A theory: Bush does not enjoy politics, that is, the give and take of campaigning. It would make me feel a lot better if he spent more time defending his administration, but in the long run, I'm not sure how much it matters. Assuming, of course, that the Republicans hold on to both Houses in November.

Bush has gotten pretty much everything he has asked for, with the exception of the Harriet Miers thing. (Personally, I still see the hand of Karl Rove on her nomination. He was up to his ... eyeballs in slime and attack, and the Miers nomination provided a relief from the attacks. She withdrew when Fitzpatrick told Rove he was off the hook. The very same week!!! Coincidental? I think not. If the man can plan the destruction of the WTC, and how to get Halliburton even richer, not to mention the whole war in Iraq, the Meirs thing was probably just for practice.)

Bush comes out to campaign when he needs to, and so far it has been successful. Republicans picked up seats in 2002, he won with a larger margin in 2004 than 2000, put two qualified men on the SCOTUS, he got tax cuts, and the detainee bill. And so on. Sure, he didn't get an immigration package, but he was on the wrong side of the issue, and I don't think he pushed it very hard. Remember, the Mexicans came close to electing a Hugo Chavez look-alike, and Bush didn't want to help the Mexican liberals. But overall, his agenda has been successful.

Assuming that Republicans keep both houses in November.

The president Bush you see here is Election Season Bush (TM)

You see, the agenda is all about the election season, hence GWB can make absurd statements such as the one you quote, and it will play to the base. GWB needed to actually win people over on those other fights you mentioned, so he could't only appeal to you crazies by saying rediculous things.

In this case, he's trying to rile up the base, who have been threatening to stay home in november.

See, you like him when he reaches out to you with the crazy-talk... but it doesn't mean anything.

"If the man can plan the destruction of the WTC"

dude, be serious. even if you beleive that, putting it into your argument (with nothing to back it up) makes you sound crazier than GWB above.

Besides, the LIHOP theory is much more compelling. (LOL)

I know the American people to be decent, generous and slow to anger, but when angered, as on 9/11, they are fierce in defence of the country and its ideals.

I had the pleasure of meeting many such Americans during this years Ryder Cup held in Ireland.

As a golfing crowd I presumed most to be supporters of the republican party, and my presumption was correct. While most regarded Bush as a good man, they were deeply concerned as to his abilities to protect the country and all believed his desire to push through the detainee bill was a step too far.

Whether the recent passing of this same bill is enough to make them change their minds and vote democrat in November, I cannot say. But their anger at what they considered not just a bad move in the war on terror, but as an attack on the very meaning of what it is to be an American, was expressed with real passion.

Don't worry. Woodwards new book is going to blow the lid off of all this. Rumsfailed's days are numbered. Moreover, it going to become known that Shrub and Darth Cheney have been had sweet nothings whispered into thier ears from Kissinger and that in itself will break the camel's back.

That little piece of filth who stole the White House has NOT DONE ONE THING in six years that was good for this nation as a whole. Only damage, not one good thing. I call that treasonous. He should be in Gitmo.

And his supporters, "in Minnesota and beyond", are shown to be the ignorant bigoted crackers, hillbillies, and rednecks we always knew them to be.

The joke is these hypocrites in favor of torture call themselves Christians. They and Bush will find their special place in hell.

Cian ventured: "I know the American people to be decent, generous and slow to anger"

Clearly, Cian is new to this blog.

Coming from ANGRYclown, I find that comment to be delicious in its irony.

Oh yeah, Ryan, like rain on your wedding day.

Cian et al,

This blog is CLOGGED with angry, petulant people who make you ashamed to be an American.

They are, unfortunately, all liberal commenters.

Hope that helps.

I've said this today on two other blogs, but it bears repeating. I work in advertising and there's a saying - "Clients get the advertising they deserve."

If you have an ignorant client who doesn't listen or understand, no matter how many good ads we give them, they'll find a way to mess them up.

Well, that's what's happened to America. We get the democracy we deserve.

The majority in this country are ignorant, scared, people, too dumb or too lazy to learn about the truth around them. The vast majority of this country has never ventured outside the U.S., and many have never left their own states. They'd rather watch "reality" TV and spend their money on fast food and glamor mags than listen to NPR and read Sidney Blumenthal. They'd rather not think for themselves and instead be told what their morality is by a corrupt, child-molesting church.

This, is sadly, what America has become. And for it, we deserve everything that Bush and his disgusting, power-gulttonous, American-destroying cabal do to us.

I hate that that's the truth. But it is.

ME, the parenthetical up there is hyperbole.
I thought it was clear that I supported the President from the statement "It would make me feel a lot better if he spent more time defending his administration, but in the long run, I'm not sure how much it matters. Assuming, of course, that the Republicans hold on to both Houses in November."

The exclamation marks were also for humor, you know, like moonbat hyperventilation. And then the ridiculousness of the WTC plot by Bushco, and making Halliburton rich thing, and other Kos-like conspiracies.

But perhaps it's not so clear after all. sigh.

"You have a slightly distorted view of what kicking ass means. To stand up in front of a crowd of rich syncophants and call Democrats names is the act of a bully, not a leader."

I wonder if you think the same of Democratic "leaders". I also wonder at what you will do when you don't have George W. Bush to denigrate. Focus the irrational hate on the next Republican leader? I suppose, and it's easy to do when you have the "flexibility" to redefine failure for whatever task is at hand.

It's interesting to see the level of monomania the left has for Bush - everything revolves around their dislike for one man. I suppose it has its appeal, one needn't consider all the nuances of the issues, one needn't try to bear the burden of considering all the evidence, one needn't broaden their perspectives beyond an obviously personal hatred of one man. It's much easier to completely abandon rational thought and join in the permanent Two Minutes Hate.

Of course, someone who was trying to take a *rational* view of the situation would see that Bush inherited a collapsing bubble economy and nursed it back into health. They'd see that from 9/11 to the present day al-Qaeda has not been able to continue the pattern of escalation that began with the first WTC attack and ended with the terrible events of September 11, 2001. They'd see that the Taliban has been evicted from power in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein is no longer brutalizing Iraq. They'd see that Libya unilaterally disarmed itself of its entire nuclear program, leading to the end of the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network (which in itself represents a major coup in the history of counterproliferation).

It's so much easier to blame Bush and FEMA for an inadequate response to a disaster precipitated by the single most incompetent and corrupt city government in the country. Why bother assigning blame in proportion to where the blame actually lies? It's easier to just justify one's own petty and personal vindictiveness.

All this reminds me of why I simply can't be a liberal - I prefer to think for myself.

Tommo says: And his supporters, "in Minnesota and beyond", are shown to be the ignorant bigoted crackers, hillbillies, and rednecks we always knew them to be.

Hahahahahahaha...did he say "bigoted" in there?!

That "one man" is the President of the United States, head of a party who's only method of gaining and keeping power seems to be to call half of America traitors. Having no record to stand on, having inherited a booming ecomony with a surplus from a Democratic president, having told the nation Iraq had WMD, the war would take six weeks and would pay for itself, all the conservatives can do is try to blame Democrats for everything, even though there aren't any in power anymore.

With a subservient congress abandoning all conservative principles in place of power, riding the president's coattails when he was high in the polls only to find themselves being dragged down with his now sagging polls, it is truly the conservatives who have ceased thinking for themselves, proving as they always do that republicans are great a winning elections and terrible at governing.

The left-wing blogosphere is full of thoughtful examiniation of the bush administration failures; the right-wing blogosphere is full of the worst kind of hateful rhetoric removed from the reality of the effects of the Bush Adminstration et al. on this country. As is typical with republicans, they project their own weakness onto Democrats, calling them every name in the book, only to be exposed as guilty of the very misdeeds they strive to earnestly to project onto Democrats.

The Bush Administration is a failure. Those who refuse to address it with another than blind obedience and unwavering support are regrettably trapped in their own spin and victims of their own psychological need for an authoritarian leader to save them from the big bad world. Thank goodness they are in the minority; as repubilcans lose support on a national scale, as they always do, Democrats will once again be there to clean up the mess.

Jay, your post reminds me why I must be a liberal - I prefer not to stick my head in the sand and settle for a nice Dow Jones average, or the fact that we haven't been attacked in the U.S for 5 whole years.

I'd rather think for myself and see that the Iraq war has made terrorism worse, not better. I'd rather see how Haliburton, and Bush's cronies are stealing billions of my tax dollars and doing almost nothing to rebuild Iraq. I'd rather not look the other way as industry lobbyists are appointed to head environmental agencies - thus destroying the natural beauty of this country. I'd rather protest the destruction of our constitution and the right to a fair trial, or the perverting of the separation of powers between the president, the courts and the congress. I'd rather consider the implications of Bush's tax cuts for the rich and how it will affect my children and my children's children. I'd rather shake my head at the hypocracy of denying gay people the right to marry while 50% of heterosexual couples corrupt the vows they took. I'd rather rail at the injustuce of the hack jobs on war heroes like Max Cleeland and John Kerry by cowards who never fired a weapon in battle. I'd rather think long and hard about how somone could ignore a warning as obvious as "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S."

I'd rather stand up for what America is supposed to be and not let it be destroyed like it is now.

What Happened, did they cancel the Womyn's studies seminar at the U of M this afternoon? Daou Report, what is that? DU lite? I haven't seen this many moonbats since Target had that sale on Birkenstocks.

Yeah, they're climbing all over my blog, too. Take it from me, you get a link from Salon, expect the nutjobs to come out in full force.

Bushco has to attack now.

If Dems get subpoena powers (and some balls), your "heroes" (of fear, smear, tyranny and insolvency) just might get tried as war criminals.

Which might be a good deterrent. Worth a try.

Yeah Brian, I read the hack-job piece written by Christopher Adamo that you posted on that rag you call a blog. It looked to me like if you didn't have Daou readers, you might not have any at all.

And Kermit, you need to get out of the frat house more often. These "moonbats" you refer to happen to be mainstream America.

MN-Tom,

No, they're not "mainstream America". They might be just off of mainstreet Highland Park or Berkeley; America, not so much.

And you seem to toss conclusions around with an abandon not justified by the facts.

"mainstream America" HAH!
Let's take a moment to examine what for MN-Tom constitutes "mainstream America".

"I still see the hand of Karl Rove on her nomination. He was up to his ... eyeballs in slime and attack, and the Miers nomination provided a relief from the attacks. She withdrew when Fitzpatrick told Rove he was off the hook. The very same week!!! Coincidental? I think not. If the man can plan the destruction of the WTC..."

Back slowly away.

"Don't worry. Woodwards new book is going to blow the lid off of all this. Rumsfailed's days are numbered. Moreover, it going to become known that Shrub and Darth Cheney have been had sweet nothings whispered into thier ears from Kissinger and that in itself will break the camel's back."

Yup. "mainstream America" is just chock full of paranoia and and talking-point cliches. They spend all their time playing RPG just like this Bozo.

"The vast majority of this country has never ventured outside the U.S., and many have never left their own states."

Yes, they're called "Middle class" and "Poor", and they don't have the luxury of "venturing" because they get the schiess taxed out of them by the left.

"They'd rather watch "reality" TV and spend their money on fast food and glamor mags than listen to NPR and read Sidney Blumenthal."

I'd rather have my toenails pulled out than listen to NPR. Fifteen minutes of NBC Nightly News and you've got everything NPR has to offer, sans the whoring for pledged. Sidney Blumenthal? Please.

"They'd rather not think for themselves and instead be told what their morality is by a corrupt, child-molesting church."

Now we get down to the essence of what makes the Moonbat so unique. Total contempt for society blended with an arrogant self-conceit that convinces he/she/it of he/she/it's total superiority over everyone else. That's a whole lot of thinking.
"mainstream America". I'm convinced.

"Jay, your post reminds me why I must be a liberal - I prefer not to stick my head in the sand and settle for a nice Dow Jones average, or the fact that we haven't been attacked in the U.S for 5 whole years."

I'd suggest where you have stuck your head, but this is a family blog...

"I'd rather think for myself and see that the Iraq war has made terrorism worse, not better."

I'd rather note the fact that at least 4,000 terrorists who might elsewise be attacking civilians here are now permanently off the battlefield. Al-Qaeda's resources are infinite, and the more terrorists they send to die in Iraq the fewer they have to cause trouble elsewhere.

"I'd rather see how Haliburton, and Bush's cronies are stealing billions of my tax dollars and doing almost nothing to rebuild Iraq."

Oh God, not that claptrap again... that "almost nothing" has involved rebuilding an utterly shattered infrastructure while taking fire from terrorists trying to destroy it all. This is just another silly liberal non sequitur -- the sort of logic-free boilerplate the left spews out without having every once examined the reality of the situation.

"I'd rather not look the other way as industry lobbyists are appointed to head environmental agencies - thus destroying the natural beauty of this country."

Of course, not only is the Bushitler evil, but he's making the country ugly as well! I would rather have an industry executive in charge, someone who actually understand a thing or two about economics and resource management, then the arrogant and ignorant urban liberals whose only connection with America's wildernesses are the occasional day trip.

"I'd rather protest the destruction of our constitution and the right to a fair trial, or the perverting of the separation of powers between the president, the courts and the congress."

Read Korematsu, Ex parte Quirin, and read about the actions Lincoln took during the Civil War and ask yourself if the Constitution was "destroyed" then. What the President is doing is neither unprecedented nor greater in scope and magnitude to what many Presidents have done before him.

"I'd rather consider the implications of Bush's tax cuts for the rich and how it will affect my children and my children's children."

Yes, heaven forbid we leave our children a robust economy in which they have the ability to keep more of what we own. Instead we should saddle them with the unconscionable amount of debt that would generate from the Democrats idiotic policy prescriptions -- not only would they be taxed to death, but they'd probably die waiting in line thanks to the Democrats idiotic embrace of the failed concept of "universal" health care.

"I'd rather shake my head at the hypocracy of denying gay people the right to marry while 50% of heterosexual couples corrupt the vows they took."

I personally believe in civil unions, but the suggestion that the problems with marriage would be fixed by further diluting the institution are specious at best.

"I'd rather rail at the injustuce of the hack jobs on war heroes like Max Cleeland and John Kerry by cowards who never fired a weapon in battle."

Oh give me a break -- this country is a *democracy*, not a military dictatorship. One's military service should never insulate one from political criticism, and it is a betrayal of all our soldiers fought and died for to suggest otherwise.

"I'd rather think long and hard about how somone could ignore a warning as obvious as "Bin Laden determined to attack in the U.S.""

Because there's nothing actionable contained in that statement. And had President Bush ordered all airports to give extra security searches to every Arab or Muslim male that tried to get on a plane, the left would have had him impeached. That's yet another stupid little Democratic talking point that someone who's done a modicum of research could quickly destroy.

It's this rote recitation of the same tired talking points that reminds me why the left is so intellectually bankrupt these days.

Let's talk about Sydney Blumenthal. It must really anger you neo-cons to no end that he always turns out to be right.

BTW mainstream America believes in environmental protections, a decent minimum wage, shoring up Social Security in a way that doesn't put a trillion dollars in the hands of Wall Street, getting the hell out of the fool's venture called the Iraq War, the government getting a warrant before spying on our phone conversations, clean and fair elections, an end to the politics of personal destruction, reigning in the power of K Street, universal health care, a balanced budget, an end to so called "free trade" policies that only benefit the multinationals and force US labor to compete with the Chinese, leadership on the global warming issue, The Geneva Conventions and oh yes, The Constitution.

In other words, you supporters of the neo-con agenda are the people who are out-of-step with the mainstream.

"It must really anger you neo-cons to no end that he always turns out to be right."

Um, yeah. Let me know when that happens.

Blumenthal is a dolt and a thug, and has yet to be right about much of anything of substance.

Randy missed the extensive refutation of the "mainstream America" fantasy he and his fellow moonbats labor under. What a surprise.

What "stomach" do movement conservatives have to fight this war?

Are they willing to volunteer to actually fight it? No. They argue that promoting it from a safe position behind a computer screen is the same thing as actually taking up arms.

Are they willing to see their own sons and daughters conscripted to fight it? Or, willing to pay taxes to pay for it? No. They want "victory" but only if it is on the cheap and without any consequence for them, personally.

"Resolve" and "persistence" and "committment" are meaningless words if you are only "resolved" in following a path that requires no sacrifice by you, only suffering for others.

The reason we don't "victory" in Iraq, and are steadily losing our standing in the region and the world, is because conservatives are the ones who have been conducting this war. And they don't have the "stomach" to conduct a war that requires, as all wars do, real sacrifices.

All this caterwauling about how the Democrats and liberals don't have the "stomach" for war is just diversionary. It's meant to cover up your own lack of "stomach."

Have any of you done one tough, dangerous, unself-interested thing to contribute to "victory" in this war. ONE. If you were asked to pay for this war with a tax increase, or conscription, would you do so willingly? Or, would you, at last, abandon your party and Bush's leadership? Isn't it true that your loyalty to the party and the leadership has been purchased with those bribes -- the promise of no taxes, no draft, no sacrifice required for "victory?"

Before you question the resolve and courage of others, name one hard, real, personal sacrifice you would be willing to make to win this war.

Your side, and the administration you support, is not even willing to entertain criticism and a real conversation about the failures so far in Iraq -- or a discussion of ways to correct them or a re-assessment of our goals -- because they are terrfied about the political consequences of doing so.

Anyone too afraid for their own political skin to speak frankly to the American public is a coward -- with no standing to be deriding anyone else's "stomach" for anything.

esmense,

I'm probably going to give you a more reasoned, cooler-headed response than you have coming:

"Are they willing to volunteer to actually fight it? No."

Irrelevant - everyone has the right to an opinion - and wrong.

"They argue that promoting it from a safe position behind a computer screen is the same thing as actually taking up arms. "

Puh-leeze. Show me ONE credible person that has EVER said any such thing, without tongue firmly in cheek.

You can't, of course.

"Are they willing to see their own sons and daughters conscripted to fight it? "

Strawman. The military doesn't want a draft. Conscript armies are by their nature less-effective at counterinsurgency and low-intensity war.

"Or, willing to pay taxes to pay for it?"

I think you'll find most of us, given a choice between paying for a war against terror and condoms in the schools, will pay for the war.

"No. They want "victory" but only if it is on the cheap and without any consequence for them, personally."

Not just rubbish, but rubbish that is overbroad to the point of bigotry.

"Resolve" and "persistence" and "committment" are meaningless words if you are only "resolved" in following a path that requires no sacrifice by you, only suffering for others."

Again, patent buncombe.

And I'd rather join the army and fight the war than wrestle with the rest of your "reasoning".

Adieu.

Ah, mitch. Everyone has a "right" to an opinion. But having an opinion doesn't take courage or "stomach." And slandering the character and courage of others is much more than expressing an "opinion," anyway. It is making a charge. A charge that you should be ready to defend. Also, you can't expect to make such charges without having your moral authority to do so questioned. Is there anything -- in real, concrete, self-sacrificing terms -- you have done differently, other than expressing a different opinion of the war, than those whose character you are besmirching?

Talk is cheap. Opinions aren't actions. Opinions don't require you to expend anything more than a little hot air.

If you haven't encountered prominent conservatives bloggers defending their promotion of a war they do not believe they have any obligation to serve in, you have perhaps not read as many conservative blogs as I have. Start with Ben Shapiro.

You may call my challenges rubbish. But, you haven't mentioned one hard thing you have done to help us to victory.

Let's be honest here. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld chose this war because they thought it would be easy, quick and cheap. They thought there would be a big political payoff for the administration. A happy victory dance for the TV cameras. Some big time profits for their most important supporters. And no real cost or sacrifice required from "the base."

Now that it has proved to be long and costly, they are afraid to tell "the base" the truth, or ask their supporters to bear any of the true costs.

Instead, they are just playing out the clock, leaving the hard, not likely to be popular, political, military and financial decisions to their successors, putting the heavy costs off into the future.

This isn't "courage." It is cowardice.

And it is bizarre to suggest that anyone exhibiting such cowardice has any standing to question the "stomach" of others.

"You may call my challenges rubbish. But, you haven't mentioned one hard thing you have done to help us to victory."

Yes he has. He's pointed out that you're an idiot.
And he got to trot out "Buncombe" in the process.
It's a double score.

But lest we be unfair, how many trips to Baghdad has Sean Penn made after his buddy Saddam was dethroned?

I loved this bit of delusionary argument and self-justification:

"The military doesn't want a draft. Conscript armies are by their nature less-effective at counterinsurgency and low-intensity war."

I guess it is just concern about lowering the quality of our troops that keeps so many young Republicans from signing up to fight in this all-important war to save Western civilization.

I guess it's concern about only recruiting the highest quality troops that has led the military to up the age of enlistment and lower education and moral standards.

And the reason this war is being fought by so many middle aged parents, male and female, and even grandparents? And so many less than adequately equipped and trained National Guard units? Is that because they're better at "counterinsurgency and low-intensity war?"

The simple fact is this; a draft would increase the pool of genuinely qualified people available to the military. And, it would allow us to maintain ALL our military obligations, beyond the insurgency in Iraq, at a sufficient level.

The only reason we don't have a draft is political. A draft would anger "the base," drastically increase the number of Americans with a stake in the conduct of this war, and destroy "support" for the war.

Right now, those who support the war do so mostly because they have no skin in the game. If, through a draft and higher taxes, they did have to engage with some of the consequences of Bush's foreign policy, their "stomach" would turn quite quickly.

Esmense,

I'm not sure where you learned argumentation. Demand your money back.

"I guess it is just concern about lowering the quality of our troops that keeps so many young Republicans from signing up to fight in this all-important war to save Western civilization."

Non-sequitur. The active-duty military votes Republican about 70-30 (reserves around 60-40), so it would seem plenty of Republicans of all ages are finding their way into uniform.

And, again, the "chickenhawk" argument is the province of the intellectually bankrupt.

"I guess it's concern about only recruiting the highest quality troops that has led the military to up the age of enlistment and lower education and moral standards."

Your utter lack of knowledge on the subject is showing.

The military will have to lower their standards a LOT to get NEAR the difficulties that a draftee military would impose on them.

"And the reason this war is being fought by so many middle aged parents, male and female, and even grandparents? And so many less than adequately equipped and trained National Guard units? Is that because they're better at "counterinsurgency and low-intensity war?"

Um, yes? It's a *professional military* - people go into it *as a career*.

"The simple fact is this; a draft would increase the pool of genuinely qualified people available to the military. And, it would allow us to maintain ALL our military obligations, beyond the insurgency in Iraq, at a sufficient level."

It's neither a fact nor simple. You keep ignoring the *complex* fact that draftee armies are, man for man, less effective, especially at the sort of war we face today. Talking in terms of "pools" of people ignores the fact - stated earlier, and with a great deal more detail than you seem to deserve - that asymmetric war isn't about having a bigger "pool", it's about having people who excel at the incredibly complex nature of fighting that type of war.

Remember Vietnam? All you liberals obsess over it, but you seem to have learned nothing from it. Our draftee army suffered terribly in fighting an asymmetric war; while it won most of the stand-up engagements, it pretty much destroyed Vietnam in doing so - an option we don't have today.

"The only reason we don't have a draft is political. A draft would anger "the base," drastically increase the number of Americans with a stake in the conduct of this war, and destroy "support" for the war."

Again, a sign of your abject ignorance on the subject. The draft created a military of individuals, spread very thinly over the whole nation. Using Guard and Reserve units AS units brings the war to mainstreet MUCH more effectively than the draft did - which was, indeed, the reason the Army switched to its current "Total Force Doctrine", incorporating Guard and Reserves so thoroughly in all operations.

You'd have to go beyond your party's talking points to know that, of course, so you're obviously handicapped.

"Right now, those who support the war do so mostly because they have no skin in the game."

Bullshit. I have friends over there. My son will be of military age before too terribly long. I have more "skin" in this than you ever will.

Do me a favor - try not to make your next post a complete waste of time.