Archive for the ‘No More Neocons’ Category

Bravado with a Side of Homophobia

Wednesday, September 19th, 2012

…and a heaping helping of sexism.

North Carolina congressional candidate and state senator David Rouzer, speaking to a Tea Party Express rally on Sunday:

ROUZER: When we get [Romney and Ryan] in you are going to see a big change, you’re going to see number one that America is going to be respected again around the world. You’re going to see all this turmoil that’s taking place, you’re going to see them look up and say guess what, the American people have spoken and maybe we need to cut it out a little bit, maybe we need to tone it down a little bit, because now we have real men in the White House.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No girly men!

ROUZER: That’s right, no girly men.

Is he saying all the men in the Obama White House are gay? Well, that would put him way out into tinfoil hat territory with the far electronic cigarette usa right nuts who think happily married President Obama is secretly a coke-snorting homo who’s had some of his ex-lovers killed. No, I’m not going to link; these people don’t need any more attention. Perhaps he simply thinks the men are sissies. Which, of course, makes them too much like women, and we can’t have that.

Steve M. has written quite a bit lately about the fever dreams of some right-wingers who see themselves as the heroes in an apocalypse they seem to crave. I’m sure Mr. Rouzer sees himself as one of the he-men leading the charge toward war with Iran or any other country that irritates him, kicking them into submission and walking away with only a few manly scratches.

Personally, if I had to choose someone to lead the charge against an oncoming apocalypse, it wouldn’t be Mr. Rouzer. It would be a girl. This girl:


h/t Think Progress

Dick Cheney Writing a Tell-All Book

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

That’s not a headline I ever thought I’d write. The Washington Post is reporting that Cheney is hard at work on a memoir and has “opened a second front against Cheney’s White House partner of eight years, George W. Bush.”

Cheney’s disappointment with the former president surfaced recently in one of the informal conversations he is holding to discuss the book with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues. By habit, he listens more than he talks, but Cheney broke form when asked about his regrets.

“In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him,” said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney’s reply. “He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney’s advice. He’d showed an independence that Cheney didn’t see coming. It was clear that Cheney’s doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.”

In particular, Cheney is angry because “Bush halted the waterboarding of accused terrorists, closed secret CIA prisons, sought congressional blessing for domestic surveillance, and reached out diplomatically to Iran and North Korea, which Cheney believed to be ripe for “regime change,” and refused to pardon Scooter Libby.

Some old associates see Cheney’s newfound openness as a breach of principle. For decades, he expressed contempt for departing officials who wrote insider accounts, arguing that candid internal debate was impossible if the president and his advisers could not count on secrecy. As far back as 1979, one of the heroes in Lynne Cheney’s novel “Executive Privilege” resolved never to write a memoir because “a president deserved at least one person around him whose silence he could depend on.” Cheney lived that vow for the next 30 years.

I guess it’s only “executive privilege” when you don’t want to talk about it.  Ah well.  The book could be an interesting read.  But I do wonder if, like some sort of reverse Book of Shadows, only the evil will be able to touch it.

See Ya, W

Monday, January 19th, 2009

Preferably in court.

Patty Griffin says it better than I ever could, even though I seriously doubt she was thinking of W when she wrote this:

To the end of the Earth, I’ll search for your face
For the one who laid all of our beauty to waste
Threw our hope into Hell and our children into the fire
I am the one who crawled through the wire
I am the one who crawled through the wire

There’s a million sad stories on the side of the road
Strange how we all just got used to the blood
Millions of stories that’ll never be told
Silent and froze in the mud
Silent and froze in the mud

I know a cold as cold as it gets
I know a darkness that’s darker than cold
A wind that blows as cold as it gets
Blew out the light of my soul
Blew out the light of my soul

I dream in my sleep, I dream in my days
Of some sunny street not so far away
Where up in a window a curtain will sway
And you and I’ll meet down below
You and I’ll meet down below

I know a cold as cold as it gets
I fight a war, I may never see one
I live only to see you live to regret
Everything that you done
Everything that you done
Everything that you done.

Bush for Congress? Just Say No!

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

Steve Coronella at the Christian Science Monitor thinks he has hit on a great idea for George W. Bush’s next career — Congressman.  He suggests W look to the example of John Quincy Adams, another legacy president, who served in the House of Representatives after losing a re-election bid in 1828.


MoveOn’s Ad Is Not the Problem!

Tuesday, September 25th, 2007

Exhibit A:

David Shuster points out a little problem with Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s (R-TN) MoveOn obsession (partial transcript via Crooks & Liars):

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn:”The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh – from my district I – I do not know his name -”

Shuster: “Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I – I, you know, I – I do not know why I did not know the name…” [Snip]

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and Move” [Snip]

Shuster: “But don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad — when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

Bumper Stickers and Other Fun Stuff

Friday, September 7th, 2007

Tired of seeing those black W stickers — the few that remain, anyway?  Would you like to express your opinion of the Dear Leader?  Now you can:



Like what you see?  Purchase your own bumper stickers at  They make nice companions for your Brite Blue Dots.  BTW, the folks at BBD have a new refrigerator magnet that is priceless!


The Terror Presidency

Wednesday, September 5th, 2007

It’s not surprising when political opponents criticize the Bush administration.  Actually, it’s not surprising when any rational human being criticizes the Bush administration.  But we’re seeing more and more allies, or at least former allies, speaking up, unwilling to shoulder the blame for disastrous decisions and policies that they disagreed with or actually fought against while they were employed by said administration.

Thus a new book by Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, entitled The Terror Presidency.  The Office of Legal Counsel advises the president on the limits of executive power, and when Goldsmith was brought in as head in October 2003, he brought impressive legal credentials and a conservative outlook that should have, in theory, guaranteed his support for Bush’s tactics in the War on Terrortm. Instead, Goldsmith resigned nine months later to protest ongoing constitutional excesses, specifically timing his departure to coincide with his withdrawal of a March 2003 opinion regarding interrogation of aliens held outside the United States.

The contents of that memo remain classified, but it’s the companion to John Yoo’s August 2002 torture memo (which defined torture as pain “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or even death”), and Goldsmith considered both of them to be “tendentious, overly broad, and legally flawed”. Goldsmith withdrew the opinion in June 2004, a week after Yoo’s memo was leaked. He had also withdrawn Woo’s memo and several other opinions that he won’t discuss. He basically gave the administration a choice: accept the withdrawal and let him leave quietly or fight it and turn his resignation into a big news story.

David Addington, former legal counsel to Dick Cheney and now his chief of staff, had been involved in almost every national security discussion Goldsmith had with then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and he was predictably enraged by Goldsmith’s temerity, having told him in the past:

“The President has already decided that terrorists do not receive Geneva Convention protections. You cannot question his decision,” when Goldsmith determined that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which addresses civilian protections in war zones, also applied to terrorists and insurgents.


“If you rule that way, the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands,” when Goldsmith questioned another Bush decision.

Go read the preview in the New York Times magazine.  Goldsmith’s description of the Card/Gonzales visit to John Ashcroft’s hospital room is priceless.

Private War

Monday, August 27th, 2007

There’s been some attention in the blogosphere this weekend to an AP article detailing government punishment of whistleblowers –we’re talking military confinement and “aggressive” interrogation techniques, not lost jobs. It’s a must-read, but I’d suggest starting with some more background first, in particular “The Great Iraq Swindle”, which details the corruption and profiteering that has gone on from day one in Iraq.

If you’ve read Imperial Life in the Emerald City, or even the excerpts that were published elsewhere, you already know part of the story, but the articles referenced above pick up where it left off. Private contractors have made a fortune off the backs of the American people and to the detriment of our military, and they walk away with no accountability for the millions they’ve stolen or the lives they’ve destroyed.  Meanwhile those who try to bring public attention to the corruption find themselves in the line of fire.

Go read, but I don’t recommend eating first.  This will make you ill.

Saturday Cartoon

Saturday, August 25th, 2007


Ari Fleischer Flogging “Stay the Course”

Thursday, August 23rd, 2007

I saw former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer on Hardball yesterday, fronting for the new $15,000,000 pro-war ad campaign sponsored by the White House, er, I mean some group called Freedom’s Watch.  The group is targeting Republicans (and a few Democrats) who are wavering in their support for Bush’s never-ending war in Iraq, and it doesn’t hesitate to twist the truth to whip them back in line.

Guest host Mike Barnicle started the interview by showing one of the ads, which features an amputee veteran who says he re-enlisted after 9/11 because “they attacked us, and they will again; they won’t stop in Iraq”, with the obligatory shot of the burning twin towers in the background — just in case anyone missed the verbal attempt to blame Iraq for 9/11.  He tells us we’re making good progress on the ground and that this is no time for politics.  Yeah, right.  Because there’s nothing political whatsoever about these ads.

Barnicle challenged Fleischer, asking him how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq (the answer is none, in case you didn’t already know).  Fleischer came back with some crap about how this isn’t about the 2002 debate anymore but about dealing with terrorists in Iraq now.  See, pointing out the ads’ false connection between Iraq and 9/11 means Barnicle is stuck in the stale 2001-2002 debate over Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.  I guess Ari’s hoping we’ve forgotten how he assured us back in 2003 that the administration had “evidence and information” of Saddam’s WMDs.

“There is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.”

When Barnicle asked him about the decimation of our military and whether an ongoing war would necessitate a draft, Fleischer tried to equate the mess in Iraq with World War II.  Barnicle countered by pointing out that Franklin Roosevelt had asked the country to sacrifice during WWII, while Bush had only asked us to shop.  Ari said we all sacrifice each time a soldier dies, which is true in a metaphysical sense, but it certainly doesn’t address the cut-taxes-for-the-wealthy, borrow-and-spend policies that are turning our country into a wholly-owned subsidiary of China.

Asked for a definition of “winning”, Fleischer said we will have won when the military tells us it’s time to come home.  Does it have to be unanimous?  Because the neocons will always be able to find one “commander on the ground” who will toe the party line. 

Freedom’s Watch certainly picked a great spinner, er, spokesman in Ari Fleischer.  He’s just the person I would trust to tell the truth about the situation in Iraq.  (That’s sarcasm, btw.)


Here’s an interesting side note:  The Freedom’s Watch ads include a toll-free number and encourage constituents to contact their representatives in Congress.  When blogger Taylor Marsh called, she discovered that there’s a screening process in place and only those who support the Iraq war are actually connected.  What a surprise.