### CIA interrogation transcript 5BX-1131 02-March-2008###
***EYES ONLY***

Bush held up the water jug, its spout poised over the rough-textured woven cloth that overlaid the supine Durbin's upturned face "Is waterboarding torture, Senator?"

"Yes."

"And if I, the Decider, say that it is not--then?"

"Ye--"

The word ended in a choked, gurgling gasp. Water had surged into his nostrils, shockingly cold as it filled his sinuses and pooled at the back of his throat.  He set his teeth then, and could almost count the molecules of precious oxygen as they ebbed from the meager store locked within his chest.  Strain wracked the senator’s body as the compulsion to breathe became irresistible.

We've all heard of gaydar, the sophisticated apparatus that allows modern civilizations to detect homosexuals from afar--and neutralize them before they can threaten our precious bodily fluids, aieeee!

Gaydar is not widely used in military circles, as the top brass have turned instead to Managed Ignorance (A.K.A. "Don't ask, don't tell") to protect the precious bodily fluids of those in uniform.  (Except, of course, when they serve with British, Australian, and other 'coalition' troops whose nations allow gays to serve openly...)

But imagine if, instead of just passively defending against the Gay Menace, or pretending it doesn't exist, you could use it as an offensive weapon in the War on Terra!  Suppose your arsenal included a precision-guided HOMOSEXUAL LUST BOMB that would turn your enemies gay right in their boots!

One minute, a formidable, armed opponent; the next, a mere limp-wristed caricature, a harmless little poof, a mincing gay-bar loiterer, a winnet-covered walking perfume shop, and an ardent perverter of the guy in the next bunk!

Wouldn't that be worth a few taxpayer millions?

Turns out someone in the U.S. Air Force thought so...  

I heard Sen. Snowe on NPR yesterday fleshing out the next bipartisan way forward in Iraq smoke-and-mirrors strategy for her party's survival.  In a nutshell, they want to distance themselves from Bush rhetorically, yet give him free rein until September, when they will take advantage of the shiny new lightning rod they have in Gen. Petraeus.

Petraeus, of course, is nothing but a front-man for the WH, swapped in as a "Surge" advocate the moment it looked like Bush might be in disagreement with his Commanders on The Ground{tm}.  It was a shrewd move: Petraeus now enjoys the highest public trust rating when it comes to talking about what's going on in Iraq--much higher than anyone else in government.  

That trust is a critical element of what's to come next.  (more below)

A White House spokesman outlined features of the new initiative, one strongly backed by the Bush administration.  "Under the old 'one-size-fits-all' system, the various rights and freedoms were simply provided by the government. You didn't have to pay a dime for any of them, but you didn't have any choices, either."  

[continues...]

We hear the same tired double standard over and over again: if Bush is smirking, if Rove sounds subtly assured, then the almighty GOP must have an ace hidden away; just biding time until November 6 when they can pull the thread and chortle as they watch the entire Democratic Party unravel in a heap. But if Democrats appear confident, why, it's a sure sign of laurel-resting complacency, giddy poll-intoxication, and impending electoral oblivion!  Yea, brethren, your foolhardy ebullience is as a yawning maw of DOOM, the panther lying in wait to devour ye!  Sound the alarum, turn out the palace guard: someone, somewhere is CELEBRATING TOO EARLY!!!

SAN FRANCISCO, CA (AP)—The City's orthodox gay Castro District was rocked late Friday by stunning allegations that one of its leading lights has in fact long been living a sordid, "double life" on the opposite coast.

Internet and phone records, as well as Capitol parking stubs, NSA wiretap transcripts, and certain hair samples from communal baths in the Rayburn Building, were provided to the Associated Press by an anonymous source. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Big Gay Al, a well-known spokesman for the queer movement, has been serving clandestinely as a member of Congress since 1996.

Typical of the nebulously damning material provided by the source was the following internet chat exchange, deemed "quite possibly authentic" by our font-kerning experts:

Q: One on Iraq again. Sorry. Just the simple question: Are we winning?

MR. SNOW: We're making progress. I don't know. How do you define "winning"?

Good question, Tony. But don't you think you ought to be telling us the answer?  

Snow went on to spout the usual empty rhetoric about making Iraq into a "safe, secure ally", minus any concrete explanation of how we might get there beyond "stay the course".  His remark, in all its elegantly distilled Freudian stupidity, deserves to be held up for ridicule much like Bill Clinton's infamous "it depends on the meaning of 'is'" gaffe--because it perfectly captures the fundamental cluelessness that's landed us in the biggest fiasco since Vietnam.  

Daily Kos, meet Fresca! She's cute.  She's friendly.  She's well-behaved.  

She has no megaphone.  No flight suit.  No image consultants.  No focus-tested speeches--no words at all, in fact.  Yet a single bark, just one lick on the face from her could be a gift beyond price...because it probably means she's just saved your life.

And she needs your help.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

                                                --Samuel Johnson

Not so fast, Sam.  As Jim Hoagland's latest column illustrates, Johnson got it wrong.

President Bush made headlines recently by adopting a more somber, realistic tone on Iraq. Then Bush, his vice president and his defense secretary stepped all over that message with unduly harsh assaults on the war's critics last week. What gives?

What gives, indeed?  How on earth could such earnest, benign leaders send us such confused signals?

How Iraq got to this point is now an issue for historians (and perhaps for voters in 2008); what matters today is how to move forward and prepare for the tremendous risks an Iraqi civil war poses for this critical region.

I just love how the erstwhile author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq assures us that the question of "how Iraq got to this point" is the exclusive province of academics and partisans in some far-off presidential election.  

Don't sell yourself so short, Mr. Pollack.

You see, apparently Holy Joe lost not because he did anything wrong, not because he failed to represent the interests of voters in Connecticut, but because faithless Jews betrayed one of their own:

He lost because Barbra Streisand's highly publicized contribution to Lamont and because of the number of Jews who hated Bush and the war more than they loved Joe. That's why he lost, and I don't get it.

Ah, the evil Mecca-Streisand, the worst of the lot!  Abandon all hope! (Where's that damned Leonard Maltin when you really need him?)

That said, I've been mildly surprised at the explicit nature of news reports on the liquid "peroxide explosive" that was to be used in the London plot.  I'm sure the Freepers will be screaming about the irresponsibility of NYT and WaPo reporters, and will probably call for their 'treasonous' heads. But in this case, it's definitely closing the barn door long after the horse has escaped.  

More on that topic (which leads to the political point of this diary) in a moment, below the fold--but first, some "acid flashbacks" about chemistry and carefree youth.

Everyone here loves to bash the DLC, but they at least have the virtue of consistency in their fundamental commitment to "staying the course" in Iraq, even at the cost of annoying the lib base through bipartisanship and support for the president.

So I am calling on the the so-called "Democrat Wing" of the Democrat Party here: the Deans, Feingolds, Conyerses, Gores, Kerrys and Kennedys.  And all the liberal Bloggers.  For the good of the country, they need to think hard about what they are saying; support our brave men and women in uniform; stop confirming America's well-founded suspicion that they are simply America-hating cut-and-run defeatists.

Pity the Republicans in their hour of trial! They've lost Broder. They've lost Friedman. They've lost Will and they've lost Buckley.  After this Tuesday, they'll still have Lieberman, but minus the (D-CT) fig-leaf.  Even among die-hard neocons, the last best hope is to distract us by parlaying the Israel-Lebanon offensive into a new war against Iran and Syria:



Yet simply calling for "withdrawal" in response is not enough.

I read this article in Monday's Washington Post, and what our ally Israel is now doing in Lebanon makes me sick.  

This is a diary with much cut-and-paste, but I believe my question to the "America stands with Israel, right or wrong" crowd is as important as it is simple:  

[...continued]

"The speaker was Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the exceptionally bright liberal who has long been a respected voice in Democratic debates. His subject was the Bush presidency. Frank began by separating himself from the strident voices on the left -- frequent in the world of blogging -- that accuse Bush of subverting American democracy.

I wrote to commend Mr. Broder on his valuable insight, and very frankly I think all of us here ought to tone down the rhetoric a little and listen to common sense.  Follow me on down...

I was angry to find out that the so-called "flag protection" amendment failed by just one vote, and angrier still to discover that one of my two California senators found it necessary to declare herself "the main Democratic sponsor of this amendment" and waste whatever time it took to write a lengthy, defensive statement that promises still more "hearings, debate and legislation" on the issue, as if Congress had no more pressing scourge to consider in this dark era.

Senator Feinstein, let's leave aside the fact that you've played into a cheap Republican election-year ploy, or that flag desecration in 2006 is perhaps the prime example of a solution seeking a problem.  True, the amendment says nothing specific about "burning".  But however nebulous its language, it remains quite simply an attempt by Congress to regulate and punish not speech, but thought itself.  

When I called the AT&T regulatory executive office I got through to a man whose name sounded like "Marcus" or "Markey". He recorded my "complaint" then somewhat condescendingly asked if I was a lawyer.  

He said, "Maybe you've heard of something called the Patriot Act?"

Well, yes.  

I had heard a little something about that.

[Insolence continues below the fold...]