The 2008 conventions through the simple math of 2 plus 2

What if the future of the country were always described by answering the question, 'What is 2+2?' Democrats know the answer is 4. Republicans know the answer is 4 but always lie and answer 5 so they can profit off the backs of the American people.

So, given our premise, here is a summary of several 2008 convention speeches from both sides of the aisle...


Brian Schweitzer
I've seen 4s and 5s working together in Montana, and that has Montana kicking butt, and that's what Obama would do in Washington. The math is simple. Obama wants to use everything we've got to get to 4, while McCain doesn't remember on which of his 7 fridges he pinned the cue-card with the answer.

John Kerry
We know Candidate McCain is just like Bush. Never has ideology so stepped on mathematics. *Senator* McCain has said that the answer was 4. Now, *Candidate* McCain says the answer is 5. I've known John McCain for 22 years. 22, that's 2 plus 2, baby. He's not the McCain we all thought he was.

Hillary Clinton
You didn't support me all those months just to have John McCain give you the wrong answer, did you? No way, no how, no 5.

Bill Clinton
I prefer to have numeric relations... with that man... Barack Obama.

Joe Biden
My mother told me to sock the 2 in the eye when it messed with me, and ever since then I've been working to find the answer, and I finally did after 30+ years in the Senate working for you. Again and again, John McCain says 5 and Barack Obama says 4. McCain can't remember how many houses he has, much less the answer this country needs. Barack Obama knows the answer!

Barack Obama
I think John McCain is a patriot. It's not that John McCain doesn't know the answer is 4. He just doesn't get it. We've seen that he's said '5' 90% of the times George Bush has. I don't wanna take a 10% chance on 4, do you?

Punditocracy
Obama accomplished all of the assignments we gave him. Brilliant! 4 is clearly the answer the American people are looking for. What a contest! Onward, to November!



Fred Thompson
In John McCain's world, the first '2' is a fellow POW with blisters under it's arch the size of '0's. *cough*. The other is only hunched over because it lived in a tiny POW cell with low-ceilings for 5 years. In fact, the second 2 is really a 1 that's all hunched over *ahem* and had its leg broken... Broken by Vietnamese captors that used enhanced interrogation techniques--techniques that really just serve to improve one's character *cough* and ready them to be president *ahem* while not causing organ failure or death. John McCain was a POW and doesn't want anyone to talk about how much of a POW he was because being a POW doesn't automatically qualify a POW to become a President and former POW. John McCain has been saying '5' since before the attack on Pearl Harbor, hell John McCain *WAS* 5 before Pearl Harbor.

George W Bush
The angry left will tell you the answer is 4. I know the answer is 5. Of course I know the answer is 5, it's part of the president's job to know the answer is 5, and I take my responsibility as Commander-in-Chief very seriously. John McCain sometimes disagrees with me just to spite, though. He'll say the answer is 4.9, or 4.8, and, for a while there, he almost convinced me. But now I like John McCain so much I had all the 4s removed from the phones in the White House. That made it harder for us to call into the convention tonight, but I'm sure the McCain campaign is glad I did. I wanted to be here so I could remind everyone how much McCain and I have worked together. The world is a dangeriffic place in which we need the most couragic and intelligious candidate we can find.

Mitt Romney
Do you really want a liberal 2 to meet up with another liberal 2? No, of course you don't. You want John McCain to kick all liberal numbers in the teeth and replace them with fine, upstanding, trickle-down, Republican numbers that don't eat liberal cheese or ride liberal trains.

Mike Huckabee
I learned the answer was 5 on the desk that John McCain built for me. He built that desk in the basement of a church he constructed using only one arm, some mortar he mixed from his spittle and bricks that he himself shat.

Rudy Giuliani
Community organizers give cosmopolitan answers like '4' to questions like this. Strong leaders and mayors bring us to victory by answering '9/11'... err.. '5'.

Sarah Palin
I know the answer. I learned the answer as an executive when I led the executive office of the executive-filled town of Wasilla, Alaska. I have shown my strong belief in the answer by 'choosing' to have *5* children! Their names are 5rack, 5ristol, 5illow, 5i5er and, now, 5rig (*5rig is shown being passed among 5 different people, each tracing a symbolic '5' on 5rigs forehead). Don't talk about my children and stop bringing them up. I have more experience than Obama, Biden and McCain put together. Community Organizing? Ha! What does that even mean, 'community'? Community is for wimps. Organizing is for liberal elites that like being organized. Organized communities are for elite liberal wimps. All legislative experience is for wimps that aren't executives.

John McCain
???

Punditocracy
McCain accomplished all of the assignments we gave him. Brilliant! 5 is clearly the answer the American people are looking for. What a contest! Onward, to November!



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

Windshield Wiper Wars

My wife walks out of the mall with our two kids and our nephew and goes to get in her car and she notices something that wasn't there when she went in:



Hmmph. Obama is not a Communist, and to say that he is requires employment as a right-wing radio host or editorialist.

In a moment we can discuss what the person that did this must actually be like, but first you are no doubt wondering, "Why did they put it on your wife's car instead of someone else's?" Well, that's an easy one, as I had just put this on the back of her car a few days prior:



So, a person decided that they didn't like the Obama sticker. And they decided they wanted to tell us as much. The person then went scrambling about to find a piece of paper, ANY piece of paper with which they could leave this piece of their mind. They could just picture us being FORCED to acknowledge, even in their absence, the blinding truth of their argument. This person then scratched out the most insulting thing they could come up with and walked BACK to our car and lifted our wiper and left it there to serve in their stead. Do you think they sat and waited for my wife to get in the car just to see her response?

But again, you are no doubt wondering, "Where did they find the paper?" Well, I have a partial answer to that quandary on the back:



Where else? Their kids' coloring supplies.

We live in Southeast Michigan, so this wasn't some rural mall in a Red state, this was Somerset Mall in Troy, MI. Decent place.

I usually glare at people that still have Bush/Cheney 04 bumper stickers, but I wouldn't stoop to writing something on a piece of paper and shoving it under their wiper... Or would I? What would I write on a piece of paper I used to respond to someone sporting a McCain sticker?

I think I would write:

McCain thinks Bush's policies are working.

(Personally I think that's Obama's best attack line and he should use it in every commercial, but I digress.)

This comment might raise a hackle or two for all but the 28% still loving Bush, right? But what about the bottom of the barrel? What can you say to them that would make a point, make it better than the person that did this to us, and still get under their skin like nobody's business? And for bonus points, on what would you write the note?

I'll give it one more shot:

McCain was born before TV had commercials (written on a TV Guide cover bearing Obama's picture)

I've been thinking to myself about this quite a bit. What has to go through someone's mind to actually do this? What's the saddest part of it all? What's the funniest part of it all? What does the Political Profile of this author look like?

What, and on what, would you write?


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

The Path to Lies About 9/11

Ok. So unless you're NOT the type that reads blogs every day (which is doubtful if you're seeing this) you may not have heard about the pack of lies Disney/ABC are pawning off on the American people and American school children called "The Path to 9/11". Anyways, here's what I sent to Senator Mitchell (Chairman of Disney, the parent of ABC).

Senator Mitchell,

I understand that ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Company, of which you are the Chairman of the Board, intends to air a "docu-drama" entitled "The Path to 9/11" over two nights early next week, with the program concluding on the 5th anniversary of the tragic events to which the title alludes.

As you have no doubt heard by this time, this docu-drama is rife with inaccuracies, inaccuracies that have been pointed to by Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, Madeleine Albright, Richard Cohen, the program's own screenwriter, and others.

These inaccuracies go beyond the level one might expect as being in the nature of the "docu-drama" format, where transcripts were clearly unavailable, dramatic tension is desirable, or decency laws prevent the use of certain terms. The inaccuracies go beyond these acceptable forms and approach the level of the defamation of our government, some of its former servants, and even a former President of the United States.

In 2003, CBS had the decency to hold off on the airing of a docu-drama portraying the lives of Nancy and Ronald Reagan after questions were brought up about its accuracy. In 2004, Disney itself refused to distribute, and even attempted to STOP the distribution of Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary with a clear opposition to George W. Bush that was released shortly before the November 2004 elections, for fear of getting into the political waters from which Disney and ABC preferred to remain separated. And now in 2006, less than two months before the 2006 mid-term elections, and on the anniversary of what many Americans consider to be the tragedy of their lives, ABC, and therefore Disney, intends to air this "docu-drama" fictionalizing several key scenes and distorting important facts about how 9/11 was able to come about, and they are doing so for free?

I do not understand.

If it was wrong to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary that was to be shown in theaters requiring paid admission by the willing public, a documentary that went on to make millions upon millions of dollars, how is it right to broadcast The Path to 9/11 over the public airwaves for free?

If CBS was willing to pull away from broadcasting a docu-drama about the Reagans after being questioned about its accuracy, how is it that ABC is refusing to pull away from broadcasting a docu-drama about 9/11 after its accuracy is not only questioned, but its accuracy has been PROVEN to be false by the very document on which it is marketing itself as being based, the 9/11 Commission Report?

Is ABC, and therefore Disney, interested in giving what could be considered a $40million (plus the cost of the lost advertising revenue) campaign contribution to the Republican National Committee? Is ABC, and therefore Disney, insisting on promoting misguided, inaccurate lies about a former President and members of his staff? Is ABC, and therefore Disney, truly going to broadcast a story about what led to 9/11 knowing full well that the information is inaccurate? Is ABC, and therefore Disney, genuinely determined to honor the anniversary of such a tragedy with something so decidedly slanted against fact and reason?

Isn't it really that with respect to 9/11, all Americans are owed the truth from all media companies? And isn't that more true when the companies are graced with the power to broadcast on the people's airwaves? Isn't that true for ABC, and therefore Disney?

Myths are born in off-handed conversation. Legends are born from myths wrapped in stories. History itself can be distorted by legends writ large.

As an American citizen and someone who was shocked and horrified by the tragedy I felt five years ago, someone who was determined to support a fierce, accurate and JUST response against the perpetrators, and someone who hoped my country could find a way to the truth in order to help prevent future attacks, I emphatically urge you to cease all plans to air this docu-drama on the public airwaves.

Sincerely,
[ed: removed progprog's actual name from original]
Raleigh, NC

More on contacting folks at Think Progress, good post from Greenwald, and mcjoan has more.

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

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.

progprog
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.

progprog
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....

...snip...

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.

progprog
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.

progprog
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. “I can not and will not let that result stand,” 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.

progprog
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.



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

progprog
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'.

progprog
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.

progprog
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)

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

Wikiality

Wikipedia rocks.

progprog
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.

progprog
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.

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

The first step is admitting you have a problem

A number of prominent Democrats seem to have decided to suggest to Bush that he might want to reassess:

"In the interests of American national security, our troops and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained. . . . We need to take a new direction."

What's interesting here, is that they are *finally* starting to notice that this is exactly what 56% of the American people have already said they want. I guess the average voter is not as insane as Bush, and 'staying the course' is one slogan with which they've become all too weary.

The Republican Response will be: They hate our freedom, September 11th, stay the course.


NOTE: WAPO link via Joe in DC. In a coincidence that gave me both the yips and the jimmy-legs, I linked to the exact same polling article Joe did. I realized this after the fact. Joe has been asked to get out of my head immediately.

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

Big Brass Ones

The Ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary has guts. John Conyers (D-MI) is one of the (the?) ballsiest guys in Washington when it comes to repeatedly calling Bush and the Administration what they are. Republicans across the aisle refuse to do a damned thing to stop, slow, or even question the tactics of the Administration, but Conyers labors on, documenting and filing things like his latest epic.

He has produced a 26 page report (half of it is footnotes) that TPM has been kind enough to host for all to peruse. 26 Laws broken. 26 pages. How fitting.

Manipulating and forcing intel. Tubes. Nukes. Chemical Weapons. Niger. Valerie Plame. Threats/revenge tactics. Wiretaps. Misleading Congress. Torture. Oh, it's all there in lovely detail.

Old News reminder from the Downing Street Memos. Remember, Bush told the nation he didn't decide to invade Iraq until just prior to the invasion in March, 2003. Page 2-3:

....President Bush had told Prime Minister Blair "when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq (Fall 2001); "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed" (March 14, 2002); the U.S. has "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat" (March 25, 2002); "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD" and, most significantly, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy (July 23, 2002).

They may have gotten draft deferments and National Guard gigs back in the day, but boy did they have a hardon for this war. Page 7 (emphasis added):

• An intelligence analyst who testified, "[t]here's so much pressure [to support the Administration's position on aluminum tubes], you know, they keep telling us, go back and find the right answer."
• a senior official reported that CIA analysts got "pounded on, day after day" on WMD issues
• a CIA official stated, "[t]here was a great deal of pressure to find a reason to go to war with Iraq. And the pressure was not just subtle; it was blatant...[the official's boss] called a meeting and gave them their marching orders. And he said, "You know what? If Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so.

You almost get the impression the Republicans and the Administration don't want to look into these matters. Page 13 (emphasis added):

Thus, the Senate and House Intelligence Committes have refused to conduct any serious investigation concerning intelligence manipulation relating to the Iraq War; House Republican Chairmen have rejected numerous requests by Members to conduct hearings on torture and other abuses in Iraq; and the Administration has ignored requests for information concerning such abuses submitted by the Ranking Members of six committees. Republicans in the House have also rejected myriad attempts by Members to ask the Administration to provide information regarding all of these matters pursuant to Resolutions of Inquiry.

Yes, we're still waiting on Part 2 of the Senate Report from the Preeminent Procrastinator of our time, Pat Roberts (jackass-KS). It looks like Conyers grew impatient.

But there is no cigar. No blowjob. No pecker tracks on a blue dress. I fully expect very little to come of any of this. Conyers will be (and has been) regarded as a shrewd politician pulling a stunt in an election year, and much worse.

The country's moral compass always points Due North Blue Sex, you see. The infamous semi-rhetorical, "What will we tell the children?" from the Clinton years is so last century. Nowadays, "How can we properly justify moral relativism to the children?" should be the quandary facing many of the hyper-ventilators still breathing into a bag over Clinton's penis. But, methinks that question won't be asked by anyone, cuz (say it with me) IOKIYAR.


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

Freedom's Just Another Word

I think that when I had kids my perspective changed.  I know it did.  Unfortunately, that perspective makes hearing shit like this hurt

The Lebanese Red Cross said the airstrike in Qana, in which at least 34 children were killed, pushed the overall Lebanese death toll to more than 500. ...."We will not stop this battle, despite the difficult incidents this morning," Olmert said said during Israel's weekly Cabinet meeting, according to a participant in the meeting. "We will continue the activity and if necessary it will be broadened without hesitation."

And, then there's this story from Newsweek about the American Soldier accused of some horrific crimes.  My new perspective makes this unimaginable:

On the night in question in Al Mahmudiyah, Green dressed in dark clothes, ducked away from his post and persuaded some of his comrades to come along. According to the indictment, he then led them to the house of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl. At the home, Green herded the mother, father and a young girl, about 5 years old, into a back bedroom while another soldier threw the teenager to the floor. Green closed the bedroom door. Shots were fired, and he emerged with an AK-47, which had been in the home, and said, "I just killed them. All are dead." He and another soldier then allegedly raped the teenager. Afterward, Green shot her two or three times in the head, killing her, the indictment says. (Green has pleaded not guilty.)

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