Floodlight

War Underwear Gnomes

    Sen. Clinton calls for Rumsfeld's resignation

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under tough questioning from U.S. senators, the head of U.S. Central Command acknowledged Thursday that Iraq could descend into civil war.

    "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war," Gen. John Abizaid testified at a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

    Fueling this possibility, he said, was the combination of "sectarian violence, al Qaeda terrorists, insurgents and Shia militants."

So, basically, everyone that isn't a civilian (and not "dead"  because of our noble endeavor [about 120,000 so far])

    "Failure to apply coordinated regional and international pressure ... will further extremism" and could lead to a widening and more perilous conflict, he said.

    Abizaid was joined by Gen. Peter Pace, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose exchanges with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York were polite but testy.

    "Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Clinton, a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the White House.

"...errors in judgment..."?! Hillary, do you mean "blind, stupid acts that were were opposed by our best military analysts when they were proposed, and those analysts fired?

    After the hearing, Clinton called for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Duh!

    "The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people," she told The Associated Press. "It's time for him to step down."

    Her criticisms included not enough U.S. troops; the initial disbanding of the Iraqi army; and a lack of planning* to maintain stability after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

    "You underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence and the spread of Iranian influence," said Clinton.

Perhaps you mean, "Ignored the possibility of an insurgency  from the newly enfreed Islamacist factions and a whole shitload of foreigners who have trooped into Iraq over borders unprotected by our insufficient troops?

    The United States is boosting troop levels, not decreasing them, she said, and civilian and military casualties were also rising.

    Clinton also criticized Rumsfeld for underestimating the Taliban when he said in late 2002 that the group no longer existed in Afghanistan. The Taliban, which harbored Osama bin Laden, has since resurfaced with a vengeance.

    The defense secretary responded to Clinton. "Are there setbacks? Yes. Are there things that people can't anticipate? Yes. Does the enemy have a brain and continue to make adjustments on the ground requiring our forces to make adjustments? You bet," he said.

    "Is that going to continue to be the case? I think so. Is this problem going to get solved in the near term about this long struggle against violent extremism? No, I don't believe it is."

For the plain-English speaking among you, read. "Are there setbacks? Yes. Should we have anticipated this by listening to the finest minds in the civilian and military establishments instead of firing them for being "nervous Nellies"? Yes. Does the enemy have a brain and continue to make adjustments on the ground requiring our forces to make adjustments? You bet," he said.

"Is that going to continue to be the case? I think so. Is this problem going to get solved in the near term about this long struggle against violent extremism? No, I don't believe it is."

   

Rumsfeld: Withdrawal 'premature'

    Troop levels were based on what was "the best judgment" of commanders and civilian leadership, Rumsfeld said.

    He reiterated his position that a withdrawal of U.S. troops must be based on evolving conditions and warned against withdrawing them "prematurely."

"premature withdrawal...can have a high failure rate" and is not an effective terrorist control method, nor is "premature entry"

    The enemy wants to see U.S. public opinion divided, he said. Rumsfeld also noted the difficulty of a "balance between having too many [troops] and contributing to an insurgency by the feeling of occupation -- and the risk of having too few and having the security situation not be sufficient for the political progress to go forward."

"So, in essence, we don't know what the fuck to do now..."

    Rumsfeld disputed Clinton's contention that his assurances on successes in the past "have frankly proven to be unfulfilled."

    "I don't think that's true," he said. "I have never painted a rosy picture. I have been very measured in my words." He contended it would be tough finding "instances where I have been excessively optimistic."

So, who here remembers our "Catastrophic success" there?

   British envoy warned of civil war

    The hearing came on the heels of a leaked diplomatic cable, in which Britain's outgoing ambassador to Baghdad, William Patey, warned that civil war was more likely than a successful transition to democracy in Iraq.

Don't it pain ya when your best buds finally decide you are a complete dork? Looks like we'll be able to eat French Fries und Vienerschnitzel again soon, but may have to give up fish'n'chips.

    Abizaid defined three main objectives in dealing with the Middle East, which he said he has "rarely seen ... so unsettled and so volatile." Those aims were defeating al Qaeda; deterring Iran; and developing a comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    The general said he was optimistic, however, that the "slide can be prevented."

    "The army is holding together ... and the government is committed to bringing the sectarian violence under control," Abizaid said.

    'A game of whack-a-mole'

This is so fucking cute

    Sectarian killings in Iraq have escalated since the February 22 bombing of the Shiite Askariya Mosque in Samarra. Nearly 6,000 people died in Iraqi violence in May and June alone, according to a recent U.N. report.

    McCain was also concerned that U.S. troops are simply being moved from one trouble spot to another.

    "What I worry about is we're playing a game of whack-a-mole," he said.

    McCain cited Falluja and Ramadi as examples.

    "Everybody knows we've got big problems in Ramadi, and I said where are you going to get the troops? 'Well we're going to have to move them from Falluja.'

    "Now we're going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else," he said referring to the deployment of U.S. troops to the capital to support Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's crackdown on insurgents. "It's very disturbing."

    Nearly 2,600 U.S. service members have been killed in the three-year-old war.

    Fears of warfare spreading

    Abizaid warned that if "nonstate" enemies of the United States dominate this century, "We are in for even greater dangers.

    "It should not be lost on us, for example, that Hezbollah fields greater and longer-range weapons than most regional armed forces.

    "If left unchecked, it is possible to imagine chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons being transferred to militias or terrorist organizations by a state actor."

*The war going as planned? Absurd concept. See, ya gotta have a plan tor anything to go according to it.

The “Decider” and Deputy and Assistant Deciders of Action in Iraq are much more like the Underwear Gnomes of South Park: “Phase One: Collect underpants. Phase Three: Profit”

Ya see?: “Phase One: Start war. Phase Three: Profit” Except in the war Phase Three started at the same time as Phase One. There never was a Phase Two. It received as much attention from The Idiot Monkey Crew as it did from The Underwear Gnomes.

‘Course there were some folks who thought there should be some attention paid to Phase Two, but they were fired.

The public just smiled…and re-elected the Idiot Monkey Crew because they felt their leader was actually doing a good job or it would be unwise to change horses in the middle of the flood even if the horse they were on had four broken legs, was blind, and had spent its life eating Jimson weed.

 

 

And Now?

In August of 2004, Bush created the definition of oxymoron; he declared our actions on Iraq a "Catastrophic Success."  Bush had a rather mind-bending take on the concept 'success.' "Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success – being so successful, so fast, that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in, escaped and lived to fight another day," he said. How this works out in the sloshing frat-party punchbowl in his cranium I have no idea. That it actually has explained the little problems there for some folks boggles.

So here we are, two years later. Just curious: Vote for one

Our War Monkey's Heroic Adventure has been
A) Catastrophic
B) A success

Extra points, short essay: The original statement was...

Sounds Rational to Me!

I should have seen it coming, but the Shrub Adminstration caught me flat-footed with this:

U.S. weighs responses to N. Korea missile test
Military may attempt to intercept long-range missile, defense officials say

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is weighing responses to a possible North Korean missile test that include attempting to shoot it down in flight over the Pacific, defense officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

...The Pentagon is considering the possibility of attempting an interception, two defense officials said, even though it would be unprecedented and is not considered the likeliest scenario.

The officials agreed to discuss the matter only on condition of anonymity because of its political sensitivity.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said he could not say whether the unproven multibillion-dollar U.S. anti-missile defense system might be used in the event of a North Korean missile launch. That system, which includes a handful of missiles that could be fired from Alaska and California, has had a spotty record in tests.

Again, MSNBC slightly underestimates the problem:

For N. Korean Missile, U.S. Defense Is Hit or Miss

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has spent nearly $43 billion over the last five years on missile defense systems, but with North Korea poised to launch its most advanced missile yet, U.S. government assessments and investigative reports indicate little confidence in the centerpiece portion of the program.

Eleven ground-based interceptors in Alaska and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Central California, the cornerstone of the administration's new system, have not undergone a successful test in nearly four years and have been beset by glitches that investigators blame, at least in part, on President Bush's order in 2002 to make the program operational even before it had been fully tested.

In all, the interceptors hit dummy missiles in five out of 10 tests, but these were under controlled conditions that critics say do not reflect the challenges of an actual missile launch.

A little-noticed study by the Government Accountability Office issued in March found that program officials were so concerned with potential flaws in the first nine interceptors now in operation that they considered taking them out of their silos and returning them to the manufacturer for "disassembly and remanufacture."

Ain't it swell? They are actually thinking of showing off our impotence before the world, by using a system that has never been tested under real-world conditions and only works half the time ("If that!" he adds cynically) under ideal conditions while probably drawing the wrath of the world and is by any definition a "war-like act!" And all this while going eyeball to eyeball with the second-most nutcase "Leader" in the world today, who actually controls WMDs, big hairy nukes ! Excuse me. "Uh, South Korea, Japan? Yeah, you two in particular, but anyone else in the area: DUCK!

I am so proud.

Reassuring, isn't it?

 

Truism

October 25, 2005
President Addresses Republican National Committee Dinner

Recently, you may have read where members of both parties have been demanding documents from the White House. See, it's very important for people to understand this issue. It's important for me to get good, sound advice in the Oval Office. It's important for people who work in the White House to be able to come in and tell me what's on their mind without fear of what they're having to tell me ends up in the newspapers. You see, in order to make sure that the President gets good advice, whether it be me or whoever is coming down the pike, there must be confidentiality in the White House. Asking for those documents is a red line, as far as I'm concerned, in protecting the White House and the ability to operate. (Applause.)

Let me just paraphrase: "Recently, Congresspeople from both parties began to agree that they ought to have some idea just what the fuck is going on in the White House, who is telling me what, and how I have over the course of five years made such an string of bizarre, stupid, and wrong-headed decisions. Well, that's just dumb. I need good advice. God knows, I've needed good advice for a long damn time. So When people wander in from time to time, and tell me what to do, be it big energy companies telling me what my energy policy is, Halliburton telling me how to run a war and rebuild the country we destroyed while enfreeing it, or just my own inner child telling me where to vacation during humongous national disasters of any kind, they need to know that no one is going to find out and cause "problems" later, or even sooner. As Dick, Carl, Don, and even little Scooter  say, "We have to look to the future!" So you see I can't let Congress cross the "red line" and screw things up for me and the people who tell me they are my friends."

Fuck you

Fuck you, assholes!
Fuck you and your mothers and fathers!
I know none of you wil ever read this. I know none of you would care if you did.
But fuck you!!!
You think you're such hot shit? You think you've got something going?
Then bring it here! Right here!
No, not somewhere you can drop a frw pounds of C4.
Right here.
Come up in my face,
Miserable cowardly assholes. Pig lickers!

sigh...

I want to thank the people of Georgia for contributing troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. You've got a fine group of people that are helping serve the cause of freedom. We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomorrow.

-- Dubya mires himself and his audience in a chronologically-challenged statement, Tbilisi, Georgia, May 10, 2005

Oh, my aching, overworked bullshit-detector

From the Retarded Monkey's radio address today:

I will continue to focus on ways to ensure that our government takes the side of working families

Now that would be a refreshing change...but I'm not holding my breath!

Delivering opportunity means allowing families to keep more of the money they earn.  So we enacted the largest tax relief in a generation.

The families in question are, of course, those in the top five percent of income!

Delivering opportunity also means adapting to the needs of a new century.  In this new century, American prosperity will increasingly depend on our ability to sell our goods and services overseas, so we need to pass initiatives like the Central American Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement...

What the fuck? Well, OK, here's some info on this obscure, unheralded but badly-flawed agreement. "The Bush Administration's Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) is in trouble in Congress.  Predictably, the Administration is now trying to deflect attention from the economic shortcomings of DR-CAFTA by arguing that its rejection would be a foreign policy setback for the United States.  Yet, having ignored the needs of U.S. workers and failing to engage in bipartisan consultation on trade policies for four years, the Administration has no one but itself to blame for the possibility that a controversial trade agreement may be rejected by Congress."

to create a level playing field for American farmers and small businesses.

Arrrggghhhhhh! Oh...yeah...so many small businesses rely on foreign trade to keep going. 'Course there are a few big ones in the same spot! Really huge, wealthy ones!!

we're working to save Social Security

From fucking what? Having to rely on those "worthless IOU's" (ie., Treasury Notes, with the full faith of the government behind them?)

As we work to deliver opportunity at home, we're also keeping you safe from threats from abroad.

Thank you, Mr. President!

 We went to war because we were attacked,

Again: arrrgghhhhh! Fucking, lying, bullshitting asshole!!!

... we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. 

And seem to be better equipped to continue the insurgency than we are to stop it, and to make newly enfreed Afghanistan the supplier of 85% of the worlds opium, because our tenuous hold there depends on our reliance on warlords who derive their income from opium!! "The enemy of my enemy is my connection," and after all, most of our junkies are just, well, you know, "them," the ones we haven't been able to lure into the Army.

Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror.

The world's terrorist are conducting a war on terror? And how did they manage, all on their own, to do that, Mr. President? And just maybe, we're fighting them there because we sent too few troops with no fucking plans or adequate equipment to actually invest the country, secure the borders, and win the hearts and minds by restoring their infrastructure?!?!

Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home.

Yep, if we didn't keep 'em tied down if Iraq, they'd be sneaking into
Del Rio right now!

Nearly a year ago, Iraqis showed they were ready to resume sovereignty. 

If this is a confusing concept, let the President clear it up for you with one of his easy-to-understand definitions: "...sovereignty means just that; it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

A few months ago, Iraqis showed they could hold free elections.

I think king George the insane has already gone to live on Mars (remember Mars? He doesn't!) Ya know, at least when I was six and lied to my parents, I knew I was lying, and was embarrassed about it.

 

Wrong cultural tie...damn redskins!

If Hitler was alive, he would gather his staff from high school and junior high administators. For the real kicker, remember the words "formal" and "uniform" in the school spokeswoman's remarks, and don't miss the red text near the end!

Cultural Tie Gets in the Way Of Graduation
Md. Boy Wearing Bolo Is Denied a Diploma

By Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 10, 2005

Thomas Benya wore a braided bolo tie under his purple graduation gown this week as a subtle tribute to his Native American heritage.

Administrators at his Charles County school decided the string tie was too skinny. They denied him his diploma, at least temporarily, as punishment.

Not to ensure the "dignity" of the ceremony, but to fucking punish him for a "tie-width violation"!

The bolo, common in contemporary American Indian culture, is not considered a tie by his public school in Pomfret. If Benya wants the diploma, he will have to schedule a conference with the administrators.

Where he would be further berated and probably called a disruptive redskin.

What his parents say they want is an apology from Maurice J. McDonough High School for embarrassing their son and failing to respect the Cherokee background of his father's ancestors.

"The schools in Charles County are asking him to ignore his heritage," Marsha Benya said as she turned to face her 17-year-old son. "I want you to be proud of it."

"I am proud of it," he said, sitting in her real estate office in Waldorf, where he plans to work this summer before enrolling at the College of Southern Maryland.

The high school is sticking to its policy. The dress code is mandatory for seniors who choose to participate in the graduation ceremony. And Benya was told during a dress rehearsal Tuesday that his black bolo with a silver and onyx clasp the size of a silver dollar was "not acceptable."

"We have many students with many different cultural heritages, and there are many times to display that," said school district spokeswoman Katie O'Malley-Simpson.

"But not at graduation. If you wear a skinny tie, we'll surprise and embarrass you! Our administrators have many chances to display ignorance, bigotry, and arbitrariness; lucky for them the graduation exception doesn't apply to that!"

"But graduation is a time when we have a formal, uniform celebration. If kids are going to participate, they need to respect the rules."
...
"We set the standard to make sure all our ceremonies are formal and respectful," he said.

In March, Benya's high school sent a letter to parents and seniors explaining that "adherence to the dress code is mandatory," with the word mandatory in bold and underlined. For girls: white dresses or skirts with white blouses. For boys: dark dress pants with white dress shirts and ties.

Though they seem to have left out the "not too skinny" part.

That left Benya's classmates free to wear bright orange, red and striped ties under their gowns at the ceremony Wednesday at the Show Place Arena in Upper Marlboro. One senior girl wore a headscarf and long pants for religious reasons.

"The First Amendment protects religion, and we do everything possible to honor that," O'Malley-Simpson said. "There is nothing that requires us to follow everyone's different cultures."

"And, by God, while doing everything possible to honor his cultural heritage we're going to exercise our right to not honor his cultural heritage. So there!"  O'Malley-Simpson concluded.

The Yellow Rose's Budget

OK, I gave you folks a break. I didn't say anything about the Feces-Encrusted Moron's press conference. But this is too much. We are about to embark on "Howling Mad" Bush's new budget.

Congress Approves $2.6 Trillion Budget

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress on Thursday approved a $2.6 trillion budget plan for next year that calls for new tax cuts and spending reductions over the next five years.

Starts early folks! Five years of record deficits, and one of the features of the budget is more tax cuts.

Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate pushed through the budget blueprint without the support of a single Democrat.

Thank God for small favors! At least the Dums, uh, Dems aren't going to be Repuke fellow-travelers on this load. At least they will have something to brag about in 2006!

Before final votes, Republicans and Democrats squabbled over whether this budget outline for the fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1 would set America on a path toward cutting U.S. budget deficits in half, as President Bush has promised, or whether it would add billions of dollars to already record budget deficits.

They squabbled?! (That's $106 billion in additional tax cuts over five years coupled with $35 billion in spending cuts, see below!) As in, "If I get a salary cut of $1 a week, and I don't buy that 20 cent pack of gum every week, will I have more or less money at the end of the week than I do now? Which already doesn't cover my expenses, so I have 38 maxed-out credit cards and have already sold my children to the Chinese?"

Bush praised Congress' work, calling the product "a responsible budget that reins in spending to limits not seen in years."

Yeah...since January 20th, 2001, to be precise.

Among the key components are proposals for up to $106 billion in additional tax cuts over five years coupled with $35 billion in spending cuts over the same period.

See, it's that pack of gum that makes all the difference!

Tax cuts could include the extension of lower capital gains and dividend tax rates. Details would be worked out later.

At least there is something in it for the little guy! No, wait...that only benefits...oh, never mind. Y'all probably see where this is going.

Included in the spending savings is a controversial plan to reduce the growth in funding for Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. The budget proposes $10 billion in savings over four years to the program that is run jointly by states and the U.S. government.

Just so we're clear on who is going to take a ten billion dollar beating while those with income from capital gains and dividends (stocks) go skipping to their brokers to find the best way to ship their new-found income to off-shore investments that pay no US taxes:

What is Medicaid?
Medicaid is a federally-funded, state-run program that provides medical assistance for individuals and families with limited incomes and resources. It pays for your health care costs, including doctor's visits and eye care

What does it cover?

    * Doctor and dentist services
    * Clinic and hospital services
    * Nursing home and home health care
    * Family planning services; Prenatal care
    * Pediatric care
    * Mental health care
    * Prescription drug coverage
    * Optometrist services and eyeglasses

How do you qualify?
Qualifications are different from state to state. You can qualify if one or more of the following statements are true:

    * You have children and a limited income.
    * You receive or are eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
    * You're a pregnant woman who meets income requirements. For example, a family of four making $23,225 a year or less qualifies.
    * Your family's assets are less than $2,000.
    * You receive adoption assistance or foster care assistance.

But some senators speculated that Congress might find a way to dock programs other than Medicaid, such as Medicare, a federal health care program for Americans over 65.

So maybe they'll screw seniors on fixed incomes rather than children of the working poor! Yeah, maybe. Who here think it will turn out to be both?

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, said the budget embraced by Republicans "essentially freezes discretionary non-defense spending over the next three years and does it with enforcement mechanisms which are pretty effective."

Democrats countered that the plan would add $167.5 billion to U.S. budget deficits over five years.

They argued that budget deficits will swell in part because rising costs for the Iraq war are not included in Republican deficit estimates; nor are the costs of Social Security reform sought by Bush. Republican-backed tax cuts also would contribute to budget deficits, according to Democrats.

As Big Daddy liked to say, "Mendacity!" Miserable, rotten, lying shitheels! It takes a lot of gall to simply leave out hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditures when assaying the effects of your budget on the deficit. But that might just be me.

Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the budget also "makes room for new tax cuts likely to be targeted largely to those who need help the least."

The Republican-controlled Congress failed last year to get a budget plan, making it harder to control spending that contributed to a record $412 billion budget deficit last year.

And we can see by this current bill that if they had gotten a budget plan (though how they "failed" to get that 'budget plan', as the bartender said in Irma la Douce, "is another story.") they would have gotten a grip on the deficit...not!!!

The new budget plan also advances Bush's drive to allow oil drilling in the environmentally protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Although further legislation would be needed, language included in the budget could speed its passage.

What the fuck is that doing in a budget bill?!

Budget-deficit worries have been growing in Congress.
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan expressed his concern last week when he told lawmakers that continued deficits "would cause the economy to stagnate or worse."

Besides Medicaid reductions, the budget proposal includes $3 billion in cuts to U.S. farm programs over five years and $6.6 billion in savings for a deficit-ridden federal program that insures corporate pensions.

So this budget isn't all slanted to help the wealthy! Looks like former corporate executives relying solely on their pensions are going to be more at risk, too. But how did such a program find itself in trouble? (I'm just guessing on this one folks, don't quote me, OK?) Maybe by paying out gobs of money to corporate honchos of companies like Enron, which went belly-up through mismangement and skull (and bones)-duggery?

But at least there has been no mention of reducing the program that insures the life savings of the tens of thousands who lost them when Enron and other giants crapped out after their execs sold their shares (coincidentally, of course, not like that evil Martha Stewart) just in advance of the collapses.  Oh...wait...there is no program like that. Never mind.