TIME weighs in on the publicity stunt that was Operation Swarmer

Psyche! Who could have ever imagined that the Bush administration would lie to the mainstream media? Read More......

Friday Orchid Blogging

An assortment of orchids in the flower market in Amsterdam a few weeks back. Sigh.... Read More......

Florida Rested Cliff's Corner

The Week That Was 3/17/06

Another week. More preposterousness to report.

As regular readers are aware, I usually spend this hallowed space in Mr. Aravosis’ media empire pontificating about the comic personal failings of virtually every falafel-loving right-wing Republican. Fodder I do not lack, with Bill Bennett’s African-American obstetrics and Peggy Noonan pulsating like the Royal Mini-Mole every time George W. Bush puts on undergarments a bit tight on the sack.

But I must tell you that this week my disgust extends to this whole mess we dub representative government here in the swampy Potomac. Let’s start with the obvious. President Bush is at 33% in the new poll taken by The Pew Research Center, which puts him slightly above amoebic dysentery and just below Dick Cheney’s smile. Il Duce could have mustered more support while hanging in Piazza Loreto. Yet, my favorite part of the Pew survey is that when asked to use words to describe our very own Il Puké, those most often mentioned were “incompetent,” “idiot” and “liar.”

I guess they didn’t test douche bag.

So Russ Feingold, who is one of the most principled and consistent individuals to serve in the world’s most degenerative body (voted for Ashcroft as AG and Roberts for the Supreme Court mind you), actually had the courage to stand up for his convictions and propose something long overdue: a resolution to censure President Bush over his illegal domestic wiretapping program. And you know what, a majority of voters support Mr. Feingold’s position.

Yet, Democrats, and I know this is shocking, are running for the hills. This isn’t impeachment boys and girls. It is censure. We know that impeachment is only for Democrats who get blowjobs while Republican Speakers of the House are cheating on their second wife—the one they married after serving divorce papers to their cancer-stricken hospital-bound first wife—with a Capitol Hill Aide who needs to purchase two seats on Southwest. I don’t think I’d support impeachment, as unlike Ken Starr, Tom DeLay and The Gang, I have respect for democracy, and think that however much of a criminal Bush is, impeaching two Presidents in a row would be a dangerous precedent. Plus you’d just end up with a president who on Thanksgiving would take out the pardoned turkey with a Glock 9.

But Democrats can’t even stand up on censure? We have a videotape showing the man lied about Katrina. We have memos showing he lied about Iraq. He tried to put a woman on the Supreme Court who looks like a genetic splice of Mitch McConnell and a shitzu. And now he gets away with illegal wiretapping too?

And I am not even going to mention any role for so-called moderate Republicans here. Because Specter, Snowe, Warner and the rest of you “moderates” are such a disgrace to the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, Nelson Rockefeller and Bob Michel that we’d all be better off if you just pulled your taints over your heads until further notice. Memo to Christie Todd Whitman: For once that walking exoskeletal goiter Ann Coulter got something right you “birdbrain.” It’s not your party anymore! Comprende? It's this guy's party.

But where are the Democrats? You know the party who fought to pass Social Security, Medicare and won two world wars? You want to read a book on where they are? Try reading my friend David Sirota’s excellent new tome Hostile Takeover, which will dismay you while providing an enlightening description of the problem.

So get ready to invade Iran with our Bonus Army any time our president has a particularly irritating bowel movement. And watch as these jokers on the right handover airport terminal security to Azerbaijan, keep blocking port-security funding and provide our troops with as much protection as Ken Mehlman at a party thrown by Max from the L Word. Because if they can’t stand with Feingold at this moment, I’m not really sure they’ll ever have the courage to stand up to a president who is making James Buchanan look like Abraham Lincoln. Read More......

The Washington Post responds regarding labeling blogs "the liberal base of the Democratic party," and they still don't get it

We got a response from the Washington Post regarding our criticism of their labeling the entire liberal blogosphere "the liberal base" of the Democratic party. It was posted on the Post's blog yesterday.

The Post's response was, basically, that we are the liberal base of the party because they say we are. Let me share their logic, then analyze:

I couldn't help but notice a great deal of huffing and puffing at AmericaBlog over the lead sentence of the Post's A1 news story on Feingold's resolution: "For months the Democrats have resisted calls from their liberal base to more aggressively challenge President Bush." John in DC charges that "liberal base" was just taken out of thin air, and that in fact not just liberal Democrats but all Democrats and many independents "have had it with Bush."

Okay, Post's opening paragraph is fine. Now on to the second paragraph:

Okay, let's review. I think it's fair to say that the one thing just about everyone (except Congressional Democrats) agrees on is that the Democrats haven't aggressively challenged much of anything in years ... other than the innocuous ports deal, and that was an easy target.

Again, the second paragraph is fine. Yes, we all can agree, liberals, conservatives and independents that the Dems have not aggressively challenged much of anything. An obvious point, but one I agree with.

Now for the next paragraph:

Even devotees of AmericaBlog -- which itself has often called for the Democrats to get more aggressive -- would agree that it is true that the liberal base, of which the AmericaBloggers are a part, has indeed been frustrated at the Democrats' inefficacy. Even granting that others have also called for more action against Bush from the Democrats, it is nonetheless accurate to say that the liberal base has been doing so for months (at least).

Well that didn't take long.

The Post "proves" that the left-wing blogosphere is the "liberal base of the Democratic party" by simply recycling the accusation as fact. The writer simply repeats the charge that "AmericaBloggers are a part" of the liberal base of the party, and we're to accept that as proof.

The Post writer also seems to imply a number of other proofs, including:

1. If you are upset that the Democrats do not more aggressively challenge the Republicans, then that makes you a member of the liberal base of the Democratic party.

Funny, but I'd have thought that simply makes you a Democrat, an independent, or 60-some percent of the American people who are upset with the direction the country is headed. How does that define the liberal base of the Democratic party? Is the Post saying that other Democrats are not upset that their party isn't fighting back against Republicans? That's crazy.

2. The Post argues that the liberal base of the Democratic party has been frustrated at the party's inaction.

Yeah, so? How does that prove that blogs are a part of the liberal base? Because we're frustrated too? So if the liberal base is frustrated, and AMERICAblog is frustrated, then that makes AMERICAblog part of the liberal base?

If that's the Post's logic, then the paper needs a little lesson in 8th grade math, the one where you learn about sets and subsets. According to the Post, I am an American and I am of Greek descent, my neighbor is also an American so he MUST be of Greek descent (even though he's really Italian). It doesn't work that way in logic-land. Just because I share a trait with another group does not necessarily make me a member of that group.

Yes, the liberal base is angry at Bush and the party. But you'd have to be living under a rock to think that those are traits unique to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Most Americans in recent polls are angry, disapprove, whatever of Bush, and most Americans likely think the Democratic party isn't very aggressive. So, according to the Post, that proves that most of America is a member of the liberal base of the Democratic party? According to the Washington Post's logic, yes.

3. Then we get the next line of logical attack from the Post.

And why is AmericaBlog so offended anyway? After all, those on the political left often insist that "liberal is not a dirty word..."

A few points.

First, here at AMERICAblog, we like facts and disdain just making shit up. Call that our own personal bias, if you will. So, yes, we are not big fans of the Washington Post just labeling our politics as representative of the far-left of the Democratic party, when in fact that is simply not true.

Second, to respond to the second part of the quote above, it isn't relevant whether I think the misnomer you're using to describe me is a positive misnomer or not - the fact remains that you are describing me as something I am not. For example, I like Italians, a lot. But don't call me Italian, because I'm Greek. And it has nothing to do with my not embracing my inner Italian - I'm Greek. No matter how much I love Italians, nor how many times you continue to label me an Italian, nothing is going to change the fact that I am not.

Another logical fallacy of the Post is how they jump from the use of the word "liberal" to the phrase "liberal base of the Democratic party."

Did you notice how she lumped the two ideas together? I thought liberals liked the word liberal, she says - so what's the problem, why don't you like to be called "the liberal base"? The problem is that the word liberal is synonymous with Democrat and progressive, it is not synonymous with "liberal base of the Democratic party," which only applies to one wing of liberalism. I am a liberal, in many ways (and in some ways I am not - for example, I am not per se anti-war), but just because I may be a liberal, that does not make me part of the liberal base of the Democratic party.

You see, and I know this is kind of the hard part to understand for the Washington Post, but in English, the same word can have various nuanced meanings when used in different ways.

I know, kind of shocking isn't it. Who could have imagined that entire fields of expertise are devoted to using words correctly to communicate with the masses?

So to reiterate: "Liberal" means left, progressive, Democrat; "liberal base" means one specific wing of the overall group of lefties, progressives or Democrats (to use the math example, "liberal base" is a subset of "liberal"). They're not the same thing.

4. The Post then concludes by reiterating the same charge with no proof, like they've somehow already proven that we're the liberal base:

The Post story's lead simply recognizes the liberal base for what it is -- a force that has been demanding its leaders stand up to the president, and finally someone's listening. Shouldn't they be proud?

I believe Atrios recently referred to this back and forth with the mainstream media as something akin to trying to educate children. The level of logic you need to sink to is so low and so basic that in any circle of society that includes people beyond the age of, say, 8, you'd be looked down on for even condescending to explain such things.

I have no idea who this Washington Post blogger is, but her logic is indicative of the larger problem with the traditional media today. They don't believe in facts, and haven't been schooled in logic. They simply don't know how to think.

Ad you don't need to be a liberal to figure that out. Read More......

Cong. Boehlert is retiring

One of the few non-theocratic GOP members of Congress is calling it quits:

Boehlert, 69, leads a small moderate GOP faction in Congress that has clashed with President Bush over such issues as global warming and spending for social programs.

In recent years, that faction won some hard-fought legislative victories, but those battles have not endeared Boehlert to some powerful House Republicans.

Boehlert has also defended scientists when their professional opinions have drawn heat from administration policy-makers.

His seat should be a Democratic pick-up. Read More......

Worst. President. Ever.

NYT

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Thursday that given Mr. Bush's record, "I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had."

Read More......

"Operative Swarmer" revealed to be nothing more than a media stunt

Gee, what a surprise. George Bush used our soldiers in harm's way as a publicity stunt, yet spun it to the American people as a real all-out attack, biggest since the war began, they told us.

The man is an incompetent liar. His strategy on Iraq is to lie to the American people repeatedly until you believe him, simply because he's tricked you.

The man is dangerous.

From Chris Albritton of TIME, someone I met last summer, a fascinating guy:

“Operation Swarmer” is really a media show. It was designed to show off the new Iraqi Army — although there was no enemy for them to fight. Every American official I’ve heard has emphasized the role of the Iraqi forces just days before the third anniversary of the start of the war. That said, one Iraqi role the military will start highlighting in the next few days, I imagine, is that of Iraqi intelligence. It was intel from the Iraqi military intelligence and interior ministry that the U.S. says prompted this Potemkin operation. And it will be the Iraqi intel that provides the cover for American military commanders to throw up their hands and say, “well, we thought bad guys were there.”

It’s hard to blame the military, however. Stations like Fox and CNN have really taken this and ran with it, with fancy graphics and theme music. The generals here also are under tremendous pressure to show off some functioning Iraqi troops before the third anniversary, and I won’t fault them for going into a region loaded for bear. After all, the Iraqi intelligence might have been right!

But Operation Overblown should raise serious questions about how good Iraqi intelligence is. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by earnest lieutenants that the Iraqis are valiant and necessary partners, “because they know the area, the people and the customs.” But when I spoke to grunts and NCOs, however, they usually gave me blunter — and more colorful — reasons why the Iraqi intelligence was often, shall we say, useless. Tribal rivalries and personal feuds are still a major why Iraqis drop a dime on their neighbors.

So I guess it’s fitting that on the eve of the third anniversary of a war launched on — oh, let’s be generous — “faulty” intelligence, a major operation is hyped and then turns out to be less than what it appeared because of … faulty intelligence.

Read More......

Mid-day Open Thread

What a week. Never a dull moment. Read More......

Anti-GOP tidal wave developing?

That's what Charlie Cook is predicting we learn via NBC's First Read (the actual column isn't freely available on-line yet):

In his weekly National Journal column, NBC political analyst Charlie Cook notes that by "almost every relevant measurement, national polls indicate that Republicans are at least as bad off as Democrats at this point in 1994, before suffering devastating midterm losses... On Election Day, the GOP tidal wave turned out to be a lot stronger than anticipated, and a 52-seat House gain... went into the record book. Today's national data forecast an anti-GOP tidal wave. Will it be large enough to wipe out structural advantages that benefit the Republicans?"

A tidal wave can do a lot of structural damage. And, the way the Hill GOPers are scurrying around, it's clear they are worried. The key question is whether the Democrats can capitalize on all of this. Read More......

NYC St. Pat's Parade leader compares gays and lesbians to neo-nazis, KKK and prostitutes

Happy St. Patrick's Day from the gay-bashing Irish leaders in NYC.

New York's City Council Speaker, Christine Callahan Quinn, who is both Irish and a lesbian, won't march in the annual NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade and I say, good for her. The parade organizers are a bunch of hateful bigots who will not allow Ms. Quinn to acknowledge that she's a lesbian. The hate rhetoric coming from the parade leader is worthy of the worst haters in America:

Ms. Quinn's decision came as John Dunleavy, the parade chairman, touched off a new controversy by comparing Irish gay activists to neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. In an interview yesterday in The Irish Times, Mr. Dunleavy was quoted as saying, "If an Israeli group wants to march in New York, do you allow neo-Nazis into their parade? If African-Americans are marching in Harlem, do they have to let the Ku Klux Klan into their parade?"

The print edition of this article in today's NY Times also includes this paragraph which does not appear in the on-line version:

He added that "people have rights," and that if the parade allowed Irish gay men and lesbians, "is the Irish Prostitute Association next?"

In one interview, Dunleavy compared gays and lesbians to neo-nazis, the KKK and prostitutes. Makes one proud to be Irish.

Chris Quinn is a class act. She's handling this issue with dignity. The same can't be said of Mr. Dunleavy. He may run a stupid parade once a year, but she's the second most powerful person in the largest city in America. Read More......

New GOP Hill Spin: We never really liked him

This is almost comical. Last night, Bush was at a love-fest fundraiser with the National Republican Campaign Committee. The Republicans on the Hill have rarely questioned anything Bush did. They just did what he wanted with no oversight. And, he raised them money and campaigned for them. It's been a mutually beneficial relationship to enact their destructive agenda.

Yet, today, Jim Vandehei dutifully reports a new spin from the GOPers on the Hill -- they never really liked Bush....ever...from the beginning even:

President Bush's troubles with congressional Republicans, which erupted during the backlash to the Dubai seaport deal, are rooted in policy frustrations and personal resentments that GOP lawmakers say stretch back to the opening days of the administration.

For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them. Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy.

Sure, now those Republicans are running like rats from the sinking presidency of George Bush. But to pretend they've had issues all along is just bull.

House and Senate GOP members have been lapdogs for Bush. They never acted like an independent branch of government. His wish was their command. They did as instructed. Now, they're saying "yes, we did it, but we didn't like it." If the GOPers on the Hill claim they didn't really like Bush, maybe the public won't hold it against them at the polls now that W is tanking.

It's hard to decide what's more pathetic -- the GOPs feeble attempt to create distance with Bush or Vandehei and the Washington Post actually believing it. Read More......

Bush urges GOP to continue agenda of dangerous incompetence

The Prez spoke at the big fundraiser for the House Republicans last night. Apparently, he gave a rah-rah speech about the future:

"I can stand up here and tell you that we have delivered results for the American people, and we've got an agenda to continue to do so," Bush said.

The American people are in actual danger for their lives if Bush and the GOP are allowed to continue their reign of incompetence. We can't afford them delivering more results like Iraq and Katrina. Read More......

Open thread

Bedtime. Read More......