Progressive Programmer

Progressive Politics or idle geek banter. What's on my mind when I'm irked, intrigued, bored or up too late.

Location: Michigan, United States


Be very afraid... of Republican Politicization of Terror

Olbermann has updated his Nexus of Politics and Terror, which I have linked to several times in the past, including my post on the theater of the UK announcement. Olbermann's newest piece *includes* the UK Liquid Bomb hullabaloo.

Like Olbermann says, 'please judge for yourself'.

Via Raw Story, where they include a transcript.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Embolden bolden bolden, keep them doggies rollin'

Arianna sticks the landing (emphasis added):

... So do Cheney/Rove/Mehlman really believe that 60 percent of the public are blame-America-firsters? Or that because 60 percent of us agree that Iraq is a disaster, we somehow don't have "the will" to, in Cheney's words, "stay in the fight and complete the task" of taking on the terrorists -- and thus are encouraging al Qaeda types?

Of course not. They know being against the war in Iraq doesn't mean you are against fighting the war on terror. It means you are against a failed policy that has created more terrorists than it has killed, that has cost America 2,591 lives and $305 billion dollars, that has thrown Iraq into a bloody sectarian civil war, and that has so lessened our standing abroad that we are unable to be a real power broker in an exploding Middle East.

You want to know what really emboldens our enemies? It's not Ned Lamont beating Joe Lieberman; it's the idea of an impotent United States so over-extended and bogged down in Iraq that it has been pushed to the diplomatic sidelines.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Mystery Politics Theater 3000

My post yesterday was cross-posted at Kos, and at least one commenter didn't appreciate my insinuation. There was a ginormous thread on Kos originally meant to deride any conspiracy theories that might leap from the announcement of the UK/US flight terror bust. I think a number of people were upset that folks tend to leap to thinking 'conspiracy' whenever any event unfolds, and that such talk can degrade the level of debate. I agree to a point. Another thread tried to draw the distinction between conspiracy and hype, and I lean more towards the latter

My reaction to the commenter on my post was that while I do not suspect--and certainly can not prove--anything about whether the timing of the event was politically motivated to play well for Republicans two days after Lieberman's loss and just inside of three months from the election, that the *theater* of the entire thing was too much. That any time I wake up in the morning to Chertoff and Gonzalez doing their best vaudeville, I am trained to naturally assume that the political wing of the Administration had a say in the theatrics of the event.

Americablog leads us to AFP's Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot

Snow said Bush first learned in detail about the plot on Friday, and received two detailed briefings on it on Saturday and Sunday, as well as had two conversations about it with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism....


But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains....

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

Americablog points us next to the DCCC's timeline of events unfolding.

Bushco had five days to plan for this. And they used it. That is why my previous post had two pumpkins holding a press conference, trying to scare up some support in the polls by committing the IOKIYAR sin of politicizing the war on terror.

So I'll point back to Olbermann's "The Nexus of Politics and Terror" once more, and allow the reader to reach their own 'suspicions'.

I'm glad this plot was foiled, but that doesn't reduce my disdain for those that would use it to try to scare me into voting for them.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Red Alert! -- Cue thunder, CUE THUNDER!

We can all be certain that the latest terror alert news has nothing whatsoever to do with the upcoming election, Halloween, or the fact that the Lieberman loss on Tuesday was seen by the GOP as a very bad sign of the incredible lack of confidence in the Administration and its policies. I know I will.

Here, we see Chertoff and Gonzalez announcing the news...

Instead, we should all be dutifully afraid and look to Daddy GOP to protect us from the boogeyman while trying desperately to forget about the thousands of boogeymen their policies in the Middle East have given birth to.

We should also remember to be good citizens by forgetting that Iraq has distracted us from our original enemy and our original goal, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. So long as they remain free and we remain distracted in Iraq, the boogeyman can and will be used against us.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


You can't triple stamp a double stamp, Lloyd.

Imagine if the rules of a single elimination tournament allowed a team to switch schools after they lost in order to jump to the final round. Joe Lieberman says it's a-ok. He doesn't really like democracy much anyway. Unless he wins.

Joe Lieberman:

The three-term incumbent said he had a duty to his state, his party and his nation to run. ā€œI can not and will not let that result stand,ā€ he declared.

Um, Joe? Duty to your party would mean accepting defeat in the primary and not running against the winner. To say that turning around and trying to defeat the rightful winner of the Primary by running as an 'Independent' in the general is the definition of 'the opposite' of duty to Party. It goes *against* the very Party you have tried to prove your loyalty to for the last several months as Lamont gained ground on you.

You are a lying, self-righteous punk that is about to be like Kryptonite to every Democrat from whom you would request an endorsement, and you deserve it.

Good riddance.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Ohmygod, all of Connecticut Hacked!

Or, maybe the bunk-ass web server they're using can't hack it on high-traffic days. I'm trying to get the Democratic primary results for CT-Sen, and I seem to be alternating between this error and one where there is no available Crystal Reports license.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Nice job, CT. Maybe you should all blame Lamont and his army of super blogofascists.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Insert Obscure Literary/Television/Film Reference Here

I haven't been much of a fan of Dennis Miller for a while now. At one point in the mid-late 90s, I would *never* miss an episode. I would try and call in every week. He made me laugh hysterically.

After the Monday Night Football fiasco, and then that disastrous run on CNBC w/ the Monkey, he totally lost me. And he seemed to lose his sense of humor about everything, most-especially politics. Any humorist/satirist should feel willing and able to poke fun at politicians on *both* sides of the aisle.

By landing himself on Fox, in the same hour as Sean Hannity, Miller has indeed hit rock bottom. I highly doubt Hannity and Fox will allow him to crack wise about the Right anywhere near as much as he rips up the Left.

He has completed his arc from SNL Weekend Update icon, to a pioneer of the HBO live comedian guest-fest (now made better and more-interesting by Politically Incorrect martyr Bill Maher), to painfully Super-crappy NFL Commentator, to CNBC Monkey Sidekick, to Fox News Sean Hannity Stupid Monkey sidekick.

Dennis Miller, I weep for thee. You coulda *been* somethin'.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

Looking forward to the State of the Union

Maybe they should send Valerie Plame's Husband to check this out.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


They're beginning to believe

Read this and keep typing, folks. It's starting to work.

(via DKos)

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention



Wikipedia rocks.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention


Pat Roberts Knows Iraq is a Lie

There is simply no other way to explain the two year delay in producing Phase 2 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iraq Prewar Intelligence Report.

Phase I has been out for 24 and a half months. Roberts has repeatedly said that Phase 2 is on its way, and repeatedly done nothing. He has stalled, changed his story, backtracked, sidestepped, missed deadlines, and delayed the report for not one but TWO election cycles, 2004 and 2006.

He knows something and he refuses to let it see the light of day. Harry Reid even forced the Senate into a closed door session, gaining a 'bi-partisan' agreement to form a 'bi-partisan' group to assess the progress of Phase 2.

What do we have today? Bubkus.

If Roberts were interested in our National Security, he would produce a report. Hell, even if he wanted to whitewash it, he would do it now, while he and the Republican majority can produce something with a tone they can control. Imagine what will happen if the Democrats retake the Senate? Roberts is either supremely confident that won't happen, or he is supremely worried about a report being produced at all.

Why? The only answer that makes sense is that the damage to his party, or to Bush/Cheney in particular, would be extraordinary. That even producing a whitewashed report would reveal so many of the tweaks, cherry-picks and outright falsehoods that led us into Iraq that it would do unimaginable damage. But what the hell could be in the report that would be worse than say, The Deulfer Report? The Conyers Report? Downing Street?

Perhaps it is just a stall tactic. Perhaps Roberts will delay and delay and delay for as many years as he can *possibly* get away with so that the Nation's memory will begin to wilt. Interest will wane. So that little consequence will be felt by the perpetrators of wrongdoings that would *be* in the report.

But make no mistake, this report is necessary. Even if no one is ever held to account for whatever actions the report would detail, the Senate, the House, the country and its citizenry all deserve answers to the questions Phase 2 was intended to address. Was intelligence manipulated, yes or no? Did the legislative branch receive partial or cherry-picked intelligence from the executive? Did Bush know, yes or no? What did they know? When did they know it?

So, I'll ask again. What could possibly be in there that has Roberts so purposely and openly hesitant?

To paraphrase the Freeway Blogger, the war is a lie and Pat Roberts knows it.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention

You wanna read something *really* scary?

Glenn Greenwald looks into some recent rhetoric on the unfolding mess in Israel and nothing comes up roses:

...the President claims that the reason 9/11 happened is because the foreign policy of both political parties for the last several decades was devoted to preserving stability (i.e., a state of peace, avoidance of war), and stability in the Middle East is our greatest enemy.

That, according to neoconservatives (apparently including the President), is what needs to be changed. Stability is our enemy because it breeds hatred and war. Only instability and war will breed a "lasting peace." Thus, the more instability and war in the Middle East, the better. That is the central neconservative warmongering tenet and it is what is coming out of the President's mouth as he discusses his views of the new war in the Middle East.

The 1984 references write themselves these days.

He goes further:

That is the central incoherence which lays at the heart of the Bush administration's neoconservative mission -- one minute the objective is to win the "hearts and minds" of Muslims in the Middle East so that there will be less anti-American hatred for Al Qaeda to exploit when recruiting. The next minute the objective is to bomb as many of their countries as possible for their own good and hope that they are appreciative of all the carnage and destruction we are raining down on them in the name of warring against the evil of "stability."

And includes this telling quote from Bush himself:

This moment of conflict in the Middle East is painful and tragic. Yet it is also a moment of opportunity for broader change in the region. Transforming countries that have suffered decades of tyranny and violence is difficult, and it will take time to achieve. But the consequences will be profound -- for our country and the world. When the Middle East grows in liberty and democracy, it will also grow in peace, and that will make America and all free nations more secure.

And there you have it.

They do not like us right now because they are not free Democracies and/or violence has been allowed to 'simmer'. We are a free Democracy. We want them to be a free Democracy so they will like us. So, we will bomb the shit out of every last one of them until they can *see* how wonderful it is to be a free Democracy. Only then, after we have destroyed their homes, killed their soldiers and the occasional civilian, blown up their businesses and destroyed their infrastructure... only then will they like us a really really lot.

It all defies logic, but still the President puts it forth as though it were the only logical conclusion one could reach.

I'm not liberal, I'm just paying attention