today as well:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have… incurred incalculable human and political costs. ...The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. …Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

The Interloper's desire to distance himself from daddy has been long documented and he has infamously not turned to his father for counsel, despite the former president's considerable depth of international experience and familiarity with diplomatic nuance. No one will remember HW as an especially good president ("Read my lips: no new taxes" and puking on the Japanese guy – that's his legacy), but clearly he had a sense of the delicate political climate in the Middle East and an appreciation for the cost of American lives it would have taken to enact regime change. Is that too much to ask from our president?

And did I just pine for the wisdom of George H. W. Bush?

Un-fucking-believable

For the most part, I have avoided posting about the Iraq War, as no-win situations offer little ground for know-it-alls like me to sound smart and offer a reality check. Iraq is a depressing situation with no real solution that will continue to worsen. How/when/why will our troops get out? How can I get passionate about an answer when there are only questions?

On Wednesday, the Interloper interrupted my primetime TV viewing schedule to announce he was augmenting (apparently, in an image is everything administration, this is different than an "escalation") troop levels by 21,000. In their testimonies in front of both House and Senate committees Thursday, Secretary of State Condi Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were greeted by bipartisan opposition to the president's plan. That's right – questions about strategy and sincerity were voiced from both sides of the aisle, as some of the administration's most loyal congressional lackeys have begun to eat crow and distance themselves from Dubya's Folly.

Happily, however, for the Wonderful Wizard of the White House, one man had the courage to applaud the president's plan: you guessed it – Democratic (ahem) Senator Joe Lieberman!

In a statement released by his office, Joe Lieberman wraps his arms around the president's "correct and courageous" new strategy. "I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," Lieberman says. He says that Bush has offered up "a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis."

I had a few words about Lieberman this fall after he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, then selfishly ran and won as an independent. I will admit I was wrong about one thing – he has chosen to caucus with the Democrats and seems willing to support the Party's main objectives. Small miracles, right?

But the fucking balls on this prick! How can any Democrat, any elected official, any sane person, still have such enthusiastic support for Dubya's dumbass plan? More than just an embarrassment to his party, Lieberman is in embarrassment to the human race; running onto a sinking ship while even the dirtiest rats escape is not as heroic as Joe would have us believe – it's a disgusting betrayal of his constituency and a treasonous insult to his office, party and nation.

I’d like to thank my chief strategist, Osama…

Addressing the American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City yesterday, the Interloper gave some interesting justifications for why it is critical for the US to maintain its illegal war and occupation of Iraq:

Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the 'third world war is raging' in Iraq. It would come as news to the number two man of al Qaeda, Zawahiri, who has called the struggle in Iraq, quote, 'the place for the greatest battle.'

That's right – he went there. No longer content to let his VP make silly claims that terrorists are emboldened by a primary election, or his SecDef blatantly lie about the state of affairs in Baghdad, Dubya is now "proving" our moral obligation to fight by quoting Osama-freaking-bin Laden!

What a fucking douchebag. We have to fight because Osama says so? Since when does American foreign policy take its lead from oil-rich, Saudi extremists?

Oh yeah…

Follow-up Frenzy

I stumbled across some follow-up items corresponding to a few old posts, and once I realized that rehashing the past is a lot easier than creating something new, I jumped on board with vim and vigor (is the word "vim" ever used without "vigor"? It's kind of like "ensuing" and "kickoff", right? Please send any examples of vim without vigor to patrow.blog@gmail.com or leave a comment at the bottom of this post).

Anyway, Katherine Harris – she of the hilariously under-attended campaign rally – has a mighty high opinion of herself. In an interview with the Florida Baptist Witness (a notoriously impartial and legitimate media outlet), Kat talked about why Floridians should vote her into the US Senate:

…why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is all right. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take Western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God, and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don't know better, we are leading them astray and it's wrong.

Hear that, Florida? The fate of western civilization hinges on your vote for Kat. That's no exaggeration…not at all.

Moving on, it appears that Gil Gutknecht is both a visionary and a trendsetter, because now another GOP congressman has returned from a trip to Iraq and suddenly had a change of heart about American troop involvement. You know, at this rate we convince every Republican by Christmas…2028.

Finally, Joe Scarborough's "Is Bush an idiot?" bit can be seen in its entirety thanks to the good folks at You Tube . Good times.

The man, the myth, the douchebag

In an ironic twist, yesterday George W. Bush proclaimed Israel's victory over Hezbollah at roughly the same time Iran, Syria and Hezbollah itself declared a victorious campaign over Israeli forces and American influence. The Washington Post's Dan Froomkin believes that the Interloper's "startling assertion…once again raises questions about his ability to acknowledge reality when things don't turn out the way he intended."

While his word no longer carries any capital, I sure would like to believe the president. Unfortunately, Dubya's press conference speaks for itself (or at least it does when you read between read between the lines). You remember the rules of this game , right?

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today I met with members of my national security team, both here at the State Department and at the Pentagon.

I call them my "home" and "away" teams and let Condi choose her own entrance music. I was hoping for something by Metallica or Kiss, but she picked "99 Luftballoons". What it lacks is testicular fortitude, it makes up for in catchiness.

Friday's U.N. Security Council resolution on Lebanon is an important step forward that will help bring an end to the violence…We're now working with our international partners to turn the words of this resolution into action.

Stupid partners. They always want to share stuff and crap.

Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah's state sponsors, Iran and Syria.

And with terrorism's biggest global fertilizer: my administration.

We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks.

And I can only imagine what it feels like to go a day without a boom boom in my pants.

We've launched a forward strategy of freedom in the broader Middle East . And that strategy has helped bring hope to millions and fostered the birth of young democracies from Baghdad to Beirut.

Yup, lots of hope these days in Baghdad and Beirut.

It's no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle East, Lebanon and Iraq, are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity.

I'm telling you, the fact that we invaded Iraq without cause or provocation has nothing to do with it.

The problem in the Middle East today is not that people lack the desire for freedom.

The problem is that the freedom most Middle Easterners crave is the freedom to burn American flags and them little rag dolls that sorta look like me. I told Rummy – "you gotta stop them A-rabs and their Mexican voodoo" but he was all like, "Just sign this, sir," and I was like "Dick, what time does Aqua Teen Hunger Force come on TV?" and he was like "after your bedtime Mr. President" and I said to Laura, "Hey sexy momma - get me a set of pajamas with the little footies attached, cause otherwise, the terrorists have won."

Any time we get a hint that there might be a terrorist cell in the United States , we move on it. And we're listening, we're looking, and one thing that's important is for us to make sure that those people who are trying to disrupt terrorist cells in the United States have the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution of the United States.

Or outside the Constitution, or around the Constitution, or without any regard whatsoever to the Constitution. The tools are the most important thing. And lemonade. You can't catch a terrorist if you're parched, and my anti-terror task forces are the thirst-quenchiest in the world. Does anybody want some lemonade? I'm sure I can get a batch whipped up for everybody…

Douchebags in office? Check; Psychopaths with guns? Check.

Loyal PatRoW readers know I'm fond of hyperbole (really, it's amazing I'm not a Republican), so you can imagine my glee when I read this quote from Israeli politician Yossi Sarid: "The United States under Bush single-handedly destroyed its deterrent power and that of the free world, including Israel."

Damn, that's some Grade-A exaggeration! Except for one thing…he's 100% right. Sarid continued by saying that "if the American demon that has taken over Iraq is not so terrible and can be worn down, then just how terrible could the Israeli demon possibly be?"

I've gone on record as calling Israel's war with Lebanon a clusterfuck, but my best buds in Salon's War Room have done some legwork and provided the following facts. Feel free to decide for yourself where the truth lies ("Where the Truth Lies" ©2004 George W. Bush):

1. Many Israelis [are] openly acknowledging that the Israel-Lebanon war has been a disaster for Israel

2. Waging unnecessary wars, particularly when they are waged poorly, makes a nation much weaker, not stronger (see, e.g., Iraq)

3. Contrary to the reprehensible accusations in this country that opposition to, or criticism of, the Israel-Lebanon war is evidence of anti-Israel bias or even anti-Semitism, many people are opposed to the war -- and critical of President Bush's foolishly unrestrained support for it -- precisely because it is so harmful to Israel

4. Israel's democracy is sufficiently healthy that journalists and other citizens not only can criticize the country's leader in the middle of a war but can call for his resignation -- without being branded a traitor, a subversive, a coward and all of the other slurs to which Bush critics in the U.S. are routinely subjected.

By creating a terrorist state where terrorists formerly had no standing, the US has not only forced a civil war upon Iraq, but has bolstered the resolve of our enemies around the world who now believe that the "World's Only Superpower" has no real teeth. And Israel – our only real ally in the Middle East – now faces a similarly-reinforced, reenergized and rejuvenated opposition. Without fear of legitimate American-led repercussions, what will stop political, economical and sociological attacks on the US and our allies around the world?

Oh wait, I know: psychic security guards. I feel safer already.

Quick Hits: Salon Selective

I subscribe to daily e-mail updates from Salon, which often serve as fodder for my brilliant posts. What happens, however, when I go away and the links pile up in my inbox? That's right – you get an oversized collection of stories and comments…and I have the nerve to call this shit "Quick Hits".

They can't all be douchebags, right? A Washington Post reporter had a very public, yet off-the-record lunch with a blue state GOP candidate (public in that teen heartthrob Bill Frist stopped by to say hello; private in that the reporter was not allowed to name his dining companion). Perhaps the political hopeful asked for anonymity because he had this to say:

Iraq : The war "didn't work" because "we didn't prepare for the peace."

Katrina: "A monumental failure of government."

Republicans in Congress: "We've lost our way, we've gone to the well and we drank the water, and we shouldn't have. You don't go to Congress to become the party that you've been fighting for 40 years."

The president: "In 2001, we were attacked and the president is on the ground, on a mound with his arm around the fireman, symbol of America. In Katrina, the president is at 30,000 feet in an airplane looking down at people dying, living on a bridge. And that disconnect, I think, sums up, for me at least, the frustration that Americans feel."

The president's refusal to admit failure in Iraq: "I don't know why the people around him don't see that. It is a frustration, to say the least. I think it is a lost opportunity to bring the American people along on a mission that is incredibly important."

The outlook: Being a Republican now is "an impediment ... a hurdle I have to overcome. I've got an 'R' here, a scarlet letter ... If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose."

This guy's a Republican? He makes Joe Lieberman look like Dick Cheney! Actually, Joe does a pretty good job of that himself… Joementum my ass.

Mother knows best – my mom first told me about Josh Bolten's transcendent appearance on Meet the Press. But mom – what do you really think?

The latest outrage is that the interloper in the White House (Are you listening, Dick?) vetoed the stem cell bill and had the colossal nerve to say it was not political, but moral for him. I think that man (and most of his administration) is amoral. That was a blatant political move – having those "snowflake" babies and their families on TV. He has no moral fiber in my eyes… I though Tim Russert made mincemeat of the Chief of Staff, Josh Bolton, on this issue. I actually felt (a little) bad for this guy. I mused to dad that they can't possibly pay him enough for him to go on national TV and lie. But I guess they do.

Did I mention that my mom can't call George W. Bush "the president"? For a while, she was referring to him as "the man in the White House". Now, she's all about "the interloper". I think this one may have some legs…

Reading is Fundamental – on some level, you have to respect Karl Rove. No, not on any human levels, but on the way he can mold those around him into saying and doing stupid things (kind of like a balder, fatter, more evil version of Satan). His influence was apparent again last week when his attorney uttered this brilliant quip about the Valerie Plame lawsuit: " The allegations are without merit. We may comment further when we have an opportunity to review the complaint."

The quote truly sums up the Bush administration – a group of douchebags who came to power after recognizing that genuine knowledge is overrated, and reading is for pussy, commie liberals.

A sanctified solution – whenever someone opines that "homosexuals threaten the institution of marriage", I counter by saying that the sanctity of what my marriage is less threatened by gay relationships than by the 50% of straight couples who get divorced. Now, Representative Lincoln Davis (D-TN) has come up with an interesting – albeit tongue-in-cheek – solution:

If the sanctity of marriage is to be preserved, Davis deadpanned, Congress should "outlaw divorce" and make adultery "a felony." In addition, Davis said, "We should prevent those who commit adultery or get a divorce from running an office. Mr. Speaker, this House must lead by example. If we want those watching on C-SPAN to actually believe that we're serious about protecting marriage, then we should go after the other major threats to the institution."

Shit, its logic like this that's going to give Congress a good name again. Someone needs to stop this Davis character.

Better late than never? Representative Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), once one of the House's staunches supporters of Dubya's Folly (ooh, I like that one. Can I trademark it?), now is expressing doubts.

Gutknecht learned during his visit to Iraq that Baghdad is a "serious problem" and "worse today than it was three years ago." Another of Gutknecht's breaking-news discoveries: "We learned it's not safe to go anywhere outside of the Green Zone any part of the day."

It shouldn't take a trip to Baghdad to learn these things; anyone reading any reputable newspaper over the past year would have already known everything that Gutknecht just found out. So why didn't he? Gutknecht says he has been at the receiving end of faulty "spin" from the Bush administration, including claims that the violence in Iraq was being caused by just a few hundred insurgents. "All of the information we receive sometimes from the Pentagon and the State Department isn't always true," he says.

…Gutknecht says that if conditions don't improve quickly in Iraq, "Americans are going to start to losing faith in this thing."

I tell you, if Gutknecht ever loses his seat in the House, I will be the first to nominate him for the largely ceremonial position of Captain Obvious. What's next, Gil? "Yellow snow tastes like pee"? Thanks for the insight, dickwad.

Reason for hope – instead of being Peter Pessimism all the time, here's some reason for hope that our county – and lives – may be better after the November elections. This story includes news that PatRoW's favorite Land of the Lost-turned admiral-turned congressional candidate may actually unseat a GOP incumbent. Good times.

How much for that global profiteering in the window?

With its foolish tax cuts and massive, conspiratorial campaigns against the American public, one would think the Bush administration had no real expenditures to worry about. Yeah…uh…not exactly.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released a new report that says costs of fighting the "global war on terror" may be escalating out of control:

... the military is spending about $8 billion a month on Operation Iraqi Freedom and about $1.5 billion on Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. That is about $2 billion more per month than in fiscal 2005 and about $4 billion more than in fiscal 2004.

It was previously believed that the military's operating costs would sharply drop when major combat operations ended. But the continued pace of anti-insurgency operations, higher fuel costs and continued improvements in force protection gear and body armor in an effort to protect troops against increasingly powerful roadside bomb attacks have altered that mind-set. Wear and tear on military equipment that must be repaired or replaced and costs to train Iraq and Afghanistan security forces are other factors in the increase, the report says.

As usual, Salon puts the mess in proper perspective:

Before the Iraq war began, then White House budget director Mitch Daniels suggested that the total cost would be between $50 billion and $60 billion, and he dismissed an estimate of $200 billion as being at the "upper end of a hypothetical." To his credit, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said before the war that the ultimate cost was "not knowable." That's still a pretty accurate description, especially with the president clinging to a timeline-free, stand-up, stand-down policy. But the CRS says that even assuming substantial troop drawdowns in the near future, the cost of the two wars could exceed $800 billion by 2016.

That's right – EIGHT HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS! But hey, at least no one is profiting from this clusterfuck, right?

Quick Hits – a ‘new republic’ or the same old shit?

Prime Choice – TNR suggests that Al Gore is the Democrats' best bet to take back the White House in 2008. I realize that The New Republic is liberal in the Lieberman sense of the word, but when exactly did it become a shill for the GOP? Seriously, the only thing that would give Karl Rove a bigger hard on than a Gore nomination (and by "bigger" I mean 4 inches instead of 3 ½) would be a Gore-Hillary ticket.

Trash Talk: Why Ann Coulter really is the most hated woman in America – didn't we answer this already? (hint, Pig Latinos call her untkay)

Tony Award – billed as "How one of the Iraq war's most tragic figures got it right", the piece should really have been described as "Tony Blair really isn't Bush's whipping boy – I promise". Really? Let's take a look:

Blair…is articulating a coherent, desperately needed vision for the post-cold-war, post-September 11 world. It is a vision deeply rooted in the liberal tradition--and fundamentally different from that of George W. Bush.

…From America's preaching about human rights while it operates Guantánamo Bay to its demand for tougher nonproliferation rules while it builds a whole new class of nukes (not for deterrence but for potential battlefield use)--this is the basic contradiction at the heart of Bush's foreign policy. And Blair, as gently as he can, has been pointing it out. "There is a hopeless mismatch," he declared last month at Georgetown University, "between the global challenges we face and the global institutions to confront them. After the Second World War, people realized that there needed to be a new international institutional architecture. In this new era, in the early twenty-first century, we need to renew it."

To build that new architecture, Blair proposed empowering the U.N. secretary-general to respond rapidly to emerging humanitarian crises, before the next Bosnia or Darfur spins out of control. He proposed revamping the Security Council to include India, Germany, and Japan--so it better reflects the power realities of today. He urged fundamental reform of the International Monetary Fund. He proposed an international uranium bank that makes peaceful nuclear power easier and nuclear proliferation harder. And he called for a powerful U.N. environmental organization to coordinate dramatic action on global warming.

And then Blair turned the knife. "What's the obstacle" to such efforts, he asked? "It is that, in creating more effective multilateral institutions, individual nations yield up some of their own independence. This is a hard thing to swallow.... But the [alternative is] ... ad hoc coalitions for action that stir massive controversy about legitimacy or paralysis in the face of crisis. No amount of institutional change will ever work unless the most powerful make it work."

That line about illegitimate "ad hoc coalitions": that's Iraq. "Paralysis in the face of crisis": Darfur. And the "most powerful" without whom such efforts will never work: He's talking about the USA.

Hmm…does this mean Blair needs to come off the list? And why the hell was a 5-paragraph, 350-word passage included in a post named "Quick Hits"? Like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, I'm afraid the world may never know.

Quick Hits: cancer, rape and genocide – Happy Friday everyone!

It's Friday, it's 10:30, it's time to party. Party on, Quick Hits. Party on, Garth.

Condoms Found to Block a Virus Harmful to Women – And it's not AIDS, the clap, herpes or anything sexy like that. Let me get this straight: as long as I can't catch cervical cancer – and I'm fairly confident I carry a life-long invulnerability – does that mean I wasted my oats-sowing years by wearing a bag? Stupid paranoid 1990s…

Cut 'n' run vs. lie 'n' die – it's headlines like this that get me hungry for Shake 'n' Bake. Or Steak 'n' Shake. Or Cheetos…I'm always hungry for Cheetos.

The facts are bad in Iraq. Karl Rove knows that. Dan Bartlett knows that. President Bush knows that. The American people know that. But as the New York Times is reporting this morning, that is not something anyone should admit in an election year:

"People who attended a series of high-level meetings this month between White House and Congressional officials say President Bush's aides argued that it could be a politically fatal mistake for Republicans to walk away from the war in an election year."

A "politically fatal" mistake? What about the actual human fatalities? The loss of human life is collateral damage, but the loss of power is the real tragedy, right?

Joking about rape to lighten the mood – call me old fashioned, but if you're going to allude to a tasteless and offensive joke, isn't it your journalistic duty to report said joke? Not that I find anything particularly engaging about the premise of raping a convent full of nuns, but still, I choose to reserve judgment until I hear the punch line.

Or I get petitioned by NOW. Those bitches dames ladies can work a picket line.

"President O'Reilly" would run Iraq "just like Saddam ran it" – I'll give you a second to clean up the mess you regurgitated after reading the words "President O'Reilly".

Better now? Good.

It seems that Bill O'Reilly is an unlikely fan of the management style of a certain deposed dictator. On his June 19 radio show, O'Reilly declared that if he were the president of Iraq, his constituents would find his approach to be a familiar one:

So because -- what you have here now is a tipping point in history. A tipping point in history. So you have to win the Iraq situation. Now, to me, they're not fighting it hard enough. See, if I'm president, I've got probably another 50-60,000 with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot 'em on sight. That's me. President O'Reilly, curfew in Ramadi, 7 o'clock at night. You're on the street, you're dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. OK?

That's how I'd run that country -- just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn't have explosions. He didn't have bombers, did he? Because if you got out of line, you're dead.

I tried a bunch of comments here, but nothing captured the arrogance, stupidity and irrelevance that is Bill O'Reilly. Well done, douche – you made my point for me.

Reading between the Lines

So I took another week plus off. Sue me. Can't a man go to Vegas, win lots of money, spend foolishly and debaucherously, lose lots of money, get limbs broken by burley goons and return home a shell of his former self? In my America he can!

Anyway, what better way to get back into the groove than by returning to an old PatRoW favorite – poking fun at a speech given by President Bush ! This was one he made yesterday, alongside Iraqi puppet Prime Minister Maliki (no, not that one – this guy apparently never pitched for the Mets):

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for this opportunity to visit with your cabinet. I have expressed our country's desire to work with you, but I appreciate you recognizing the fact that the future of this country is in your hands.

In other words, I'm taking credit for any success, but it's your fault if shit gets blown up.

The decisions you and your cabinet make will be determinate as to whether or not a country succeeds that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

As long as those decisions don't interefere with me and my cabinet. In that case, you can govern, sustain and defend your ass...but it won't much matter.

I'm impressed by the strength of your character and your desire to succeed. And I'm impressed by your strategy.

And I'm impressed by people who know their multiplication tables. Ain't it crazy about the number nine? Whenever you times it out, the numbers always add up to nine. I've got some geeks over at NASA trying to find an exception, but so far, nothing. I'm also impressed by fish – how do they hold their breath so long?

We discussed the security strategy. We discussed an economic strategy, a reconstruction strategy. And all of it makes sense to me.

The security strategy? Don't die. The economic strategy? Make more money. The reconstruction strategy? Build more buildings. If only an exit strategy was as simple…

And so I've come to not only look you in the eye…

Don't look him in the eye! Oh that's right…this isn't Cheney. I thought for a second we would have to call the prime minister Iraqi Pillar of Salt Maliki.

…I've also come to tell you that when America gives its word, it will keep its word.

Kinda like how a genie in a magic lamp keeps his word. You know, when you say "I want a big penis", he turns you into a horse or an over-the-hill drummer with Hepatitis C.

It's in our interests that Iraq succeed.

And when I say "our interests", of course I mean me and my buddies. And when I say "succeed", of course I mean line our pockets and pillage Iraq's natural resources. And when I say "hey" you say "ho".

It's not only in the interests of the Iraqi people, it's in the interests of the American people and for people who love freedom.

"People who love freedom"? This is Bush's version of calling someone "fun loving". Shit everyone loves freedom and everyone loves fun. Hitler thought genocide was fun – he was one crazy, fun-loving guy! Well guess what? Osama bin Laden loves freedom too – why else is he hiding from our forces in the Pakistani mountains? If he wasn't such a freedom lover, wouldn't he have already turned himself in?

Iraq is a part of the war on terror.

Some would say Iraq IS the war on terror. Or, you know, at least a distraction from the real war on terror.

And so, Mr. Prime minister, I want to thank you for giving me and my Cabinet a chance to hear from you personally and a chance to meet the members of this team you've assembled. It's an impressive group of men and women, and if given the right help, I'm convinced you will succeed.

They all know that they're just figureheads, right? Don't y'all go thinking about making any real plans now, ya hear? Remember, I'm the decider – except when Laura tells me I can't go outside in my Scooby Doo pajamas. She's good with decisions like that.

On Deck?

As the calendar brings us to June 2006, you surely know what political event is right around the corner? No, not mid-term congressional elections…I'm talking about the 2008 presidential campaign!

Senator Russ Feingold and Governor Mark Warner, two high-profile Democrats (and likely presidential candidates), were in New Hampshire over the weekend, speaking to and getting the rockstar treatment from the state's party convention (rockstar treatment meaning standing ovations and photo-ops, not lines of coke off of whore asses…though I wouldn't put it past that rascal Feingold). Notably absent was Hillary Clinton, who, though an extraordinarily competent politician, would do he party the most good by not challenging for the nomination.

Why are Feingold and Warner generating such early buzz? Salon suggests it is because they represent "the purist and pragmatic wings of the party".

Feingold has made other Democrats look timorous by championing withdrawal from Iraq and a Senate resolution censuring the president. Warner has emerged as the party's latest Southern white knight, the red-state dragon slayer who combines a sterling record as governor with an appealing business background as a mega-rich cellphone entrepreneur who helped found Nextel.

Sounds good, right? Perhaps if we get these two in front of the nation early, we can avoid a drawn out primary season filled with Democratic in-fighting. The problem is that Feingold may have a bit too much Dean in him to be a viable threat to carry battleground states in the Midwest, and Warner may not be different enough to truly bring the party back to its core values.

The Iraq war serves as a prime illustration of this yin-yang debate. Feingold in his speech was characteristically direct: "Why are so many Democrats too timid to say what everyone in America knows? It's time to redeploy the troops. It's time to bring the troops out of Iraq. I say bring them home by the end of the year."

"The new Iraqi government," Warner said, "has to …step up and disband the militias and try to bring about some level of stability. …The only way it can happen is if we involve the balance of the Iraqi neighbors. Bring them all to the table. Form some level of a Regional Contact Group, so this is no longer simply an American problem."

The Dean/Lieberman comparisons aside, the differences between the two candidates are more than, as Salon points out, a study in "dueling bumper stickers reading: 'Bring Our Troops Home for Xmas' and 'Form a Regional Contact Group – Now!'"

No, looking at Feingold and Warner today is really looking at the future of the Democratic Party. While Warner stands a much better chance of picking up support in swing states, Feingold is a more vocal bearer of liberal values. Is it worth sacrificing another presidential election to ensure that the party's core beliefs are represented in our candidate? I don't know, and I don't know if either guy can beat John McCain…but I guess we have 28 more months to figure things out.