Is Bush Merely Gaga, Or Is He Onto The Next Bad Idea?

The President's weirdly, even frighteningly, out of touch quote blaming the violence in Iraq on Al-Qada caused a stir in the punditocracy yesterday.

"Delusional" was the favorite term on cable news last night. Hearing him blame Al-Qada for violence twhich hey may well have fomented months ago, but which now clearly has a terrifying life of its own, he did indeed sound nutty. But look at what he said next:

“My questions to him [Malekey] will be: ‘What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?’ ” Mr. Bush said. “I will assure him that we will continue to pursue Al Qaeda to make sure that they do not establish a safe haven in Iraq.” [emphasis added]

This is yet another change in the definition of the mission. Now, Bush seems to be saying, the purpose of the American presence is to keep Al-Qada from developing "a safe haven," whatever that means.

Does this mean helping establish security, ensuring the government is stable, etc. etc. is coming off the table, and our troop's mission will shift to a smaller "search and destroy" task specifcally and exclusively aimed at Al-Qada, which every military leader in uniform agress is just a small portion of the problem?

Stay tuned.

Grim and Grimmer

Is it really sinking with people just how bad the situation in Iraq has become?

Its hard to believe in anything occuring other than a total realignment of influence, with the United States effectively sidelined regionally, or, worse, complete collapse of civil order within Iraq, with unknowable regional consequences.

Either situation is catastrophic for the United States. Catastrophic in, perhaps, an unprecedented way. Here's a few rays of sunshine from today's papers:

This Times News Analysis lays the cards out fairly clearly. Bottom line, our ability to influence outcomes in Iraq in dwindling rapidly.

And our lede story of the day in all media: National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley says Al Maliki is irrelevant. Maureen Dowd takes a quote regarding Malekey and makes this devasting and utterly accurate observation:

Mr. Hadley bluntly mused about Mr. Malaki: “His intentions seem good when he talks with Americans, and sensitive reporting suggests he is trying to stand up to the Shi’a hierarchy and force positive change. But the reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action.”
It’s bad enough to say that about the Iraqi puppet. But what about when the same is true of the American president?

The Washington Post says that influncers are starting to take a "Blame the Victims" pass to the exit door in Iraq; as an adjustment to "decalre victory and go home," this approach is more like "declare crankiness and go home."

This piece says the seemingly surreal discussion of whether Iraq is in a Civil War is less irrelevant that it might appear. Poor, good Barry McCaffrey says "if we can't be honest about the situation, we can't begin to address it." But, General, we haven't been honest about it at all...ever. That's way its a fiasco.

Meanwhile, the Iraq study group continues to study, the spectre of these poor old men and women desparately trying to get Ed Meese (Ed Meese!) to agree to anything would be funny if weren't so very pathetic.

And the President arrives in Jordan, looking confused, frightened and weak.

Cheney In Arabia, Part 2

Not so fast, say our impeccable sources in print at the Washington Post:

At least one Iraqi leader says otherwise. "It's worse than a civil war. In a civil war, you at least know which factions are fighting each other," lamented a senior member of Iraq's government in an interview a few hours after Johndroe's comments. "We don't even know that anymore. It's so bloody confused."
Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend, according to U.S. officials and foreign diplomats. The visit was originally portrayed as U.S. outreach to its oil-rich Arab ally.

So, says Prince Sultan, what's the use of owning a Vice-President if you don't use him once in awhile.

On the Beach with Gore Vidal

We were away for Thanksgiving, reading on the blissful beaches of St. John, but we're back!

And what were we reading, you of course ask? Gore Vidal's new memoir "Point to Point Navigation".

It is very much worth a read. At 81, the acid tone still burns as much as ever, especially when off-handedly addressing the Bush administration (White House rehetoric is "the sub-literate mutterings of our current junta") or putting down an easy mark like Barbara Cartland.

Given the authors age and emminence, we'll politely pass by the reptitions and several strange sentances, and instead praise the utterly un-sappy and emotionally powerful accounts of the absence and death of friends. The chapter on the death of the beloved Howard is Vidal at his absolute best, the voice strong and familiar, at at the same time impossibly personal its devasting moments of crystaline objectivity.

Read this book, it will linger.

Cheney Has "Broad New Initiative for the Middle East"

Burried in CNN's story on Cheney in Arabia is this little statement, sure to raise the hair on the neck of any thinking person:

The visit is the outcome of at least two months of work on a "broad new initiative for the Middle East," the adviser said.
On all issues, the Saudis and the United States see "eye to eye," the adviser added.
Saudi Arabia is expected to take a lead role in the region.

What? "A broad new initiative for the Middle East..."; doesn't that sound kind of big? What is Cheney et al cooking up in their hyper-secret bunkers, and why did he have to tell the Saudis face-to-face? And is Bush telling Maliki the same thing? What ever it is, by all past evidence it will be wrong, scary and bad.

And what is that last unexplicated statement "Saudi Arabia is expected to take a lead role in the region." Does this means that the US doesn't think the Saudis currently have a "lead role." A "lead role" vs. Iran?

Stayed tuned (and alert) to this one. Dick Cheney is on the prowl.

More Murder in Lebanon

Keep your eyes on Lebanon.

The instability is increasing daily, the Syrians and Iranias have their hands all over the place, and it seems a complext nexis of power players from Iraq and Al Quaeda are increasingly focusing on this bedeveiled little country.

Joan Didion on Dick Cheney's Years of Magical Thinking

Don't know how we missed this for so long, but the New York Review of Books here has Joan Didion's excellent and deeply dark essay on Dick Cheney based on her reading of a solid bookshelf of Cheney and Iraq texts.

Although not as conclusive as we might like, at the end Didion seems to be suggesting that the course of the war in Iraq is what Cheney wanted, almost up until today. The suggestion that he carries an agenda of rolling back government to the point of massive contractor, with defense and inteligence primarily contracting to Haliburton, seems much more believable now that it would have even one year ago.

And her analysis of his deceptive language is perfect and chilling. Long, but very worthwhile.

But Does Anybody Really Care?

This is the ultimate inside baseball stuff -- very hard to believe everyday Americans who went to the polls two weeks ago could possible tell you who the minority leader was, or who the new majority leader is.

O'Connor: Poisoned Cookies at the Court

An interesting portrait of Sandra Day O'Connor's advocacy for the judiciary now that's shoe off the bench.

Of course, the grabber is the poisoned cookies:

"Every member of the Supreme Court received a wonderful package of home-baked cookies, and I don't know why, the staff decided to analyze them," she recounted. "Each one contained enough poison to kill the entire membership of the court."

Honestly, we're surprised that there hasn't been a more high profile attack on the court, given all the hate mongering on the far right over the inane "activist judges" stuff. The anti- judiciary sentiment will certainly heat up again if Justice Stevens retires and Bush has to send a nominee to a democratic Senate. We're predicting early next year for Steven's retirement, and a Springtime of our discontent for the new nominee.

Children of the Corn Mourn Daddy's Unthinkable Defeat

A friend sends this picture -- which is delicious -- with the following note:

This photo is from Santorum's concession speech. There are so many weird things about this photo but how old is the daughter and why is she carrying around a doll that's dressed like her? I bet these kids have looked this shell-shocked since being forced to play with a corpse.

We agree. And also wonder who will call child services...who will SAVE THE CHILDREN?

Hate for Eight Million

We don't usually listen to Conservative talk radio. We figure we know what they are saying, and that it a demagogic, fear-inspiring, least common denominator synopsis of the culture war issue of the day. Right?

Wrong.

The above is a link to a quote from the aptly named Michael Savage. Decent people have probably not heard of him, but his 8 million (yes, that's 8 million!) listeners certainly have. His is the third rated radio talk show in the US, after Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And this is what he says to the 8 million people.

This is not extreme partisan speech, this is violent hate-mongering. Replace the word gay with "Jew" or "Black," and tell me what radio station would air it.

This has got to be taken seriously, and most sophisticated liberals don't even know its happening.

Census Bureau: Give Us Tired, Your Poor, Your Wretches With Low Food Security

This is appalling.

Despite the cheery headline, this article informs us that 38 million people in the United States are hungry and that 11 million of those are very hungry indeed. That alone is shaming and shocking. Consider just for a moment that the issue of hunger in the United States was never even brought up during these mid-term elections, at least not to our knowledge.

But just as chilling is the use of words here. Get this: the use of the term "hunger" has diminished in the huger report, replaced by the concept of "Food Security." If you are starving, you are said to have "very low food security." If you are just hungry, you have "low food security."

This is an abject example of the diminishment of the disenfranchised by striping their condition of actionable language. Try to get people excited about stamping out "low food security." Are you up in arms yet?

It also makes it their problem, a verbalization that makes hunger linguistically akin to the old saw of self help "insecurity" and edges the problem toward "low esteem."

The academics, sociologist and public health officials how came up with this term no doubt think they are removing stigma and being sensitive to the poor. Poppycock and shame on them!

Daniel Craig

Will do in the Bond department I think. Although, in the bottom picture doesn't he just a little bit like a very cranky accountant named Morrie around the face? He looked spiffy meeting the Queen, but we wonder how we get the Queen to come to OUR movie premier? Why just Bond? Is the character really such a symbol of the best of Brittania?

Rajun Cajun Hot on the Heals of Howard Dean

Well, James Carville sure has a dog in this fight and its Rahm Emmanuel, of course. We'd rather walk on our lips than criticisize Rahm here; he is the man gave the House to the Dems, thus saving the world, etc. etc.

But Howard didn't blow it, and we don't understand how he didn't help. Except for everytime he opend his mouth.

Who's Cuter? Scary World Bank Imperialist or Not So Smart But Very Correct General?

Vindication -- not the first, not the last, but pretty high profile -- for General Eric Shinseki. Poor old General Shinseki will have to live with the satisifcation of being correct and moral. Paul Wolfowitz on the other hand will have to live with being head of the World Bank.

General Abizaid almost provided some vindication for Gen. Eric Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, who warned early in the Iraq campaign that several hundred thousand troops would be required to impose stability in Iraq once Saddam Hussein was overthrown.
“General Sinseki was right,” General Abizaid said in response to a question by Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Patriot Act Snatches Snatch Snatcher

Read about here.

Conservative Myth Building and Breaking

In what is hopefully a final post-election post-mortem Harold Myserson scores some good points in the Washington Post this morning.

To the increasing defections of conservatives from the ideas behind the war in Iraq, Myerson nearly defends Neocons by putting the lie to the idea that the war was solely the handiwork of the notorious cabal:

To argue that Iraq was not the conservatives' war requires expunging every congressional vote, administration speech and talk show rant of the past four years.

Good point, but incomplete. The fact is that the neocon fantasies, relentlessly promoted by the Fukuyams, Perles and Kristol, were the dominant conservative ideology. Other cons were coned and bought it lock stock and barrel. Support from the war in fact had no other origin, no matter who we can conveniently point fingers at now.

It's important for people who think about these things the keep the blame for the destructive "philosophy" of the neocons squarely where it belongs. The must remain discredited, or they will quickly become resurgent. Even now they are all over their dedicated media with exhortations to initiate a war with Iran. They must not be let off the hook, for the minute they are, their ideological rampage begins anew.

What Does It Mean To Kidnap 150 People?

By now we've all heard the news from Baghdad that dozens of people were "kidnapped" in a daylight raid at a major University.

Right off the bat, its important to bear in mind that estimates of the number of people taken range wildly, from 30 to 150. But still...

Is that even "kidnapping" as the word is understood? Its clearly a paramilitary, if not military, situation, showing that even the most despondent understanding of the chaos in Iraq probably doesn't even approximate the true conditions.

Depending on the actual size of the victim pool here, and there fate, we think this had the potential do become a defining crisis. The majority of media are still treating it like another daily atrocity, but as the scale sinks in, could this be something like the Black Hole of Calcutta, a galvanizing atrocity that (this time) argues against further intervention. Can a society of any kind be created in conditions like this?

Better and Better Every Day: Middle East Realigning Around Iran

Weird doings continue in the middle-east. The Iranians are saying that there nuclear cake is baked. Meanwhile, the never alarmist right-wing kosher beef-cake Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran is planning another Holocaust for early next week or something.

Add to that that Tony Blair's gone all wobbly on the Iranians and the Syrians (although to be fair, he's ready to go out with Iran tonight; Syria has to invite him for dinner and a movie first.)

With all the drape installation going on in Washington, are we missing something here? Jim Baker...hurry up; the next realignment could be the first diplomativ sidelining of the United Sates since Suez, and we all know how that turned out.

Chief Justice Thinks The Consitituion is HOT!!

Chief Justice John Roberts (who, by the way, is clearly gay -- just look at a bove picture and grow-up!) sounds not terrifying in an article posted by ABC News. He's positively constitutional! Get this:

"The only reason, the reason I'm protected from those political pressures is because I'm supposed to make a decision based on the law," he said. "And so I don't think it would be a good idea to turn all the hard issues over to the courts. Those hard issues belong in Congress, they belong in the executive branch. Courts have the responsibility to make sure that those branches abide by the legal limits of the Constitution."

Which is exactly what the Court did and will likely do again with the detainee issue. I don't think Dick Cheney and James Dobson would like this sort of talk at all. Or that cable knit V-neck.

Olmert in DC Looking for Good Chineese Take Out, Not WARS!

Israeli PM Olmert is in Washington meeting with President Bush. He says he is "not looking for wars," which makes one think that maybe he has the wrong address.

Anyway, this story in today's Times is interesting because it suggests that there's trouble in Paradise with the Israeli/American alliance. No way! Yes, way!

Seems the Israelis are concerned that Bush foreign policy is naive, has strengthened the hands of terrorist organizations in the region (particularly Hamas and Hezbollah) and has largely benefited Iran and Iran clients. In other words, the Israeli government reads the paper.

Meanwhile, Crazy-Bin al-Nutcase Talal or whatever the name of the Iranian president is has another BonBon for Israel here.

So our pick for things to watch in the coming weeks:

Increasing pressure on Iranians to "step away from the nuclear weapons, ma'am" is secretly well received by them as it gives Tehran leverage in the all but inevitable regional talks about Iraq that will be an outcome of the face saving Baker Study group. BUT quick as you can say "civilian causalities" Hezbollah gets all pushy in Lebanon and starts provoking the Israelis with incursions again, thus splitting the international community to Iran's advantage.

Just a guess.

Watch This: Osama Does Beirut!

Stayed tuned on this channel for more fun with the "real enemy," Al Qeda. Remember, they have been mostly captured or killed or something. We keep killing thier number three person. Anyway, for a supposedly feeled oraganziation, they are really excited about destroying Lebanon!!

Keep your eye on Lebanon, friends, its heating up again.

From London Times: Interesting Bush Family Psychobable

Andrew Sullivan's interesting (but loooong) piece of Bush pere et fils and their love hate relationship. This sort of thing is interesting to point, though even the usually smart and grounded Sullivan ultimately gets way Freudian on us, but ultimately misses the point.

In America, these sorts of family power struggles within national politics are in fact irrelevant. The war continues, its further slide to catastrophe or move toward stabilization all that is important; whether that arises through dynastics or not matters little, as their will be no longer term dynastic implications for the now thoroughly discredited Bushes.

Rove Disappointed Voters Undermine Democracy

So, Karl Rove really believed his own spin. He honestly believed that the Republicans would hold on, and of course the arrogance is stunning. Here's just one revealing quote from the short Newsweek article linked above:

"Based on his models, he [Rove] forecast a loss of 12 to 14 seats in the House—enough to hang on to the majority. Rove placed so much faith in his figures that, after the elections, he planned to convene a panel of Republican political scientists—to study just how wrong the polls were."

The interesting insight that is more implimplied than stated is that Karl Rove's approach is fundamentally undemocratic. The beliefs and will of the people is "wrong," public opinion irrelevant. It all comes down to a "matirx" of electoral math driven by get out the vote, wedge issues, gerrymandering and probably any other undemocratic politcal tactic you can name.

It worked and worked, until it stopped working.

Ready for the Weekend?

1968. Berlin. Ella!!

Hot or Not: Cuttie-Pie Krauthammer Needs a Hug; Ann Coulter Explores Verbal Bulemia

Ann Coulter is incoherent even for Ann Coulter. It's really fun; if only Charles Krauthammer was equally kuku-bananas in the language department, his cri de couer would be almost as fun; as it is its simply turgid. He is better looking though, don't you think?

Bill Maher Outs Mehlman; CNN Tries To Put Genie Back in Closet

This is happening fast and is interesting....

Comedian Bill Maher, on Larry King on Wednesday night, outed RNC Chair and top gay-baiter Ken Mehlman. Huffington Post still has the fast disspearing clip. The clip also appeared on youtube and a variety of other blogs. There are still many posting of the uncut interview on youtube.

After first editing the intereview and removing Maher's statement that Mehlman is gay for reboradcasts of the Larry King show, CNN then purged the transcipt of the reference as well. Next, CNN got youtube to pull send out some cease and desist letters. However, as mentioned above there are many postings of the clip still on youtube. What gives?

Question to CNN: why? Fear of legal action from La Ken? Or is their a new and suddenly enforced CNN policy on youtubing their content. As of now, I think CNN is silent.

Neo Conservative Understatement of the Week

Its kinda fun to watch the neo-cons trying to regroup.

The Esprit de Corps that infected the boys when the Vanity Fair article came out was cute. And in the current Foreign Policy magazine, the FP memo has a rousing pep talk from Joshua Muravchick that has to be read to be believed. And they wonder why the word "nutty" so often preceedes the word Neocon. Here's our favorite sentance from the "FP Memo":

"Recent elections in the Palestinian territories and Egypt have brought disconcerting results that suggest democratizing the Middle East may be more difficult that we imagined."

"Suggest?"....Palestinian territories and Egypt????...has Josh noticed that a couple of obstacles to democratization have also popped in, umm, that counry...you know...on the tip of my tongue...umm...IRAQ!!! Right --Iraq!! There may be some suggestive facts on the ground there as well, Josh. Take a look and get back to us.

Hyperlinks not working this morning, so you'll have to have your own fun at www.ForeignPolicy.com

Maybe

Maybe this election will really make a difference. Let's continue -- maybe just for today -- to be exhilarated by the hope that maybe we'll get it right this time.

Maybe Americans -- not "bases", not partisans, nor segments, nor demographics -- but us, Americans, will recognize that no one voted for Democrats or against Republicans. At least not in affect.

Maybe we'll quietly remember what every one of us learned in grammar school: that checks and balances, the real American way, is the distinctive innovation of our strange and difficult democracy. And checks and balances is what won on Tuesday.

Maybe Republicans will pause after six years of single party rule, and honestly explore who they are and what they offer, other than domination of the political landscape and control of the electoral map.

Maybe Democrats will be humbled by their often razor thin wins, and take up the mantle of responsibility and not the mantle of power. They might, for a minute least, focus on the best interests of the nation and the world, not merely on their prospects for 2008.

Many said that if power (at least in the House) did not shift, given the public mood and desire, our democracy was broken to an unprecedented and catastrophic degree. Well, power did shift and our democracy is funtioning, if feebly.

Maybe we will rehabilitate it further, and strident voices on right and left will stop or slow or simply murmur for a moment. All honest people see that the world and the country are in a very bad way, and maybe now a true and blameless effort will be made to find a footing that restores America's prestige and destroys her enemies.

Maybe everyone, elected and elector, will sincerely pause and think of the soldiers dying and being maimed as we read this (two more announced last night as power shifts between men at the Pentagon). Maybe we will be smart and creative , great and powerful enough to both end their ordeal and ensure its meaning.

But none of those things will happen. We're smart and savy and know that it is the euphoria of the victor , mixed with the dejection of the defeated that makes the bitter brew of politics that festers in government and media and institutions.

Of course we knew it will soon go back to the business-as-usal rancor and extremism that no one but the sadly never irrelevant fringe really wants. We've already been told what to expect -- they are telling us now on every TV, op-ed page and blog: the stubborn and certain president tortured for two years by a frenzied opposition temporairly empowered by a tiny margin.

Or maybe not.

Bush Admits Bald-Faced Lie On Rumsfeld

Here is the transcript of the President's press conference today.

And here's the amazing quote where the President simply admits that he lied about a major question regarding a major war so as not to affect the elections:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
Last week you told us that Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on. Why is the timing right now for this? And how much does it have to do with the election results?
BUSH: Right.
No, you and Hunt and Kyle (ph) came in the Oval Office and you asked -- Hunt asked me the question one week before the campaign, and basically it was: You going to do something about Rumsfeld and the vice president? And my answer was, you know, they're going to stay on.
And the reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign.
And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer.

He goes onto say he also hadn't met with the man who would replace Rumsefled yet. But still, isn't that kind of breathtaking? The President is saying outright "I lie about important issues before elections." We know that he does, but to admit it!

God, Long Considered Independent, May Be Democrat!

Amy Sullivan calls it out here. Bottom line, evangelicals and Catholics voted Democrat quite heavily. Especially Catholics, which is a relief, because isn't that how its really supposed to be?

President George "Crankypants" Bush Holds Press Conference, Ditches Rumselfeld, Holds Breath and Stands In Corner

Did you actually see it? It will be on youtube any minute now, but you've got to watch it somewhere. The way Mr. Crankypants...err, the President...flips the pages in his little Presidential Speech Folder is delish. He hates everyword he is saying, and he just wants to punch somebody. Whew! Bad day at the White House, the boss is mad!!

Is Everybody Haa-Pee!?!

So much reaction, so little time!

Conservative David Brooks (the very conservative David Brooks!) is smiling.

The not very conservative really Andrew Sullivan is beside himself.

The London Times, in straight reporting, is just giddy, and don't even ask about the Gaurdian, which is hiding its presumptive glee behind crankiness and its shockingly deep ignorance of how American politcs works. But whatever.

The LA Times says it all with a vengence (this is a good one!)

But my favorite is certainly "Sanction Electoral pour Bush" from our friggy friends at Le Monde

It's Just a Lefty Kinda Morning!

Elephants Remember Their Dead.

The New York Times Is Mad As Hell And Isn't Going to Take It Anymore!

Here's the key quote from the Time's Editorial on why -- for the first time in heaven knows how long -- the paper has not endorsed a single Republican in ANY race this year:

For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.

Freedom

Democracy Inaction: Why the World Just Can't Agree!

Excellent piece from NPR on the term "Democracy."

Let's play a little game...define democracy all by yourself. Now go to dictionary. Did you get it right?

Fun with Torture! (The Word, Not the Unspeakable Acts)

President Bush, when asked any question about interagation methods, says "we don't torture." He says it a reflexive, robotic, almost tourettes-like way. If pressed, he gets a little, well, wacky.

The lingustics of torture are terrifyingly fascinating. Last September, Andrew Sullivan looked at evolving definitions used by the Bush Adminstrations. It's a good overview.

Of all the words in the vocabulary of politics in the young 21st century, tortured increasingly has the most tortured definiation. Which is sad and scary, because well all, every one of us, knows exactly what it means.

And our country is doing it.

Why Is This Evil Little Man Smiling?

By now you've heard about the Vanity Fair article that has great gnashing of teeth among prominent neo-cons. It's a must read, even if it is little more than a series of quotes at the moment (the proper article will be in the January issue, available in early December).

What's amazing here is that the majority of these people still (still!) believe they were right. The take absolutely no responsiblity for creating and promulgating the philisophy and "intelectual" underpinning of the adminstration's Iraq policy, they simply say (for the most part) that it was the execution that was all wrong.

Well, the execution was and is all wrong, of course. But the very philosophy is deeply, dangerously flawed. Its a sort of dark Wilsonian vision of imposed democracy that these people still believe. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they continue to believe that the United States can impose its will by force on other nation-states. And they are still out there talking about.

These are the people who rationalized the first war of open agression in the United States' History. They've dismanteled the moral authority of the nation on the world stage, and eliminated a vast degree of the power of the US. And they don't even really know it.

Great Article from Harper's on Pastor Ted

This excellent article ran in Harper's in May of 2005. It was part of a two article feature on Christian Conservatives. The recent news of Ted Haggard's self-immolation at the altar of crystal meth and nasty man-love is an apt post-script to this disturbing and critical look at flock he gathered in Colorado.

Obviously Queer Pastor Fools Christians and Wife

What to say about Pastor Ted and the rent boy? Everybody's said everything already.

But we do have one question...WHO THOUGHT THIS MAN WAS STRAIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Now that he's been all over t.v. we can all see what should have been clear to anybody in the flock: What a sissy!!! I mean look at that picture!

Back Again!

We were busy in Denver with a rent boy friend, and so haven't had the chance to post for the last couple of days. Sorry! But its election-eve, and we're back in the saddle.