Getting Closer to Making a Decision

Obama:

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive
legislation that not only reverses the President’s dangerous and ill-conceived
escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can
bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.

“Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of
American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody
else’s civil war,” Obama said. “That’s why I have introduced a plan to not only
stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can
pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the
violence.”

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the
President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military
solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq,
protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible
end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1,
2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008,
a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study
Group.

It is refreshing to see this kind of leadership. I am not supporting anyone yet in '08, but I will join the facebook group.

Universal Health Insurance

I do not often write about personal experiences, but this is ridiculous.

It has been almost exactly one year since my last annual check-up, so I called my doctor to schedule one for this year. His secretary informed me that my health insurance only entitled me to a general check-up every two years.

I am not on Medicaid or Medicare. I am not self-employed and barely making enough to afford the cheapest insurance I can get my hands on. I work for one of the largest corporations in the U.S. - probably the world - and I know that I have some of the best health insurance that can be bought, yet why is it that it cannot afford to send me for an annual check-up? If I always had to receive an annual check-up as a child - they wouldn't let me into school/summer camp without one - why should it be any different now? I understand that young adults are at a lower risk of getting sick, but is it not more important to identify possible future complications early on and treat them before they become serious and more costly?

This is part of what is so dysfunctional about our healthcare system. By making it more difficult to give preventative care we increase the burden on the system and shift it exclusively to the end-user healthcare providers, hospitals and doctors. Meanwhile, healthcare plan providers escape with larger and larger profits. This is exactly what is so wrong about Bush's healthcare proposal and the reason it is DOA. It seeks to encourage this behavior by making it economically easier for young people to purchase low-quality, high-deductible healthcare.

Furthermore, I was informed that if I wanted to pay for the check-up out of pocket it would cost be approximately $500. I am lucky enough to be able to afford that if I needed to, but I realize that this is not the case for most of the country. It is unsurprising that a majority of the personal bankruptcies in the U.S. result from medical expenditures.

We are far past the time where such an antiquated and costly health system that lines the pockets of few while denying needed coverage to most can be justified. The best parts are universal healthcare can cover everyone and is cheaper. Let's get a move on.

Michelle Malkin in Iraq

Sadly, No.

Time To Go Joe

Loserman is at it again. So glad he is no longer a Democrat.

This morning on Fox News, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) echoed the Bush
administration and claimed that people who oppose escalation in Iraq are
emboldening terrorists. “[I]t will discourage our troops, who we’re asking to
carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy,” Lieberman said.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), who announced on Friday he will support Sen. John Warner’s (R-VA) anti-escalation resolution,
pointed out the obvious: “I don’t see this enemy as needing any more emboldening
or getting it from any resolution. They’re emboldened now.”

Think Progress has the clip.

Busy Day

What Digby - and Perlstein - said.

The President of the United States

An ignorant, spoiled brat.

President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday
"I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged
skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup.

"I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Bush
said in an Oval Office meeting with senior military advisers.

The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle
who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send 21,500
troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas.

"I know there is skepticism and pessimism and that some are condemning
a plan before it's even had a chance to work," the president said. "They have an
obligation and a serious responsibility therefore to put up their own plan as to
what would work."

At least he has finally come out and admitted that he does not listen to Congress, the military or anyone besides himself and Dick Cheney. He is the Commander in Chief and he will decide the tough decisions. That is his responsibility and his responsibility alone. He is also admitting that what matters most to him is the public's perception of him, not whether his plan will succeed or not.

As for Bush's claim that his plan is the most likely to succeed, does that not depend on how success is defined? If it is defined as starting a war with Iran, then, yes, his is the most likely to succeed. If it is defined as minimizing the damage dealt to American lives and prestige as well as world peace, then, no, his plan is completely destructive.

If Bush has to challenge Democrats to put up their own plans then he either has the memory of a goldfish or never bothered to pay attention in the first place. There is at the very least the Feingold plan, the Murtha plan, the Levin-Reed plan as well as the ISG report and what Jim Webb called for in his SOTU rebuttal, all of which are better than what Bush has proposed. Engaging in this kind of discourse demonstrates that Bush is completely dishonest. Bush dismissed everyone else's opinions because he believes he is the Decider and will always Decide what is best.

By the way, why does Bush think his plan is the most likely to succeed? I cannot come up with a reason off the top of my head, so maybe he can let us in on what he is thinking.

In an interview, Pelosi also said she was puzzled by what she considered
the president's minimalist explanation for his confidence in the new surge of
21,500 U.S. troops that he has presented as the crux of a new "way forward" for
U.S. forces in Iraq.

"He's tried this two times — it's failed twice," the California Democrat
said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this
time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' "

Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I
told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

Holy flaming crap. Does he think our troops can shoot lasers out of their eyes if he Decides to make it so and tells them that they have to? I have Decided to Decide to condemn Bush's plan before he has a chance to execute it. I have Decided the Decision that best reflects reality. Anyone care to disagree?

Cheney re: Russert

p3wned!!!!

Memo to Tim Russert: Dick Cheney thinks he controls you.

This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice
president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when
the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of
former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about
how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played
fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP,"
she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on
the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."

"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a
tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."

Not that this is news to anyone who has ever watched the GOP lapdogs in action and has been pointed out many times by the netroots, but maybe now that one of his fellow guardians of national discourse in the Washington Post has pointed out that the emperor has no clothes Russert will correct his behavior.

But I would not bet on it.

On HRC

Stoller.

History of the World, Part II

It's almost right out of a Mel Brooks movie.

Leader of the Senate: All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall
we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a
more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate
vote?

Entire Senate: FUCK THE POOR!

Today:

Democrats' promise of a quick increase in the minimum wage ran aground Wednesday in the Senate, where lawmakers are insisting it include new tax breaks for restaurants and other businesses that rely on low-pay workers.

On a 54-43 vote, Democrats lost an effort to advance a House-passed bill that would lift the pay floor from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour without any accompanying tax cut.
Opponents of the tax cut needed 60 votes to prevail.

Make no mistake - Republicans will do everything in their power to make Democrats look bad, at any and every cost to the country. Bipartisan spirit my big left butt cheek.

Not Amused

The NYT.

The White House spin ahead of George W. Bush’s seventh State of the Union
address was that the president would make a bipartisan call to revive his
domestic agenda with “bold and innovative concepts.” The problem with that was
obvious last night — in six years, Mr. Bush has shown no interest in
bipartisanship, and his domestic agenda was set years ago, with huge tax cuts
for wealthy Americans and crippling debt for the country.

Link.

2007 State of the Union Rebuttal

Jim Webb is giving the response to the State of the Union. Sweet. Brian Williams noted that Webb wrote his own speech. Sweet.

Webb hopes Bush is serious about improving education and healthcare for everyone, as well as restoring New Orleans. Bush has mentioned energy reform 7 times, but this is the first time it will happen because Democrats are in charge.

The two areas where Democrats and Republicans stand in contrast are the economy and foreign policy.

The economy shows us two different countries. The stock market and corporate profits are at all time highs, but the benefits are being fairly shared. Wages and salaries are at all time lows even though productivity is high. Medical and education costs have skyrocketed. The middle class, our historic backbone, is losing its place. The government has a duty to deal with these concerns. We should measure our society by Main Street, not Wall Street. "We're working to get things done, for the right people, for the right reasons."

Bush's War in Iraq was a strategic mistake, would divert resources from the real war and leave us exposed. Americans serve because they love the U.S. They trusted our leaders because they hoped they would be right and value their lives. They gave their loyalty, but in return they deserve sound minds, responsibility and care. Bush entered this war recklessly and ignored the sound minds. The damage this war has done is horrendous. We need a new direction.

It falls to Congress to take action on both of these fronts. Webb notes that Teddy Roosevelt faced a similar problem, with robber barrons tearing the country apart - he couldn't keep a straight face when he said this - and TR counseled the people against them. Eisenhower brought the Korean war to an end. Therefore, we are calling on Bush to take similar action. If he does, we will follow, if not, we will show him a new way.

Sweet.

2007 State of the Union

On NBC. Russert's going on about respect, that both sides need to be respectful. He either doesn't have a clue what the Republicans did over the past 12 years, or he's a willful patsy.

Bush is coming in, doesn't look as smug as he usually does. He's followed by Boehner and Reid. Russert's obsessing about how close Bush is to the Democrats on immigration. Grow up, Timmeh, they're not the same.

Bush is trying to make small talk with Pelosi: "Ready to go?" Weird. He's definitely uncomfortable (see: Merkel).

Bush is happy that we've got a female speaker. Hooray.

Bush "decisions are hard, courage is needed." More talk about facing enemies. Does everything have to be a battle? Bush thinks everyone is called to serve the same purposes: to grow prosperity, spend money wisely, keep faith with those we have said we would serve. He thinks bipartisanship will solve everything.

Bush thinks wages are rising and inflation is low, and we need to keep it that way with more enterprise, not more government. He has three economic reforms.

1. Balancing the federal budget. How does he intend to do this without increasing taxes? We need spending discipline. He's using fuzzy math. He says his new budget will eliminate the deficit in 5 years. I'm cringing at the thought of what he's going to try and cut
2. Earmarks. 2005 - earmarks were 13,o00, $18 bn. Whose party was in charge?! Let's reform the budget process and make all earmarks public, cut earmarks in half. Let me note that this is a Democratic idea and they want to do away with all earmarks
3. Entitlements. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We're failing to keep them sound - Ted Kennedy looks like his head is going to explode - we haven't found it in ourselves to act. With goodwill we can fix these programs. This is clearly the Green Lantern school of policy

NCLB is the greatest thing ever. Students are now performing better. Those who haven't dropped out, I guess. We should give families the right to opt out of failing schools - helped along by NCLB - and give them funds to do so. No Dems applauded either this or Bush's entitlement plan.

Everyone should have affordable health care. Government should care for elderly and disabled. Private health insurance is the best way to go. Many Americans can't afford insurance, therefore Bush is proposing an across the board tax deduction for health insurance. This is the stupidest idea ever. Just make all medical expenses tax deductible, idiot. His plan encourages people to spend less on healthcare. Second proposal is to give federal funds to states that provide private coverage to the uninsured poor and sick. Never mind risk pooling. Bush wants more health savings accounts, price transparency - not from the insurance companies, mind you - and more tort reform. Leahy looked amused at that. Best decisions are made by patients and doctors. Except, of course, when in concerns Terry Schiavo and a Republican pander to the fundies is in order.

Immigration time. According to Bush we need better immigration controls, so we're going to improve our border security but establish a guest worker program, so border agents can hunt down drug dealers and terrorists. We need to take care of existing illegal immigrants. Bush is encouraging Congress to pass a bill he can sign.

Now we're hearing more about how America is too dependent on foreign oil, like he said last year. I don't see any progress that the Republican 109th Congress made on that though. Time to move to clean, alternative energy, and... wait for it... ethanol!!!! Boondoggle! Bush wants to reduce gas usage by 20% in the next 10 years. I tell you we can do 40%+ if we used foreign technologies. And the backslide: we must step up American oil supply. Looks like he's finally caved on global warming though, but he didn't make any attempt at doing anything about it.

More crap about up or down votes on judges. Nevermind his firing all prosecutors that were investigating Republican corruption.

Terror Time! Bush just referred to the U.S. as "the Homeland." Wow. Hello, Mother Russia. We must take the fight to the enemy. Oh no, we've uncovered Al-Qaeda using anthrax - been a while since we heard about that one, guess it's time to put it back in the rotation - and the British - according to Bush - foiled a plot to blow up a plane. America is still at war and will always be at war. What does this mean for the War Powers Authorization? Come on, dictatorship can be fun from time to time! If the U.S. leaves, we will be losing and let them bring the fight to us. We must do our best to protect the American people.

Free people are not drawn to violent ideologies, so we advance our interests by - violently - helping moderates - Ahmed Chalabi - to advance their rights. We increase our security by doing so. Lebanon drove out the occupiers. This speech was written before all the protests and violence this week. Iraq had three - count em, three, suckers! - elections, therefore, Democracy(tm) is on the rise. Iran and Al Qaeda are ruining all the fun in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. Shi'ite death squads were formed with Iran's help - I'm pretty sure it was our help, but Bush left that out - and did evil. We can turn these events towards victory.

We're carrying out a new strategy of Iraqification. The Iraqis aren't ready yet though. They haven't been ready for the past 3 years, but readiness is around the corner, I'm sure. They just need one last shot at it. That, or however many one last shots it takes. Iraq knows our commitment isn't open-ended - it will end when Bush leaves office - so they will stand up. They will share oil revenues among all Iraqi citizens. Why is that even an issue? Why even bring it up? First we need to secure Baghdad. Wow. He's just admitted that Baghdad is out of control. If we can't control Baghdad, how are we going to control the entire country? According to Bush, if we leave, extremists would take over and the region could be drawn into the conflict. Chaos is the enemy's greatest ally. Um... by this logic haven't we been aiding the enemy? Anyway, we must spare America this outcome. Bush is the decider, and he's decided the decision. Now it's up to Congress to get behind him.

Bush has proposed a bipartisan congressional committee on the war on terror. I guess having the Republican and Connecticut for Lieberman parties makes it a bipartisan committee. Now he wants to expand the size of the army and marine corp. We also need to establish a civilian reserve corp. I think he's trying to privatize the army. This is easily the worst idea ever. Hahahah, now he said we're operating in Iraq with the support of the U.N. Iran, of course, is the enemy. We're pursuing diplomacy elsewhere, like Korea, Burma, Cuba and Belarus. Sure, buddy, take another shot at Russia.

Bush is also concerned about the genocide in Darfur. The U.S. must also assume the responsibility to provide AIDS and malaria relief in Africa. Does he think we've forgotten his talk before about balancing the budget without increasing taxes? Bush thinks our greatest strength is our kindness. He's got Dikembe Mutombo in the gallery sitting next to Pickles and it's pretty funny to see how tall he is next to her. He's a success story. So is the woman who founded a child safety company and sold it to Disney. WTF? This is the state of the union? We're in deep. So is the subway hero who pulled a man out of the way of an oncoming train. Look, I applaud this, but we as a nation really have much more important things to be talking about. I can't believe Bush said compassion is in abundance with Dick Cheney in the same camera shot.

There were a lot of points during the speech where the Democrats did not applaud at all. Good for them.

To sum up, Bush spent another State of the Union making platitudes and not really saying anything, as well as not offering up anything new in the way of policies or direction. I'm thankful that we finally have a party in control of Congress that can finally stop the slow train wreck our country has been on for the past six years.

And Astoundingly Even More Scandals!

Emptywheel at FDL liveblogging Scooter Libby trial.

SOTU tonight.

Sweet.

Can't Do Anything Right, Ever

You think they would be able to recognize a hornet's nest by now, but nooooo...

More than 600 fighters loyal to radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and 16 of
their leaders have been captured by security forces in a crackdown on the
cleric's militia, the US military said.

They really want to go to war with Iran. Way to go, Bushie!

Pony Policy

Jonathan Rauch.

Painfully aware that the Iraq war has given commentators a lesson in
humility, I offer the following assessment with no certainty at all but with the
hope of at least contributing to clarity: The Bush Surge is unlikely to work,
but Congress should not try to stop it.

...

First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief, not 536. A
determined president can evade all but the tightest congressional attempts to
override his military decisions, and any sufficiently tight congressional
strictures are likely to emasculate the presidency and fracture the Congress.

Second, politics. Blocking the president's last-resort plan would
divide the country for years to come. Many Republicans would believe that the
war was winnable and that Democrats lost it. If the United States is going to
leave Iraq, it should do so when even Republicans agree that there is little
reason to stay -- which they will, if Bush's Hail Mary pass fails.

Third, morality. America has not quite discharged its debt to Iraq.
Apart from evacuating as many as possible of those Iraqis who personally aided
the American effort, the United States can do nothing for moderate and
peace-loving Iraqis if the Baghdad government is determined to press or abet a
sectarian agenda. A tragedy will unfold. But if there is any chance that the
Iraqi government might yet be salvageable, then the United States owes it to the
Iraqis to find out.

Ahem:

1. Commander in chief is a nominal title, not a job description. Leave the strategy and tactics to the people who understand a thing or two about war. By the same logic used above, is it ok that the President already did the same thing to Congress? 536 voices strike me as a little less dictatorial than 1. Never mind that the fracturing was done by Republicans years and years ago. Democrats are united on this
2. See Vietnam. The mistake was not leaving when we did, it was assuming that the GOP zombies and their zombie cohorts would wake up and smell reality brewing on the stove. We now know better. This fight has to be waged across all media channels to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Furthermore, who cares what elected Republicans think? There are only a couple hundred of them, as opposed to the majority of U.S. citizens who want the U.S. to leave
3. Just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there is no such thing as a free pony in Iraq. Following through on this plan will cost more of both American and Iraqi lives, money and also runs the very, very, very high probability of making things even worse. This is a decision that a down-on-his-luck gambling addict, not a rational person, would make. You should never make other people suffer for your guilt

Another day, another pundit who continues to not understand that we will never get our pony.

War?

Oh yeah, that war.

At least 20 American service personnel were killed in military operations Saturday in one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since the Iraq war began, and authorities also announced two U.S. combat deaths from the previous day.

Joe Lieberman hearts other people's sacrifies for his ego.

Link.

Exxon Mobil Is Crying

I am smiling.

The House rolled back billions of dollars in oil industry subsidies Thursday in
what supporters hailed as a new direction in energy policy toward more renewable
fuels. Critics said the action would reduce domestic oil production and increase
reliance on imports.

And both the Democratic House and Senate are undertaking a full investigation of the energy policy, something that was not included in their first 100 hours - accomplished in under 50 - but is really necessary. The fundies can explain away the wind storms in eastern Europe, the snow in Oregon and the 70 degree weather in NY by abortions or homosexuals, but science told us otherwise a long time ago. It is time to start making decisions based upon the reality in which we live, not upon the reality in which we would like to live.

Link.

Gonzo Gone Gonzo

Otherwise this exchange makes no sense.

A reader transcribed this exchange concerning habeas corpus from today's Senate
Judiciary Committee hearings (no official transcript yet):

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?
Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Article I, Section 9: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Alberto Gonzales should not only be impeached for his willfully obtuse
interpretations of the Constitution, he should be disbarred.

Here here. This is one thing the Bush administration cannot spin

Can't Do Anything Right

I first saw this headline last night on a CNN news ticker in Columbus Circle, but it did not completely register with me.

Iraq’s turbulent effort to reckon with the violence of its past took another macabre
turn on Monday when the execution of Saddam Hussein’s half brother ended with the hangman’s noose decapitating him after he dropped through the gallows trapdoor.

We are dealing with children who do not know how to do anything correctly.

MLK

Amen.

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves
me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement
with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy
and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive
committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord
when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that
time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

Read, or listen, to the whole speech.

Empathy

What Digby said.

No, seriously. It is something that I have thought for a long time, but never articulated as eloquently as Digby did. People who do not have empathy for others, even those they have never met, are psychopaths and should be treated as such, even if they occupy the highest echelons of power.

Heavy Day

Light blogging. But this summation of Condi's testimony both gives a lot of hope for the Democrats and is very damning to Bush.

Bush Speech Roundup

I'm just going to run links, because there's going to be way too much and I imagine most of it will be somewhat repetitive. In no particular order...

Devilstower - we've already done that!
Kos - it's bullshit and Cambodia all over again [see? not just me]
McJoan - Loserman hearts Bush
BarbinMD - you get back, jack, do it again
Stoller - creeped out
Atrios - "Iraq 4evah!" just an open thread
Digby - Iran talk is crazy
Glenn Greenwald - Iran talk is frightening
Billmon - ...
Juan Cole - fantasy land, Al-Qaeda nonesense
Arianna - He keeps saying those things, but I don't think he understands they don't mean what he thinks they mean
Larry Johnson - attempts an ill advised exercise in reality

and just for shits and giggles, the open comments at LGF. read at your own risk to your sanity.

Bush's Military Speech

If there was one theme to the speech Bush gave tonight, it is that he has no clue. That goes both for what is happening on the ground in Iraq and what is coming out of his own mouth. If there were two themes, the second one is that he is going to do whatever he wants to do and we will not leave Iraq as long as he is president.

It was nice to hear Bush admit that the mistakes lie with him, but it appears that will not stop him from perpetrating more of them. He spoke out of both sides of his mouth when he said that we cannot continue to stand in stead of the Iraqis and they must fight for Iraq but then countered that we cannot abandon them; to do so would be to feed the cycle of violence. I can see he is already getting ready to pin the blame on whomever - probably a Democrat - finally withdraws our troops from Iraq. Only then will the entire American newsmedia fully report the extent to which Iraq is fucked up, and Republicans will blame Democrats.

Bush continued to place a large part of the blame on Al-Qaeda. He does not understand that Iraq is already in a civil war and, while he may not be totally oblivious to the Sunni/Shi'a nature of the conflict, he does not grasp the more global implications of the policies he is pursuing. He willfully ignored the will of 88% of the people and his top military commanders. And yes, he invoked 9/11.

The two most disturbing things I saw were the unintentional but glaring comparisons he made to Vietnam. First was the escalation. Bush claimed that the mistake we made was wiping out the insurgents and then leaving the areas, as opposed to sticking around to make sure they were gone. This is eerily similar to President Johnson's call for more troops in Vietnam. It only struck me so vividly because I watched the speech Senator Kennedy gave yesterday, in which he laid out the same exact parallel and Johnson quote. Second was the need to secure Iraq's borders, specifically in regard to Syria and Iran. This smacks straight out of Kissinger's Cambodian playbook - yes, Bush was meetingly with Kissinger very recently - except make no mistake that expanding the war to Iran is countless times more dangerous and stupid than Cambodia. VC are crossing the border into Cambodia! We have to stop them there too! I will check in for a blog roundup tomorrow, but I am fairly certain I am not the only one who caught this.

As an aside, he seems to have picked up a little lisp since the last time I heard him speak. I wonder what gives.

Update: The most gratifying part of the speech was where Bush mentioned building bipartisan support and Joe Lieberman right next to each other. I know Bush still thinks of Lieberman as a Democrat, but someone should remind him that Lieberman can no longer claim to speak for Democrats. Even though we lost the general in CT, we accomplished a great feat by kicking Joe out of the party. It is already paying dividends.

Rant

Hunter.

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

We all knew Bush would not work with the Democrats in any sensible or bipartisan fashion, but I was holding out hope that he would recognize the situation he is in and curb his abuses in the face of a oppositional Democratic Congress.

I was wrong.

President Bush's speech may be scheduled for tonight, but the troop surge in
Iraq is already under way.
ABC News has learned that the "surge" Bush is expected to announce in a prime time speech tonight has already begun. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad today. An additional battalion of roughly 100 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday.
It is the first small wave of troops in a new White House strategy that is expected to put more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and likely require new call-ups of the National Guard.

Bush must learn the hard way that he does not wield supreme power and he cannot lie to the nation. Democrats should not shy away from the Constitutional crisis that Bush has subjected this country to for the past six years. Bush must be stopped.

Stupidest Quiz Ever

Never mind what that says about the book.

Apparently I'm in the "'>Red" tribe. Me.

...

hahahahahahahah.

Take a shot, take the quiz.

Then read Digby. And again.

Sweet Sweet Irony

Miriam Webster on [Michelle] Malkin.

h/t - you've been Eschatoned.

The New Civility

What Digby said.

The New Police State

Just when you thought Bush could not get any more illegal:

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail
without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.

Not only is it illegal, it even contradicts the bill he just signed. This man is a psychopath, out to do what he wants to do, when he wants to do it and damn the consequences or how they might affect anyone. All that matters is the Decider's Decision.

It's January now, and Bush will have to deal with Conyers in the House and Leahy in the Senate. If Gonzo thinks he can get away with stonewalling a Democratic congress, he will find himself in a huge pile of Cheney.

It's January

This is what I call a mandate, Bush.

Civility

The right wing.

"ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO INTRODUCES, CO-SPONSORS OR VOTES IN FAVOR OF ANY SUCH AMNESTY WILL BE DECLARED A DOMESTIC ENEMY AND WILL BE CONSIDERED A LEGITIMATE TARGET FOR ASSASSINATION"

Wake me when they stop complaining about the level of our discourse and four letter words.

Happy New Year!

Now get to work.

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign
pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.
House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

Do I care if the Republicans are sidelined? Not at all. These are the same rules that the Republican party has used for years, and this is legislation that has been promised to the American people and needs to be passed. If Republicans were allowed into the process they would mangle any effort to make serious progress in this country and then blame the Democrats for not accomplishing anything. But the Republicans are adults and they can take a taste of their own medicine, right?

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from
their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for
the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able
to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative
Democrats.

Ha ha, just kidding.

Republicans controlled the House for the past 12 years and did not accomplish anything. Their time is over.