Dick Cheney's halo became fully visible yesterday as he came to the Capitol for the the weekly Republican policy lunch. Speaking to reporters, he denounced the Democrats:
"Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage."The steely Schumer calmly strode away from the Cheney aura, but Reid could not hide his dread.
Posts
52 comments:
Senator Reid:
"I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with the administration's chief attack dog,"
Yeah, it's sure good that he chose to not get into a name-calling match isn't it?
There's a picture of Frist in a similar halo-enhancing position. I've seen it so often that it's trite, and I wish photographers would resist the temptation.
Speaking as a surge supporter, I have to say that insurgents seem to have done a masterful job at adapting to it. As should have been expected. The question becomes: what can the Administration do now to adapt to the adaptations? My patience is hanging by a thread.
Added your post at bizleadsnet for the keyword...' Dick Cheney appeared and all the angels sang '...Thank you! Appreciate if you can register your blog in our collection.
That picture is a good companion to the one Andrew Sullivan had a few days ago of Barack Obama silhouetted against a cross. The difference being that, so far as I can tell, Andrew Sullivan is serious about Obama being the messiah, whereas Prof. Althouse is not quite so excitable.
Re: second picture
I guess that you could say Reid is carrying the weight of the capitol ceiling on his shoulder.
Once again, Sen Lautenberg, D. NJ. was correct: the most dangerous place on earth is between Senator Schumer and a camera!
Cheney was right to point to Reids contradictions. Just six months ago Reid said he would never defund the troops. Today he wants to defund the war. He says the war is lost... but what have we lost? What Reid is really trying to do is insulate himself from blame after we pull out the troops. It won't work. The democrats will be to blame.
Reid also voted for the Partial Birth abortion law and then recently said he was dissappointed in the Supreme Court for upholding the law.
Will somebody hold this guy responsible for his blatent contradictions.
The Democrats would rather win a few seats in Congress and raise taxes than defeat the most vile fascist movement of our times. Its gross.
What happened to the Democrats of JFK or FDR - people who cared about the greatness of America and who saw freedom, democracy, and capitalism as a good force in the world. Those democrats no longer exist. The new Democrat party is not the party of Jefferson or FDR, it is the party of Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy.
Sloanasaurus. Read more at John Adams Blog.
Reid's lining the pockets of his family and other power/pork excesses puts him in the company of folks like Byrd, Lott, Stevens, etc. Add to it that he's not a very smart politician. I sure hope you don't have to be partisan to find him despicable.
It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage.
Is it cynical to declare that the war is lost because it is or because you believe it is? I think it is cynical to impugn a political opponent's motives for one's own political advantage.
Cheney's got his 'Old Testament smiting' face on; Schumer recoils from his flaming sword.
But isn't it:
Plague of frogs,
Plague of Girls gone Wild infomercials,
Plague of fire, and then
Cheney?
Or is that just on Tuesdays?
The new Democrat party is not the party of Jefferson or FDR, it is the party of Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy.
Similarly, the new Republican Party is not the party of Reagan or Goldwater. It's the party of Tom DeLay and Karl Rove.
This is why Kucinck is proposing articles of impeachment against the Vice President - who said yesterday:
I usually avoid press comment when I’m up here, but I felt so strongly about what Senator Reid said in the last couple of days, that I thought it was appropriate that I come out today and make a statement that I think needs to be made.
I thought his speech yesterday was unfortunate, that his comments were uninformed and misleading. Senator Reid has taken many positions on Iraq. He has threatened that if the President vetoes the current pending supplemental legislation, that he will send up Senator Russ Feingold's bill to de-fund Iraq operations altogether.
Yet only last November, Senator Reid said there would be no cutoff of funds for the military in Iraq. So in less than six months' time, Senator Reid has gone from pledging full funding for the military, then full funding but with conditions, and then a cutoff of funding — three positions in five months on the most important foreign policy question facing the nation and our troops.
Yesterday, Senator Reid said the troop surge was against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. That is plainly false. The Iraq Study Group report was explicitly favorable toward a troop surge to secure Baghdad. Senator Reid said there should be a regional conference on Iraq. Apparently, he doesn't know that there is going to be one next week. Senator Reid said he doesn't have real substantive meetings with the President. Yet immediately following last week's meeting at the White House, he said, "It was a good exchange; everyone voiced their considered opinion about the war in Iraq."
What's most troubling about Senator Reid's comments yesterday is his defeatism. Indeed, last week, he said the war is already lost. And the timetable legislation that he is now pursuing would guarantee defeat.
Maybe it's a political calculation. Some Democratic leaders seem to believe that blind opposition to the new strategy in Iraq is good politics. Senator Reid himself has said that the war in Iraq will bring his party more seats in the next election. It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage. Leaders should make decisions based on the security interests of our country, not on the interests of their political party.
Bruce, to what does your first sentence refer? Does Kucinich want to impeach because angels (Lucifer was an angel) sing when Cheney appears?
Similarly, the new Republican Party is not the party of Reagan
Which is why they lost the House and will most likely lose in 2008 unless Thompson throws his hat in the ring.
Unless Fred runs, I'll most likely stay home and rearrange my sock drawer.
MadisonMan
Actually, I am not quite sure what his Articles of Impeachment cover. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion though implied that he was going after the VP instead of the President because the former is a much more elequent spokesman for the cause.
But no, neither the halo nor the speech had anything directly to do with Kucinick's Article of Impeachment. He claimed that he had drafted the Articles before the VT murders last week, and sat on them for a week in respect (or, arguably, to get more attention from the press).
Similarly, the new Republican Party is not the party of Reagan or Goldwater. It's the party of Tom DeLay and Karl Rove.
I can see the Rove part, but DeLay? He's not even in Congress any more. It is hard to fathom why a Representative who was stripped of his leadership position by the Republicans and then resigned from Congress is considered today to represent the Republican Party.
Sloanasaurus said...
"The Democrats would rather win a few seats in Congress and raise taxes than defeat the most vile fascist movement of our times. Its gross."
Oh Sloan, we can raise taxes on the 1% and defeat the republicans too...that is who you mean when you refered to the "most vile fascist movement.." wasn't it?
I bet it was. If Cheney doesn't look the part of Satan I don't know who we would cast.
I wish I could approach the wit and humor of the posters above, but Harry Reid is so morally and financially corrupt and such a hypocrite on so many issues that I can't see the humor in such a sad excuse for a human being. A lot of his fellow Mormons absolutely hate him, and you've got to be really corrupt for that to happen.
It is cynical to declare that the war is lost because you believe it gives you political advantage.
I wonder if Cheney also believes it is cynical to declare "mission accomplished" because it gives political advantage.
Speaking as a surge supporter, I have to say that insurgents seem to have done a masterful job at adapting to it. As should have been expected. The question becomes: what can the Administration do now to adapt to the adaptations? My patience is hanging by a thread.
Mostly, their adaption is the use of bigger and bigger bombs. Not more of them, but bigger ones that kill more per capita. Plus, the use of chemical warfare (i.e. Clorine gas) on the Iraqi people.
Actually, the "surge" per se, while only half complete, is only a small part of what is going on right now. The biggest is that Gen. Petraeus has switched us from fighting a holding action to fighting a counter-insurgency. And of all our generals, he knows best how to do that.
Part of the plan is the use of security stations all around Baghdad with a mixed Iraqi and American contingent. Another is that miles of barrier are going up, upwards of a mile a night, to split up the city and restrict mobility of terrorists, esp. with their bombs. Part of the idea is that while vest bombers can kill a couple of people at a time, a truck full of high explosives can kill a hundred or so. So, cutting down on the movement of such seems to be working. Also, the more local nature of the security seems to be paying dividends with informants, etc.
One big thing that is going on right now, that really can't fully be attributed to Gen. Petraeus, is that Anbar province is far safer than it has been before, at least since our incursion into Iraq. Even a year ago, it was the main staging route for al Qaeda and other foreign born terrorists into Iraq. The Anbar tribesmen worked with the foreign terrorists to fight a common enemy, the U.S. But while the Anbar tribesmen ended up fighting al Qaeda, et al. after repeated attempts to impose Sharia, etc., we have been trying to lure them over to our side. The result is that some 80% of the tribes there have signed on with the government, and their young men are signing up for the military in droves, and their militias are working with our forces to take down al Qaeda. Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, is almost even safe now.
Another possible success is that the Shiite militias are mostly keeping their heads down right now, with their leaders in hiding, and mostly out of the country right now. The longer we can keep that going, the better. After all, it was their eruption in response to al Qaeda blowing up the Golden Mosque that triggered much of the ethnic violence.
MadMan, how can you say the surge failed when it has not been fully implemented yet?
hdhouse unwittingly (how else?) defines the left: the enemy is not the jihadist movement, but the Republicans.
The Democrats are fully invested in defeat. It is wrong, it is unpatriotic and I don't even think it is smart politics.
we can raise taxes on the 1% and defeat the republicans too...that is who you mean when you refered to the "most vile fascist movement.." wasn't it?
This pretty much illustrates why no one takes the left seriously when it comes to fighting terrorism.
Ignore the jihadist behind the curtain because the GOP is the true threat to freedom in the world. Yep, that will go a long way in making me think the left side of the aisle is moored in reality.
b wrote:
A lot of his fellow Mormons absolutely hate [Harry Reid]
This reminds me of a joke:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."
"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.
"Well, there's so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
Similarly, the new Republican Party is not the party of Reagan or Goldwater. It's the party of Tom DeLay and Karl Rove.
Rove I can see the point. But that criticism of Delay is bogus, based as it is in Democrat spin machine bogiosity.
But even Rove ya gotta love at least to some degree. Hey, we're talking about someone who, with the mere mention of his name, makes his opponent's tremble while their eyes grow big in awe, attributing almost supernatural powers to him, and makes them start babbling about grandiose political machinations on an epic cosmological scale. Like I say, all that just by throwing his name out. You want this guy on your team in some role.
I included DeLay because I think he is emblematic of the Corruption and Greed and Big-Government acceptance and incestuous fealty to Lobbyists of present Republicans in DC. Rove was included because he is so in bed with Fundamentalists (of the right-wing Christian type). It is Rove who is more damaging to the long-term prospects of the Republican Party.
All IMO, of course.
It is hilarious how unhinged Republicans have become. I mean Harry Reid? Harry Reid makes me think of milk with a sandwich and a picnic yet he's the new conservative bogeyman. Come on you can do better than that. At least Cheney makes a good villain with the snarling and F*** off's.
I have been saying all along that this would happen.
No politician has the skill necessary to profit from loss in Iraq without coming off as wanting exactly that.
If the situation in Iraq improves, Republicans do better
If it gets worse, Dems do better
Republicans will try to convince Americans that the war is going well
Dems will be trying to convince Americans that the war is going badly
Republican politicians will act to improve our chances of winning
Dem politicians will act to hurt our chances
That last one is not merely theoretical, it's already happened (in Reid's comments).
Hmmm. To some of you, it must look like a halo over Cheney's head. But to me, it looks suspiciously like . . . a vortex! (And I don't think we need to say whose.) What sorcery has our blog-hostess been practicing? And what plans does she have for the hapless VP once he's been successfully yanked upwards and out of our three dimensional world?
Okay, I've gone too far again. But is there any significance to the fact that Cheney gets a halo and John Ashcroft got a statue of a naked woman?
I see that Logic 101 class was exceptionally helpful for your career as a commentor Darryl.
When I was in the 9th grade, my dad told me to give up baseball to concentrate on tennis because he didn't think I was as good at baseball as I was at tennis. He would have benefited because I probably could have gotten a scholarship in a D1 school at tennis, yet I don't really remember him trying to spike my orange slices or throwing fastballs at my head when we practiced and hoping for my failure.
invisible man,
Before Daryl gets a chance to say it, I suspect the enemy is at this very moment taking comfort in your story.
I see that Logic 101 class was exceptionally helpful for your career as a commentor Darryl.
Ok lets try this:
Would you agree that Reid's comments (the war is lost) were received more favorably by the insurgents and terrorists or our soldiers?
Or do you think that such comments have no effect one way or another on the insurgents or our soldiers?
Do you think that Reid et. al., will suffer a major credibility problem if the surge works and Iraq does settle down?
Do you think that Reid et. al., will suffer a major credibility problem if the surge works and Iraq does settle down?
I most definitely think that Reid et. al. will lose a lot of credibility if Iraq does settle down just as Cheney has little credilbility left on the subject after saying (nearly two years ago) that the insurgency was in its last throes.
Invisible Man: yeah as a senator, Reid is hardly worth a comment but he is the Majority Leader. So if I had to cringe every time Bill Frist (e.g Terri Schiavo)and Trent Lott (too numerous to mention) came across as boobs, its only reasonable to hold him up for scrutiny.
I'd hardly give him enough credit to qualify as a "bogeyman".
Is this the best the right wing on this board has? Sorry children but your arguments (or talking points) about the "left being soft on terriorism" crap is just that.
You have had 6 years to work it out and you have zip to show for it. You've ruined the army, spent fortunes, killed and wounded thousands, and you have now, 4+ years later 160,000 on the ground in a country that over and over was demonstrated not to be the main target. You have an absolute clown for a president who seems removed from reality and then you have Cheney still making the case for OBL in Iraq or something.
Are you guys just nuts or what? What don't you get? Surge? My Ass. Look at the casualty rates and the waring factions are lying low right now..why? because President WooWoo announced a new course and then told the world what it was.
No one can safely walk anywhere outside the green zone and that is dubious. And when someone points it out to you skinheads you pull out that tired old "soft on terror" card. Well butthead, you are soft on the truth. You are soft on facts. And when the GOP gets absolutely crushed in 08, Rove heads to jail, and Cheney leaves office with under a 10% approval, I frankly will laugh my ass off at you....pretty much as I am doing now.
The steely Schumer calmly strode away from the Cheney aura, but Reid could not hide his dread.
Heh! That's a funny image.
Sorry children but your arguments (or talking points) about the "left being soft on terriorism" crap is just that.
Well when you say the GOP is the fascism we need to worry about you simply reinforce that belief.
You have had 6 years to work it out and you have zip to show for it.
Really? More than a few dead AQ leadership. OBL dead or otherwise incapable of even sending out a scratchy audio tape. Cells being rounded up worldwide. If that amounts to zip then I guess there is no pleasing some folk.
And when someone points it out to you skinheads you pull out that tired old "soft on terror" card. Well butthead, you are soft on the truth. You are soft on facts.
Tell you what, don't bother responding to anything I comment on again because if you want to paint me as a skinhead then you can simply go fuck yourself square. Its people like you that make reasoned debate impossible because all you can do is throw out the nazi slur if someone doesn't agree with your bumper sticker view of the world.
Talk to some of the troops over there and the ones coming back and get thier perspective rather than what Reid, CNN and Al Jazerra have to say and then talk about soft facts.
My apologies to the rest for my French.
Reid: Yes, I am holy, holier than thou; even though I did grow up in a cat house.
Schumer: And to think, I have to play second fiddle to this dumb goy.
Cyrus Pinkerton:
About that story you told ending in "I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.": You really cracked me up, because it made me think of all the arguments I've witnessed over the years (including within the past couple of months) about the Episcopal Church switching away from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer to "that abomination," the 1979 edition. You'd think that after 28 years people would have gotten over it, but no. General Convention in 2000 issued an apology to those "offended or alienated during the time of liturgical transition to the 1979 Book of Common Prayer."
I think that just egged people on, truth be told.
Actually, I am not quite sure what his Articles of Impeachment cover.
Article 1:
Cheney purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress concerning WMDs in Iraq. He knew there was no evidence of WMDs, but said otherwise, corrupting the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to further his deception. This deception led to 3000 US military deaths, 650,000 Iraqi deaths, cost the US treasury $500 billion, and overextended the military.
Article II
Same drill, except this time he knowingly deceived citizens and Congress about "an alleged relationship between Al Queda and Iraq."
Article III
Cheney has "openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States." He is making repeated false claims about Iran's WMDs, and "is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States toward Iran that are further destabilizing the world." Kucinich claims that any threat against Iran is illegal under both the Constitution and the UN Charter, because Iran has not attacked the United States.
Why isn't Kucinich going after Bush, you might ask? To spare the nation the trauma of two impeachments, he said. If Bush was removed from office, we would have to impeach Cheney right away, and that's just one impeachment too many.
reader_iam: When my Dad was reluctantly running for Vestry in the mid-70s, his platform was that he supported women priests and was against the new Prayer Book. This tactic was too transparent, however, and he was elected. This was before the '79 Book -- I got the version from '75, I think, when I was confirmed. So it quickly became obsolete. I remember it had a green cover. It was after the zebra-striped cover.
I always think of Graven Images when people complain about a particular way of doing things in a church.
About Kucinich:
I don't know what is more scary -- that Kucinich really believes his Articles -- or that he doesn't.
Yeah, those articles of impeachment are pretty weird. And they've got about as much chance of happening as Barack Obama has of being elected Pope, too -- the Democrats aren't going to waste political capital pushing some half-assed impeachment claim against a *vice*-President.
The Democrats have effectively announced their surrender to Iran and Syria.
Effin' brilliant tactic.
Dick Cheney has been wrong about everything with this war, from predicting its ease before it started, to his 'it's only Saddam dead-enders' statement when the insurgency started to his statement over two years ago that the insurgency was in its 'last throes.'
Considering how good Cheney's record is of calling it right, I'd almost consider the political prediction to be good news for the Democrats. If you've ever seen the movie, 'Titanic,' Cheney reminds me of the younger Hockley, who confidently at the beginning of the move says that 'God himself could not sink this ship' and continues to be wrong about everything, every time he opens his mouth.
Hoosier Daddy - You should apologize for your language but moreso you should apologize for playing that 'soft on terrorism' card you played. It stinks. It is stupid. It has no basis in fact and you can't support other than to mouth it.
Your ilk has demonized the democrats repeatedly by simply trying to play that fear card and you do it all the time, from President WooWoo on down. Cheney is the master of it and it must 'play in Peoria' because Rudy just trotted it out yesterday.
So what is it, you can't win on the reality of the situation, you can't win on a fact basis because you have none and offer none, you can't win on progress because there has been none - got that? NONE...so you try and win by attempting to scare the crap out of anyone with a strawdog argument.
That is so unAmerican you should tried as traitors.
hdhouse: So what is it, you can't win on the reality of the situation
Wrong. The reality is we are winning.
you can't win on a fact basis because you have none and offer none,
Wrong. Its a fact, we are winning.
you can't win on progress because there has been none - got that?
Wrong again. Much progress on many fronts. AQ leaders captured/killed. Saddam desposed and put on trial. WMD blackmarket broken up in Libya and Pakistan. Free elections in Iraq for a new government and new constitution. Iraqi army and police being trained up, entire sectors being handed back over to their control.
We're winning, thats why Copperheads like you are frothing. You've invested your party's political fortune against America. For your kind, Party trumps Nation. You are selfish weasel traitors that deserve to be air-dropped into the next Cambodian Holocaust [you still owe for that one too].
fen you are a laugh riot.
if things are going so well how come the surge? how come the increased death rate? what about the wounded? what about a bomb in the cafeteria in the parliament building in the middle of the green zone? what about electricity? what about the 18% of the population that has fled the country? what about 400 billion dollars and still not enough oil for their own needs?
if things are so great why are the factions lined up to kill each other the minute we leave?
you are such an unbelieveable putz and moron....god, don't let the facts hit you in the ass when you walk out the door.
hdhouse,
Uh, you must have missed the great news... McCain went shopping in the Baghdad market and got some great deals! From what I hear, it's pretty much just like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime. What's not to like about that?
This is why I hate the left and it's doom and gloom ideology. It is a repugnant mutation on the body politic. Harry Reid is now on the level of a seditionist. The man just sold his country down the river and put a knife in the back of the war effort.
By the way, there is zero mention of Joseph Liebermann's articulate and candid speech that is a powerful description of the left in congress.
Ah, little Joey Lieberman, the GOP's new favorite Democrat (actually ex-Democrat). I wonder if Zell Miller is feeling unappreciated these days.
Cyrus Pinkerton said...
Ah, little Joey Lieberman, the GOP's new favorite Democrat (actually ex-Democrat). I wonder if Zell Miller is feeling unappreciated these days.
Your commentary is another reason why your ideology, politicals, and political perspective is reserved for the willfully ignorant. Zell Miller isn't feeling unappreciated at all. In fact, he is feeling redeemed in his characterization of the Democratic party and the aparachiks that control it today. The fact that Joe Liebermann has answered Zell's clarion call is proof that of that Zell got it right. Just as Conservatives have been calling it all along.
Your political party, those that run it, those that endorse it, those that fuel it, those that prop it up, are nothing more than defunct pagans of the 60's who have weaseled their way into government (the irony in that alone is staggering) and have now entrenched themselves within the fabric of the American political landscape. Along with their children and now their grandchildren they can continue to edify Joe Liebermann's and Zell Millers prophetic and timely characterization of who and what the Democratic Party is and what it has become.
Zell Miller is rejoicing you ignorant fool and I can almost assure you that he has called Liebermann to congratulate him on a speech well made. So please go on and scurry back into your hiding place that resides in one of Henry Waxman's nostrils.
Methadras,
Funny, funny stuff. Honestly, your post made me laugh for several minutes. I particularly liked your description of Democrats (I'm assuming) as "defunct pagans of the 60's."
I should note a few errors, however. First, I'm not a Democrat, so I'm afraid you'll have to rewrite about 90% of your comedy script for the sake of accuracy. Second, my "commentary" (as you hilariously call it) was making fun of GOP hacks, not Lieberman or Miller. Finally, Little Joey Lieberman didn't answer "Zell's clarion call" (a phrase that earned roars of laughter around here); Lieberman would still be a Democrat if he hadn't lost his primary race.
Methadras, I'm happy to overlook the factual errors in your posts if you keep cranking out the humor. Good laughs are too rare around here, so your contributions are well-appreciated.
Post a Comment