Oh Look, Another Blethering Gobshite

By Cernig

Kenneth Thiesen of the Berkeley Daily Planet has an op-ed today entitled "Commentary: Why I Don't Support the Troops". He gets the same answer that shock-jock Joel Stein got when he tried exactly the same op-ed (only better written) back in January of 2006.

He's a blethering gobshite.

Of course, the Right loves it - "look! they really don't support the troops after all!"

And I'm personally sick of all the latte-sipping idiots of both Left and Right who want to tell working class people that they can't support other working class people without supporting an awful mission or the awful individuals who commit atrocities while carrying out that mission.

I'm going to be very rude and quote myself from January 2006.

just for the idiots I will lay it out as simply as I can.

We all have the right:

To agree or disagree with our nation's wars, even while they are being fought.

To disagree with the way the war is being fought if we think different leaders, strategies or tactics would fight it better.

To call for a halt to the war, or a portion of it, if we think the incompetence of national and military leaders means we aren't winning or suffering unacceptable/unneccessary losses.

To support each soldiers individual decision on whether their orders are lawful or not. Only the individual soldier can make that decision for him or herself.

To support the poor bloody infantry by wanting them to have the best of equipment, the best of leaders, the best of tactics and the luck or acumen to not have themselves killed or too many bystanders or enemies killed. We are all, first and foremost, human and every death is a tragedy to some extent.

I can support the troops, both British and American, while not supporting the war in Iraq and anyone who says otherwise is a blethering gobshite.

And Jason, I wasn't ignoring it - I was just busy with other things and got to it as soon as I could. Must I repeat myself every time just because you wish me too?

LGF Accuses OTB Of False Flag Blogging

By Cernig

Our good buddy the Leading Lizard, who kindly sends us weekend traffic to keep our advertising revenue up, has today accused moderate conservative James Joyner of being a closet Democrat carrying out "damage control for Barack Obama" by "blaming the meesenger".

The tell-tale giveaway is apparently that James has the temerity to balk at joining the baying Right's stampede over a Che flag in a lowly Obama volunteer's office.

John Cole has a similiar problem with Captain Ed Morrisey.

I wonder if James has considered it? I'm sure the Dems be delighted to have a man of his intelligence and integrity and John can attest that he won't go blind or impotent.

James and John, I'm sorry Johnston and Morrisey are being such idiots - but when you "actively pander to and encourage" the radical rightist elements of your party (e.g. LGF), as the Republicans have been determinedly doing for the past twenty years, you’re going to end up with embarrassing scenes like this.

Bolton Still Whining For NIE Do-Over

By Cernig

Via Memeorandum, I see that John Bolton is still whining because the last National Intelligence Estimate on Iran didn't produce the excuses for war he wanted. Today, the WSJ gives Bolton a platform to call for the wahmbulance - John wants a do-over. Nevermind that administration officials from Cheney on down have said they're just fine with the NIE. Bolton also wants the intelligence community purged of all those who won't toe the neocon party line. He says he wants the intelligence community to just shut up about policy: "Mr. McConnell should commit the intelligence community to stick to its knitting -- intelligence -- and return its policy enthusiasts to agencies where policy is made." But does anyone seriously think, in an administration that has made politicizing federal agencies into high art, that the neocon policymakers in the IC would be ousted along with those who might oppose them? Naaaah - not even Old Walrus-face beieves that crock of s**t - after all, politicizing intelligence is something he's had long experience at.

Faithfully, other neocons are jumping on Bolton's Bandwagon yet again. One has even spotted the obvious - that any reversal on the NIE now would mean McConnell's resignation or firing as DNI - and has a replacement in mind. If you guessed John Bolton then it wasn't exactly rocket science to figure out.

But I've a better idea. If the Bush administration, in lame-duck mode, really thinks it needs a new DNI then I suggest Zalmay Khalilzhad. He's a neocon of long standing. He knows the enemies of America well - in some cases he's had dinner with them and escorted them to parties. And he has the massive advantage of not being named John Bolton.

Update Via Think Progress comes news that DNI McConnell but back at Bolton for attempting to get the DNI fired.

Today during a Senate threat assessment hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) asked Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell about Bolton’s assertions. McConnell replied:

MCCONNELL: Sir, I’ll start by saying that the integrity and the professionalism in this NIE is probably the highest in our history in terms of objectivity and quality of the analysis and challenging the assumptions and conducting red teams on the process, conducting a counter intelligence assessment about “were we being misled” and so on. So I would start by saying that the article you refer to is a gross misrepresentation of the professionalism of this community.

Stick that in your moustache, John.

President Blair?

By Cernig

I have spent a long time regretting my one and only vote for Tory Blur, in his first election victory. I started to regret it the moment I saw that his first action on election was to run to Margaret Thatcher's side for advice - not the signature move of anyone who honestly believed the kind of thing Blair had been saying. Nowadays the man's lust for power and money and willingness to say or do anything to attain it gives me the dry heaves.

Today the Guardian reports:

Tony Blair has been holding discussions with some of his oldest allies on how he could mount a campaign later this year to become full-time president of the EU council, the prestigious new job characterised as "president of Europe". Blair, currently the Middle East envoy for the US, Russia, EU and the UN, has told friends he has made no final decision, but is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs.

I've a word of advice for my European friends.

Nooooooooooooooooooooo.

Coulter For Clinton! (When Wingnuts Collide)

By Cernig

News Hounds blog has the details. Coulter says she'll vote for Hillary if MCain gets the GOP nomination. I think my head just exploded. You know its just a cynical and manipulative marketing ploy by Ms (?) Coulter, but still...

Update James Joyner notes that even the hard right think Coulter has finally over-stepped, calling her blatant self-promotional statement "madness" and "insane". Well, that's not news even if it's fun to watch them eat their own.

James also puts his finger on my own misgivings about the current Dem candidates however:

As I’ve noted many times before, the mainstream of both major American parties would fit comfortably within the British Conservative Party. Indeed, within its right wing. So, the choice between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, if it comes to that, isn’t one between extremes. Contra Victor David Hanson, the “gulf” between them is hardly “Grand-Canyon like.”

That's why they both remind me too much of Tony Blair, who earned his nickname of Tory Blur a thousand times over.

Meanwhile, John Cole is watching the feud over at NRO, where Jonah thinks Bush took the GOP to the left - which I suppose at least means Jonah admits Bush took the GOP in a fascist direction - and the argument is over whether McCain's nomination will mean the end of the universe or merely the end of the world.

Pass the popcorn.

AP Has Britney Obit Ready

By Cernig

I can't decide whether this is wishful thinking, prudent planning or just another way to get more play out of the Great Britney Meltdown:

...news that The Associated Press has prepared an obituary for 26-year-old Britney Spears has put the spotlight on a debate transpiring within the business of reporting death: With people grabbing the celebrity spotlight at a younger age, and some of them living lives of obviously dangerous excess, is it time for news organizations to begin preparing for early exits from celebritydom's under-30 crowd?

"It's a complex issue, a complex debate," says Washington Post reporter Adam Bernstein, one of the news media's most respected obituary writers. "It's unclear to what degree somebody really is on the edge. So do you spend the time to put something together when you're wondering whether it will run now or 70 years from now?"

Of the approximately 100 prepared obituaries The Washington Post has in its files, Bernstein couldn't recall any on a person under 30. He also questioned whether an obituary on someone like the troubled pop star could be much more than a recitation of bizarre public behavior, as opposed to focusing on real accomplishment.

"Somebody like Britney Spears or Lindsay Lohan or Amy Winehouse, you could arguably put something together," he said, naming three young stars who have lately become more prominent for bouts of bizarre behavior than displays of talent.

On second thought, what am I thinking? Of course its a lame attempt to get more mileage out of the very public crashes of these pathetic celebrity figures.

Kossac mockery notwithstanding...

by shamanic

One of the biggest problems I have with the Clinton campaign is pollster Mark Penn. On television (and YouTube), he comes across as smug and slimy, and frankly every time I think of Hillary's campaign, his smarmy, I'm-smarter-than-you face follows right behind hers in my mind.

He's sort of the consummate operative for me this cycle, the paid political hit man, and like most of the netroots, I hate those people. I think they diminish our candidates by buffing them to a proto-presidential sheen and sending them out with carefully crafted phrases designed to appeal to the many while not alienating the few.

Mark Penn, you are one of the things wrong with politics today, and I'm happy to see your candidate struggle.

Poor Paris

By Cernig

Ain't kharma a bitch?

The hotel magnate Barron Hilton has announced plans to donate almost all his fortune to charity, slashing at a stroke his granddaughter Paris Hilton's inheritance, not to mention her potential eligibility.

The elder Hilton, 80, said he would give 97% of his $2.3bn (£1.15bn) estate to the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, a charity founded by his father.

"We are all exceedingly proud and grateful for this extraordinary commitment," said the head of the charity, Steven Hilton, who is Barron's son and an uncle to Paris.

...According to one recent book about the Hilton family, Barron Hilton has been embarrassed by the behaviour of his socialite granddaughter, who gained notoriety through a homemade sex video and has since served time in prison for violating probation on a driving ban.

He has pledged an immediate $1.2bn to the charity and an estimated $1.1bn to follow after his death.

Let's see now - 3% of $2.3 bilion is only $69 million. By the time that's split up between the various heirs, that leaves Paris as just common variety lottery-winning trailer trash. I suspect the rest of them won't be too happy with her.

Breathtaking revisionism

by shamanic

Kudos to Jeff at Shakesville who caught a really breathtaking bit of historical revisionism, with Jonah Goldberg apparently arguing in his new book that the Nazi Party was effectively a gay organization.

I've read pretty extensively on this era over the years, and all I can say here is that if Jonah is seriously making this argument, Jeff is exactly right: Jonah has joined the ranks of holocaust deniers.

Here are the facts as recognized by historians and scholars of the gay 20th century: there was a growing and relatively open gay culture that thrived in pre-Nazi Berlin. The Nazis took over and smashed a vibrant gay universe, rounded up gay men, used address books to round up their friends, and interred many in concentration camps. Some were given the choice of castration. When the Allies liberated the camps, the men wearing pink triangles were often forced to finish out their "sentences", and the governments of Europe did not recognize gays as a persecuted class under the Nazi regime until very recently.

While it's certainly true that there were homosexuals in high ranks (until they were killed, anyway) in the Nazi party, it's worthwhile to note that the same is certainly true of the GOP, another group that actively works against civil liberties for gays and lesbians. I'm not saying gays are the smartest people in the world, just that you can find us in the most unexpected places.

If you want to see and hear the stories of some of the men and women who survived this atrocity, the film Paragraph 175 is a stunning meditation on the experiences of gays and lesbians in Nazi Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe. It effectively rebuts the kind of revisionism that Goldberg seems to aiming for, and it's a chapter of the holocaust that has not been told very effectively because of our lingering prejudice against gays and lesbians.

And check out Sadly, No!'s takedown of Jonah's blathering. And kill this meme before it has a chance to become a tenet of whatever is left of conservatism.

Blair's New Career

By Cernig

$500,000 for saying bugger all is Tony Blair at his truest - as we Brits came to know and loathe him. Want to bet Dubya's taking notes?

(This has been today's Blog Like Insta-Atrios moment)

Phelps' church to pay $10M in damages to soldier's family

by shamanic

Fred Phelps' church, the "God hates fags" people, has been hit with a $10.9M judgment for pain and suffering from a protest at a soldier's funeral. Look, I think what Phelps does, and has done for decades, is among the most grotesque displays of callous hatred toward families in their most vulnerable time, but I disagree strongly with this ruling.

If free speech means anything, it has to mean that you can't be destroyed financially for communicating your hateful religious beliefs. And to clarify: I don't think that religious beliefs are inherently hateful, but Phelps' definitely are.

But free speech even applies to complete assholes worthy of scorn and loathing. It's how it is. The ruling monetary judgement should be reversed.

(Edited to reflect, you know, what I meant to say.)