|
duke nukem dont poke the billmonster.
billmon interviewed.
Like his blog--hate his whining.
He always seems to be blaming the world for his own lack of proportion.
"Pacing yourself"--what a concept! You should try it, Billmon, and just shut up about how "hard" it is.
What am I going to do about this latest insane plan the administration has? I'll read the blogs, listen to the radio, bitch and moan a lot, particfipate in a march if there is one, call my senators, donate some money to a cause I believe in and vote in November. All of which adds up to diddly squat.
On the subject of using nukes on Iran, it's as if we keep waiting for some grownup to have a chat with little Georgie and tell him it's time to settle down. But it's not happening.
I think all the talking we do is good.
Bush's poll numbers didn't go down because we did nothing.
Eventually those opinions of everybody translate into action.
I'd just like it to be sooner rather than later.
"it's as if we keep waiting for some grownup to have a chat with little Georgie and tell him it's time to settle down. But it's not happening."
Well put. But I think there's a possibility that his nuking iran would cinch a republican sweep in Nov. 06. and suspect the administration is banking on it.
yes, steve. extending the war would insure no changing (party) horses mid stream in the war (on terror). its the fear factor. dems still spinning wheels. kerry has made no improvements in his approach and hinting at another try at it.
hopefully Kerry will have learned how to fight or be out of the picture by '08.
I'm afraid Bush will nuke before this Nov.
But his poll numbers are down *because* people are sick of the way he conducts his wars. If he nukes in the spring and "human wave" reprisals kill hundreds of our troops in Shiite Iraq over the summer, I don't see how that helps the Republican electoral effort.
My latest prediction: Cheney/Bush will try to attack with nukes but they will be stopped by either impeachment or military coup. I think we better hope for the former.
(Maybe 'coup' is too strong a word - I mean a military refusal to carry out executive orders which leads to some sort of constitutional crisis - not the 82nd airborne taking over the white house by force or anything like that.)
I hope you're right Tom. Dunno.
Thom Hartmann's take
Quite a concept--a "coup" by soldiers who want to use less force than the civilian leadership.
I read somewhere that Eisenhower was so disgusted with Truman for dropping the big one that he barely spoke to him on Inauguration day.
In retrospect, I think we should all learn to despise Truman.
i dont think low approval ratings = a deteriorated base. repugs will still vote repug. no defection. its just a hunch that 06 will still be 51 vs 49. cheating notwithstanding.
Not sure I want to be right about a power struggle showdown between career military and the executive branch. But yeah, they might be the only ones powerful enough to stop it.
I'd be interested in finding some reporting on any moves Rumsfeld has made over the last several years to restructure the highest ranks of the military. Forcing powerful officers who disagree with you out of the service might very well have a greater meaning than just reinforcing that the administration doesn't like to hear dissent. Obviously guys like General Boykin are as stark raving mad as the White House. But have they totally stacked the military deck with Boykin's? Seems like that would be hard to do - but like I said, I never read anything from this angle and I'm interested to find some stuff.
Hersh says that officers are preparing to resign unless the administration backs off the nuclear option. But just resigning won't be enough. And these military guys like to actually get the job done. The idea of a 'coup lite' must have crossed their minds. Not necessarily to take power themselves, but just to take the nukes away from the present administration and force a new election.
Reallly, who else can stop them?
Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt, a little while back, wrote a paper defining the 14 characteristics shared by fascist regimes. They are: a powerful and continuing nationalism, disdain for the recognition of human rights, identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause, supremacy of the military, rampant sexism, controlled mass media, obsession with national security, religion and government are intertwined, corporate power is protected, labor power is suppressed, disdain for intellectuals and the arts, obsession with crime and punishment, rampant cronyism and corruption and fraudulent elections. The cover story of the most recent issue of Harper’s magazine was dedicated to the possibility of an American military coup.
As Billmon points out, most of these Generals keep silent, retire then two years later write an op-ed critical of Rummy. Resigning would be a major step up from that, and as you say not enough, but they don't show much sign of going that far out on the limb. If they want to "take the nukes away" what are they waiting for? This insane plan has most likely been in the works for quite some time.
Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Peter Pace stood beside the embattled defense secretary and did what some experts say is his military duty.
|
- dave 4-12-2006 2:31 am
billmon interviewed.
- dave 4-13-2006 5:45 pm [add a comment]
Like his blog--hate his whining.
He always seems to be blaming the world for his own lack of proportion.
"Pacing yourself"--what a concept! You should try it, Billmon, and just shut up about how "hard" it is.
- tom moody 4-13-2006 6:36 pm [add a comment]
What am I going to do about this latest insane plan the administration has? I'll read the blogs, listen to the radio, bitch and moan a lot, particfipate in a march if there is one, call my senators, donate some money to a cause I believe in and vote in November. All of which adds up to diddly squat.
- steve 4-13-2006 6:48 pm [add a comment]
On the subject of using nukes on Iran, it's as if we keep waiting for some grownup to have a chat with little Georgie and tell him it's time to settle down. But it's not happening.
I think all the talking we do is good.
Bush's poll numbers didn't go down because we did nothing.
Eventually those opinions of everybody translate into action.
I'd just like it to be sooner rather than later.
- tom moody 4-13-2006 6:54 pm [add a comment]
"it's as if we keep waiting for some grownup to have a chat with little Georgie and tell him it's time to settle down. But it's not happening."
Well put. But I think there's a possibility that his nuking iran would cinch a republican sweep in Nov. 06. and suspect the administration is banking on it.
- steve 4-13-2006 7:08 pm [add a comment]
yes, steve. extending the war would insure no changing (party) horses mid stream in the war (on terror). its the fear factor. dems still spinning wheels. kerry has made no improvements in his approach and hinting at another try at it.
- bill 4-13-2006 7:13 pm [add a comment]
hopefully Kerry will have learned how to fight or be out of the picture by '08.
I'm afraid Bush will nuke before this Nov.
- steve 4-13-2006 7:17 pm [add a comment]
But his poll numbers are down *because* people are sick of the way he conducts his wars. If he nukes in the spring and "human wave" reprisals kill hundreds of our troops in Shiite Iraq over the summer, I don't see how that helps the Republican electoral effort.
- tom moody 4-13-2006 7:23 pm [add a comment]
My latest prediction: Cheney/Bush will try to attack with nukes but they will be stopped by either impeachment or military coup. I think we better hope for the former.
(Maybe 'coup' is too strong a word - I mean a military refusal to carry out executive orders which leads to some sort of constitutional crisis - not the 82nd airborne taking over the white house by force or anything like that.)
- jim 4-13-2006 7:34 pm [add a comment]
I hope you're right Tom. Dunno.
Thom Hartmann's take
- steve 4-13-2006 7:39 pm [add a comment]
Quite a concept--a "coup" by soldiers who want to use less force than the civilian leadership.
I read somewhere that Eisenhower was so disgusted with Truman for dropping the big one that he barely spoke to him on Inauguration day.
In retrospect, I think we should all learn to despise Truman.
- tom moody 4-13-2006 7:43 pm [add a comment]
i dont think low approval ratings = a deteriorated base. repugs will still vote repug. no defection. its just a hunch that 06 will still be 51 vs 49. cheating notwithstanding.
- bill 4-13-2006 7:48 pm [add a comment]
Not sure I want to be right about a power struggle showdown between career military and the executive branch. But yeah, they might be the only ones powerful enough to stop it.
I'd be interested in finding some reporting on any moves Rumsfeld has made over the last several years to restructure the highest ranks of the military. Forcing powerful officers who disagree with you out of the service might very well have a greater meaning than just reinforcing that the administration doesn't like to hear dissent. Obviously guys like General Boykin are as stark raving mad as the White House. But have they totally stacked the military deck with Boykin's? Seems like that would be hard to do - but like I said, I never read anything from this angle and I'm interested to find some stuff.
Hersh says that officers are preparing to resign unless the administration backs off the nuclear option. But just resigning won't be enough. And these military guys like to actually get the job done. The idea of a 'coup lite' must have crossed their minds. Not necessarily to take power themselves, but just to take the nukes away from the present administration and force a new election.
Reallly, who else can stop them?
- jim 4-13-2006 7:53 pm [add a comment]
- bill 4-13-2006 8:05 pm [add a comment]
As Billmon points out, most of these Generals keep silent, retire then two years later write an op-ed critical of Rummy. Resigning would be a major step up from that, and as you say not enough, but they don't show much sign of going that far out on the limb. If they want to "take the nukes away" what are they waiting for? This insane plan has most likely been in the works for quite some time.
- steve 4-13-2006 8:12 pm [add a comment]
Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
- steve 4-13-2006 10:16 pm [add a comment]
Peter Pace stood beside the embattled defense secretary and did what some experts say is his military duty.
- bill 4-15-2006 10:21 pm [add a comment]