This is in response to Granny Doc’s diary "This is going to be hard to write..." It started out as a comment and ballooned into a full-blown diary.

If you are not familiar with Granny Doc’s writing, check her out. If nothing else at least read "This is going to be hard to write..."

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea if Granny Doc would ever agree to meet with you in a bar (or even if she visits bars on occasion.)

Hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-lls.

Right after tonight’s Newshour broadcast I started making dinner. But I was so ticked off at what I had just seen there that I had to get a notepad and I started making notes. Chop some vegetables, make a note. Check the rice, make another note. The whole time I was cooking, I had to stop and make notes.

Originally I was going to title this diary "PA, The Most Salient Fact" but as I wrote my notes I realized it was something else. The analysis of Shields and Brooks (Boooo) with moderator Judy Woodruff brought on a streak of swearing at the TV by me.

It is unbelievable to me that they can try to pass this BS off as critical analysis. For more, hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-alls.

If you search Wikipedia or on-line dictionaries for "liveblog" or any of the word’s variations, nothing turns up. Yet, if you google it, over 17,000,000 hits show up. It is obviously a word and its use is widespread. But what does it mean?

There have been many liveblogging events here on dailykos and every time I’ve clicked on one to check it out, it has been an utterly useless waste of my time. I don’t have cable TV, so my hope, when I log in to a liveblog, is to get information and perspectives on events that I can’t witness as they happen. Maybe even direct quotes from (or paraphrases of) the substance of the dialog. Or summaries! Instead, I get tons of irrelevant comments and sidebar debates that do absolutely nothing to illuminate me on the event. So many comments such as - "Obama’s reponse was great!" - and when I click on it, nothing - neither the question, nor the response is provided. Plus, the commenter didn’t even have the courtesy of amending their comment with n/t (no text) or eom (end of message.)

Does anyone else here think that liveblogging could be a much more effective tool than it has been in its recent manifestations? If so, hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-alls.

This diary is written in response to Pam In Calif’s comment to my comment to BarbinMD’s front page article George Bush's Foundation of Peace.

Raed Jarrar (Iraq Consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle.) wrote an article today titled "The Iraqi Civil War Bush and the Media Don't Tell You About" which presents an Iraqi’s perspective on the civil war in Iraq that I have never heard before. Raed is one of the few bloggers that our beloved Riverbend (MIA since 10-22-07—I wish we’d hear from her) links to on her site. (I like that Alternet.org titles their section on Iraq "War on Iraq" as compared to the usual "War in Iraq.")

For my take on Raed’s article, hop in a barrel and follow me over the f-a-a-a-alls.

Some people claim that holding the office of the President of the United States of America ages a person at the rate of 3-to-1.

Norris, an ardent supporter of Mike Huckabee, told reporters he believes serving as president accelerates the aging process 3-to-1.

Even with all of the bike riding, brush clearing, and extensive vacations the toll on bush has been obvious. Here is a photo of him in 2000:

For a recent photo, and I know, who wants to take another look at his criminal mug, but bear with me, hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-alls...

Back at the end of 2006, after the republicans lost control of Congress, bush was asked about his "legacy." You may recall his response:

And you're talking about legacy. Here, I - I know - look, everybody's trying to write the history of this administration even before it's over. I'm reading about George Washington still.

My attitude is if they're still analyzing number one, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he think is right, and make the tough choices necessary.

In a most peculiar way, he may be right to question a quick assessment of the years he "ruled." To find out what I mean, hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-alls...

I know that everyone here is all in a tizzy over election news and prognostications and analysis ad infinitum. I also know that clammyc has a fine diary up on the rec list about Iraq.

Scott Ritter, a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, also has a fine article over on Alternet.org. His views on the situation in Iraq, currently, in the near future, and in the long run, are alarming to say the least.

Hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-a-alls.

For me, and I’m guessing for many Kossacks, it is a painful thing to watch and to listen to Bush "make a speech" on TV. I put that last bit in quotation marks because he never really makes a speech; rather, he reads the text scrolling by on a Teleprompter.

A Teleprompter is a device that displays the text which a speaker is delivering. It can be: 1) placed directly in front of the lens of a video camera (so that the speaker’s eyes appear to be directed at the viewer) or 2) it can be projected onto those little glass screens you see on either side of a speaker’s platform, such as we will see in the upcoming State of the Union address.

My main point in this diary is that, despite the unending pain of watching Bush speak, there is a counterbalance in the humor provided by his robotic use of the Teleprompter in option 2) situations. I’m sure this arises out of the extensive rehearsals he went through with Karen Hughes prior to previous SOTU deliveries.

On Monday night bush will once again attempt to fool the American people in the annual State of the Union (SOTU) address. Of course he has succeeded at this many times in the past and the MSM didn’t even blink, didn’t question any of his premises, but simply took up their role as stenographers and duly reported, "The President said..."

My question is: How long will it take before he tells his first lie?

And I don’t mean anything along the lines of, "Hello," he lied. I mean a flat out falsehood intentionally designed to hoodwink, bamboozle, dupe or otherwise deceive the people of America and/or the world. I’m talking about a major whopper here.

To find out my guess, hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-a-alls.

They were so excited when they first heard the news. A small colony of yeast cells learned that they had been selected to make Champagne! While they weren’t certain of all the details, they knew it was a glamorous job, much more prestigious than pedestrian work like making bread. Plus, they knew that they would be dining on sugar and they sure did love their sweets.

The big day finally came and the yeast colony was dumped into a bottle of wine loaded with sugar. The bottle was corked and carefully placed in a rack where the yeast cells could get to work. Except that it didn’t really seem like work. No, it was more like a big party--plenty to eat and ample opportunities for reproduction.

Hop in a barrel and follow me over the faaaalls...

This will be a very short diary, as I'm short on time, but I know there are many Kossacks who will be glad to know that she is OK and back to writing for Baghdad Burning.

Please read her heartrending tale of departure from Iraq. Here is one small excerpt:

There was one point, during the final days of June, where I simply sat on my packed suitcase and cried. By early July, I was convinced we would never leave. I was sure the Iraqi border was as far away, for me, as the borders of Alaska. It had taken us well over two months to decide to leave by car instead of by plane. It had taken us yet another month to settle on Syria as opposed to Jordan. How long would it take us to reschedule leaving?

This diary is a response to smokeymonkey’s diary from yesterday "What is an Atheist?" Even though I don’t explicitly discuss atheism in this diary, I’m sure it will be evident why I am an atheist. This is a small excerpt from a much longer piece I wrote in the late ‘90s. Other than some minor edits for context, this is as originally written, with the exception of additional comments added inside of brackets.

Hop in a barrel and follow me over the fa-a-a-a-alls!

Wes Clark Jr. ("The Constitution is in Danger") and Cenk Uygur’s weekly protest action occurring every Sunday from noon till 1PM across the country is entering week six. There have been numerous diaries about this action, including two wonderful and poignant accounts by Silence is Complicity.

I don’t like having all of my links being to Dailykos diaries, so here is how the rest of the media is responding to Wes and Cenk’s protest:

Unfortunately, I have to work on Sundays and can’t attend the gathering at the Federal Courthouse in Seattle. So I’ve started a little project on my own as my small contribution to the cause. Hop in a barrel and follow me over the falls...

It seems to me that the world has become increasingly divided, so divided that communication between various factions is becoming impossible. Wingnuts can’t/won’t talk with anyone outside their circle, Israelis can’t/won’t talk with Palestinians, the US can’t/won’t talk with Iran, the left can’t/won’t talk with the right, radical jihadists can't/won't talk with moderate Muslims, and bushies can’t/won’t talk with anyone.

So I decided to write "A Creed for Everyone" that anyone can use to support any position that they happen to hold.

Hop in a barrel and follow me over the falls!

For me, and I’m guessing for many Kossacks, it is a painful thing to watch and to listen to Bush "make a speech" on TV. I put that last bit in quotation marks because he never really makes a speech; rather, he reads the text scrolling by on a Teleprompter.

A Teleprompter is a device that displays the text which a speaker is delivering. It can be: 1) placed directly in front of the lens of a video camera (so that the speaker’s eyes appear to be directed at the viewer) or 2) it can be projected onto those little glass screens you see on either side of a speaker’s platform, such as we will see in the upcoming State of the Union address.

I’m not sure what venue Bush will use for his declaration next week on the "new way forward" in Iraq. I’m guessing it will be the oval office, in which case we will see option 1) above. My main point in this diary is that, despite the unending pain of watching Bush speak, there is a counterbalance in the humor provided by his robotic use of the Teleprompter in option 2) situations. I’m sure this arises out of the extensive rehearsals he went through with Karen Hughes prior to previous SOTU deliveries.

My question is: What, specifically, is the US military’s mission in Iraq? Ever since Bush made his appearance on the USS Abraham Lincoln beneath the "Mission Accomplished" banner, I have wondered what, exactly, are the generals and the soldiers in Iraq hoping to accomplish?

During WWII, when we attacked Iwo Jima, we had a plan which was part of an overall strategy to win the war—we amassed the manpower and the materiel necessary to assure victory, and we succeeded in taking Iwo Jima. In Iraq, what is our plan and what is our overall strategy? Has Bush or anyone else in this administration clearly articulated our overall strategy in Iraq?

As far as I can tell, the only strategy Bush has now, or has ever had, for Iraq is "Hope and Pray".