"Bring wood and oil!"
It seems there was a fire in Dick Cheney’s office this morning:
The historic Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door to the
White House caught fire this morning, and D.C. firefighters broke
windows and doused the second and third floors with water in order to
extinguish the two-alarm blaze. …
[Witness Katie] Johnson said the smoke appeared to be concentrated in or near the ceremonial office of Vice President Cheney.
Oh, but it gets better:
[D.C. fire department spokesman Alan] Etter would not speculate on exactly where the fire originated –
citing both the early stage of the investigation but also a request for
discretion by the U.S. Secret Service.
It’s a cover-up, I say! A cover-up!! Cheney lied, buildings fried!!!
What was Vice President Cheney burning, you ask? Well, isn’t it obvious? His weekly "ceremonial" kitten-and-puppy pyre (their cries give him strength!) caused a bit more smoke than usual this week, and now those nosy media and police types are sniffing around. They’d better watch themselves. If they get too close to the truth, Dick Cheney will shoot them in the face.
|
Categories: Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
December 19th, 2007 at 12:29:03 pm
I offer Sandy Burger as the preffered appointee for the Special Prosecutor.
December 19th, 2007 at 1:00:38 pm
Damnit, where are Mulder and Scully when you need them! The Truth is Out There!!
December 19th, 2007 at 2:10:53 pm
On a totally unrelated note, Time’s
manperson-of-the-year will evidently be Vladimir Putin. Powerline is not happy:I haven’t read Time’s reasoning for selecting Putin, but I’d be curious to know why he is more deserving than Petraeus.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:27:47 pm
O’Reilly opts for Petraeus. Personally, I opt for O’Reilly.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:46:54 pm
Not sure about Petraus, but Putin? Sure, lets honor a man who is becoming the new Russian dictator. That’s responsible!
December 19th, 2007 at 2:49:24 pm
It’s not necessarily an honor. Don’t you know anything about the Time person of the year?
December 19th, 2007 at 3:00:33 pm
Person of the year should be Paris Hilton or Britney Spears. It might be the statement about Americans that turns our culture around before it’s too late. As for Patreaus, the only reason anyone would believe that things are going to work out over there is because no one is paying attention to Iraq anymore.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:28:40 pm
As for Patreaus, the only reason anyone would believe that things are going to work out over there is because no one is paying attention to Iraq anymore.
Typical rubbish. Perhaps the reason “no one is paying attention to Iraq anymore” (meaning war critics — those of us who support the war have actually been paying very close attention to current events in Iraq) is because things might work out over there.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:34:19 pm
Seriously. This is such a tiresome argument. How many damn times do we have to have this debate about whether it’s OK for Time to name somebody “bad” as Person of the Year? It’s an open-and-shut argument. They named Hitler, for God’s sake. Anyone who thinks the title is necessarily an “honor,” or has something to do with being “deserving,” simply isn’t paying attention.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:39:16 pm
Moreover, Sandy, the notion that people are more likely not to pay attention to a situation in Iraq that’s bad rather than a situation in Iraq that’s getting better is especially absurd, and in addition cuts completely against the media culture in this country.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:47:34 pm
Just for the record, I’m not at all arguing that it’s not okay for Time to name somebody “bad” as Person of the Year. Rather, I’m saying that I don’t really know what Putin has done this year — bad or good — that is more deserving of such a title than, say, Petraeus. As Powerline correctly points out, and which Sandy pathetically can’t bring himself to admit, Petraeus has clearly made substantial gains in Iraq and turned things around so that there is now a chance of leaving that country in better shape than before 2003. What has Putin done to rival that? I ask the question honestly.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:01:41 pm
Right next to my office.
Pics from my iPhone
http://web.mac.com/penguinsix/iWeb/Site/Last%20Roll.html
December 19th, 2007 at 4:15:00 pm
Joe Mama, talk about rubbish. People haven’t cared about Iraq since the 2006 elections. The democrats that were suppose to stand up against wasting more money on this debacle didn’t and there’s no recourse for real Americans to stop this mess. Ignoring it is really the only thing the majority of Americans (who oppose the war today) can do. As for success. $900 billion dollars after 4 years is a failure.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:24:16 pm
Speak for yourself, Sandy. Just because the Democrats don’t have the courage of their convictions hardly means that people (or “real Americans”, whatever the hell you mean by that) don’t care about Iraq. You don’t care about Iraq, that much is clear. But if Iraq truly was the debacle you want it so badly to be, then I would expect it to be getting much more play as a topic during the Democrat primary debates.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:27:15 pm
And riddle me this, Sandy: How come Hillary’s refusal to recant on her vote for the war is less of a political liability now than it was earlier in the primary campaign?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:28:11 pm
I guess I kinda forgot that. Still, I’m not a fan of giving Putin noteriety.
Also, I’m not sure he defines the year in the way Person of the Year is supposed to signify.
December 19th, 2007 at 6:33:54 pm
I agree with Peter Wehner at Commentary:
(Hat tip: Powerline)
December 19th, 2007 at 7:12:28 pm
If you remember how Anakin Skywalker turned into Darth Vader during the third movie, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Cheney’s office caught on fire.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:27:42 pm
We’ve also seen botched prolonged occupations where the indigenous people don’t want us their before too…
December 19th, 2007 at 9:03:40 pm
And once something is “botched”, it can never be unbotched, right David? Say, by switching to a new counterinsurgency plan that makes much progress in a compressed period of time? And as for the indigenous people not wanting us there, the most their elected leader has said is that the U.S. can “leave anytime it wants.” That’s not quite telling us to get out, is it. I’d bet that most Iraqis’ pride is trumped by the realization that much carnage would still likely follow a precipitous U.S. exit from Iraq at this point, which is why I don’t buy into your assertion that “the indigenous people don’t want us their [sic].” If Maliki really wanted the U.S. out of Iraq immediately, he could easily say so in unequivocal terms.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:08:32 pm
Actually I just found out that the photos I posted were used by CNN as an I-REPORT.
I’m getting a free t-shirt from CNN in the mail.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:04:06 pm
Mama, you care about Iraq as long as the Republicants say you should. The day after Bush leaves office, Iraq will be as big a problem as Southeast Asia. I think the most difficult thing for hard-headed Americans to accept is that their meddling in other countries afairs aren’t appreciated and continued presence makes things worse not better. Call me whatever name you want, I will only cite the last 50 years of American history to prove what I say is true.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:17:39 pm
Sandy,
Your knowledge about what I care about is as laughable as what you think you know about “the last 50 years of American history”, as evidenced by your ridiculously naive and oversimplified caricature of U.S. foreign policy as just “meddling in other countries affairs.”
December 19th, 2007 at 10:29:43 pm
BTW, I don’t know what you mean by, “Call me whatever name you want,” since I haven’t called you anything.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:36:06 pm
Vietnam… Panama… Korea… El Salvador… Iran… Iraq… Bosnia… Cuba… Kuwait, and more. What positive difference did any of these “pre-emptive” actions result in? A waste of human life, increased human suffering, a waste of energy, and a waste of money.
As far as what you care about or what you think (or what you think you care about), it’s pretty aparent by your lack of diverse deviated interests that those things are dictated to you by Sean Hannity or a funnel of a like nature.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:06:17 pm
Sandy,
Needless to say, merely reciting a list of countries on a map is hardly an argument as to why the last 50 years of American foreign policy was nothing but “meddling in other countries affairs.” I’d be happy to rebut any substantive analysis you provide of how any of those examples was just a “waste of human life, increased human suffering, a waste of energy, and a waste of money.” But as the one (trying) to make the argument, you’re not going to shift the burden to me to disprove something you have yet to establish.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:06:48 pm
Furthermore, you haven’t provided one iota of support (not that I expected it) for your customary bald-faced claim that I have a “lack of diverse deviated interests” (what does that even mean?), let alone that “those things (again, what “things” are you referring to?) are dictated to [me] by Sean Hannity or a funnel of a like nature.” I could just as well throw out that your thoughts are dictated to you by Michael Moore, but that’s no way to argue.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:11:07 pm
Of course, Sandy, to come back to the present for a minute, I’m still waiting for you to explain why Iraq — the “debacle” that it is — hasn’t been front and center during the Democrat primary debates, or how come Hillary’s refusal to apologize for her vote for the war in Iraq is no longer a political liability.
December 19th, 2007 at 11:48:19 pm
And then Brendan revealed to blog regulars that Joe Mama and Sandy Underpants were actually fictional creations of his own mind! What a prank!
Anyways, Jamie Lynn….OMG!
FIRE MIKE BREY.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:15:54 am
I disagree with the assertion that Iraq hasn’t been the biggest debate point for either primary. Pinochio Kucinich constantly harps on the failings, as does Ron Paul. Both promise to bring the troops home immediately if elected. Most of the democrats can’t really say they were against the war from the start, because most of them supported the initial invasion, Hillary more than others. Because the actual election isn’t for another year, most of these jabronies are just waiting to see what happens. Even though nothing has changed in 4 years in Iraq, doesn’t mean things CAN’T change in 10 months. Afterall, the British cut and ran recently, and if there are any other “coalition” members left in Iraq, they would have to just be a couple drunk Australians who don’t know any better. Nobody wants to get caught in the flip-flop game or put their foot in their mouth. I agree, it would be nice to have politicians take a stand and speak their feelings, but if they did that, they would be expressing themselves like normal people rather than running for President.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:31:29 am
Joe Mama, yes I believe some things can be unbotched, just not by this administration, they have given no evidence in 7 years they are capable of doing so.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:22:40 am
Sandy,
What Kucinich or Paul bring up in the debates is immaterial, it’s what the viable candidates say that matters. Kucinich also brought up UFOs . . . his characterizations about Iraq are no more credible.
That most of the democrats supported the war initially also does not explain why they no longer parrot the Murtha line (or the Reid “the war is lost” line) in debates. Rest assured, the fact that they took an inconsistent position in the past hardly means Democrats (and most pols) won’t posture themselves in the most politically expedient manner now. And the most politically expedient posturing for Democrats on the war is no longer “the war is lost and we must come home now.”
December 20th, 2007 at 9:23:13 am
Because the actual election isn’t for another year, most of these jabronies are just waiting to see what happens.
In other words, waiting to see if Iraq actually turns out to be the debacle you and David are so certain exists now and can never be fixed (at least “not by this administration”, as David breathlessly states).
Even though nothing has changed in 4 years in Iraq, doesn’t mean things CAN’T change in 10 months.
Of course, things have changed in Iraq, as even John Murtha has been forced to admit (but don’t tell David!).
December 20th, 2007 at 11:49:39 am
One thing that bothers me a lot about the war is that the benchmarks for success keep moving. A goal is set. That goal is not met, or partially met. People then point to the new partial success as success. To give Patreaus man of the year would just be reinforcing this revisionist approach….
December 20th, 2007 at 11:50:59 am
…The rationale for war was largely based on WMD’s, when they weren’t found, success was measured in the overthrow of Saddam.
Success of the surge originally had two parts. The first was to decrease violence. By all accounts this has been accomplished. But the original aim of the decrease in violence was for a political solution by Iraqi politicians. This has not been accomplished. So one can fairly say that the surge has not worked. This would be consistent with saying that there has been a decrease in violence.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:38:48 pm
I don’t know that anyone credible has claimed that Iraq has been a “success” based on Petreaus’ reducing the violence in Iraq. In fact, most of the war supporters I see who applaud Petreaus (including myself) go out of their way to state that Iraq is far from a done deal, there’s still much work to be done, and things could still revert back to the way they were fairly easily.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:39:39 pm
If anything, the emphasis by folks like me on Petreaus’ success in reducing the violence is the result of critics and the media focusing only on the violence when it could, and now “moving” the focus of the criticism to the absence of a political solution. Yes, it’s certainly true that there has been no viable political solution in Iraq so far. But it was also true that there was horrific violence in Iraq. Now that violence has been reduced considerably in a remarkably short period of time thanks to a change in strategy authored and implemented by Petraeus.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:40:15 pm
It is unrealistic to think that a political solution could arise in a similarly short period of time, but that doesn’t mean it won’t ever arise. It needs to be given a chance. Unfortunately, far too many critics think that if it hasn’t happened within a few months of the reduction in violence that those same critics erroneously never thought could happen, then a political solution likewise can never happen.
December 20th, 2007 at 12:40:49 pm
The rationale for war was largely based on WMD’s, when they weren’t found, success was measured in the overthrow of Saddam.
There were actually 23 reasons the Senate offered for authorizing the war. And again, I don’t know anyone credible suggesting that Iraq should be judged a success simply because we ousted Saddam (which, of course, certainly was a brilliant military success).
December 20th, 2007 at 12:41:24 pm
BTW, having to post comments piecemeal sucks.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:40:04 pm
The first misconception is that we are fighting a war in Iraq. The war was won back when Bush had his “Mission Accomplished” speech. I don’t recognize what has happened in the 4 years since that as being “The War”. I know politicians and spin media want to frame it that way, but that is not the case. This has been an occupation, there aren’t any battles being fought, yet here 4 years later we are still losing troops regularly (another one bit the dust today). If Americans wise up and view this as it is, politicians lose a lot of traction, because there hasn’t been a war going on since Saddam was ousted from power, and the Iraqi army disbanded 4 years ago. There have been several democratic elections within Iraq during this time as well. If you can’t call that a success and go home, I’m not sure what we’re staying for.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:57:47 pm
“I don’t know that anyone credible has claimed that Iraq has been a “success” based on Petreaus’ reducing the violence in Iraq.”
My point is that they are claiming that the SURGE is a success based on Petreaus’ reducing violence in Iraq. But the surge as planned had two parts to it, one military, one political. After I posted this point, I noticed the President fielded a question like this in his press-conference today. His response was that the political part was succeeding on certain levels.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:20:14 pm
The problem with Iraq is that the Kurds have been cutting their own oil deals with Western oil companies, instead of working with the Sunnis and Shi’ites on a revenue sharing plan. Technically, Mosul and Kirkuk, the two largest oil generating areas in Northern Iraq, aren’t in the Kurdish area, yet the Kurds are selling the oil.
The only way Iraq can be deemed a success is when U.S. troops begin to scale back their presence and the Iraqis can figure some way to govern the country without killing each other. The surge has been a tactical success, but the occupation isn’t over.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:29:56 pm
The kurds are making Oil Deals? I thought the Kurds were knuckle-dragging ape people that lived in the mountains bordering Turkey. I sincerely don’t believe they’re drilling for oil or have any sort of oil rights. They don’t even have any representation in the Iraq Parliament because they haven’t learned how to pull a voting lever yet.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:14:27 pm
The ‘tard yard has taken over this thread.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:28:15 pm
we are still losing troops regularly (another one bit the dust today).
And that is tragic (”bit the dust” isn’t quite the phrase I would use). Fortunately, however, the casualty rate in this “debacle” continues to decline. There have been 14 U.S. casualties in the first 20 days of December. The lowest monthly casualty rate was 20, back in February 2004. The casualty rate is now at its lowest rate ever — averaging less than one per day. That is very good news.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:27:59 pm
Condor - “One thing that bothers me a lot about the war is that the benchmarks for success keep moving.” - I am a lot more bothered when a war is fought with benchmarks with deadlines …
I am also a lot more forgiving of folk whose deadlines slip due to incoming ordnance than I am to forgiving those who miss their deadlines due to their own crass ambitions … so the troops in Iraq get some latitude, more than Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi … by *your* standards and by Congressional “benchmarks”, the current crass controllers of Congress are failures and we should be calling on them to withdraw from Congress, should we not ?
December 20th, 2007 at 7:55:31 pm
Is it really a “deadline” if there are no consequences for not meeting it? My life-coach, Tony Little, says setting goals is an important first step to success. I suppose nobody on this ‘tard yard has gotten that far yet.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:20:43 pm
Ignore the trolls Sandy, if you do they might go away ;-)
December 20th, 2007 at 9:25:17 pm
Joe Mama, if your right, it is a good thing that troop deaths are down, but what about civillian deaths? And even if deaths are down are we meeting the rest of our goals? So far it doesn’t sound like it. If we aren’t going to meet goals with our troops there, then we should bring them home, its the same result and less dangerous.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:44:57 pm
but what about civillian deaths?
David, the concern over the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is precisely why U.S. troops shouldn’t leave precipitously.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:37:20 am
Mahmoud Othman, a parliamentarian in Baghdad representing the Kurdistan Coalition, said talks began in earnest over the weekend with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, focusing mainly on controversial oil deals the Kurds have signed without Baghdad’s permission.
But the oil deals are the main impetus for the meeting. The KRG has accused Iraq’s national government of moving too slow, and reneging, on a national oil law. Instead it has passed its own regional law and signed 20 oil deals with foreign firms.