Sunday, December 17, 2006

Yesterday’s friends are today's enemies

* atrios:
"Anyway, I try to resist criticizing the presidential hopefuls too much (except for, you know, the ones I clearly find comical) and I recognize that these people don't have magic powers which allow them to cause George Bush to do something different. But aside from the fact that they're running for president and I'd like one of them to win, these people will increasingly be the face of the Democratic party. More than Reid and Pelosi they will be the leaders from the perspective of the media. Given their lack of superpowers it isn't necessarily the case that what they say about Iraq is all that important right now, but at a bare minimum what they do need to understand is that two F.U.s from now the Iraq bed will still not be unshitted. At that point the media will be hanging on their every word, including probably a few they just make up. Serious candidates need to understand that whatever they're saying about the subject now, they need to say it based on the understanding that things are not going to be better a year from now.

Most importantly, they need to know what they're going to be saying a year from now."

* dreyfuss:
"The latest news from Iraq—namely, that Bush and Ambassador Khalilzad are trying to micromanage the creation of yet another pro-American coalition government to replace the current regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki—is a sign that the president is truly lost in a fantasy land. The president is making policy for an Iraq that exists only in his imagination, even as conditions in the real Iraq, the one here on this planet, deteriorate ever faster.
Because the government of puppets won’t hold, the only really viable government in Iraq must be built around the one theme that a majority of both Sunnis and Shiites support—namely, the withdrawal of U.S. forces. One scenario to achieve this is for a new Hakim-Hashemi government simply to ask the United States to leave Iraq, perhaps in six months when, many Iraqi leaders say, their own army and police will be ready to take over. (They won’t be ready, but no matter.) An alternate scenario—more ugly from the standpoint of the Bush administration—is for Sadr, militant Sunnis, and anti-SCIRI Shiites to form a broad-based anti-U.S. occupation bloc and take power, ordering an immediate U.S. pullout. Unless President Bush is truly Machiavellian, the likelihood of the former is nearly zero. And although, at this moment, a coalition between Sadr and the Sunni-led resistance in Iraq is unlikely, things are moving fast. What seems impossible today could take the United States by surprise tomorrow. As Sadr said on Sunday, in a fiery speech demanding that the United States withdraw its troops: “Yesterday’s friends are today's enemies, and yesterday's enemies are today's friends.”"

* larisa appears to have responded positively to my recent post about her unleashing her blog-voice:
"Blair is in DEEEEEEP Kaka!!!
That is not an intelligent mishap, blunder, snafu, or any shade of oops. That is clear evidence of intelligence cooking, which unlike an oops or a mistake, would require a coordinated intention to mislead both nations into a war of aggression.

Sounds to me like we need to import some Democracy from the UK in order to get our own Congress to finally say what it already knows: this country was lied to using cooked/sham intelligence in order to mislead a grieving nation into a war that has cost us dearly in lives and resources.
On second thought, it appears we already have British style democracy here which, produced its own version of the Butler commission and report and cleared our own leadership of anything yucky or mean, them being all good Christians and all. I am curious, just what kind of crime does a leader of a free (sort of) nation have to commit in order to be actually held accountable? Anyone know? Rape, murder, fraud, bribery, abuse of power, extortion, being mean and yucky?
What is of most interest to me, however, right at this moment is the Kelly meeting. What a strange coincidence that Kelly's last email was to Judy Miller (largely known for her role in writing lie after lie in order to help this administration launch a phony war) describing "many dark actors playing games." I wonder who these actors were and what games they were playing at the time, did you? Do you still? Yep, same here. I have often wondered if Judy is not one of these dark actors. In any case, look for our beloved free corporate press to report on anything BUT this. And if they touch it, it will be only to tap at Blair, staying far away from the Bush administration."

* here's a thought: Perhaps Mary Cheney is actually straight and married, and the whole lesbian shtick is actually a dog-whistle to Teh Gays that republicans really love them and want their votes, despite the fact that the GOP has to make loud onemanonewoman noises to appease their christianist base. And Mary's presumed 'partner' is actually just a cover story - much like Mark Foley used to take gorgeous women to cocktail parties. or something.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps Mary is a secret cornholer

Anonymous said...

...more cornholing

oldschool said...

Perhaps Mary Cheney is actually straight and married...

dude - that's no lesbian schtick - not that I can claim any great gay-dar ability - but that one can't be missed.

Put a little ice on your head....

rimone said...

here's a thought: Perhaps Mary Cheney is actually straight and married, and the whole lesbian shtick is actually a dog-whistle to Teh Gays that republicans really love them and want their votes

whatever drugs you're on, i wannem now.