I'll say it now. If Romney becomes president, we will be at war with Iran within two years.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The mask slips

And the monster is revealed. The true GOP.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times:

For decades the G.O.P. has been the party of fear, ignorance and divisiveness. All you have to do is look around to see what it has done to the country. The greatest economic inequality since the Gilded Age was followed by a near-total collapse of the overall economy. As a country, we have a monumental mess on our hands and still the Republicans have nothing to offer in the way of a remedy except more tax cuts for the rich.

This is the party of trickle down and weapons of mass destruction, the party of birthers and death-panel lunatics. This is the party that genuflects at the altar of right-wing talk radio, with its insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry.

Glenn Beck of Fox News has called President Obama a “racist” and asserted that he “has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.”

Mike Huckabee, a former Republican presidential candidate, has said of Mr. Obama’s economic policies: “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff.”

The G.O.P. poisons the political atmosphere and then has the gall to complain about an absence of bipartisanship.

This is ugliness that was unleashed by the bizarre witch hunt of the Clintons, unleashed by the neocon agenda in the Bush terms, whipped on by the McCain/Palin speeches. The neocons and the Republicans realized that if you goad people into a frenzy, they will attack those who protest against wars, try to stand up against hate speech, attempt to have a public discussion. The easily distracted ignorant and stupid became their minions which freed them up to pursue their own agendas.

They took off the leash for the Bush years and cannot now rein them in. Watch them as they try to pretend these monsters aren't their own. They are already trying desperately to buff Bush's image, rewrite history, lie outright .... and when they find that won't change the rampaging wingnuts and teabaggers, try to indicate Bush was actually a liberal.

Bush's policies were the Republican policies taken further and more completely than any other president has ever taken them. Take a look at the wreckage and realize that this is what the Republican party stands for. The GOP OWNS the Bush debacle and the ensuing ugliness, and no amount of buffing, rewriting nor lying will change that.

Update: Krugman has more:

And let’s be clear: the campaign of fear hasn’t been carried out by a radical fringe, unconnected to the Republican establishment. On the contrary, that establishment has been involved and approving all the way. Politicians like Sarah Palin — who was, let us remember, the G.O.P.’s vice-presidential candidate — eagerly spread the death panel lie, and supposedly reasonable, moderate politicians like Senator Chuck Grassley refused to say that it was untrue. On the eve of the big vote, Republican members of Congress warned that “freedom dies a little bit today” and accused Democrats of “totalitarian tactics,” which I believe means the process known as “voting.”

Without question, the campaign of fear was effective: health reform went from being highly popular to wide disapproval, although the numbers have been improving lately. But the question was, would it actually be enough to block reform?

And the answer is no. The Democrats have done it. The House has passed the Senate version of health reform, and an improved version will be achieved through reconciliation.

This is, of course, a political victory for President Obama, and a triumph for Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker. But it is also a victory for America’s soul. In the end, a vicious, unprincipled fear offensive failed to block reform. This time, fear struck out.

And in the distance, we can still hear the shrill voices of the neocons....

Bomb Iran!

Bolton seems to believe that everything in the world can be fixed by nuking Iran .... economy, environment, jobs, acne, .....

Really, why on earth did we develop the A bomb if we weren't going to use it and show the world we're total badasses?

Because that was their intent all along... Iraq was supposed to be easy. They were going to pop out Hussein and pop in Chalabi and then be sitting pretty to start a real war with Iran.

And they're making sure the next crop of neocons gets the message:

And even some non-neocons seem to think nuking Iran would fix everything.

They're already planning to blame Obama for everything that goes wrong because he DIDN'T nuke Iran when he had the chance.

You have got to be kidding me.

There's no way. No way at all Jeb! Bush can run for President. One of the original signers of the PNAC? A Neocon through and through? A BUSH?

Are they fucking serious? The rubble hasn't even finished smoking from the last idiot son of Poppy and Bar, and they're talking about JEB!???

Just remember. Jeb! has the same DNA as this guy:



Update: John Aravosis of AMERICAblog doesn't know if Jeb Bush was a child molester and asks for a definition.

crossposted at American Street

Cheney's writhing meltdown

Gives us whiplash:

WASHINGTON — Then-Vice President Dick Cheney, defending the invasion of Iraq, asserted in 2004 that detainees interrogated at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp had revealed that Iraq had trained al Qaida operatives in chemical and biological warfare, an assertion that wasn't true.

Cheney's 2004 comments to the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News were largely overlooked at the time. However, they appear to substantiate recent reports that interrogators at Guantanamo and other prison camps were ordered to find evidence of alleged cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein — despite CIA reports that there were only sporadic, insignificant contacts between the militant Islamic group and the secular Iraqi dictatorship.

But what Cheney just said:

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney disavowed intelligence he once cited to suggest that then-Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein collaborated with al-Qaeda to stage the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney said today that information by the Central Intelligence Agency of collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda on Sept. 11 “turned out not to be true.” Still, Cheney said a longstanding relationship existed between Hussein and terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda, that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

“I thought it was strong at the time and I still feel so today,” Cheney said at a National Press Club lunch in Washington. “There was a relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq that stretched back 10 years. That’s not something I made up.” Citing 2002 Senate testimony by George Tenet, then the CIA director, he said, “We know for a fact that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terrorism.”

On whether Hussein helped al-Qaeda carry out the 2001 terrorist attacks, Cheney said, “I do not believe, and I have never seen any evidence, that he was involved in 9/11.”

Who are you going to believe, Cheney or your faulty memory?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Dick (Uncut)
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Economic Crisis

Rewriting history as fast as they can scribble

No, not Democrats. Republicans caused the financial collapse.

Strangely, the Bush/Cheney era didn't happen. Nothing to see here. If they could just get Dick to shut up.

The resurrection of the neocon agenda was faster than I thought. The neocons didn't even go to ground, they just changed the name of their manifesto from the PNAC to the FPI (or the PNAD). We need better wooden stakes and fresh garlic.

And teleprompters are bad because they make the president seem too careful? Are you kidding me?....

Now come the denials

It wasn't me, I wasn't there, it must have been somebody else...

In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. But at yesterday's forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which:

1. Perle is not a neoconservative.

2. Neoconservatives do not exist.

3. Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn't be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years.

"There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy," Perle informed the gathering, hosted by National Interest magazine. "It is a left critique of what is believed by the commentator to be a right-wing policy."

So what about the 1996 report he co-authored that is widely seen as the cornerstone of neoconservative foreign policy? "My name was on it because I signed up for the study group," Perle explained. "I didn't approve it. I didn't read it."

The last eight years never happened....

From the group that promised Iraq would be a cakewalk

They have a suggestion about Iran....

It wasn't really Iraq they wanted to go to war with, but with Iran. Iraq was supposed to fall in six weeks or so, pop Chalabi into Hussein's chair, and then attack Iran. Didn't work out that way. But the neocons still can't let go of the wonderful plan they had to take over all the oil fields and control the world.

John Bolton dreams on:

Yesterday, on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, Iran war hawk John Bolton said that Israel’s recent bombing campaign in Gaza is all the more reason for the United States to bomb Iran now. “So while our focus obviously is on Gaza right now, this could turn out to be a much larger conflict,” he said, adding that “we’re looking at potentially a multi-front war here.” “You would strike Iran right now?” asked host Alan Colmes. “I would have done it before this,” Bolton responded. Colmes asked whether tensions and war across Middle East would escalate if the U.S. or Israel were to bomb Iran. Bolton said that the many Arab countries would secretly be cheering if Iran were attacked

It's hard to leave your own comfortable reality for the biting cold slap of truth....

Burrowing

Under the skin, to continue to poison us with the neocon virus. What will it take to purge these people from the government?:

With only 44 days left in office, President Bush continues to “burrow” people into government positions that will continue long after President-elect Obama is sworn in. “All told, Mr. Bush has made roughly 30 personnel moves since the November election, some in nominations that will require Senate approval, and others in direct appointments that will last well into President-elect Barack Obama’s term and beyond.” The New York Times reports that on Tuesday of last week alone, Bush hired 18 people for administration jobs.

We knew the neocons were going to blame Bush

For fucking up their wonderful and brilliant Project of the New American Century. So let the smearfest begin:

But Norquist did have harsh parting words for President George W. Bush who, by any political measure, has left the conservative movement in a more perilous situation than when he came to office.

Arguing that every president has a certain amount of "bandwidth" with which to work, the head of American's for Tax Reform chastised Bush for "deciding to take five years to be the mayor of Baghdad instead of the United States."

"The idea that you are Winston Churchill because you picked a fight with a country with 25 million people in it, come on," said Norquist. "Ronald Reagan would do that before breakfast and then go have lunch. Ronald Reagan was smart enough to realize quickly that he would not go and manage the next Lebanese civil war for the next 20 years."

Norquist's forte is in areas of spending and taxes. And on the first of these fronts, Bush has taken a lot of heat. But in an discussion with the Huffington Post, Norquist was far more critical of Bush's foreign policy ventures, which he said simply decimated the capital and time the administration had for domestic priorities.

"How were you going to get stuff done if your time, your focus, your energy -- however useful -- is spent setting up Baghdad's infrastructure and not on the FCC," he asked. "If you are sitting there deciding who should be viceroy of Iraq rather than head of FEMA?"

So... Bush and Cheney's neocon agenda would have worked in drowning the rest of our government in the bathtub but Iraq got in the way?

It's not center right, nor center center nor center left...

It's a liberal mandate.

David Neiwert of Orcinus:

I keep hearing from a lot of conservatives that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough -- that is, he was essentially a center-right candidate. And I think that's the consensus about where he sat on the political spectrum.

So if America is a "center-right country," then why didn't they elect the center-right candidate?

It's all bullshit, of course. As a CAF/Media Matters study found last year: "Media perceptions and past Republican electoral successes notwithstanding, Americans are progressive across a wide range of controversial issues, and they're growing more progressive all the time." In fact, as CAF's Robert Borosage points out, "Voters didn't just elect Democrats, they elected progressives." This is a liberal mandate.

Yet it's probably true that the election doesn't necessarily reflect an all-out embrace of all things liberal. Obama largely succeeded by making clear that he has a moderate temperament on a number of issues, and more importantly, in his style of governance. So a certain caution is probably wise.

No, this election was about one thing primarily: a sweeping repudiation of movement conservatism.

The breadth and depth of Democrats' victory was a loud shout from the American public: We have had enough of this crap.

Specifically, we've had enough of two things: conservative governance, and conservative politics.

Obama, the constitutional law professor, will undermine the Constitution

Not by signing statements like Bush, not like getting rid of Habeas Corpus, not like infecting the judicial system with rightwing bias and disregarding the rule of law, not like playing the semantics game so medieval torture could be practiced, not like ignoring the will of the people and silencing critics, not like anything the Bush administration has done for the last eight years.... but apparently because he's a liberal, will appoint liberal judges and he said he'd spread the wealth around...

Maha of Mahablog:

Today the righties are screaming that Obama would undermine the Constitution, never mind that the current GOP administration did more to undermine the Constitution than the previous 43 administrations put together.

And for all their hysteria about “redistribution” of wealth, I second biggerbox — “Pallet loads of cash to Iraq? No-bid contracts for Haliburton, and so many others? Jack Abramoff? Dick Cheney? Ted Stevens? Seven-house McCain?” While the GOP controlled the federal government the Republicans redistributed wealth wholesale — to their supporters and themselves.

Gary Kamiya of Salon:

There's something surreal about how fast the GOP has gone from arrogant triumphalism to its death throes. Just yesterday, the GOP's mighty Titanic was cruising along, its opulent decks lined with fat-cat financiers and neoconservative warmongers, all smoking cigars, drinking champagne and extolling the deathless virtues of their fearless captain. The compliant media issued glowing dispatches. Karl Rove cackled with glee as he plotted out a permanent Republican majority.

Then the luxury liner hit an iceberg known as reality. The biggest damage was done by the Wall Street crisis, which happened just in time to tilt a close race toward Obama. But the economic meltdown was only one of the disasters for which the GOP is largely responsible. The war that was going to establish American hegemony forever turned out to be one of the worst foreign-policy blunders in our nation's history. The GOP's free-market idolatry led to the gravest financial crisis since the Depression. Its ideological insistence on cutting taxes for the richest Americans ran up a record deficit. Its embrace of torture and denial of due process assaulted the Constitution and eroded America's moral standing. Its doctrine of the "unitary executive" concentrated unprecedented power in the hands of the executive branch. Its anti-scientific denial of global warming endangered the entire planet.

It's a historic shipwreck, and the American people are diving off the foundering GOP hulk in droves.

[snip]

But the problem isn't Bush, it's American conservatism itself -- or at least the debased, intellectually bankrupt and utterly failed thing that American conservatism has become. For McCain to truly renounce Bush, he'd have to renounce the tax-cut ideologues who have bankrupted the country. He'd have to renounce the neoconservatives who led us into a catastrophic war. He'd have to renounce the culture-war attack dogs like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin who have coarsened conservatism's soul.

In short, he'd have to renounce the Republican Party -- and himself.

George W. Bush IS the Republican party. They own him and his entire avidly supported eight years in office.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Tell me again just who threatens the Constitution?

Republicans: a party that runs on hate and fear

And has nothing to offer for the future but eternal war and ruin.

Fear of being overwhelmed by the 'other'. (Read the hilarious comments!) It's the master slave syndrome, where the master is always afraid that the positions of power would suddenly be shifted and what he has done to others would be done to him. It's all about domination. There is no recognition of the humanity of the 'other', they are just a looming threat.

The desire to be slaves themselves under an all-knowing, all wise grand white father who smells 'safe'. (Notice in the first link how off-handedly the 'other' is to be slaughtered.)

Ignore the fact that Republicans are NOT better at running the economy.

Ignore the fact that Republicans are NOT better at running the military.

Ignore the fact that Republicans are NOT better at family values.

Hate and fear.

That's all they have.

Update: eatbees at TPM Cafe lines up the quotes.

A simple sentence to help Republicans

By Eli of Multi Medium:

The Constitution and rule of law are the foundations of our government, not impediments to it.

Exactly. Why on earth vote into a government office those who do not govern, do not like government, can't govern?

Why vote into an elected office a legislator who believes the laws that he helps write he can break?

Why vote for a Republican? Ever?

A movie you must see!

It's a horror flick and you'll never look at Ann the same way! Morse at Republic of Sestakastan has the plot line.

Update: Elizabeth Edwards will surely give it a two thumbs up!

Look who is representing us abroad as the voice of America?

The neocons who are planning to 'fix' Bush's messes. Why does this not fill me with confidence?

Neo-cons take spin to US-backed airwaves

By Khody Akhavi

WASHINGTON - As the administration of US President George W Bush struggles through its last two years in office, it appears that the agenda of neo-conservative ideologues has finally lost its appeal among strategic parts of the US foreign-policy apparatus.

But as their influence has waned at the Pentagon and State Department, neo-conservative hawks have taken charge on the battlefield of public diplomacy.

Intent on fixing what American Enterprise Institute (AEI) fellow Joshua Muravchik termed President Bush's "public diplomacy mess", right-wing hawks have gained control of the weapons in the "war of ideas" - US government-funded and supported media outlets such as Voice of America (VOA), Al-Hurra, and Radio Farda, which broadcast to the Middle East and aim to offer an alternative view of the news.

The recent appointment of Jeffrey Gedmin, a veteran neo-conservative polemicist, as the director of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE), and a smear campaign that led to the recent resignation of Larry Register, Al-Hurra's former news director, appears to herald a turn toward more ideologically rigid programming.

As a result, viewers and listeners of US-supported media in the Middle East are being exposed to a tougher ideological line that endorses the hallmarks of the neo-conservative agenda - regime change and interventionist policies in the region.

Lovely. The neocons and their beloved PNAC need to be dragged out into the sunlight and dosed with bleach. There needs to be a public discussion as to why the neoconservative agenda is not American, or else we will be dealing with yet another hijacking of our government in thirty years or so.

Do not contaminate the word liberal by trying to say Bush is one

Bush is no liberal, even though the next decade will be filled with neocons saying Bush was too much of one to fulfill the neoconservative agenda. Chester of Vanity Press takes apart one of the first of many such articles, this one by Richard Cohen:

Uh-oh, he's back and he's dumber than ever.

Years ago, someone coined the term "neoliberal." I was never sure what it meant.

I know. It's really hard to find out what words mean, isn't it? In brief, "neoliberalism," a word not often used in the USA, refers to the belief that the so-called "free market" should provide the basis for absolutely everything -- that the structure of the market should dominate all other interests including the democratic rights of the people. It's only been the dominant political ideology worldwide for the past quarter century, so there's really no reason for a Washington political columnist to know anything about it, is there?

Anyhow, the most important thing to realize about "neoliberalism" is that it is the direct opposite of liberalism. Liberalism, after all, is the belief that society's structures are there to serve people; conservatism, on the other hand, is the belief that people are there to serve society's structures. So really, "neoliberalism" is just a specialized form of conservatism, which is hardly surprising given its pedigree: Thatcher ran the world's first neoliberal government, one that for some reason has been the model for all others since.

So, Richard, are we clear on this now?

I'd like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it -- brace yourself -- to George W. Bush. He's more liberal than you might think.

Oh dear. No, Richard, no. The word "neoliberal" and the word "liberal" are different. They are in fact polar opposites of each other -- no, Richard, stop!

After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush is the most conservative of all presidents....But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government.

No it isn't. Conservatism only began to advocate for limited government in response first to the Progressives and then to the New Deal, when it became clear that the institution of government was becoming more democratic and had been harnessed to serve the people's interests. Because conservatism believes that people should serve institutions and not the other way around, conservatives began to advocate for limited government so that other institutions, such as corporations, could rule in its stead. When conservatives are actually in charge of government and can wrest it away from democratic functions, they never have any problem with expanding its power.

Chester continues to shred Cohen's thesis and leave little confetti bits all over Cohen's head. Yet this quote of Chester's:

Liberalism, after all, is the belief that society's structures are there to serve people; conservatism, on the other hand, is the belief that people are there to serve society's structures.

Makes me want to ask where Bush actually fits in all this when his belief is that people and society are there to serve him and stand around being impressed by the actions of Commander Guy and the Deciderer?

Wanted: One manly macho tyrant to take over by force and tell us what to do

The mess has gotten so great the wingnuts are hoping for a strongman to march in and save them. Digby at Hullabaloo:

This is a psychological problem more than an ideology, perhaps even some sort of massive sexual identity crisis. When frustrated that they cannot convince the people to conform to their will, they simply force them. That is simple authoritarianism and it's become quite the rage on the right of late, (which is darkly amusing considering their years of railing against totalitarian communism.)

We are not going to hear the end of it for a while. Their failure so total, and the embarrassment so complete, that the yearning for a rightwing tyrant on a white horse is palpable. You hear things like this every day now:

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.

I guess that whole "they're evil and we're good and they hate us for our freedom" thing didn't work out.

Update: I did post about this earlier, btw.

Those who do not believe in government

And do not believe in the Constitution.

Circling the drain

The neocon agenda, their glorious thousand year reich, their wonderful and eternal war on terror, their power grab, their theocracy, their money.....

It looks like the American citizens have finally awakened from their stupor.

Vanity Press has the line up.