Memo To Benito Giuliani and The Christian Right: Shut The Fuck Up

There's a lotta evil in this photo. A lotta crazy, too.

As you may have heard by now, the evil husk of a human known as Rudolph Giuliani recently received the endorsement of sanctimonious sack of shit Pat Robertson. So let's go over what this means. Giuliani is claiming that he deserves to be President because of September 11th. At least, that's what I get out of his campaign rhetoric. He wants to "keep America safe" by turning the country into a mirror image of the USSR's police state ca. 1948, plus racism. He wants to lock more people up indefinitely, spy on your telephone conversations and bank records, and torture the shit out of anyone even suspected of being an "enemy," as defined by him (note: history teaches us that such an approach never, ever ends well). In one of the Republican "debates" (if by "debate" you mean "the howling of the monkeys flinging shit at the zoo"), Giuliani got all up in nutjob Libertarian Ron Paul's grill because Paul had the audacity to suggest that US foreign policy might, might have something to do with motivating terrorist attacks against the United States. Here's exactly what Paul said:

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

--snip--

I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

Wow. That's really controversial, isn't it? Cause precedes effect. Oh my. However, since that pesky little thing known as "reason" has no place in Republican politics, Giuliani, howling and throwing shit like the finest piece of in-heat monkey ass in the world was just out of reach, screeched that Ron Paul must be off his meds. Rather than examine actual causes and try to prevent doing things that are the geopolitical equivalent of kicking a hornet's nest and then wondering why you're getting stung (oh, I'm not saying that we shouldn't find Osama bin Laden and throw him in a hole for the rest of his miserable fucking life, so don't get all pissy about that), Rudolph decided to attack Ron Paul. To wit:

Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that.

That's right, bitches. But it went on, as Ron Paul tried to use (gasp) a historical example to buttress his argument:

I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

In case you're wondering, Paul's position is the same as set out in the US Government's 9/11 Commission Report (warning-PDF). But it's so much more fun and easy to say that "They hate us for our freedoms." Yeah, Giuliani fell back on the same tired-ass explanations for terrorism that were oh-so-popular immediately after 9/11 in a post-debate interview with talk show host and Republican cum bucket Sean Hannity--you can see the video here. I wonder if, during the "harsh interrogations," the idea of which get Giuliani's shriveled little penis semi-tumescent, the modern-day inquisitors ask the detainees why they hate our freedoms.

But what does all this have to do with Pat Robertson? I'm glad you asked. Two days after the 9/11 terror attacks, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell got together on TV to combine their two-and-a-half functioning neurons into a brain trust for the ages, in an attempt to determine why these awful attacks had just taken place. You know what they blamed? Our freedoms.

Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system."

The word "hypocrite" doesn't begin to describe these two cocksuckers. Giuliani is running for president based on the fact that he wasn't visibly shitting himself on the morning of September 11, 2001. He wants to tear down a couple of centuries' worth of liberties to make sure that the people who "hate our freedom" won't have anything left to hate. If anyone suggests that there might be root causes for terrorism, he totally loses his shit. He also supports abortion rights, gay rights, has been seen in drag in public on several occasions, associates with suspected criminals, is a serial adulterer, and treats his ex-wives and his children like they carry the plague. Pat Robertson loudly declaims that abortion and homosexuality and feminism and, you know, our rights are why we endure terrorism, and also spent all of the Clinton years warning us that Clinton's sexual indiscretions were going to doom us all, because we just can't be led by people who enjoy orgasms and don't think that homosexuals should be confined to prison camps. It makes baby Jeebus angry. Also, in case you were wondering if Giuliani is actually the most "moral" of the Republican presidential candidates (according to the fucked-up morality of the Christian right, that is), Mike Huckabee is actually a Baptist minister. So Robertson could've thrown his support behind a candidate who is much more Republican Jeebus-friendly than Giuliani. But he didn't.

Giuliani and Robertson. They've teamed up.

So please, please Pat and Rudolph: Shut the fuck up. You two give hypocritical assholes a bad name.

More Like This, Please

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown testifying to Congress about the size of his dick.

John Edwards has a really good idea, and it's got a pithy, memorable, funny term: Brownie's Law.

Former Sen. John Edwards said at a Hurricane Katrina conference he would propose what he called "Brownie's Law" requiring that qualified people, not political hacks, lead key federal agencies.

Edwards, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, drew laughter when he spoke on Monday of the proposal at the "Hope and Recovery Summit" ahead of the two-year anniversary of the storm on Wednesday.

"It's an absolute travesty to have people who are essentially political hacks in a very responsible position," he told the audience at the University of New Orleans.

"Brownie" refers to Michael Brown, who was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency when Katrina struck the United States on August 29, 2005. He was criticized as being a political appointee unprepared to lead FEMA when a floundering government effort stranded thousands for days in flooded New Orleans.

He resigned shortly after President George W. Bush, who appointed him to the post, told him publicly, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" as chaos reigned in the devastated city.

Attention Democrats: This is the kind of shit you need to be doing. It's easily understandable, memorable, and has the support of, oh, 95% of the population (I assume). What an idea--appointing competent officials to high government positions.

Read the rest of the article to get a sense of how fucking crazy Duncan Hunter (R-Bedlam) really is. When the Republicans claim that "government is inept," what they're omitting is the modifier "Republican-run" before the noun in that phrase.

You May Have Heard About This By Now

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his life partner, undated photo.

Uh, yeah. Gonzo's out. I'd be happy, but I'm kind of worried about which even-douchebaggier-douchebag they'll find to replace him.

Stupid Neocon Fantasies

The March of Folly, indeed

So I was reading Digby, like all of you should be doing as well. (Uh, that'll be $35.00, Digby. You're welcome.) She spends some time on Rudolph "Benito" Giuliani and "his" recent article in Foreign Affairs. She easily detects the fingerprints of the godfather of soul neoconservative drivel, Norman Podhoretz. She also makes the following observation, which I think needs comment:

According to this thesis, we have been fighting WWIV for 37 years, overlapping with WWIII by about 20. And WWIV is far from over. in fact, we might even be fighting WWV and WWVI right now, and not even know it.

Okay. So the neocons are idiots. We all know that. But there are a couple of things I'd like to point out. First of all, let's talk about World War II. It was a hell of a cataclysm. Some 60 million people died as a result of the war. The major focus of world economic activity for nearly half a decade was the production of material to slaughter other people (or to support that slaughter). It completely remade the world and American society in ways too numerous to detail here. Now, are we to equate that conflict with the War On Terra? Instead of fighting two massive, modern, industrial nation states on either side of the globe, who's the enemy here? That's right. Some broke-ass motherfuckers living in caves. I'm not saying that al-Qaeda is insignificant. However, we are not going to engage those bastards in a titanic world struggle for the preservation of our way of life. Notice we haven't had, say, a draft, or even partial mobilization of the country for war.

Now about the length of the conflict. Let's say, for the sake of convenience, that it started on 1 September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. Yeah, we could date the start with the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, or of Manchuria in 1933, or, hell, even claim that the entire war was an extension of the Great War of 1914-1918. But let's stick with 1939, 'cause that's what most of the history books say. The war in Europe ended in May of 1945, and the Pacific war ended in August the same year. So that's a six-year war. Using my math skillz (they are teh awesum!), that averages out to ten million dead people per year. Yeah, I know that the killing wasn't evenly distributed over the entire war, but work with me here. If the War On Terra is JUST THE SAME AS WW2!!!11!!, shouldn't there be, say, 370 million dead people as a result? Of course, that's a stupid comparison. But it's exactly the kind of false equivalence that the wingnuts do about (inaccurate) murder rates in American cities vis-a-vis Baghdad.

I know that the Baby Boomers and the "Silent" Generation (of which N-Pod is a member) grew up in the shadow of World War II, and they've been trying to measure up to that for their entire lives. But we really need to find a new way of categorizing world events. The World Wars happened on a scale and to an extent that, we all pray, this little planet will probably never see again. We are not engaged in a titanic world struggle to preserve our way of life. We're just not. It doesn't matter how many times Pammycakes or Michelle Malkin or Rudy! bleat about the dire Islamojihadioompaloompaist threat. There really isn't any kind of existential peril. You don't need a World War to define your life. I imagine that if the rightwing bedwetters would take a deep breath and come to grips with these facts, they could actually relax and enjoy life once in a while.

Good News, Everyone!

Oh my, yes.

It looks like Karl Rove is resigning to spend more time with his leather slave. Seriously.

Anyway, sorry I haven't had much lately. Things have been busy on my end.

Rudy Giuliani, Reference Groups, and Rampant Motherfuckery

Poor Rudy. I feel for him.

Vanity Fair has a profile of Judith Stish Ross Nathan Giuliani (the third iteration of Mrs. Giuliani for Rudy) in this months issue.

Check this out:

And when she met Giuliani, Felder adds, he didn't have much money, either, "because Rudy was living on a mayor's salary"—$195,000 a year—"and had no inherited wealth, and was supporting his family very, very well."

Raoul Felder was Rudolph "Benito" Giuliani's divorce lawyer, the one that Rudy sent out to publicly humiliate his then-wife, Donna Hanover. The way Giuliani treated his family during that divorce should go down in the annals of motherfuckery. Felder, sonofabitch that he is, also represented Judith blah blah blah Giuliani a few years ago in a custody battle over a child from a previous marriage.

But about that paltry mayor's salary--this shit makes me sick.

Since when is $200,000 not "much money"? Boo fucking hoo. The median household income in 1999 (warning: PDF), when the already-married Giuliani met this woman, was just a hair under $42,000/year. His salary would have put Rudy in the top 2.4% of all income earners in the US then.

As far as how much money he had to pay in alimony: If he hadn't been such a colossal douchebag to his ex-wives, he wouldn't have had to pay out as much cash.

Who the fuck are these people comparing salaries with? "Only" $200,000? I've been hanging out with the wrong people my entire life, apparently, since I am under the impression that a six-figure salary is pretty fucking good. Especially when you live in Gracie Mansion and don't pay any rent. Only 200 G's. I'll file that under "Problems I Wish I Had."

Check out James Wolcott's take on this piece. But I should warn you--you'll laugh out loud, and maybe throw up in your mouth a little.

Originally found over at InstaPutz, your clearinghouse for mockery of Glenn Reynolds (InstaCracker to some) and Ann Althouse (The Shrieking Harpy of Wisconsin).

I Know Condoms Are a Barrier Method, But This Is Ridiculous

Well, it is a very big border.

Condoms. What can't they do? In addition to helping prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's, one House Republican thinks they can stop illegal immigration! I shit you not. I can't make up things like this.

A congressman is pushing a not-so-quick fix in the debate over illegal immigrants from Mexico: free contraceptives.

"A slower rate of growth of Mexico's population would improve the economy of Mexico. It would also reduce the environmental pressure on Mexico's ecosystem. But a slower rate of growth would also reduce the long-term illegal immigration pressure on America's borders," reasoned Rep. Mark Kirk, who also supports stronger border security in the short-term.

In reality, fertility rates have plunged in Mexico since 1980, when an average couple would have five or more children. Now, the country's fertility rate has dropped to 2.5 children, compared to 2.1 for the United States, according to United Nations data.

Kirk, an Illinois Republican, made the argument on Thursday during a heated debate in the House of Representatives over whether the U.S. government should be allowed to donate condoms and other contraceptives to family planning agencies abroad that also engage in abortion.

The proposal was narrowly approved by the House, over the protests of anti-abortion lawmakers who prefer sex abstinence education. The measure faces a veto threat from the White House.

Kirk, who attended college in Mexico and holds a master's degree from the London School of Economics, may have offered an idea that might appeal to some fiscal conservatives.

Shipping condoms to the poor in Mexico could be cheaper than the multibillion-dollar fence being constructed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

It's funny to watch the crazy Republicans--is their hatred of sexuality going to win out over their good old-fashioned racism and xenophobia? Stay tuned next week to find out!

Really, though, there's so much here that's funny and tragic. To begin with, the oh-so-hilarious phrase "anti-abortion lawmakers who prefer sex abstinence education." How the fuck did abortion get mixed up in this? These fools just don't wany anyone fucking, anywhere. On to Rep. Kirk's assumption that carpet-bombing Mexico with Durex (I guess that would be the new GBU-69 Anti-potential Personnel Device in military terms) will magically reduce fertility rates, which will in turn end illegal immigration. Uh, Mr. Kirk? I have a couple of friends I would like you to meet. They're called "Cause" and "Effect." Finally, what kind of imperialistic bullshit is this, anyway? It's not enough that these "small-government conservatives" have to be up to their eyeballs in our personal lives--now they're looking to go international? (And, yes, I know about all the bullshit with respect to AIDS prevention programs in Africa and condoms.)

We paid Mr. Kirk over $165,000 last year so he could come up with brainstorms like this. God Bless America.

For What It's Worth

I don't think the answer is quite this simple.

Take a look at this.

Click image for a larger version.

Wow. Bush hasn't had a 50% or greater approval rating (whatever the hell that really means) since the end of 2005. And that was clearly an outlier.

Angels and Ministers of Grace Defend Us

Lynne Cheney's favorite beer.

Please, dear lord, don't let this happen.

Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Cheney, is “being floated in Senate GOP leadership circles as a possible replacement for the late Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY), who died Monday night.”

We're begging down here.

What the Fuck?

Elephant in the room? What elephant in the room?

Uh, Mitt? You might wanna think about coming up with something to say about that whole war thing. People seem to care about it.

And at another forum in West Des Moines, Republican Steven Faux, 54, was left cold after telling Romney that his son's National Guard unit was on the verge of deployment to Iraq. The candidate does not mention the war in his stump speech.

Describing himself as a "worried parent," Faux, a Drake University professor, called the war a "mess" and asked Romney how he would fix it.

Romney responded by voicing support for President Bush's recent troop buildup, saying it had a "reasonable prospect of success." He outlined risks of a quick U.S. withdrawal but offered no hint of how he would proceed if Bush could not stabilize Iraq.

Wow. Just...wow.

That's about as politically tone-deaf as a person can be.

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to Cheney: Go Fuck Yourself!

Ha fucking ha!

Now this is a court ruling I really appreciate. Partly because I like swearing, but mostly because of the court's reasoning.

If President Bush and Vice President Cheney can blurt out vulgar language, then the government cannot punish broadcast television stations for broadcasting the same words in similarly fleeting contexts.

That, in essence, was the decision on Monday, when a federal appeals panel struck down the government policy that allows stations and networks to be fined if they broadcast shows containing obscene language.

Although the case was primarily concerned with what is known as “fleeting expletives,” or blurted obscenities, on television, both network executives and top officials at the Federal Communications Commission said the opinion could gut the ability of the commission to regulate any speech on television or radio.

Kevin J. Martin, the chairman of the F.C.C., said that the agency was now considering whether to seek an appeal before all the judges of the appeals court or to take the matter directly to the Supreme Court.

The decision, by a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, was a sharp rebuke for the F.C.C. and for the Bush administration. For the four television networks that filed the lawsuit — Fox, CBS, NBC and ABC — it was a major victory in a legal and cultural battle that they are waging with the commission and its supporters.

Under President Bush, the F.C.C. has expanded its indecency rules, taking a much harder line on obscenities uttered on broadcast television and radio. While the judges sent the case back to the commission to rewrite its indecency policy, it said that it was “doubtful” that the agency would be able to “adequately respond to the constitutional and statutory challenges raised by the networks.”

The networks hailed the decision.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision and continue to believe that the government regulation of content serves no purpose other than to chill artistic expression in violation of the First Amendment,” said Scott Grogin, a senior vice president at Fox. “Viewers should be allowed to determine for themselves and their families, through the many parental control technologies available, what is appropriate viewing for their home.”

Mr. Martin, the chairman of the commission, attacked the panel’s reasoning.

“I completely disagree with the court’s ruling and am disappointed for American families,” he said. “The court says the commission is ‘divorced from reality.’ It is the New York court, not the commission, that is divorced from reality.”

He said that if the agency was unable to prohibit some vulgarities during prime time, “Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want.”

Beginning with the F.C.C.’s indecency finding in a case against NBC for a vulgarity uttered by the U2 singer Bono during the Golden Globes awards ceremony in 2003, President Bush’s Republican and Democratic appointees to the commission have imposed a tougher policy by punishing any station that broadcast a fleeting expletive. That includes vulgar language blurted out on live shows like the Golden Globes or scripted shows like “NYPD Blue,” which was cited in the case.

Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.

But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.

“We find that the F.C.C.’s new policy regarding ‘fleeting expletives’ fails to provide a reasoned analysis justifying its departure from the agency’s established practice,” said the panel.

Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had no comment about the ruling.

Although the judges struck down the policy on statutory grounds, they also said there were serious constitutional problems with the commission’s attempt to regulate the language of television shows.

“We are skeptical that the commission can provide a reasoned explanation for its ‘fleeting expletive’ regime that would pass constitutional muster,” said the panel in an opinion written by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler and joined by Judge Peter W. Hall. “We question whether the F.C.C.’s indecency test can survive First Amendment scrutiny.”

Hoo-fucking-ray for obscenity!

I'm glad that all these "small-government conservatives" care so much about keeping the state intruding into our personal lives.

And They Call It Puppy Love

You wish the story was cute like this.

Get a room, you two. Yuck. I can't bring out excerpts that do it justice, so please go read it. I would advise you to be near a bathroom, garbage can, or airsickness bag.

The last thing I need to see in the New York Times is a running love letter to Rudolph "Benito" Giuliani.

Now I'm gonna go shower in bleach to get the ewwwww off.

This Is (Hopefully) the End of the Abstinence

Back to the museum for you!

Well, of abstinence-only education, anyway. And that bullshit couldn't have died a sooner death.

Democrats plan to let a federal abstinence-education program die quietly next month, demonstrating that pursuit of their legislative agenda can sometimes be passive.

The authorization for Title V abstinence-education grants expires at the end of June, and those on both sides of the sex-education debate agree that the $50 million-a-year mandatory-spending program — which draws an additional $37.5 million match from the states — stands little chance of winning an extension from a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Democrats generally favor a broader approach to sex education, but the issue is a tricky one politically. So Democrats are not calling attention to the impending demise of the abstinence-only approach, which was established under the 1996 welfare overhaul (PL 104-193) and is now operating under a six-month extension (PL 109-432) — or to the possibility that a $110 million discretionary-spending abstinence program funded through the Department of Health and Human Services may be zeroed out for fiscal 2008.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell, D-Mich., does not plan to extend the grant program, according to his spokeswoman, Jodi Seth.

“The Speaker will look to Chairman Dingell for leadership on this issue,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Democrats point to a study sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and released last month as evidence that an abstinence-only approach is ineffective. The study concluded that students given abstinence education were no more likely to abstain from sex, that those who had sex did so with a similar number of partners as those who did not receive abstinence education and that those students first had sex at the same mean age.

But proponents of abstinence education say it is more popular among parents than other types of sex education. They point to a recent Zogby poll commissioned by a pro-abstinence organization. Seventy-eight percent of parents responding said sex-education classes should place greater emphasis on abstinence than on contraception.

Conservative House Republicans favor extending the abstinence-only grants.

“Anything this Congress does that promotes promiscuity on the part of our young people is a step in the wrong direction,” said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

But advocates of abstinence-only education acknowledge that the programs’ death by congressional inaction is likely.

“I expect an effort by Democrats to kill off both federal abstinence programs,” said Robert Rector, senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It would effectively kill abstinence education.”

“It’s disappointing,” said Skip Brown, spokesman for Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., a leading proponent of abstinence education. “By killing this, Democrats are going against the wishes of most parents.”
Broader Approach

Under the Title V program, states receive formula-based grants to provide abstinence-only education. They must teach that abstinence is the expected standard for unmarried schoolchildren; that monogamous marriages are “the expected standard of human sexual activity”; that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid extramarital pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and related health problems; and that extramarital sex and child-bearing are harmful to parents, children and society.

Democrats including Pelosi contend that abstinence should be taught as part of a broader sex-education curriculum.

“The Speaker supports funding for both abstinence and comprehensive sexuality education,” Hammill said. “We must get at the root of the problem by reducing unintended pregnancies through sex education and access to contraception.”

California Democrat Henry A. Waxman, a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who battled against abstinence-only education when Democrats were in the minority, said he would oppose any effort to extend the federal grant program. He called it a “huge waste of money” and said it “gives a lot of kids misinformation” on health issues.

Henry Waxman--you're not the easiest person on the eyes, but you kick much ass. Kudos to you, sir.

Let's hope that this shit just goes away for good.

As the Iraqis Stand Up...

Cluster bomb.


Cluster fuck.

George Bush, June 2005:

"Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

Things today are somewhat different:

WASHINGTON - Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

In a reflection of the need for more U.S. troops, the Pentagon decided earlier this month to increase the length of U.S. Army tours in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. The extension came amid speculation that the U.S. commander there, Army Gen. David Petraeus, will ask that the troop increase be maintained well into 2008.

U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions. They say they now must establish security while training Iraqi forces because ultimately, "they are our ticket out of Iraq," as one senior Pentagon official put it.

Could some enterprising reporter ask the President about this? When will our Great Mesopotamian Adventure come to an end?

Tammy Baldwin, You Kick Ass

About to be opened

Good times, good times.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin called on Congress Monday to investigate the prosecution of former state worker Georgia Thompson, whose bid-rigging conviction was overturned last week by a federal appeals court.

Thompson was accused of favoring a company with ties to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, and her conviction became an issue last year in his re-election campaign.

"Congress should also look into whether partisan politics influenced, or even dictated, the investigations conducted by the U.S. attorneys' offices in order to stay in the (Bush) administration's good graces," Baldwin, D-Madison, said in a statement.

In addition, Thompson told the state Monday she's interested in returning to work "as soon as possible," said Patrick Henderson, executive assistant at the Department of Administration. He said that might be by the end of April. Thompson expressed interest in returning to the division where she previously worked, but not as a procurement supervisor, he said.

I do so like this new "oversight" business that's going on.

Presidentin' Is Still Hard Work

Now who kin run mah war fer me?

Check out the latest brainstorm from the Bush Administration--they're looking for a "war czar."

No, really. I am not making this up.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House wants to appoint a high-profile overseer to manage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but has had trouble finding someone to take the job, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have turned down the position, the report said.

The war "czar" would report directly to President George W. Bush and national security adviser Stephen Hadley and would have authority to issue directions to the
Pentagon and the State Department, the newspaper said.

Retired Marine Gen. John "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander, was among those who rejected the job, the newspaper reported.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," Sheehan told the Post.

Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Dick Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq, the Post reported.

"So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " Sheehan told the paper.

Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston were also approached and said they were not interested in the position, the newspaper said, citing sources.

Ralston declined to comment while Keane confirmed he turned down the job, the Post said.

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone to fill the post before the job is announced.

Officials said they were still considering options to reorganize the White House's management of the two wars, the Post said.

Uh, you know, there's already someone who's in charge of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He has this oval-shaped office in a large white mansion in Washington, DC. You know, that "Decider" guy? Maybe you've heard of him.

Interesting how no one wants to be a part of Bush's train wreck, either. You'd think that you could find at least one sycophantic general ready to jump at the chance.

Hey, there might be someone for the job, after all. He's looking for work, I believe.

If I just sprinkle the pixie dust on the ground after I plant the magic beans, then Freedom™ will break out everywhere!

Finally, this looks like a good opportunity to use my absolute favorite photo ever of Rummy.

I swear, this photo has not been retouched.

April Is the Cruellest Month

You can't even breed lilacs out of the dead ground when it freezes overnight.

Even when you don't take the weather into account, April can be cruel. So very, very cruel.

Goddamn Annette Ziegler is now going to be a supreme court judge here for the next decade. So we can expect more good conservative ethics from our state judiciary. Bleah. I guess it's really hard for those rich folks to catch a break.

Karma: It's a Bitch

Nelson Muntz--he can't spell "schadenfreude," but he knows it when he sees it.

Looks like Rudolph's not gonna get to sit in the Oval Office after all. Not with friends like Bernard Kerik.

Good. The last thing this country needs is another authoritarian douchebag in the White House. As far as that goes, Giuliani's actually worse than Bush. Bush is an amateur at being authoritarian. "Benito" Giuliani is a pro.

Is Mitt Romney gonna be the last man standing? That would suit me just fine. I've got a better shot at being President than him.

Proud Moments in American History



Sweet fucking Jesus.

Some day, we'll look back at the Nixon presidency and say, "Man, those were the days."

And you thought the Kermit video was bad.

Check out the Rude Pundit's take on the evening.

And, for the record, Nas was right.

Should've Upgraded to "Deluxe" Missile Defense System

For just an extra $2.5 billion, you could've gotten the waterproofing and the clear coat protectant.

Okay. Now this is fucking stupid.

Rain KO'd Interceptors During Korea Missile Tests (Updated)

Torrential rains wiped out a quarter of the U.S.' intercontinental ballistic missile interceptor silos in Ft. Greely, Alaska last summer -- right when North Korea was preparing to carry out an advanced missile launch, according to documents obtained by the Project On Government Oversight.

"The flooding occurred during a three-week period between the end of June and early July 2006," POGO notes, in a statement. "The flooding damaged 25% of the U.S. interceptor missiles’ launch capability. These silos house the interceptor missiles that would be used to attempt to intercept a missile aimed at the United States. No interceptors were in the flooded silos."

An internal assessment by Boeing, the silos' chief contractor, shows seven flooded interceptor silos, out of the 26 at Ft. Greely. Two silos have more than 62 feet of water; a third has more than 50. Estimated times of repair range from four to 14 months. Boxcar like structures called Silo Interface Vaults (SIVs), adjacent to the interceptor silos, were also flooded, "two of them by as much as 15 feet of water," POGO says. "Three SIVs must have all electronic and mechanical systems replaced. Four other SIVs have partial damage. One SIV was so damaged that it shifted vertically in the ground like a house shifting off its foundation." It's a strange turn of events, considering "an environmental impact study of the facilities at Ft. Greely notes there is 'little rainfall in the region.'"

The "water intrusion... resulted from the confluence of several unanticipated and highly unlikely events," the Missile Defense Agency said in a statement . "In particular, totally unprecedented rainfall created a rapidly rising ground water condition coincident with steps of construction when the SIVs were susceptible to damage. The Missile Defense Agency allocated resources to repair the damage and recover from the event. Furthermore, steps have been taken to prevent recurrences in the future."

POGO blames Boeing for being "at least partly responsible for failing to protect the silos" from the elements. Nevertheless, the watchdog group observes, the company "will most likely still receive an estimated $38 million to repair the silos and a $100 million no-bid contract to build more silos. Boeing would also receive a $7 million award fee added to the contract."

But the larger issue at work here is: What exactly are we getting, for the $9 billion a year we're paying for missile defense? And why can't it take a little (ok, a whole bunch of) rain?

UPDATE: "This isn't the first problem that they had with the missile silos," notes Center for Defense Information missile guru Victoria Samson. "The February 2005 test failure of the GMD [ground midcourse defense] system [at Ft. Greely] was due to faulty silo arms that failed because they weren't able to handle the heavily salty environment in which they were placed, so Boeing had to pull them out and replace them. That's some real quality control work there. This also shows that the whole argument behind spiral development - that you can test and develop at the same time - turns out to be completely wrong."

One thing I kind of miss about the military is the way they can euphemize just about anything. Next time your house gets flooded, call the insurance company and tell them you've had a "water intrusion." Shit, you could probably get the local news to do a feature on you if you used a phrase like that.

So is this missile defense deal anything more than a giant taxpayer giveaway to Boeing? This system has screwed up just about every test, even the ones that were heavily rigged in its favor.

And it ain't cheap, either.