In case you missed it...

LIBBY FOUND GUILTY ON 4 OF 5 COUNTS

But the spin is making me dizzy....obviously the Republicans were expecting this because their legions were on every talk show spouting the same talking points...busting out the same spin...scarecrow over at firedoglake has a good overview of the spinmeisters at work

.....and worse yet, even the Washington Post is REPEATING the same lies which were debunked years ago about Joe and Valerie (Plame) Wilson. Attaturk does a good job of documenting it here....

That's Valerie and Joe in the picture at the right...

As a side note, I can picture Valerie as a "soccer mom" but the desecription of her being trained to use an AK-47 assault rifle just sort of ....boggles my mind....

UPDATE:

I was reading through the "comments" section of Greenwald's post...and this comment by El Cid was just too good not to share with you:

For Rightwing, Reason & Thought Themselves Are 'Gay'

For the populist right, the idea of slowing down your contrived authoritarian impulses for even one moment to think about an issue, to reason something through, is, in itself, effeminate and probably gay.
Why is that? Because it's possible that thinking through an issue carefully and resorting to evidence may, just may, somehow contradict their desired agenda. So the most effective thing to do is discourage thought and reason in itself, so as not to risk your precious lunatic goals.
If the American right wing were going to design & build a bridge, there would be no architects with their big pointy heads and all their 'stoppin' and thinkin' about stuff' to hold back the large, fake macho dudes with hammers and nails who are then followed by the loudmouth brigade.
No, their chosen lunatic pseudointellectual would claim that he was able to draw out a bridge -- in fact he's got a glorious idea for a brand new bridge design that nobody done never thought none of -- and it wouldn't take him very long.
If the bridge collapses because the idiots don't know the first thing about building bridges, well, it's not their fault, some gay foreign terrorist guy must have somehow drove over a truck at the wrong time.

roflmao.............

This of course is a nice riff on Greenwald's statement:

"And the ultimate expression of faux, empty, masculine courage and power is, of course, the Commander-in-Chief himself -- the Glorious Leader whom John Podhoretz hailed in the title of his worshippful cult book as The First Great Leader of the 21st Century -- with the ranch hats and brush-clearing pants and flight-suit outfits that would make the Village People seethe with jealousy over his costume choices. Just behold this poster which was a much in-demand item at past CPAC events (h/t Digby), which makes as clear as can be how these Bush followers have tried to idolize their Leader: "

Village People indeed!

Ann Coulter IS the CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT

Glenn Greenwald had another fascinating take on the Ann Coulter flap today. You can read the article on Salon if you sit through an advertisement.

Actually his post makes a couple of points that are worthwhile....

First he talks about Michelle Malkin's appearance on Bill O'Reilly's show last night where the Coulter atrocity was discussed. And MM told two awful truths, which are:

MM: She's very popular among conservatives. And let me say this. I have been a long-time admirer of much of Ann's work. She has done yeomen's work for conservatism. But I think, lately, over the last couple of years, that there has been this penchant for hurling these kinds of bombs.
And there is a divided opinion among grass-roots conservatives about what she did. I was one of the people who condemned the raghead comment last year . . . . If going into 2008, that is what the Republican Party is trying to do and win back the Congress and take the Congress and win the White House, having her there is not going to be a help.

Did you catch that?

Ann Coulter is not an abberation in Conservative circles....she's mainstream...and then, it's not that conservatives find her comments objectionable that they don't want her around, it's that she may drive off more moderate, centrist voters which the Conservatives (Republicans) need to take back Congress.

The second point that Greenwald makes is how Coulter seems to fit into the conservative, or neoconservative scheme of writing the narrative about us liberals.....She's key to it because her bomb-throwing can be "tsk-tsk'ed" by Conservatives for large scale public consumption but among the conservative base, they are accepting her words as "the truth nobody (else) dares speak"

The narrative is always the same, as Greenwald so accurately describes it:

And that is where Ann Coulter comes in and plays such a vital -- really indispensible -- role. As a woman who purposely exudes the most exaggerated American feminine stereotypes (the long blond hair, the make-up, the emaciated body), her obsession with emasculating Democratic males -- which, at bottom, is really what she does more than anything else -- energizes and stimulates the right-wing "base" like nothing else can. Just witness the fervor with which they greet her, buy her books, mob her on college campuses. Can anyone deny that she is unleashing what lurks at the very depths of the right-wing psyche? What else explains not just her popularity, but the intense embrace of her by the "base"?

And even our friend, Digby, gets his props in this article too.

Coulter plays a vital and irreplaceable role in this movement. The reason I linked to that Bob Somerby post on Maureen Dowd yesterday is because he makes the critical point -- one which Digby, among others, has been making for a long time, including in a great post last night -- concerning how the right-wing movement conducts itself and the rhetorical tool they use not only to keep themselves in power, but more importantly, to keep their needy, confused, and scared base feeling strong and protected. As Digby put it:

The underlying premise of the modern conservative movement is that the
entire Democratic party consists of a bunch of fags and dykes who are both too
effeminate and too masculine to properly lead the nation. Coulter says it out
loud. Dowd hints at it broadly. And the entire press corps giggles and swoons at
this shallow, sophomoric concept like a bunch of junior high pom pom girls.

I think he hit the proverbial nail right on the head...click on the link and read the whole article, there's much more in it than I've described .

Just me and Jesus (General, that is)

On second edit: OOOOPS ....MY BAD ...The General didn't write that essay...it was by Austin Cline , I have to pay more attention to the sig lines next time.....

Sorry for ruining your day General...Sir,...er....you worship? your grace?

Jesus General posted a piece today which closely mirrors my thoughts about the Republican Imperial Presidency and the reasons for it ....I've thought it for a long time and it's gratifying that somebody else is thinking along the same lines.

Here's today's post

In Gauntanamo, The War on Human Rights, by David Rose, Rose writes:

Past American presidents have tried to assume...exceptional powers in wartime, and all have eventually been overruled by the Supreme Court... In a 1967 case about rights to protest during the Vietnam War, Chief Justice Warren observed, “The concept of ‘national defense’ cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise...of power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term ‘national defense’ is the notion of defending those values and ideals which set this nation apart.”

In 1952, American Justice Jackson ruled similarily, and because he had been a judge at the Nurenburg Tribunals, was particularly sensitive to assumption of "additional powers" by the executive branch. He wrote:

Such an usurpation must never be permitted in America, Justice Jackson said, even in time of war. “The claim of inherent and unrestricted presidential powers has long been a persuasive dialectical weapon in political controversy.” But “the essence of our free Government is ‘leave to live by no man’s leave, under the law’ — to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law. Our Government is fashioned to fulfill this concept so far as humanly possible. With all its defects, delays, and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations

Jesus General then reaches the same point I did in .this post...and even more so here

"Could this be because they recognize that too few people would agree with them if their plans were all laid bare? Are they consciously attempting to move America away from the principle of the rule of law in planned, gradual steps? America broke away from Britain in part because it no longer felt confident in the rule of a king and Americans refused to install a new king in George’s place; today, though, there is a indeed a new George in charge and we should not accept his arbitrary exercise of immoral, unlawful, and inappropriate power."

Earlier in his post, the General related that in times of crisis, natural or man-made, American Citizens tend to look for a strong leader to bring them safely through the crisis. Unfortuantely, we have an administration which is all too willing to take the people up on the offer and permanently assume more powers to themselves. This isn't exactly what we had in mind ...in fact...

I think America really wants a SUPERMAN model of leader. Here's how we, the people really envision from our leaders.

We envision that the leader is always there but completely out of sight. The leader is perfectly willing to sit quietly and let us run our own lives without any interferrence whatsoever. (Analogy: Superman dwelling in his "ice castle" or being Clark Kent, not interferring in any way)

But if a crisis strikes, the leader springs into action. Habeus Corpus be damned! Due Process Be Damned! The evil-ones must be vanquished!

Once the evil-one is vanquished, we give accolades to the leader, praise him and reward him with continuing power, which he modestly declines and humbly retreats to the ice castle until the next crisis.

But the trouble with this administration is that they don't want to retreat to the ice castle....and worse yet...well

they haven't vanquished the "evil-ones"
they can't see that we will EVER vanquish the "evil-ones"
and
we're slowing learning that they LIED to us about exactly who the "evil-ones" really were....

One can't help but think it's deliberate.... what the hell happened to Superman?

Thanks for the thoughts Jesus (General)

note: edited for clarity at 2:25PM

A jolt into reality again

I've written about the conservatives chidding us liberals because of our opposition to the war. Somehow or another if you don't support the war you are (if you're a male) a coward, gay, communist or you lack testicles...or testosterone...or, possibly, all of the above. If you're a female who opposes the war then, you're simply an unpatriotic communist. The debate has been raging for some time now and has become intertwined with all kinds of esoteric issues.

But here's a jolt.....

All those macho, brave, fearless hawks who think we should, as Ann Coulter has been credited as saying: " KICK THEIR ASS AND TAKE THEIR GAS!" aren't actually getting shot at.

Somebody posted this over at Democratic Underground earlier today. Click it.

Some especially poingent lyrics:

Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really greatFor righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away

We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

Yep....that's about right....it's easy to be brave when you're out of range.

Well, the weather broke...

it's not snowing anymore anyway...getting a bit of wind...NOAA says 20-30 mph...

I'm a little sore from shoveling because the stuff that came down yesterday afternoon turned to slush...and, as any good Wisconsinite knows, snowblowers turn into really, really big SNO CONE MACHINES when it gets really sloppy.

I posted on the County dems website last night the rage against the North Korea intelligence debacle that broke on either Thursday or Friday. Actually Billycreek posted on it earlier in the week. He was pretty outraged by it, as we all should have been.

I know this probably isn't as important as ending the war in Iraq, keeping Dubya and crew from nuking Iran and everything, but I' m fascinated with the way the most recent Ann Coulter outrage is playing out. Espesially in light of Joe Klein, Howard Kurtz and other "serious" journalists dog-piling on "liberal bloggers" for their "incivility" and their "obscenity" and "name calling".....

After all that, the Queen of Right Wing Bile got up at a Conservative Conference and...well...read for yourself...

Speaking today at the Conservative Political Action Conference, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter said: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.” Audience members said “ohhh” and then cheered.

DNC Chairman, Howard Dean issued the following comment.

“There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans–including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today–should denounce her hateful remarks.”

Will Joe Klein denounce Ann for her incivility?

Will Republicans demand she issue an immediate apology?

Will the MSM pick it up and cry loudly for Ann Coulter's head on a pike?

Or, maybe, just maybe...there is a double standard at play here....it's okay for conservatives to say hateful, bigoted things about their opponents but if liberals dare to do so....well...that's just uncivil.

To help us poor, misguided liberal bloggers distinguish between what is uncivil and what is civil, The Poor Man Institute has provided us with a handy chart. Part of which I'll reprint here.

Incivil/Unserious Civil/Serious
“f*ck” Suggest that Arab countries, being too primative for democracy should be reduced to rubble.
“sh*t” Imply that the media is working with al Qaeda.
“w*nk*r” Wonder if the Clintons were involved in the murder of Princess Diana.
“d*mn” State that we are at war with France.
“*ssh*l*” Invent a quote from Abraham Lincoln saying that Congressmen who disagree with the President should be executed.
“d*ck” Congratulate people for recognizing that the ethnic cleansing of Muslims is inevitable.
“c*nt”/”c*ck” Point out that Arab Muslims are bloodthirsty savages.
“b*tch” Suggest that the government should begin murdering

I've butchered his chart quite badly, be sure to click the link and read it for yourself...and yes, clicking on the blue linky-things will take you to the quotes in question.

Guess what I did this morning?

Give Up?

You Wisconsinites on the blog were probably doing the same thing.....

By the way, I found that picture and a really NICE picture of Lake Superior from the U. P. side at Pasty's Site ...sort of nice really... here's the Lake Superior Picture.

I had a meeting that went sort of late last night so I'm a little lethargic this morning....that and having to blow the drifts out of the driveway early this morning so I could get the cars out. I understand Duluth, Superior (maybe) Bayfield and Ashland are getting hit really hard by this storm...we're getting a break from the snow until tonight....did I say "break"?....since when have I considered "freezing rain" a "break"....


Also as an aside, if you want to visit the site of another good, Wisconsin liberal, tryout BILLYCREEK,
We have a lot in common....(except I can't tie a fly lure worth diddley....)