Thursday, October 04, 2007

Who could have said such a thing?

"This defines Petraeus’s failure. Instead of obliging the president and the Congress to confront this fundamental contradiction -- are we or are we not at war? -- he chose instead to let them off the hook….

"Politically, it qualifies as a brilliant maneuver. The general’s relationships with official Washington remain intact. Yet he has broken faith with the soldiers he commands and the Army to which he has devoted his life. He has failed his country. History will not judge him kindly."

The title of this piece is "Sycophant Savior," and it also says that Petraeus "is a political general of the worst kind—one who indulges in the politics of accommodation that is Washington’s bread and butter but has thereby deferred a far more urgent political imperative, namely, bringing our military policies into harmony with our political purposes."

From MoveOn perhaps? Daily Kos? How about


Monday, October 01, 2007

Now, that's truly special

C&L has this one, but I wanted to make sure that everyone read it. (Of course, our readership here is much larger than theirs...)

Movie critic/Wingnut Michael Medved is out with an essay on Townhall entitled "Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery". You could go read the drivel, and there are those, I'm sure, who would want to try to rebut his arguments. But really, folks, here's the key - he's arguing that slavery wasn't that bad. Slavery. You know, one person owning another. I don't care if it was slavery based on race, or gender, or religion - I think most of us could pretty well agree that slavery is on the list of no-no's, well, at least those of us who aren't evil.

The buried, racist heads of the evil wing of the GOP continue to sneak out of the sand and their vestigial eyes are blinking in the harsh light of reality. What possesses someone to write an essay like this? If you read any part of it (and then wipe the vomit off your keyboard), you see that he's upset that anyone (I think there's a straw man slave in here somewhere) says that the US doesn't have the moral authority to bomb brown people because slavery was legal in parts of the country 142 years ago. Personally, I don't think we have the moral authority to bomb brown people because I don't think anyone has the moral authority to bomb brown people, but maybe I need to take a closer look at things.

Oh, for crying out loud, I can't even get sarcastic about this idiocy.

Just a suggestion

Under Harry Truman, the name of the "War Department" was changed to the Department of defense.

I think we should change it back.