A bit of indignation. We're all indignant, right?
I'm still holding out for Psalm XXIII.
Anyway - I have quotes from "official" sources below the fold.
http://select.nytimes.com/...
It's behind the firewall, sorry. Paul Krugman's latest column, however, deserves a few paragraphs. He discusses the current public relations drive being conducted by the White House. Bush exudes confidence - and, amazingly, some pundits (Broder? Krauthammer? Brooks? Malkin? Kristol?) exude admiration. Is self-confidence a good thing, or is it a symptom of narcissism? Shrub has swaggered through Katrina, declared vicory in Iraq, claimed victory against "terrorists" - notably Mr. Padilla, locked up and tortured for being a card short of a full deck.
In the meantime, Iraq has descended into a downward spiral of violence, as Afghanistan dissolves and Pakistan faces anarchy, anarchy with nukes. ("Yes. Questions?" "Teacher, why do we have to 'duck and cover''?)
[T]he Bush administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bush’s poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.
Sorry, but that’s not reassuring; it’s terrifying. It doesn’t demonstrate Mr. Bush’s strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality.
Actually, it’s not clear that he ever was in touch with reality. I wrote about the Bush administration’s "infallibility complex," its inability to admit mistakes or face up to real problems it didn’t want to deal with, in June 2002. Around the same time Ron Suskind, the investigative journalist, had a conversation with a senior Bush adviser who mocked the "reality-based community," asserting that "when we act, we create our own reality."
People who worried that the administration was living in a fantasy world used to be dismissed as victims of "Bush derangement syndrome," liberals driven mad by Mr. Bush’s success. Now, however, it’s a syndrome that has spread even to former loyal Bushies.
Paul Krugman goes on to condemn those who no longer are believers, but still enable Bush. Richard Lugar, John Warner, Arlen Specter, Pete Domenici - they all recognize the march of folly, but refuse to vote according to their beliefs.
We saw a lot of this in the recent filibuster.
This week’s prime example is Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who made headlines a few weeks ago with a speech declaring that "our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests." Mr. Lugar is a smart, sensible man. He once acted courageously to head off another foreign policy disaster, persuading a reluctant Ronald Reagan to stop supporting Ferdinand Marcos, the corrupt leader of the Philippines, after a stolen election.
When push comes to shove, so-called "moderate" Republicans are all too glad to "cave". They stand and denounce the folly of war, but refuse to allow a vote to contain the war. At some point, will this straddling not come to resemble the Rack - the extremities pulled apart, bit by bit?
Now, thanks to the filibuster, and an August recess, the can is kicked down the road to September. At that point our very objective hero, David Petraeus, will issue his oracular report which will say nothing new. So, basically, we are all waiting - twiddling our thumbs until September. Be sure to support your local meatpackers' union on Labor Day. Sorry, I meant "take a 3-day holiday."
Speaking of General Petraeus, Krugman says:
I hope he proves me wrong, but the general’s history suggests that he’s another smart, sensible enabler.
I don’t know why the op-ed article that General Petraeus published in The Washington Post on Sept. 26, 2004, hasn’t gotten more attention. After all, it puts to rest any notion that the general stands above politics: I don’t think it’s standard practice for serving military officers to publish opinion pieces that are strikingly helpful to an incumbent, six weeks before a national election.
General Petraeus, back when, told us that his mission of training Iraqi troops was going swell, just swell. My goodness (as Rumsfeld might say), he did a fine job - until he was sent somewhere else. The troops he trained are very efficient militias or merely armed criminals, but no one could have anticipated that.
We are waiting for a report from a general who has been willing to lie for the sake of advancement. No doubt, in September he will lie again, saying "Progress has been made, we are turning a corner." Yep. Same thing he said about training the Iraqi security forces.
In a twist, Krugman sums up:
You know, at this point I think we need to stop blaming Mr. Bush for the mess we’re in. He is what he always was, and everyone except a hard core of equally delusional loyalists knows it.
Yet Mr. Bush keeps doing damage because many people who understand how his folly is endangering the nation’s security still refuse, out of political caution and careerism, to do anything about it.
And what does Senator Lugar have to say? "Mercy, me!"
What did he say three years ago?
http://www.cnn.com/...
"I just see this as a time in which, suddenly, we give sovereignty to somebody," he said. "And now the question is, to who? And how do they secure that?"
He also said the administration should consider sending more troops to Iraq to stabilize the security situation.
Lugar's remarks were made the same day seven U.S. troops were killed in a Baghdad neighborhood in an attack by Shiites angry over the arrest of a top cleric's deputy. Two U.S. Marines were killed elsewhere this weekend.
Well, time flies, especially if you have a safe seat in Indiana.
To all the Repubicans who are "alarmed at the trends" in Iraq: I say you are war criminals. But, hey, there is a road to forgiveness. It runs through your local "rehab" center, a press conference with your wife present, and forgiveness from Pastor Ted. (wink ;))
I would not wish to portray "moderate Republicans" as scum-sucking bottom-feeders, nor would I wish to point out that they are infested by parasites/lobbyists; nor, indeed, would I suggest that their pretended concern for the "Homeland" is a ruse for exploiting the citizens thereof.
But, I have a sneaking suspicion that, in a pinch, "moderate" Republicans will vote the Party Line - every single time.