Of imaginary worlds with imaginary Eel Pouts

I'm passing on the Sunday Eel Pout this week, mostly because I failed to do my homework during the week. If I were to award an Eel Pout, however, it would go to Bush for the dismal failure of his "jawbone" effort in Saudi Arabia.

But Bush’s Saudi Arabia junkets are perhaps more symbolic than anything else. In fact, there’s evidence to suggest that even if the King had agreed to increase Saudi Arabia’s oil production, its effect on lowering gas prices in the U.S. would have been minimal to non-existent.

The Leader Of The Free World still thinks he can arrogantly demand that every country tremble at his whim. Israel's Olmert is the sole remaining world leader who still openly supports Bush's neocon agenda and methods. And Olmert is even less popular domestically than Bush is here. So he hangs his hat on an unpopular hard-line leader, praises Israel enthusiastically and uncritically, gives the Arab world a stern lecture about how they had better shape up or he'll stop liking them as much as he does... and then goes to the most powerful Arab leader in the world asking for a favour. But wait, it gets dumber. The Gulf States (Saudis included) have taken an immense financial beating by sticking with the dollar to denominate oil exports. Without this sacrifice on their part, the U.S. economy would be in a severe depression. And, by way of thanks, Bush slams them and talks down to them, followed by a request for them to engage in yet another expensive action on our behalf.
And, unbelievably, this didn't work.

This "do what we tell you to or we'll kick your ass" approach is inherently weak, but it is the only "diplomatic" tool in the neocon's bag. Whatever "carrots" we have go to three countries: Israel, Egypt, and Colombia. Oh, but we have arms sales, too - expensive weapons systems with gravy train maintenance contracts for the U.S. defence industry, complete with fail-safes that ensure that they can only be used against enemies that the U.S. wants them to be used against. And along with it comes American "advisers" ready to subvert your military or blackmail you by pulling the plug on these weapons systems if you get "uppity".

So, yeah, no Eel Pout this week, but you know who would get it if there was one.

Instead, I'm taking a look at another poll.

Just 39% of American voters now believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. That’s down six points from a month ago and the first time that figure has dropped below 40% since last September.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that 27% now believe the terrorists are winning. That’s up three points from a month ago and up seven points over the past two months.
By a 69% to 14% margin, Republicans believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror. Democrats are evenly divided on the question. Among unaffiliated voters, 21% say the U.S. and its allies are winning while 34% say the terrorists have the advantage.
A separate survey found that Americans now trust Democrats more than Republicans when it comes to issues of national security. Another survey has found that the number of people who consider themselves Democrats has grown to record levels.
Just 24% now expect the situation in Iraq to get better in the next six months while (39%) hold the opposite view and believe the situation will get worse. That’s the second straight month that a plurality has expected things to get worse. Prior to April, a plurality had held the more optimistic view for six consecutive months.
Just 28% of Likely Voters now say history will deem the U.S. mission in Iraq a success. That’s down four points from a month ago, six points over the past two months, and is the first time fewer than 30% have been optimistic on this point since last August. Most Americans–52%--now say history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq to be a failure.

Yeah, polls go up and polls go down, but they sure aren't moving in the direction Republicans would like to see, are they? But delusional Republicans still think they can win by running on the GWOT, security, and Iraq. Watch for more of the "Scary Muslims want to make your daughter wear a burqa!" ads in the coming months. And undoubtedly we will all be treated to the "secret Muslim" talisman that only seems to work on the incredibly stupid and the incredibly brainwashed. And it will run alongside ads telling us that this 'secret Muslim' is also somehow simultaneously controlled by a Scary Black Christian Preacher, just to guarantee that nobody with any critical thinking skills will be included in the Republican target demographic. How could this possibly fail? The Wise Party Elders decreed it, after all.

Oh, and this little bit:

Just 22% now say that President George W. Bush has done a good or excellent job handling the situation in Iraq. That’s down six points over the past month as well. His overall job approval ratings have fallen to record lows in recent weeks. Most voters—55%--now say the President has done a poor job handling the situation in Iraq. A separate survey has consistently found that roughly six-out-of-ten Americans would like to see the troops brought home from Iraq within the year.

And Republicans are jubilant over McCain's imaginary future world in which we have only been in Iraq five more years. Never mind that 60% want us out within 2008. And with a majority saying that Bush has done a poor job in Iraq, yes, let's promise to continue those policies with a McCain Administration and no doubt win big. With 52% (of likely voters, mind you) of the opinion that Iraq will go down in history as a failure, perhaps now is a great time to throw out a fictional scenario in which it's merely a long, drawn-out, expensive marginal success. As long we're ramming icebergs here, maybe McCain should tie himself even closer to the Decider-on-the-downhill-slide. Oh, he's already doing that. Good job, GOP.

The thing that makes (and will continue to make) turning the GOP around so immensely difficult is that it's an inherently top-down organisation. Many of the primaries don't even "matter" in the GOP. They are merely staged to select which poor bozos will go to the County Convention and cast the vote they are told to cast by the Wise Party Elders. The GOP has much more in common with a military (or paramilitary) structure than it does with a modern political party. Those at the top do not deign to listen to those below. Their job is to tell the "footsoldiers" what to think, what to say, who to hate today, which contradictions to ignore, etc. Only now, when the top leaders are realising that they are in trouble, is the average Republican allowing themselves to critically assess the Party. The GOP has spent nearly a decade enforcing absolute ideological obedience within its ranks, purging itself of dissent, marginalising those who may be caught whispering that perhaps the Decider isn't a genius after all, doling out federal jobs based not on competence but ideological purity.... that there simply is no "fresh, new leadership" around to take the reigns. Beyond that, the Party has been so thoroughly infested with leeches and opportunistic sycophants that will say, do, or think anything that the Party requires of them that any fresh, new voices will be silenced and stillborn.

Just look at the chaos within the GOP over the selection of McCain to be the nominee. Someone who hasn't followed the Party line scrupulously his entire career is being put up as the saviour of the Party, and the Party is making damn sure that he toes the line and turns himself into a proper "player" with proper obedience to the Wise Party Elders that made his nomination a necessity in the first place. Tie him to Bush, tie him to the GWOT, tie him to the Scary Muslim Menace, tie him to Iraq, tie him to a shoddy GI Bill - make him fall into line, for Chrissakes! And then still spin him as a "maverick", with a straight face.
Moreover, what does this say to those in the Party that have actually "toed the line" all these years? It says that they're playing a sucker's game.

The GOP is following in the path of the Whigs, who became so "pure" that nobody was good enough to vote for them anymore.

This is just one of the reasons why the DLC is so dangerous on the Democratic side.
We don't really need a Democrat SS to keep us safe from internal dissent. We thrive on internal dissent. Republicans look at Democrats and see "disarray", but this is what keeps us from becoming the Jackboot Party that we see on the other side of the aisle.
It is a mystery to me why the DLC looks to a failing Party as the model for their own victory.

The Sunday Eel Pout

Here in Minnesota, the ice is now too thin to risk one's life for a fish, and too thick to get a boat out, so it's fortunate that I can take one of my reserve eel pouts from the deep-freeze for this week's award. My wonderful revamped PC is still in a local shop, so I am using a borrowed laptop to briefly and hurriedly bestow a reconstituted eel pout on some hapless but deserving victim.

This week's candidates are as follows:

• Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina proved once again this week that the Republican leadership is completely and hopelessly clueless when it comes to Iraq. As he explained on Fox News regarding the battle over Basra, "Now we have a battle with militias who are operating outside the government. … We must win this fight. The militias that we are fighting are backed by Iran. So this is an effort by Iran to destabilize Iraq." Sen. Graham must not have read his scorecard. The facts are that the Iraqi government's biggest ally is the Badr Corps, the militia of the Supreme Islamic Council (ISCI), which is the most pro-Iranian of all of the militias in Iraq. The Sadrists are the least Iranian-influenced major Shia militia in Iraq. If the Iraqi government succeeds in crushing the Mahdi Army, it will be a major boost for Iranian interests in the country. Nearly everything that the Administration has done in Iraq, from removing the secular Hussein regime that was absolutely hostile to Iran, to pushing elections despite a Sunni boycott that resulted in an overwhelming Shia win, to failing at economic reconstruction that left Iranian religious charities as a lifeline for poor Iraqis, has only increased the profile of Iran within Iraq and within the region. Now Sen. Graham is essentially proposing, as ThinkProgress puts it, "we must defeat militias backed by Iran by siding with a militia backed by Iran". Such idiocy deserves a fresh eel pout.
  
  
• Karl Rove, in an interview on Fox News, with O'Reilly explains what's at stake in Iraq. Victory in Iraq "will rally the Muslim world to us. It will also create a huge influence in the Middle East. Think about the creation of the democracy in the historic center of the Middle East with the third-largest oil reserves in the world. If we have a functioning democracy in Iraq, that's an ally in the war on terror, a counterweight to mullahs Iran and to Assad in Syria, this will create a very hopeful center of reform and energy for reform throughout the Middle East." Oh Karl, stop. Democracy in the Middle East would be a terrible thing for our foreign policy, as sad as that may sound. I realise that the conventional wisdom is that democracy always creates pro-American governments, but that really is not the case, especially in the Middle East. The governments in the Middle East, whether monarchs or dictators, are far more sympathetic to our interests and far more pliable to our will than the people of those countries. Democracy in Iraq has created a pro-Iranian state in what once was Iran's greatest nemesis. Democracy in Iran, however limited it is, brought Ahmedinejad to power. The royalty in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are the lid on radical Islam, not the engine. Public opinion throughout the Arab and Persian world toward Israel is much more negative than the governments in those countries. What would really "rally the Muslim world to us" would be to stop shoveling $12 million each day into Israel, stop using them as our regional proxy, and stop defending everything they do.
  

• President Bush, who called the violent breakdown in Basra a "byproduct of the success" of the surge, and a "very positive moment". Al-Maliki's now-stalled effort in Basra also apparently "shows the progress the Iraqi security forces have made during the surge." That's why American special forces, along with the British, are helping on the ground and in the air: because the Iraqi Army has made so much progress that they still need our help. And as usual, any development only serves to confirm that we must maintain the surge. Iraqi government "standing up"? We have to maintain the surge to support them. Violence from the Basra conflict spreading to other areas of Iraq? We have to maintain the surge because security is so bad. Casualties up? Maintain the surge or things will get worse. Casualties down? Maintain the surge or the security gains will disappear. Notice also that the Administration isn't talking about Al-Qaeda anymore, which has been the big threat in Bush's mind for a year now. Before the surge, the militias were the big threat, and the surge would disarm them. When the surge failed at that, it was Al-Qaeda that was the big threat, and militias were benign. Now we're in Iraq to stop the militias, but only certain militias, because that's the problem like they said all along.

Ah, such idiocy. They all deserve eel pouts, at least. But there can be only one.
The winner of Minnesota's absolutely unwanted, utterly uncoveted, dismally appropriate, shudder-inspiring, and completely ignominious Sunday Eel Pout is... Karl Rove for his dimwitted claim that victory in Iraq will spread democracy, and that that would mean a pro-U.S. Middle East. If you think it's disgusting now, just wait until it thaws out. Perhaps the awarding of this eel pout can finally bring the Arab world together in agreement that Karl Rove is a jackass.

That's all for this Sunday's Eel Pout Award. Thanks to my neighbour for the laptop loan. I am fairly confident that my new machine will running in the week ahead, and this blog will be restored.

The Sunday Eel Pout

Well, it's Sunday, and that means it's time to trudge out on the ice, take a seat in the fish-house, bait our hook and reel another prize for this week's Sunday Eel Pout. The week's outrages, idiocies, and facile indignations will be compiled, and the most unworthy candidates will be awarded The Sunday Eel Pout. Your candidates are as follows:

• Richard Perle, one of the primary 'architects' of the Iraq invasion, wrote an article this week in The American Interest that offers several confusing and contradictory statements about the "success" of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. The title of the article is "We Won Years Ago", in which he states that we have won because "Saddam will not be sharing WMD with anyone. Judged against that measure, we have already won in Iraq". Yes, Mr. Perle, (the deceased) Saddam will no longer be "sharing" (did he ever threaten this?) his non-existent WMDs. So we've "won" then, right? Not so, says Perle: "...despite the widely, if grudgingly, acknowledged progress of the surge, the war is far from over". So which is it, Mr. Perle? He also brags, by way of a quote from the reprehensible tool named Fouad Ajami, that the invasion has established "a Pax Americana [that] anchors the order of the region". Really? If anything, Bush has shattered the order of the region.
• Reuel Marc Gerecht, from the American Enterprise Institute and a former CIA officer, who proposes that we 'pretend' to negotiate with Iran as a pretext for bombing them. Negotiations are "something that must be checked off before the next president could unleash the Air Force and the Navy". We must, however, beware that talks "could bind the United States to meaningless, stalling discussions", so these negotiations must essentially be for show. After this, of course, "the military option would likely become convincing to more Americans".
• Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General and Bush crony, who this week compared Bush with Lincoln. Bush also has presented himself as the contemporary Lincoln. This has been a recurring theme within neocon circles, with Karl Rove, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich saying the same thing. Gonzales received $30,000 for his little speech, in which this scholarly figure would only answer pre-approved questions. He further offered that Bush's brilliance "will be revealed in years to come". Perhaps through multiple subpoenas, one would hope.
• President Bush, who this week in Africa presented a cut in funding for AIDS, TB, and malaria as an increase in funding. Congress gave Bush $841 million for the Global Project, but Bush reduced it to $500 million since, as one his stooges said, “You don’t want to pile up money.” So cutting $341 million is now considered an increase in Bush-speak.
• Arizona Senator John McCain, who this week criticised Obama as naive for saying he would take military action in Pakistan, even without the Pakistanis' permission if they wouldn't give it. As McCain further said, " I would not broadcast to the world that I am going to bomb a sovereign nation in order to accomplish my goal." So, Mr. McCain, weren't you the guy that broke out singing a reprise of "Barbara Ann" calling for the bombing of Iran? Isn't Iran a "sovereign nation"? Is that "naive", or is it only naive if someone else does it? Of course, the Bush Administration last month did exactly what McCain is criticising Obama for proposing. When asked about this, McCain said Obama was "wrong in speaking publicly about the option". So one must wonder if it was also wrong for McCain to speak publicly about bombing Iran. So much for "straight talk". Mc Cain is also eligible for a Sunday Eel Pout for his flip-flop on "taxes for the wealthy".

  “There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

So, as we reel in another putative prize and lay it out on the Minnesota lake ice in disgust, the sense of anticipation builds. Which bozo will take this damn thing home?

The winner of Minnesota's absolutely unwanted, utterly uncoveted, dismally appropriate, shudder-inspiring, and completely ignominious Sunday Eel Pout is... John McCain for saying it's wrong to publicly talk about bombing a sovereign nation, unless he does it, but that it's okay to actually do it if you are in the Bush Administration, because it's talking about bombing a country that really bothers a sovereign nation, not the actual bombing. This is McCain's second Sunday Eel Pout.
No, you can't throw it back. It's against the law in Minnesota to throw a rough fish back in the water. You're stuck with it, like every other angler in the North Star State. Feed it to the dog, use it to symbolise what we are fighting for in Iraq, waterboard it until it "talks", but get it the hell out of my sight.

All of the idiots in this week's race were unquestionably deserving of the Sunday Eel Pout, but There Can Be Only One.

Well kids, the hissing of the eel pout can only mean one thing: this Sunday's Eel Pout award is over.

The Sunday Eel Pout

Last week, John McCain was awarded the Sunday Eel Pout for his "diplomatic offensive" on NATO.
Sadly, the week just ended brought a new bundle of outrages and idiocies.
So, as we bait the hook and reluctantly face the prospect of pulling another eel pout out onto the Minnesota ice for this week's award, let's survey the candidates:

• Michael O'Hanlon is our first, who you may recall was one of the "critics" of the surge who was portrayed as coming 'round to Bush's side last year before the September report. Even a cursory examination of the facts quickly showed that O'Hanlon was a surge supporter all along, but the Administration still employed this shill. Now O'Hanlon is being employed again, publicly stating that both Obama and Clinton "fail on Iraq". Yet he gives the Decider a B+ for his "success". O'Hanlon said last March that we should give the surge "another six to nine months" before giving up on it. Time's up.
• Former White House spokesman Tony Snow, who decried the American media for its "failure narrative" with regard to the Iraqi occupation. Saying, "there's a disconnect between politics and the media and the rest of the country", Snow admitted that 80% of Bush advisers were opposed to the surge when it was proposed. Snow admires Bush for ignoring his advisers, even though Bush claimed in his 1/07 speech proposing the surge that "our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work". The truth now seems to be the opposite. Snow deserves to be a candidate for the Sunday Eel Pout on the basis of implying that the American people still support the Iraqi occupation.
• Karl Rove, who this week endorsed John McCain's nomination. When Bush was running against McCain eight years ago, however, Rove denounced McCain's "combative style" as "not the mark of a leader who can unite the party and win the [White House]. Now he is pleased that Republicans are "already uniting behind" McCain. John McCain now terms Rove as "one of the smartest political minds in America".
• U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for his defence of torture in a BBC interview this week. Once again the fictional premise of Jack Bauer is trotted out, only this time, the BBC interviewer calls him on it. Scalia essentially responds that its a matter of degree, and that if the fictional scenario were real, "we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can an infliction of pain be?" His contorted logic seemingly dismisses the concept of presumption of innocence. How does one "know"that someone is guilty before it becomes "absurd" to refrain from torturing them? You simply torture someone until they admit their guilt, and that justifies the use of torture. Remember, kids, this guy is on the Supreme Court.
• Vice President Dick Cheney, who is trying to “block the release of video depositions by White House aides” in a lawsuit “by a man who was arrested after he allegedly touched Cheney at a Colorado shopping mall in 2006.” He is concerned that releasing the depositions could "embarrass and invade the privacy of [his] two aides". The "untouchable" Cheney is obviously not concerned about invading the privacy of millions of Americans on a daily basis with the Administration's warrantless wiretaps and data-mining, but revealing these depositions is just going a bit too far.
• Fox News, for it's portrayal of the FISA telecom immunity issue. The warrantless wiretapping was blithely described on Cavuto's show neatly and in summary this way: "The program began after 9/11 to help protect Americans." Yes, it's just that simple, except that this practise began even before 9/11. The Senate vote was described as "some good news for telecom companies". And that's what's really important, isn't it?

The winner of Minnesota's absolutely unwanted, utterly uncoveted, dismally appropriate, shudder-inspiring, and completely ignominious Sunday Eel Pout is Antonin Scalia for his deeply disturbing and offhand remarks that "it would be absurd" to refuse to torture people. Scalia's words will be quoted by repressive regimes throughout the world, and held up with contempt for decades by the rest of the world. Mr. Scalia, I am proud to present you with this writhing and hissing prize. No, you can't throw it back. It's against the law in Minnesota to throw a rough fish back in the water. You're stuck with it, like every other angler in the North Star State. Feed it to the dog, use it for fertiliser, wear it around your neck to frighten small children, but get it the hell out of my sight.

All of the idiots in this week's race were unquestionably deserving of the Sunday Eel Pout, but There Can Be Only One.

Well kids, the hissing of the eel pout can only mean one thing: this Sunday's Eel Pout award is over.

The Sunday Eel Pout

In a completely obvious hat tip to The Desert Beacon, it is with reluctance and a sinister dread that I announce the need to launch the Minnesota version of The Sunday Deck Bass. The week's outrages, idiocies, and facile indignations will be compiled, and the most unworthy candidates will be awarded The Sunday Eel Pout. Your candidates are as follows:

• John McCain's advisor, Charlie Black, called Bush a "political asset" to the McCain campaign. Former Minnesota Congressman Vin Weber was slightly more honest when he said, "I don’t think it does us any good to try to pretend Bush doesn’t exist. I just don’t think that is a strategy that works. " Translation: we're stuck with him, so let's swim with this anchor or drown.
• Mitt Romney, who bowed out of the Republican race this week not because he was thoroughly rejected by his Party, or because it had already cost him $14 million of his own money, or because his designation as the last great hope for the right-wing of the GOP was the kiss of death in a general election, but rather because that by staying in the race he would only "forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
• Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman, who endorsed John McCain after endorsing Rudy Giuliani earlier. Coleman, the consummate political chameleon, was voted in as part of the Bush Team. He then distanced himself from Bush before Petraeus' September report. Then he became an ardent proponent of Giuliani's war against radical Islam, embracing torture. Detecting a shift in the breeze, he backed McCain two days before the primary when polls showed McCain leading at 41%. Romney got that that 41% and won, and Coleman ended up backing the guy that got 22%. If Romney hadn't backed out, it seems certain that Coleman's dubious allegiance would have shifted to him immediately.
• Arizona Senator John McCain, who laid out his "diplomatic offensive" to get the NATO allies to expand their role in Afghanistan. This plan is exactly what the Bush Administration has been doing for the past year (at least), only now McCain will do it with "straight talk" instead. McCain brilliantly proposes to "bang heads" with our reluctant allies, who apparently simply don't understand that their militaries are at our disposal. A good shout is all that is needed to bring them 'round. I don't know why Bush never thought of this.

The winner of Minnesota's absolutely unwanted, utterly uncoveted, dismally appropriate, decidedly dubious, and completely ignominious Sunday Eel Pout is John McCain for recycling the tired arrogance of the Bush Administration towards NATO as something completely new and vaguely promising. No, you can't throw it back. It's against the law in Minnesota to throw a rough fish back in the water. You're stuck with it, like every other angler in the North Star State. Feed it to the dog, or eat it or something, but get it the hell away from me.

All of the idiots in this week's race were unquestionably deserving of the Sunday Eel Pout, but There Can Be Only One.
Well kids, the hissing of the eel pout can only mean one thing: this Sunday's Eel Pout award is over.