Comfy, comfy!

Click here for latest in lakeside Arctic elegance!

AND CHECK THE UPDATE BELOW CAUGHT BY MJ in the Cafe, which links the people who built the expensive and dubious sports complex to Sarah's personal construction project above (how many square feet is that thing?):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-03/did-a-scandal-sink-the-uss-palin/?cid=hp:featureline

There may well be a logical explanation, and do be careful (as to the "k" word, for example), because Sarah's lawyer is already threatening to sue all of us if we get any details wrong (kinda hard, though, since they're both public figures, eh, counselor?). This thing may be about to blow sky-high, and Sarah's future in the sun is by no means assured, despite media silliness.

The hyperventilating revelation seemed rushed by some urgent impulse, but certainly was well-timed.  
I'm overseas, but I think the point is valid:  MSNBC shows took the day off Friday.  No Hardball, no Countdown, no Rachel.  On CNN even Saturday, "Political Mann" ran 24 hours after the fact, and there's no mention, not a peep.  *Their* political coverage is about how she's maybe a better runner than Obama.  Everywhere the coverage is light because, frankly,  the reporters are at the beach.   

We can see that the maxim that you announce bad news on a Friday evening is several fold more significant, if the Friday happens to be the beginning of the weekend of the Fourth.

UPDATE:  It will be interesting if the Sunday news shows are significantly better.  I bet it will be a weak showing.  I remember one time watching Meet the Press on a Sunday and they made a big deal of how they were excited that it was going to be Thanksgiving; i.e., they had taped it the previous Wednesday.  VERY lame despite their holiday toasts and yucks; looked like a bunch of twits.
LATER UPDATE:  Did I mention Meet the Press?  This is really embarrassing:  "Programming note for this Sunday: Meet the Press will not air due to NBC's coverage of Wimbledon."

It was just a few days ago that their editorial page featured uber-reactionary (and Marine-Iguana-lookalike) Charles Krauthammer, right opposite on the page from, and I couldn't believe the temerity, Iraq crazyman Paul Wolfowitz, the jingoistic lunatic who Bush tried fob off on the World Bank but they rightly hounded him out, of course, the debacle costing the U.S. the right to nominate World Bank presidents in the future.
After the bellicose madman William Kristol naturally couldn't make it with the horrified readers of the N.Y. Times, the Post thoughtfully offered him a column, which should have finally been enough to tell us what we are dealing with.  And the right wing drivel of their Michael Gerson had led me name myself, Overreach THIS!   But only when they ran a tawdry string of AIPAC talking points three or four days ago that Jackson Diehl had the self-loathing to pen his name to, prompting a tsunami of negative reaction (readers ran about 20/25 to 1 against the shameful propaganda), it finally made me ask what the *hell* is going on over there and to research a bit.

The Fourth Estate has a great deal indeed to answer for in its hideous complicity in the Iraq calamity, one of the country's greatest policy failures of all time, largely hatched or encouraged by the above persons.  You'd think that reaction to the despicable enabling role that the press played in that most odious misadventure might have humbled them.  But the once great-Post's editorial page is edited by a real Neocon whack job, one Fred Hiatt.  And he has simple made that page into a toilet for Bush-Cheney's most fevered loonies to defecate in.

Such that today, they've got the bloody march hare himself (to my stupefication), John Bolton, calling for Israel to unitlaterally strike Iran.  (This is supposed to be a family newspaper, isn't it?)  

What can one say?  In short, the Post needs an intervention.  Somebody needs to save it from this insanity. 

Will no one rise to the call?  Rid us of this turbulent priest?  :(

I'm just re-reading Sy Hersch's Chain of Command:  From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib. Although I first read it in Baghdad,  I am reminded that the response to terror (Afghanistan theater) was also screwed up utterly (in ways sometimes like in Iraq, and sometimes not comparable).

 

If I had been Bush,  this is what I would have done beginning September 12, 2001 (the first problem I have is the most of my advisors are incompetent, whack jobs, or double-dealers, of course):  

 

1.  It was obvious that it was Al Qaeda, so they're the target.  Don't tell anyone this except maybe 5-10 with greatest need to know.  Ultra-secret and maintain deception throughout about it.

 

2.  Take Wolfowitz's imbecilic idea that Al Qaeda attacks are too complicated in their planning, and thus had to be  hatched by a state/country, not  just some group, and RUN WITH THIS STUPIDITY LIKE THE DICKENS for misdirection purposes:  Officially conclude that it had to be a state and name possible suspects such as:  Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Lebanon acting on Syria's behalf, and Venezuela/regional state-supported inter-American "strongmen", and possibly other state actors.  We're not accusing, mind you, just fact-gathering.

 

3. Throw up gigantic smoke screens about carefully checking all this terribly important gotta-be-a-state B.S. and "promote" incompetent Condi to help organize this charade while keeping her in the dark overall.  Hire think tanks to act as mock-prosecutors against each of the phony suspect states one-after-the-next and use a one-state-a-month approach beginning in Jan. or Feb. 2002.  Involve intelligence community and State Dep't in this road show (I may move Powell into the White House while he nominally keeps his main job).  This buys us time all the way till summer or fall of 2002 so we can ostensibly plan a U.N. security council meeting in fall 2002 then to look at the conclusions.  Encourage press to discuss it all!  Emphasize need to be thorough, importance of patience, and how we'll strike back at the state at a time of our choosing, hopefully with U.N. authorization.  If anybody says it's Al Qaeda, then send Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and if need be Cheney out to say we already know it's a state so stop being on the side of the terrorists by distracting.  Control the risk that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith may go off the reservation through whatever means (Feith is reputed to be an Israeli spy anyway, so one probably wants to move him to Veterans Affairs or some place where he doesn't need a clearance just in case ("This is an extremely important assignment for the country, Doug!" :) ) and pull that clearance just in case.  Richard Perle who has always got his nose in can be controlled by offering him sleazy contracts on one hand and threatening him on the other, carrot and stick.  (I may not realize at first how much Rumsfeld will get in Condi's way, the preening egomaniacal rapscallion, but if/when he doesn't cooperate, I let him know sternly I'll publicly fire him if it happens again.  Since I can't fire Cheney as elected V.P. by the way, I try to figure out if he can really be loyal (probably he can), but if he's too close to Rumsfeld/Israel lobby to be a team player for me, then just freeze him out and he's not on the ticket for 2004 because of his bad health.

 

4.  Admit to myself that my own thoroughly ridiculous ideas about a leaner, lighter military and missile defensewere nothing more than a lazy campaign pipe dream and even if they might somehow have validity, this is by no means the time, so they're off the table for the first term at least.

 

5.  Carefully and very quietly gather actionable intelligence on where Osama is and will be, along with his chief lieutenants/co-conspirators in South Asia and around the globe.  All very routine, of course, but actionable and possibly inolving ground teams.  He may make this easier for me BTW by jumping up and down resenting that he doesn't get the credit.  If he claims credit, write him off as a nobody crackpot exploiting Muslims and further gather intelligence, and even if his people somehow were involved they're not the big fish and it's just laughable and not of real interest to USA.

 

6.  Work quietly on a program to reduce tensions with the Muslim world and some of this will include reigning in Israel's expansionism; so be it - better I get the credit for imposing order than some Dem. who might get elected in 2008!   Also, break down that finance network simultaneously but that's naturally not aimed at anyone in particular and it's the same policy worldwide.  Except we happen to make sure the policy works *real* well for Osama and friends.  Politics: BTW we're not caving in to any Muslim pressure related to 9/11 by reducing sources of tension since we nominally suspect Venezuela/regional "strongmen" and North Korea equally if not more than Muslim countries.. 

 

7.  Build on initial positive post-9/11 sense of common purpose with allies/potential allies.  Don't bully and encircle Russia, for example.  So "20th hijacker" Moussaoui is a French citizen and the French find death penalty inconceivable and utterly offensive no matter what the crime?  No prob. - no death penalty for the murderous swine then, but please help us out, okay, France?  I/we also give some of those suspect countries like Syria and maybe even Iran and Iraq a chance to show us how goody-two-shoes they really are, if they like.  Maybe there are quiet ways they can help and thus prove it's not them, whatever.

 

8.  Do some joint exercises as to how to deal with the villain state once it's found.  These could be in e.g. NATO countries, Ukraine, ex-Yugoslavia, Oceania (maybe do a repeat in the Americas) probably not closer than those places to Afghanistan (and indeed nowhere near its borders).  Drum up interest as to which state it might be from that phony list, what kind of clothing soldiers will need to travel to that state and fight, language considerations, climate, all sorts of baloney to LULL THE PERPETRATOR INTO A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY/INDETECTION.  Pump up the importance of what it's like to go against a state's armed forces on the field of battle as further misdirection.  (The exercise locations can have a disguised operational purpose as to no. 9 below if needed.)  Later on tell the poor shmoes who hosted exercises how bloody useful it was BTW.

 

9.  Send Delta force in to kill Obama's criminally insane ass whenever it's a good time (plus any of his top people we can get at the same time as well so they can't scatter), probably only half way through the above con job (or earlier) but there's no rush.  Delta gets whatever backup they need, BTW, but they *don't* get led by (1) a muddy-boots General like Franks (who may be a great muddy-boots General but not for special ops) or (2) a psycho like Rumsfeld, but rather by special ops/counterinsurgency experts that the NSC meets  with daily.   Delta needs to have no-fail punch power and flexibility, and while the operations can't be too loud as to give a tipoff, they also need enough redundancy (and potential redundancy / resources-only in-case-needed) to make certain the mass murderer doesn't escape unharmed.  BTW if Rumsfeld makes trouble during any of this, he's gone.

 

10.  With Osama dead, explain to American people that we were always researching alternative theories besides states, never ruled 'em out, and hold ourselves a big parade amd barbecue.  Thank allies, make amends with phony suspects.  Send Wolfowitz and probably Rumsfeld to some other posts not in foreign/defense policy and fire Feith, Condi and her loser deputy Steven Hadley.  If the facts warrant, check into possible prison time for double-dealer Perle.  Continue to rout out Al Qaeda remnants going forward, while pursuing a less-provocative policy.

 

Critique:  This is Monday-morning quarterbacking so it's biased and unfair.  Plus the public won't support my strategy above as it's too slow and quiet.

 

Critique of the Critique:   It's unfair to *me* that I had this shoddy team to work with; where did these weird people come from?!!  Either way, the above is honestly what I would have done, every bit of it.  Number 9 is somewhat informed by the subsequent factual perspective, that's true, but I would never have needed Franks in any case since it's not a war against Afghanistan but a covert action program.  I recognized from the start that without super-secrecy and distraction, I might not get a shot at Bin Laden, and it has to be a cat-burglar type operation if I'm going to get him without scaring him off.  Plus I don't care squat about Afghanistan; I want Bin Laden and his organization smashed.   I admit the U.S. public may not love this as it could be slow, but our people feed them tidbits about the phony suspects throughout to keep them going, like watching a detective show.  There is a lot of support for President in 9/11 aftermath, and I try to build on that to keep them on board.  Plus we catch the mass-murderer probably by around Feb. or March 2002 so it doesn't really go on that long.  And the public will thank me later and I won't be the odds-on favorite for worst President in U.S. history!

 

Copyright © J.D. 2009 - Overeach THIS!

Early on she was being marketed on a pretty basic level -- click on each below to broaden your horizons!

1.  Queer-as-can-be Ultra-Brite ad 

2. Softcore Noxema with Joe Namath 

Cheers to all,
O.T.

1.  The Iranian mullahs, that's who.

The story was starting to fade anyway as CNN's I-reporters and anyone else with an electronic device gets them violently confiscated now.  

CNN was in a loop BTW of repeating how *extremely* important it was that people send this stuff in, then *marvelling* at what they sent in.  Just when the Iranian goon squads are starting to break that inflammatory cycle, Michael sets off a global sensation for them to cover 24/7. 

2a.  I'm not saying he's happy, but Sanford (who has *no* intention of resigning be assured) must be a little relieved as well.  But he's got to deal now with the fact that he personally steered a trade mission that wasn't going to Argentina, on to Argentina.  He promises to reimburse for his part of that cooked-up leg, but he should reimburse for all attendees' tickets, hotels, meals of that entire sexcapade joy ride *and* resign.  A tiny bit of pressure will come off him, as he's now not the only news.  As I've said in the TPM-aholics chat room on Mibbit, I'm totally fine with the love story and the empathy and needs-time-for-his-family meme, once he is OUT of office in the near future.  And that Maria, depending on the angle she is shot from, can be some kind of eye candy, and that may threaten his softly-soflty bamboozlement. The romance BTW seems to be especially popular among some women, and that's wonderful for me too once he is GONE but that's not his plan.

2b.  You know Ensign's breathing even easier than before.  (But you can bet them bearded mullahs are just as pleased as punch.)   

CNN has taken down its laughable story from Monday but if you Google "CNN Sanford solved" right now you can find at least the embarassing headline how the story began:

"MYSTERY SOLVED:  South Carolina Governor Taking a Hike  -- CNN.com

A mystery surrounding the whereabouts of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford was apparently solved late Monday when a Sanford spokesman..."

If you click that story, though, they've demurely replaced it with their latest account of him returning to his office.

These people are supposed to be *journalists*!!  You know, as in finding things out!

Accurately informing us, the unknowing!  Why would they post that kind of pablum crap? 

And yet the Washington Post was running the same indefensible "Solved" headline in its electronic editions Monday.  It gave such a sense of closure, and banality, that probably relatively few readers bothered clicking to Chris Cillizza's story which upon a close read didn't indicate that any part of it was solved.  And apparently this idiocy was regurgitated by so-called journalists across the USA.  How unbelievably embarassing! 

Josh was sure right when he said the South Carolina staff did great presswork getting all these buffoons to reprint their propaganda.  Fabulous job!   :(

This is an old USSR joke you might know; the pair are making their way along the street, one digging holes in dirt, and his colleague filling them up as fast as they are dug.  Why so, wonders a bystander?  They explain that there should be third guy planting saplings into each of the holes, but he called in sick.

Today an eyewitness told me something vaguely related actually happened just last summer in ex-USSR:  A tram full of passengers was rolling at midday along the tracks from the outskirts of a regional city straight into the downtown.  Right as the car turned into the central downtown area, it halted in a commotion, and the driver of the bright red tram emerged from the cab and after a bit announced that the tram would run no further.

Why, the disturbed passengers protested?!  Well, hurried (?) workmen had been sloppy (to be very polite!) and in the few minutes between passing trams had managed to (i) bury one of the rails under a heavy quantity of fresh asphalt, (ii) quickly steamroll their creation, and (iii) leave the scene entirely.  My friend was on board, and she walked off in hysterics upon understanding what had happened (with the passengers alternately shouting and marveling at it all).  

(I know this sounds fanciful, but the lass in question is not the sort to tell tales -- this happened!  LOL!)

With respect to all, I suggest that it's foolish to refer to the fat bloviator as "Rush."  That's what Cheney fondly calls him, adding "He's a good friend."  It comes off as endearment and that's how his stations and the gasbag himself want you to react.

Moving on, the "god" statement was not a mere, antagonistic description of the President as having African blood.

The repugnant goon is saying that Obama can't be godlike, apart from the fact that he's a "human being," why exactly?   For two specific disqualifying reasons:  1) the negative factor that he purportedly has "no experience running anything of substance" is disqualifying.  And 2) the other "negative" factor that he is "half-black, half-white" is disqualifying.  Nobody without experience could be a god, and nobody who's half-black could be like a god. Race disqualifies.  That's his point and it can't logically be anything else.

"It is offensive to the sensibilities of millions of people to hear a member of the state-run media refer to a half-black, half-white human being with no experience running anything of substance referred to as a god," claimed Limbaugh, the bigoted, antipatriotic swine.  "He may be president of the United States, but he's not a god," added the hideous oaf.  

Josh says on the main page that peace is the priority, and that it's not much an issue whether Obama topples Bibi from power; what matters is moving forward swiftly.

I fully agree, Obama wants results, although it's quite a snub not to visit Israel on this trip and instead go way the hell out to Buchenwald.  I'd love to have been a fly on the wall for that scheduling.  By this put down, Obama is saying, "I'm looking for something from you Bibi, and so far I'm not seeing it.  You gotta keep me smiling or we're gonna have issues."  Obama's from Chicago after all, and they don't react well to being played for chumps.  Bibi's already been weakened by this (brought it on himself), and voters can see what a tough spot he's already in, right in the first inning.  Some in Jerusalem have expressed concern (please forgive my childishness on that), but most Israelis understand,  and Barack Obama's real point is,

"Look, Bibi, you play this right (and so far you ain't been) and there's a Nobel with your name on it.  But you wanna try jerking me around, we can go that way too and maybe your successor can learn the lesson from it."  The solemn Buchenwald visit instead of dinner at Bibi's place sends the message:  "Jews we truly love.  Land-expropriation that promotes bloodshed including ours we gotta take a pass on.  And we want results very soon."  In a way it helps Bibi, too: He can now tell his chauvinist cheering section that he tried throwing the low curve like they said, but Obama easily smacked that out of the park and now the coach will take him out of the game if he doesn't come up with something different quick.

--------------------------------

Now the one thing we got right
Was the day we started to fight
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on.

Still spitting tacks over the New York outing, are you?  Thought Broadway was an Overreach?

Well clear your airways for the pièce de résistance, mes petits, cuz are you mouthy people ever in in for a treat!

Ah, but I can see them hurling their steaming TV dinners at the TV screen now!  LOL!

(And it's actually "Oh-la-la" by the way, not "Ooh".  Anyhows, Overreach THIS!, you venomous Liz Cheney nabobs of the world!  I'd only wish to be a fly on the wall!)

Fox is not only complicit but essentially is the organizer of the murder of George Tiller, according to many accounts.  Few would have heard of Tiller without Bill O'Reilly's frequent ranting.

Tiller did not perform later-term abortions "for *any* reason!" as O'Reilly liked to lie ; the procedure had to be supported by a statement by an independent physician that giving birth threatened a major bodily function of the woman.  Without that written certification, no procedure.  O'Reilly expressed no remorse when asked, of course. 

Olbermann has loved featuring O'Reilly on his worst person in the world segment, and O'Reilly has featured many evenings among the top three "worst".  Olbermann says those yucks are over, though, this man has now been killed and Olbermann won't breathe O'Reilly's name again.  What he wants you to do, if your tavern or restaurant won't change the channel, is to politely explain then why you are leaving and taking your business elsewhere. 

I'm not in USA, so I can't participate.   Please see if you would like to.

"POTUS can't make it to a prayer meeting, but POTUS & FLOTUS after TAXNUS and BNKRUPTNUS, has plenty of time to go to a broadway show, regularly eat out around Washington DC & other places, see the Star Trek movie, see a soccer game, watch basketball, and have Wednesday parties are the White House. Just a year ago, I'l bet a lot of people could have paid for broadway tickets."

Cooler heads pointed how many times we had to foot the bill for W. to go to bleedin' Crawford.  Anyhow, Repubs should keep knocking the first couple this way, it's going to bring scads of grizzled curmudgeons like the guy above (and their thrifty, date-hating wives!) over to their side, I'm sure!

Gingrich thinks he's got a juicy issue here.  If he gets her knocked out despite the mainstream party saying don't fight it too hard, he's their new leader and probably on his way to being nominated.

One can roll one's eyes and name-call all that one likes, but her statement is absolutely indefensible. 

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."   I.e.,

"A...Latina woman...would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."  Spoken by a Federal Appellate judge. [SEE UPDATE BELOW, MAYBE SHE DIDN'T MEAN IT THIS WAY.]

Gingrich says flip it and tell me it's not withdrawal material:  A white guy will usually make better decisions than a Latina.

Out of context?  Baaaah!  Context only confirms her intent and damages her more; it's the conclusion at the end of an argument she's made; it's no stray remark and it has nothing to do with Latin cuisine.  It's worse than Reverend Wright; the Reverend didn't say it, she did.

It can either be side-stepped as over-enthusiasm, flight of exuberance, slip of the tongue, or maybe she just meant to say something else.  Those are all tricky; it was published many months after she gave the speech I believe.  Did she have an opportunity to review the text before it was published?  If so, she's in more trouble.

Repubs are scrubbing the landscape, you can be sure, for a time she may have repeated this to anyone or said something similar.  Either way, many will at best feel queasy about her always.  Newt is betting that the excitement over her will subside while that quote doesn't go anywhere.

Maybe people will tend to not much notice or just be caught up in the excitement, the historic nature -- not focus.  Newt intends to prevent that by any means necessary.  He's a full-time presidential candidate and this is all that he works on, every day and night.  Apart from kissing the Puerto Rican vote goodbye, will it blow up in his face? 

UPDATE:  WAIT!  I realize there is a softer way to read what she said, that didn't occur to me.  I think the critics read it like this, which is how I understood it:

"If you take a Latina, and Latinas are mostly wise, she'll normally make a better decision than some white guy."

She may have meant this, though, as I think of it:  "If you take a Latina who happens to be wise and informed by a variety of experiences, she'll probably make a better decision than a white guy who isn't so informed and maybe isn't so wise."  So maybe this is the explanation and it just wasn't obvious to many of us in her phrasing.  Then she's off the hook, as I see it.

Jeepers, he's back at it as of yesterday. 

Here is the argument for accountability, to me:  If you don't sanction people for torturing, any Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, that comes in the future may freely pursue some other deranged and bloodthirsty fantasy, so long as they sit down and argue it out and decide in their twisted, delusional, self-congratulatory deliberations that some things are just too important.  Like the "need" to begin a ruinous war in Iraq, and the "need" to have info about a strongman's imagined ties with a terrorist he would in reality kill in an instant if he had the chance.   Future abusers may smugly commit us to another such nightmare if they feel assured, as Broder wants, that there will be no consequences for lawbreaking:  why not just go ahead?

As long as they paper the file with the drivel below, then war-criminals-or-not, they must go scot-free, as Broder scolds us:

"The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places -- the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department -- by the proper officials."

He's also hinted he doesn't think waterboarding is torture, and he needs to quit lecturing us long enough to have a look for himself at the radio guy's video.