Scrappleface humorous wisdom

If you haven't discovered Scott Ott's satirical topical "news" articles website yet, then you missed this tongue-in-cheek "criticism" of President Bush, on the occasion of the Iraq Constitution approval:

"...according to an unnamed expert from a non-partisan, progressive political think-tank..."

"The Bush foreign policy continues to be fatally-wounded by clarity of purpose, dogged persistence and a pathetic failure to capitulate in the face of opposition," the source said. "At a time when a real leader would be paralyzed with self-doubt over the meaningless deaths of 2,000 American troops, Bush continues to act as if freeing 25 million Iraqis from decades of oppression, torture and death is somehow worth the price paid by those who volunteered to fight."

Bitingly-funny, Scott Ott consistently illuminates the truth of an issue by using his first-rate sense of humor. Indeed, our President is doggedly persistent, has a clarity of purpose in this war on terror, and he isn't paralyzed with self-doubt, despite the arbitrary "milestone" of 2000 brave souls who voluntarily helped free 25 million Iraqis.

Brad

Thoughts on Miers' nomination withdrawl

This too shall pass.
This was not just a fine example of vigorous and principled debate within the body politic, but ample proof that the Republican party, especially conservatives, do not march in lock-step to this President. (No matter how much we love him.)

After progressive Ed Schultz (on his Oct. 12 show) accused the anti-Meirs brigade of being insincere, I sent him this letter:

Dear Big Ed,
On Wednesday's show you warned your listeners that the conservative pundit's attacks on the President's nomination of Harriet Meirs were "just a conservative smokescreen" to "defang" the Democrat's opposition; to sort of lull them into a false sense of ease about her likelyhood of being confirmed do to (insincere) criticism from the rightwing punditry.
Could you tell us (on air, please) how this works? What are the machinations involved with orchestating this sort of prank? How does the vast rightwing conspiracy determine who's turn it is to play critic, and who gets to play advocate?
Do they draw staws at one of the smokefilled gatherings at Karl Rove's house in the wee hours of the morning? Is there some random-selection generating software that everyone has on their super-secure laptops, and they each get their marching orders, per each event? Or, as some football teams do occasionally, do they "call the plays", in advance, with each party executing their assigned duties on cue?
How did George Will, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, and Robert Bork, etc learn that it was their turn to criticize, and others' to support, the prez?
I think your listeners would LOVE to learn of the secret arrangements that result in this current in-house fracas, as fabricated and insincere as it may be.
Sincerely, Brad

I haven't heard back from him yet...


Diane Feinstein's false accusation of gender-bias by Republicans reveals an empty quiver on her part: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., one of 14 women in the Senate, had challenged Miers’ nomination yet criticized Republicans for derailing it: “I don’t believe they would have attacked a man the way she was attacked.”

That's the best criticism she can muster? Well, when you pretty much agree with a decision or some action taken by your enemy, you're not left with much, are you? Why the hell couldn't she just say she's pleased about Miers' withdrawl, and hopes that the president's next choice will be more qualified or experienced? She sounds more like the lesser half of California's Senate Duo, Barbara Boxer.
And just to show you how wrong you are, Senator, I hope that the President will nominate Janice Rogers Brown to fill Justice O'Connor's seat. Then, when there isn't an avalanche of opposition from Republicans, you'll be shown the foolishness of your claim.

Brad

AirAmerica host jokes that his cat told him to...

KILL THE PRESIDENT. Now, is that funny,

or what?! Why, it's a real knee-slapper, it is.

That would be Marc Moron at it again this morning. On the 19th he suggested that "Dick Cheney should be executed for treason". (And he probably considers himself nonviolent.)

Gosh, I only wish that we right-wingers could get some talent like that for our obscure talk shows. Sadly, we're stuck with the likes of Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Michael Reagan, Bill Bennett, Michael Savage. Ya know, people you've actually heard of.

I wonder if Marc Maron is on the watch list for the Secret Service....?

Brad

Condi on the Hill

I happened to recently catch some of CSPAN's broadcast of our Secretary of State being grilled by lesser intellects of the Senate. Particularly lesser is Barbara Boxer. Man, but I pity California! (Wait a minute-I better reserve some of that pity!) But I digress.
While Secretary Rice was explaining the progress we're making in Iraq, and how we're helping the Iraqis in their struggle to establish self government where it never existed, Senator Box-O-Rocks renewed the liberal lament that the administration's focus in Iraq has changed.

Condi might have replied: "Yes, Senator, much as the focus on a baby changes from the birth process to neonatal care, our involvement has to adapt to the changing needs of an infant democracy, not quite viable yet-to use a term you're fond of, Senator-without the aid of a mature and experienced party who has their best interest in mind." But she didn't.

Instead, she voiced a truism. Rice answered that this is the way the world works.

I was reminded of that when The Dennis Prager Show alerted us to a rare occurance for the LA Times: a good piece of commentary by a regular contributor! David Gelernter retells the Boxer-Rice exchange as an intro to a discussion about the history of our nation's expansion-of-vision during war. I especially like this excerpt: "...once a war is underway, free peoples tend to think things over deeply. Casualties concentrate the mind. We refuse to let our soldiers die for too little. America at war has lifted its sights again and again from danger, self-interest and self-defense to a larger, nobler goal."

Writes Gelernter: "At first, Colonial America made war on Britain to loosen the British grip on commerce and society, not to create an independent state. Only as the war dragged on and costs and casualties mounted did public opinion swing round toward independence. In 1861, the North reluctantly made war on the Confederacy to hold the Union together. President Lincoln was painfully aware that, at the start of the fighting, freedom for the slaves would not have commanded popular support as a cause for war. Only later, as casualties mounted and blood ran in rivers, did freeing the slaves become the Union's ultimate goal."
And then he points out: "We marched into World War I behind an idealistic war message from President Wilson to Congress. But the U.S. was in a fighting mood because of Germany's threat to sink unarmed American merchant ships and a German secret message (intercepted by Britain) offering Texas, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico if it joined Germany against the U.S. Only later did self-determination in Europe and the creation of a League of Nations become American war goals."

In the Senate hearing, Secretary Rice tried to explain to Box-O-Rocks "...that this is the way the world works. For example, we did not go into World War II to build a democratic Germany…. Here Boxer interrupted. World War II, she told Rice curtly, has nothing to do with Iraq."
As Ronald Reagan once famously said, "There you go again!": a liberal refusing to learn from history.
As Condi was trying to illuminate, and as Gelernter points out about WWII: "Once the war was over, we spent years cultivating democracy in Japan and Germany. But we entered the war because Japan attacked us and, four days later, Adolf Hitler declared war on us."

Likewise, Al Qaeda attacked us and we began hunting them down in Afghanistan. This GWOT then turned to Iraq, with the ouster of a murderous UN-defiant tyrant who openly supported terrorism, especially against us and our ally, Israel.
As Gelernter put it: "America at war has lifted its sights again and again from danger, self-interest and self-defense to a larger, nobler goal. Same story, war after war. Iraq fits perfectly."

We've liberated 50 million peoples.
The seeds of democracy have been sown in the heart of the Middle East, in a desert where once the Hanging Gardens of Babylon flourished. Let us hope that liberty will flourish there as the Gardens once did.

Brad

Ed Schultz accuses Defense Dept of fraud on air

Yesterday, Ed Schultz accused the Defense Department of lying to active duty Reservists (by offering bonuses for extending their committments, and then renigging on the bonuses) in order to beef up recruitment numbers.
If this actually happened, it couldn't possibly be a simple error on somebody's part, now could it? It would have to be a premeditated scam. Because, well...this is Bush's military. And they're evil.
In his tale, Big Ed said that the bonuses were cancelled because the Pentagon claimed that they were a duplication of bonus programs already in place. Any offer/retraction incident couldn't be a result of poor communication or coordination. In Big Ed's fever-swamp mind, it must be a BushCheneyRoveRumsfeldWolfowitz conspiracy.

I've tried, to no avail, to find a story about this claim.

I've searched The Nation website for this- one must presume that they would love to herald a story that embarrasses the military. The wealth of military-dissing articles and columns there boggles the mind. The open contempt for our military is there for all the world to see.
But I found no articles about Big Ed's outrage, using "military bonuses" (that phrase would obviously be used) for the search. This is the most recent, but no cigar. This screed from the editor, from four months ago, gets me no kewpie doll, either. Neither does this or this.

I searched Drudge and came up empty. (His search tools for both Reuters and AP linked to WAPO search option. Weird.)

I looked in The Washington Times, MSN, Yahoo, and Google. No story about promised military bonuses being cancelled anywhere that I could find.

I wonder what Big Ed was spewing about....

Brad

Al Franken backs Vermont Socialist

On today's Frankenfactless show, Al said of Vermont Senate candidate, Bernie Sanders, "...he's a Socialist, and he's great."

No shocker there of course.

Brad

"Dick Cheney should be executed for treason"

So said Marc Moron, of the Morning Sedition on deadAir America, shortly before 5:30AM CST today.

Now, he'll either prove to be a sage and prescient political commentator, or another wacked-out, fever swamp, hate-filled leftist. I'm guessing the latter.

He believes that the Vice President was behind the whole Valerie Plame "outing". I hope not, but we'll see...


Brad

Strange bedfellows support Miers nomination

I feel a little like Dorothy after reading this AP article on Yahoo!News about some Senate Democrats rushing to defend Republican President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.
And it's got me questioning my own support of the President's decision on this issue.
We know so little about this stealth selection, that I was simply going to trust his judgement. He knows what's at stake. He understands how important this is, how lasting will be the impact.


But, when Tom Harkin and Barbara Mikulski appear to be offering support of the President's choice, it's time to rethink that trust. What game are they playing by condemning the criticism, by some conservatives, of Miers' nomination?
Says Harkin: "All the trashing is coming from the right wing of the Republican Party...I really think it's despicable what they're doing."
And Mikulski protests: "They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft. I find this a double standard."
What's next?!

This doesn't mean, of course, that they're going to actually vote to confirm Miers for the bench. Perhaps, like pro wrestling fans, they're just enjoying the fray, and can't resist feigning outrage at the symbolism of a little old lady being picked on by bullies. If that's the way they see it.

Brad

"Tolerance and acceptance" in England

One Muslim worker in a town council office in the UK manages to force a twisted distortion of Islamic law down the throats of non-Muslim coworkers.

This story from the West Midlands/Staffordshire Express and Star News, (HT to Dennis Prager) tells how a Muslim's complaint about pig-shaped stress relievers prompted the bosses to require workers "...to remove or cover up all pig products including toys, porcelain, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet."

Lest anyone be offended.


By Piglet.


Now, it's bad enough that some ignorant Muslim doesn't quite understand a basic tenet of his own faith: Muslims can't eat pork. Seeing a pig-shaped toy isn't eating pork! (As Alf says...) But, for the timid and overly sensitive supervisors to be cowed into this game is shameful.

As one of the Brits said, this is "political correctness gone barmy".

How does the human mind manage to create such obviously twisted deviations from an original intent or principle?

Brad