Dumb Moonbat Quote of the Day

From Shakespeare's Sister - who apparently doesn't have even an infinitesimal shred of the brains of the bard:

Lest you think that Steele was actually motivated by principle, he justified his admonishment by noting that the "liberal media" isn't on Republicans' side, so they'll "get painted as a party that's against the first Hispanic woman" nominated to the Supreme Court. See, it's not problematic that they are against her on the basis that she's a Latina woman, but it is problematic when the media actually frames it that way.

Yes, she's serious.

Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Like the "wise" decision to deny a dyslexic firefighter who worked his ass off to learn to read so he could study and pass his test his promotion, because no black men passed the test and he was white.

Prima facie - not fit to be a supreme court justice. I don't give a fuck what color she is or what her story is.

Rewind to Clarence Thomas and we hear the reporter Julianne dumbass saying right on the McLaughlin Group (NOT in blog comments, hello, but right on television) that "This man is on the court...I hope his wife feeds him a lot of butter and eggs and he dies, like so many black men do, of a heart attack." Could you picture if anyone said anything like that? Actually one person did - IN BLOG COMMENTS, about her diabetes. You can dig up any filth online, right? Though even his comment wasn't racist like the one about Thomas. But I'm talking about a reporter on a serious news show on television saying this right out loud. Could you IMAGINE?

People had no problem when it was Thomas, being racists on the left, because Thomas is a black man who refuses to be treated or behave as a token, or a pet - and that is how far leftists like Shakes view their people of color. Like pampered pets. It's disgusting. And it is racist as hell. See below for another black woman who would NOT be treated like a pet - for how the left treated her in print.

No, almost no one is against this woman because she's Spanish - who gives a shit about that? But we are against her because she's unfit for the office - she does not understand the division of powers and believes legislation should be made from the bench - which is not the purpose of judges, it's the purpose of legislators. Prima facie - not fit for the position.

Oddly, even her supporters have acknowledged that she is not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed - apparently when circuit judges pass around decisions for debate, she corrects their grammar and spelling instead of addressing the issues at hand, or, you know, THE LAW. But she's got a great story! That one I got from someone who LIKES her - but, you know, as Ace referenced the other day, I suppose dumb people need representation too, right? God help us.

Two Great Videos

Direct thanks to IMAO for both - I can't wait for this show to come out!

This one is part of a series on economics and American values that I am finding fascinating. Just go to IMAO and look up the "Capitalist Propaganda" series for the rest, or access the series directly here. This one touches on why minimum wage hikes are useless and counter-ptorudctive in the long run. The whole series is amazing.

Velociworld

"The worst, of course, is Life After People. This is nothing more than a thrill ride for the Earth Firsters and other ecoterrorists of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement who think mankind should be eliminated from the biosphere. Whereas the History Channel formerly had erudite scholars discussing serious issues they now have burned out, ponytailed hippie cocksuckers with titles such as "urban ecologist" rubbing their hands together, barely able to contain their glee, as they recount what will happen when humans disappear, and the traces of humanity from buildings to monuments to sacred texts and documents to the lowliest footprint are wiped clean from Gaia's mons pubis. It's a singularly disgusting bit of theater. Everyone involved in this putrescent spectacle should be ashamed."

A thing of beauty is a joy forever. And my friends, that is beautiful. I'd like to welcome Velociworld to the blogroll because I'm dying to see what he'll say next. He's already DEMOLISHED David Attenborough's bukkakic glee over the stupid squirrel fossil that frankly, can not possibly be what they claim it is. (See the May 19th entry for why that is.) I'm crushing. And not your head. Alas, he is in love with another blogger and doesn't know I exist. :D

Countdown to Doomsday

You were worried about the Kyoto Accord? Welcome to Copenhagen. We're walking right into it, and it's going to be a lot worse than the Kyoto. I'm predicting full-scale global depression (already started thanks to Kyoto) and no defense against the coming ice age. I've included the countdown clock in my sidebar for handy reference. Mark the days until our destruction is complete.

You see that little green car? I want to smash it like the bug it is. I wouldn't even have to put my boots on.

Kneecapping Barry

Holy crap, did anyone hear any of Cheney's speech today duelling with Barry's long-winded shit about closing Guantanamo (when just yesterday they said they knew it had been a hasty pronouncement)?

Because I'm impressed. Dick is just out there positively KNEECAPPING Obama, HAMSTRINGING the guy, and it's a beautiful, beautiful thing to see. Even seeing how mad he gets and how defensive, making further hasty pronouncements to cover it all with bluster (We're closing it and that's that! HarUMPH! Neiner neiner!) is beautiful. Cheney, I don't know why you saved up all your defense for NOW but I'm not sorry you did. Talk about giving the left the rope to hang themselves with - you gave them 7 YEARS worth of rope and they're hanging out to dry now. Lovin' it in New Jersey, Cheney!

Also, did anyone notice they passed that ridiculous credit card rights bill but slipped in the thing about being able to carry guns in national parks? I thought that was pretty cool and clever, but the Brady Bunch is up in arms (er...non-arms?) about it, saying families shouldn't have to face down an AK-47 when they're on a nature hike. Because that is something that happens. Law-abiding gun owners hold families at gunpoint on their nature hikes every day. And families without guns end up dead because of that. Tsk tsk.

Weird Article About Obama - Deconstruction in F Minor

This article is called "Notes Toward a Theory of Obama. What we've learned so far about the president." Because they're just NOW trying to actually learn something about him or even formulate a theory about the guy. They didn't give a shit about that when the election was on the line.

Barack Obama began his presidency with an unusual attribute: that the country already understood him, or thought it did, from his books.

Yeah, right. The only people who read those things were the conservatives, and they didn't find much to be happy about inside them.

The story he told in Dreams From My Father and reinforced in The Audacity of Hope was about a man of multiple worlds who struggles to come to terms with his father's abandonment and a confounding racial identity. Obama resolves his rootlessness and anger by committing himself socially, religiously, and, eventually, politically. He depicts his mature self as unusually grounded, able to see other points of view and to bridge chasms.

Uh-huh. Yeah, see 'cause I sort of had the picture of a Marxist Alinsky-ite supporter of Ayers' Prairie Fire who was a third-generation communist red diaper baby radical deconstructionist along the lines of Hillary only worse. One who was raised solely by the white side of his family, learning communism at his grandmother's dear white knee, then throwing her under the bus. Of course, you could have learned all this if you'd bothered reading them or engaging in any research BEFORE it was too late, but that would have been too hard. Then Palin might have been VP and blown up the world with her stupidity! Also, I'm pretty sure Obama was also pretty committed to the pipe for a while there. You forgot to mention that. I'm sure he could bridge a chasm from the alley to the nearest crack den. If they made it into a Wii game.

The protagonist of these books is a persuasive and appealing character—so much so that he left little demand for alternative explanations.

Don't blame him, MSM. You did that all by yourselves. You put your hands on your ears and screamed "LALALALA PALIN IS STUPID HILLBILLY! BURN WITCHES!" instead of your JOB investigating this guy and his associations and what he might actually DO if he were elected. After all, he hadn't done anything in any office yet except leapfrog up to the next office...what to do when one has reached the top with no record to speak of?

As time goes by, though, Obama's Obama feels less and less satisfying.

Bwahaha! Wiping eyes. Oh. You were serious. How bizarre.

It's not that the author's projection of himself is distorted in any obvious way

Well if it isn't, then you people have a HELL of a lot of explaining to do. Why on EARTH didn't you warn the people what he is? Oh, you're Marxist? You WANT a fascist totalitarian state and liberty means nothing to you? Social justice trumps liberty? Yeah I guess so.

but rather that it leaves too much unexplained—his ambition, his aloofness, his fundamental beliefs, if any.

Oof. IF ANY, huh? Yeah, except you're full of shit. Obama put plenty in there about his beliefs, if any - how about the bit about in order not to be seen as a sellout he chose his friends very carefully, like the Marxist professors? That raised a few alarm bells to those who actually, you know, READ it. Parse that claim, by the way - is he a sellout; was it only about image or was it about belief? He chose to cultivate a reputation as a Marxist, but is he? No, I think it's worse than that. He's a megalomaniac. But I get ahead of myself.

It's too soon to offer an interpretation of our president. But after four months in office, we can see some emerging themes.

It's not too soon. The day after the inauguration was not too soon. Until Jan 21st he kept stringing us along, REFUSING to say anything concrete about what he intended to do, just sort of going along with the reassuring theme, but peppering it and souring it with more pessimism so we wouldn't be too shocked. But we had NO idea what he would do because he wouldn't say. Within days it became clear that this was full-out Alinsky Rules for Radicals Cloward-Piven Strategy and we had lived to see it. A new foreign relations nightmare, attacks on the CIA and prior administrations (something you seldom see outside those 3rd World Countries - and don't give me that "developing nation" bullshit because we're well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country ourselves with these economic plans and the squatters movement and Acorn and politicizing the census and everything else - so you'll learn the difference SOON ENOUGH.) No, it's not too soon to judge Obama by a longshot - he has committed the most HISTORIC level of spending madness and the most enormous power grab - in fact, more than any of the 40+ presidents before him COMBINED. For 200 years none of them have managed this and all within the first 3 months. Oh yeah, we can judge. Maybe you can't, but you're an MSM drone.

But no, seriously, I can't WAIT to see what you THINK are emerging themes from the Obama administration. What do you want a bet that you are NOT coming to the same conclusions I could have told you 8 months ago, 4 months ago, 3 months ago? What do you want a bet that you still don't see what's right in front of your fucking face and will continue with your inverse relationship* with the truth that the left always has?

*I have been developing a simple theory about the inverse relationship the left has with the truth and reality. I'll give you the mathematical formula soon, though I may simplify it.

He sees the middle ground as high ground. Candidates who talk about bringing people together, being uniters not dividers, or changing the tone in Washington are usually blowing happy smoke. At this point, however, Obama's focus on reconciliation is clearly more than shtick. We saw this impulse at work when he made pre-emptive concessions on his stimulus package in an unsuccessful effort to win Republican support.

Theorem proven and I haven't even postulated it yet in print! Holy hell. THAT is the middle ground?? This guy? The most radical president we've EVER had in our entire history, is the middle grounder? So Bush was blowing smoke when he talked about being a uniter, and that was a bad thing, but Obama really IS a uniter, and that's a bad thing. (You'd have to invert everything IN that sentence to make it true at all.) Um...are you people mental? So...he made some concessions in the stimulus bill and got it from a trillion down to slightly less than a trillion. You realize that's like giving me a penny out of $100,000 and telling me I should be grateful right? And I'm sorry, not a single fucking legislator got to READ the thing before they signed it - the concessions were obviously the original plan - ask for a hugely scary amount so that you can get a slightly smaller hugely scary amount because then it doesn't sound as scary - it's a tactic children know how to use, you idiot. Most of the things that were debated and taken out were put back in, you know. Like the contraception shit and what the fuck else ever. I can tell you for sure there's no help for you if you're losing your home unless you have a loan through Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, and even then there's nothing. The whole stimulus was a huge scam and not one of us is to be helped by it, including people who needed help. Not that spending a trillion to stimulate the economy was sane to begin with. Then the guy pushes for and gets a multi-trillion dollar budget - and you call that MIDDLE GROUND? You're truly fucked in the head.

Every few days, it seems, Obama, tries for a "new beginning"—with Iran, Cuba, the Muslim world, even Paul Krugman. Engaging with opponents animates him more than hanging with friends.

First of all, we get it already. Obama wants to curry favor with and kowtow to our enemies while alienating our friends. This is nothing to be pleased about, but you don't seem to "get" why. And get serious - Paul Krugman is NOT Obama's opponent - Paul is just pissed that Obama isn't quite socialist ENOUGH for his liking and Paul is nothing but a leftard political shit-stirrer to begin with. He's no economist.

This is a wonderful instinct that is bettering America's image and making domestic politics more civil.

Uh...what? Yeah, not from this side of the aisle. I don't see anything "civil" about selling out the CIA and our national security, vilifying anyone who happens to actually be conservative, ordering fatwas against private CITIZENS who happen to be conservative (Rush Limbaugh, for example) or the way conservatives are portrayed in the media, by the left and the alleged "moderate" RINOs. I'm sure it all feels very cozy and civil to the left, but not from where I'm standing, with you all destroying national security AND trying to ban our guns and destroy the economy.

But listening is not a moral stance, and elevating it to one only highlights the question of what Obama really stands for.

You thought it was a moral stance when you CLAIMED that Bush wasn't listening to you. (Which is such nonsense - one of the first things he did was YOUR abominable education bill with Ted the Swimmer Kennedy - and then you've spent the last 6 years excoriating BUSH for what a horrible bill it was.) I know what you really mean, assmunch - you're mad that you think Obama's listening to the conservatives. Stfu and stop wringing your hands - he's NOT.

The consensus-seeker repudiates torture but doesn't want to investigate it; he endorses gay equality but not in marriage or the military; he thinks government's role is to do whatever works. I continue to suspect him of harboring deeper convictions.

Huh?

He's the decider for real. Accounts of Obama's decision-making depict him driving process as well as result. Faced with a tough call about whether to declassify additional Bush administration torture memos, Obama called a debate, listened intently, and finished by dictating the next day's press release announcing the release of the documents.

So he called a debate with 5 CIA directors including Leon Panetta all dead set against this attack on our Intelligence, and with his own people, then did exactly what his people thought he should, immediately upon this intent "listening." So your complaint that listening is not a moral stance is moot, because it doesn't matter how much he pretends he listens; he does exactly what he wants, what he intended to do from the beginning, and generally exactly the wrong thing. I'd say he has his stance pretty well fixed. Oh, except for the fact that he backed off on releasing the pictures because if he did that, Pelosi was going to go down in flames. (Contrary to popular belief, she will not melt when doused with water, but she will multiply. And who fed her after midnight anyway?)

Another insider ticktock has him personally directing the futures of GM and Chrysler.

You say that like it's a good thing.

The president's knack for deep dives into policy questions is undeniably impressive. But as quick a study as he is, his supreme self-confidence may shade into overconfidence. He shows signs of suffering from the arrogance that often accompanies brilliance. It's unlikely, for instance, that Obama can function as his own grand strategy guru on foreign policy. But he doesn't seem inclined to give that job to anyone else.

You just realized NOW he's arrogant? See, the rest of us have gotten past that a long time ago. We're just realizing it's way beyond arrogance - there's actual megalomania here. I wish you people would keep up once in a while. WE told you he was arrogant a year ago.

He was quickly bored in the Senate, where it took too long to get things done. When he was thinking about running for president, his question was whether the moment would be ripe for a great leader.

He didn't DO anything in the senate - it was a stepping stone, and in his infamous interview on Chicago radio from 2001 shows, that was the plan all along. Duh. Each step was just a rung on a ladder to get executive power with huge ground support - my God, don't you people even read what the man has SAID before you report on him? He used to be really pretty open and aboveboard about his plans, you know. It just takes a little bit of research. And the bit about the great leader made me throw up in my mouth a little. Thanks a lot. The idiot young masses were ripe for a change of any sort - every 4 - 8 years it happens; the word "change" becomes THE word, the only word, that is needed to bring all the dipshits into action. I've seen it many times and expect to see it many more.**

One day last month, he faced decisions about the fate of the auto industry, a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, a North Korean missile threat, and a flood in Fargo, N.D.

Maybe the president shouldn't decide the fate of the auto industry - was that the day he fired the CEO or whatever? Yeah, real powermonger we got. There is nothing worth fighting for in Afghanistan; redoubling our efforts there is stupid and a smokescreen. And Pelousy already blew the help we had from Pakistan in dealing with terrorist cells still coming out of Afghanistan, you fools. The North Korean missile threat? He didn't give a damn. They asked if he wanted them to shoot it down and he said "Oh hell no. Kim Jong Il, Don't MAKE me have to issue a statement!" Considering his lack of response to the people who were freezing to death in Kansas I don't want to know what he didn't do about the flood. The press is never going to eat him alive like they did Bush on Katrina - blaming HIM for the weather and the city's lack of planning and competency for emergencies despite being below sea level in a hurricane zone - puhlease. Obama could preside over thousands of deaths and destruction like that, do nothing, and still won't get the same shit Bush has.

The question here is capacity, not capability. Can any one person simultaneously manage so many issues in the hands-on way Obama insists on managing them?

Two words again - Cloward-Piven Strategy. He doesn't want them taken care of; that isn't the purpose of this administration. The purpose right now is to break it all to pieces so that it can be remade in his image. The time of occupying from the inside, a la Alinsky, is complete. Now it's smashing time.

He's ruthless.

No argument there.

He's ruthless. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Obama described his economic policy as "ruthless pragmatism."

Bwahahah! I never knew reckless abandon towards the goal of utter dismantlement was pragmatic - only he could have said such a thing with a STRAIGHT FACE. Though he has been known to cackle inappropriately about the economy, I can see him in utter seriousness calling this rampant mad lunacy of a spending spree "ruthlessly pragmatic" without cracking a smile. Though he might scratch his face with his middle finger while he said it.

Interesting choice of modifiers. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. Around the nomination process, this has been slightly chilling to watch. If you're useful, you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability, enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who take care of him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents' Dinner about Hillary Clinton being an envious loser, Larry Summers' woman problem, and training his dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Obama's jokes about himself were about how great everyone thinks he is.

Hmm, you didn't get the hint when he threw his grandmother and Rev. Wright under the bus? As well as Ayers? Morons. And that last sentence, I've read a column about that somewhere...where did I read that? Oh, yeah, Ann Coulter wrote it a while ago. Thanks for noticing. Starting to realize we were right, juuuuust a little bit, aren't you? Except no, you can never ever allow yourself to think that, so you come up with this stupid shit. Enjoy the mess you've caused - you'll get no pity from me. Ever.

**I told my son sometime in January 2008 that I was dreading this election, because at some point the left was just going to stop talking and start screaming the word "CHANGE!" and that was all it was really going to take. I was right to dread this election, and for many moons refused to even hear a word about it from anyone, until Sarah Palin was announced. But I called it. These people are predictable as balls rolling down slopes - and there's nothing "new" or "changey" about it. It's just another word they use for leverage.

Rev. Manning on Revolution

I tend to look at things politically rather than through the lens of my faith here, but sometimes someone pokes me and I can't help but see it through my faith. This is one of those times.

Yay, A New Post!

It's possible Cheney remains a stalwart defender of conservative principle to cover for his activities leading the Dick Cheney Executive Assassination Squad. Shhhh, it's a secret.

My friends, I am just as dismayed as you at the utter GLUT of news that has continued to pile up day by day by day since November 4th, and am as overwhelmed as you are. I don't intend to stop blogging, but I surely can't cover it all - please refer to Moonbattery, Newsbusters, The Rottweiler, and various other blogs on my roll to keep up with all the happenings, all right? I am only one person, I'm busy, and I am looking to become even busier. But here's one that interested me.

Why IS Dick Cheney so chatty all of a sudden?

Off the top of my head I can think of many reasons. For one, he's finally free of the constraints of actually having to make decisions regarding national security without being a camera whore, he is finally free of the constraints of having wackos trying to handcuff him on stage (ok, so that was Rove) and screaming "BuCheneyHitler!" at him (well, ok, maybe not) every time he shows his face, and last but not least, our new administration has decided to release sensitive and important national security documents and lessen our national security - security which Cheney has worked really fucking hard to build up for the last 8 years or so. I might "chat" a little myself. I might start to defend myself for once as well, waking up and realizing "Wow, it's not all up to me anymore...but the new guy sure is fucking it up - I better speak up now."

One of the main differences between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, was that right away you knew you weren't going to be seeing these guys on television all. the. fucking. time. They weren't big camera whores, they weren't going on Leno, they weren't doing endless photo ops, holding hands and shaking babies world without end. After 8 years of IN-YOUR-FACE, we had some peace and quiet, and we could, within limits, ignore Washington. Contrary to leftist opinion, this is a positive thing. As far as national security, I had some confidence that these people actually did have the best interests of the country at heart, DID intend to keep the US safe and free, and I felt that on that particular score at least, I had reason for confidence - reason to say, "SOME things just have to be secret. It's the nature of the beast." You don't, for example, go blabbing the location of secret Pakistani ally bases helping combat terrorism to the world at large (cough-Pelosi-cough).

With the advent of the new-style hopey changey chop suey, all that changed. This was not just going to be a transparent administration (well...transparent about certain things and not others - certainly transparent about the prior administration!) it became clear that we were once again under the leadership of megalomaniac narcissists who intended each and every day in each and every way to be IN OUR FACES. It was not going to be possible to ignore them to any degree because they are camera whores the likes of which we haven't seen since Billy-boy and his associates. These people mean to be stars, and stars they are! And in order to detract from their utter incompetence and asininity, one of their tactics has been to expose the secret intelligence of the past administration. It had the opposite of the effect they'd intended, so they're gonna try to make it into a...hehe, well, into a federal case. Tried, of course, in the popular newsmedia. Coolness counts! SWAGGA matters! (I'd like to turn a duck gun on that reporter who compared Obi-wan to Billy Dee Williams and Shaft - this guy is so whitebred, so Don No-Soul-Simmons that the very idea of him having the same kind of "cool" as Billy Dee or Shaft or Dolemite is asinine. He possesses the elite urbanite coolness that is popular with white latte-sipping leftists; not SWAGGA FFS.)

On to their speculation as to why he's talking now. First they describe with breathless pearl-clutching how busy Dick and Liz Cheney's schedules have been. Dickses and Lizzes and schedules, oh my! Those tricksy Cheneys!

Parsing Cheney — code-named Angler by the Secret Service — is a lot like fishing in dark water; there's a lot going on underneath, but you'd never know it from staring at the surface. So let's take Cheney's own stated explanation first. The former Veep says he's worried that by dismantling a controversial Bush-era terrorist surveillance program and stepping back from harsh interrogation policies, the Obama Administration is putting the nation at risk. "I think it's fair to argue," said Cheney, "that we're not going to have the same safeguards we've had for the last eight years."

Man, if I have a secret code name with the Secret Service, I hope it's something awesome like "Angler." Um, I guess it doesn't matter anymore that people know this secret code name? I hope not, since they just reported it. However, that explanation makes perfect sense and I'd say he's understating the case. Emphasis mine to show the editorialization of this article. See, it's not labeled Op/Ed, but it am anyway!

Cheney is clearly troubled both by Obama's rollback of the policies he championed and the buzz on the left that a sitting President might prosecute a predecessor who took those policies too far. Cheney has repeatedly charged the White House with proceeding with prosecutions against the Justice Department lawyers who found the legal basis for the policies and the CIA officers who executed them. But Cheney is reaching: Obama has stopped short of calling for anything more than a probe into the genesis of the Bush-era tactics. True, a probe might well lead to more questions about Cheney's conduct, but Obama has specifically ruled out legal action against the CIA officers.

No, they were satisfied with naming, publishing photos, and telling us where those officers now work. Why prosecute when you can paint a target on their heads instead? Also, who cares where Obama has stopped short? The guy's an incompetent boob so far as the nitty gritty and an evil supergenius insofar as the big picture - he also lies through his teeth. His stopping short now will mean nothing a month from now. Cheney is right to be worried.

Now here's the part that killed me - no need to emphasize anything because it's pure spin and it's...insane.

A more likely explanation is that Cheney, who championed the idea of preemptive-attack doctrine as Vice President, knows that in politics as well the best defense is often a good offense. With the White House decision to release various Bush-era memos on interrogation, and the coming disclosure of thousands more photographs from Abu Ghraib later this month, Cheney is "trying to rewrite history," says a Republican consultant who has experience in intelligence matters. "He knows that as time goes by, he will look worse. And so he's trying to put his stroke on it." (See pictures of the aftershocks of Abu Ghraib.)

Cheney obliquely conceded as much on Sunday, when he told CBS's Bob Scheiffer, "I think it's very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done." That sounds like: O.K., we got a little out of hand. But we meant well. So how 'bout we just let it go?

He's trying to rewrite history by getting ALL the information OUT? Even the bit that HAS gotten out has done nothing but vindicate him, as well as to demonstrate that he was NOT in fact the prime mover to begin with (Liz Cheney's interview with Norah Dumbass a few posts ago deals with that well). Providing full documentation is REWRITING history? And by what stretch of the imagination is what he said there possibly interpretable as anything remotely like "Let it go, we fucked up"? In fact it says precisely the opposite, just as the documentation so far proves precisely the opposite. How does this idiot read that stuff and say the opposite of what it means - isn't reading comprehension a bare minimum for journalism??? How did this guy make it through school? Also, when did we switch from legal and sanctioned interrogations approved by all the legal committees and the president's men in Guantanamo - where, you know, the waterboarding took place - to Abu Ghraib? Little bait-and-switch? Do they teach that in Journalism 101? Cheney didn't approve or endorse the abuses of Abu Ghraib and you're comparing apples and garden hoses here - liar.

What's quite clear about Cheney's sudden chatty spree is that he wants to refocus the question about waterboarding and other interrogation techniques from whether they were legal to whether they worked. After eight years on the front lines of the war on terrorism, perhaps that is all a man can see. It certainly might explain why Cheney is making such a fuss about asking Obama to release a pair of after-action memos — which he says offer proof that the controversial methods produced evidence that, as Cheney claimed on Sunday, "saved thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives."

Which is clearly irrelevant. If it saved 6 million lives it would be irrelevant, right? And we already know it was legal, which is why we can move on to the question of what it accomplished. The un-uniformed, un-countried enemy combatants could have been killed where they stood and instead got a resort-like captivity - and if they didn't spill the goods we knew they had, they got a caterpillar or a walling. 2 of them got legally waterboarded and hundreds of thousands of Americans were saved. Cry me a fucking river.

A far darker explanation for the spring offensive isn't about the past but the future. Obama officials have spied something like a set-up in Cheney's latest gambit. One of the Bush team's biggest talking points in its final days in office was an insistence that its greatest accomplishment was preventing a second attack in the years after Sept. 11. By laying down the charge now that Obama has made the country less safe, the Bush team may be able to point fingers of blame if a second attack ever comes.

Irrelevant. For the next 30 years the left will blame Bush (unless someone else comes along they hate more) and the rest of us already know who is deliberately weakening us and setting us up for another attack. The message of the Bush years was that you may build democracies in the ME (wow...that's really amazing actually) but until you've built *only* democracies in the ME you can't let your guard down for a second. Our guard is being not just let down, but THROWN down with reckless abandon. Cheney's got no reason to go on a tour to set up the possible future repercussions here - he's not that vapid nor that stupid. He knows we aren't either. Hell, Biden himself told us right out that this man was going to be tested within 6 months and that it was going to look like they did exactly the wrong thing, right? Blame Biden, then.

Then they say something about maybe salvaging his reputation - I mean, yeah, I would want to as well if I were this guy. He got one fuck of a bad rap.

Cheney briefly ran for President in 1996, and though he is unlikely to make that mistake again, he may see a chance to boost his dismal approval ratings at least within the battered ranks of the GOP.

Yeah, he already has. Not sure why you care, but when your buddy released those memos Cheney's approvability shot up like a rocket. And the speaking he has been engaging in has had the same effect as well. It might have been nice if he'd done it during his tenure, but he had a damn country to run, and what good would it have done anyway?

In any case, Cheney's reappearance has delighted Democrats — "Bring it on!" quipped a White House official on Tuesday afternoon, when asked about Cheney's re-emergence

God, they're stupid.

— and dismayed Republicans. Said one: "We're trying to turn the page, and he's climbing out of the grave to haunt us."

Holy mixed metaphors, Batman! Must have been Meghan McCain. Some RINO; who cares?

The Myth of Media "Objectivity" Exposed

In other news, a graphic representation of the 100 million dollar "cut" Obama has promised to take out of his monstrous, 3.6 trillion dollar, double-your-debt-with-the-flourish-of-a-pen "budget." This is what's known as "perspective."

Remember when he said he was gonna go over the budget line by line with a scalpel? I think the scalpel is just to make sure that he can make the tiniest possible cuts out of this outlandish spending. The former yowling Obamaniacs at work have sure been quiet lately. I can't imagine why they might be embarassed, can you? He didn't tell us he was going to do this crazy spending. Not until after the inauguration. He kept it all under wraps, opposing bailouts and saying not to worry, he was gonna fix it. He's fixing us, all right.

And if I hear him say one more time that "WE" are all just gonna have to tighten our belts, I'll blow a gasket. Washington isn't tightening its belts - it's unleashing an F6 tornado of wasteful spending, taken from people like you and me. HE isn't tightening his belt (well, he did leave a shitty tip at the burger joint, maybe that's what he meant.) No, his belt is nice and loose - crank that heat up, crackers - I want it hot enough in here to grow orchids (while us peons are expected to keep the heat down to 68.) He's having pizza flown in and eating Wagyu beef and Michelle's prancing around (or lumbering) in $550 sneakers while turning over a token spadeful of ground for the garden. Their belts are doing just fine. The only people who have to tighten their belts are those who have to pay for all this - you, and me. So no more of this "we" shit, Obama - it doesn't wash. I have to say, the look on Biden's face when Obi asked for the poupon for his cheeseburger (the regular cheeseburger, medium well with cheddar, and no ketchup, just spicy dijon) was really funny. Old Plugs is the funniest thing in this administration. Even he was looking between Obi and the cashier, like "What the hell am I listening to? This guy for real or what? Are you hearing this shit?" So that was good. I mean I don't give a shit what the guy eats, but it could only have been better if he asked for arugula instead of lettuce on his "regular" cheeseburger.

For humor's sake I'll post the video - never mind Obi, watch Plugs LOL