War with Iran would probably make Bush more popular (like he cares)
Andrew Sullivan dealt the President a double blow yesterday (no, not that kind of blow … and not this kind or that kind, either) when he argued that Bush was not only quite unpopular, but that constitutional limits to his power might prevent him from bombing Iran at his exclusive discretion. Powerline’s Paul “The Deacon” Mirengoff sees it all as so much Bush-bashing:
Sullivan argues that President Bush is too unpopular to undertake a preemptive strike against Iran. But one could just as easily make the opposite argument — that Bush’s low approval numbers make it more likely that he’ll strike, particularly since opinion polls show wide support for such action. This, of course, is the “wag-the-dog” theory. I put no stock in it because there’s no reason to believe that Bush will make his decision based on political calculation. For the same reason, I put no stock in Sullivan’s speculation.
Great Scott, he’s doing it again. Aaaargh!
Head … feeling … dizzy. Reasoning … faculties … jammed. Must … refute … from … the safety of … the jump.
Ahhh, much better. The Deacon’s Logic-Jamming Deathray is useless in the extended entry. Of course, he doesn’t actually believe the president would bomb another country to distract from his sagging poll numbers. (Doy, like he would govern based on polls.) That was just a rhetorical device intended to make you feel like you’ve been reading in a moving car:
Sullivan argues, however, that Bush’s lack of popularity constrains his ability to get Congress behind a preemptive attack. But the president’s low approval ratings do not mean that Congress would fail to get behind military action that the public supports, any more than they meant he could not confirm popular Supreme Court nominees.
Psssst. Could you pass this note to Paul for me?
According to a Bloomberg/LA Times poll released last week, “only 48 percent now support military action against Iran if it doesn’t stop its nuclear enrichment program, down from 57 percent in January, and 40 percent now oppose military action — up from 33 percent.” Public support is already dropping, and no mission has yet been undertaken (so far as we know). Public support is already below 50 percent, and no mission has yet been undertaken (so far as we know). As we’ve seen with Iraq, public support for military action is important, because military actions are undertaken by the general public. Public support is also important to legislators, who are scheduled to face an accountability moment later this year.
In short, without a critical mass of public support, the military option is doomed to be all risk and no benefit. And these are big, nuclear-weapons-shaped risks we’re talking about here, with a dash of potential economic catastrophe and a smidge of increased terrorism risk thrown in. So all’s I’m saying is that garnering significant public support on solid, factual, can’t-be-faded justification — and not just clever advertising campaigns — is absolutely crucial to facing down whatever threat might be posed by Iran’s uranium-enrichment program.
But the third paragraph is where I get somewhat brain-boggled:
President Bush can bomb Iran without congressional approval. Sullivan argues, without any real analysis or demontrated expertise in the subject matter, that this would be unconstitutional. But the question here is what will Bush do, and it’s quite unlikely that the administration agrees with Sullivan’s view of the Constitution.
Constitution, consti-schmution. It’s all just one big difference of opinion. You say tomato, I say to-mah-to. Agree to disagree. Blar, blar, blar.
Sullivan says that a bombing campaign without congressional approval could bring about a constitutional crisis. This depends on the events on the ground after the bombing.
Is he really arguing that we should sit back, watch this drive and wait to see how things pan out before we decide whether he’s violated the constitution? That’s quite possibly the most ingenuous argument I’ve ever read. (Simmer down now; I have not misspelled “ingenious.”)
But President Bush surely understands that if the bombing campaign proves to be a costly mistake, his administration is lost even if the campaign was launched with congressional approval. That realization may provide an additional reason why Bush won’t undertake such a campaign lightly. It’s not a reason why he won’t attack Iran if he concludes that doing so, on balance, is the best way to protect this country.
Hey, wait just a doggone minute. Wasn’t Mirengoff arguing, like three paragraphs earlier, that Bush wouldn’t “make his decision based on political calculation”? And now he’s saying that he will, while simultaneously denying that politics would —
Oh, no. He’s breached the jump.
Where does he get those wonderful toys?
Constitution, consti-schmution. It’s all just one big difference of opinion. You say tomato, I say to-mah-to.
You say imperial disregard for the processes of law, I say “unitary executive theory”.
You say torture, I say “extraordinary rendition”.
You say illegal wiretapping, I say “congressionally mandated antiterrorism program”.
You say democracy, I say….oh, wow. I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you – I was laughing my ass off.
Travis, be careful with that “without a critical mass of public support, the military option is doomed” stuff. Sure, it’s true, but some wingnut/troll is going to get uppity and conflate it with “liberals questioning the Iraq war are killing American soldiers.”
You know the difference, I know the difference, but Gary Ruppert probably doesn’t.
A war with Iran would be about as popular as some parody troll posting on SN, oh wait.
“without a critical mass of public support, the military option is doomed”
I think the miltary option is centered around a ‘critical mass’.
Is it possible that Mirengoff has suffered a minor stroke or a series of strokes which would explain his diminished capacity for logical thought? I mean, take a close look at that lazy eye…
A war with Iran would be about as popular as some parody troll posting on SN, oh wait.
I can’t believe folks are still down there posting. You guys are hilarious. Really, this is the funniest site on the internets.
Well, Roopert and his “Christian” cohort provide plenty to riff on. It’s pretty easy.
s it possible that Mirengoff has suffered a minor stroke or a series of strokes which would explain his diminished capacity for logical thought?
I think it’s more likely the steady diet of salt and trans-fats. The guy looks like a deflating beach ball with glasses.
Hey Travis? The DigPhoto, handwritten note graphic? Pure, unadluterated genius. Dood, I stand in awe. I come down to two possibilities. Either (1) you are a fucking genius or (2) you stole the coolest left-handed jihadi uppercut I’ve ever seen from somebody who’s way cooler than you and me. Either way, yer crackin me up. Keep ’em coming–the Giants aren’t on TV for another hour…
mikey
The fact is that a war with Iran to prevent them from acquiring WMDs would be a very popular war.
The fact is that Gary Ruppert is capable of auto-fellatio.
We dont’ yet know whether it’s fact that he likes it, however.
If you got your head out of your ass you may breath better.
I await SN addressing the Malkin thing, because I have some thoughts there
The fact is nothing is more conservative than diddling the neighbor kids. I await Gary addressing the child-screwing proclivities of so many republicans because I have some thoughts there.
Oh, gary, I admire the sense of etiquette and decorum you display by holding back. But don’t stand on ceremony. You go right ahead. I’m sure it will be fascinating.
This is totally off-topic and I apologize in advance to everyone who requires an apology for that sort of thing. But check out Pandagon’s discussion of fundie sex: http://pandagon.net/2006/04/12/a-nation-of-emotional-cripples-gets-a-kissing-lesson/
Learn to worship spit! Find out what “absorbtion” is required for true love!
Seriously, Annie only wishes she were as loopy as Dawn Eden. All that “Total Woman,” orange-squeezing bullshit is so 1975. In 2006, absorbtion is the way to go.
And yes, please proceed, Gary. I await my edification. If it involves you and Malkin, how could I go wrong?
I await SN addressing the Malkin thing, because I have some thoughts there.
That’s been done. When addressing the Malkin thing, call her “Michelle.”
She is a thing, we can agree on that.
When it comes to Malkin, there was nothing wrong with what she did, after all, those kids posted their numbers in a press release
Oh big surprise. A conservative troll confused about ethics.
….Oy, the re-education costs are going to be massive…
“absorbtion”
Didn’t World O’ Crap do a thing a couple months ago about wingnutty promotion of some kinda stuff to prevent feminine…er…moisture?
I’m too tired to go look it up.
And it wasn’t wrong for that pedophile to kidnap those kids. They were playing right there in the front yard.
I believe you are correct, g, but this is sort of the opposite issue; the claim is that unless a couple is absorbing each other’s, um, fluids, they don’t really love each other. That is, only if the threat of an unwanted 10th pregnancy is hanging over you can sex be good.
Reminds me of a rather demented unsolicited FAX we got at work one time. A person vaguely connected with my employer was FAX-blasting people to call attention to the fact that her bank made some error that could have resulted in someone being able to steal her identity.
The FAX letter railed at the bank’s carelessness and then cited two attached letters that she intended to be (in some weird wacky way) petitions or something that people would sign onto and send back to the bank.
Only problem was, the letters were copies of her correspondence with the bank, and they contained her SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, un-redacted.
Nut case.
Of course, if I were Gary I’d have spammed them out everywhere, instead of calling her and telling her to stop doing it and protect herself.
They posted the personal info because they were just naive kids. They gave the url to select members of the press. Malkin published the numbers on a blog read by untold horders of troglodyte sycophants.
C’mon, Gary. Are you really trying to assert that even one of the mouthbreathing hicks that comprise Malkin’s core audience would have found the email addresses without Malkin’s scarlet-blogpost?
Furthermore, she’s been told the students have been inundated with death-threats. Her response? reposting the e-mail addresses.
“unless a couple is absorbing each other’s, um, fluids, they don’t really love each other.”
Euw. All of the fluids? No way.
The fact is that a war with Iran to prevent them from acquiring WMDs would be a very popular war.
Not as popular as a war to defend the earth from space mutants with vaporizing death rays. That would kick ass! Can we have that one instead?
Seriously, popularity is a rationale for war now? Are you typing this from inside the White House, Karl?
Even the idea of a “popular war” is fucked up. What the fuck, Gary?
Maybe if we redesigned the uniforms, it would be even more popular! Or had the tanks airbrushed and customized. Maybe we could have a contest for the biggest, baddest general. They could wear fancy hats!
Or the invasion could include floats!
Hey, wait just a doggone minute. Wasn’t Mirengoff arguing, like three paragraphs earlier, that Bush wouldn’t “make his decision based on political calculation”? And now he’s saying that he will
No, silly, now he’s arguing now that Bush won’t take it lightly. Duh, they’re not mutually exclusive. They’re completely different.
Before Bush was all, like, reclining on the beanbag, going, “Bomb Iran? Hey, fuck, why not?”, but now he’s all pensive, sitting at his desk facing the teleprompter, saying, “My fellow Americans, at this hour, American forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iran, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger…”
There’s not a fight
And I’m not your captive
Turn me loose tonight
Cause I’m radioactive
Radioactive yeah baby
Are you really trying to assert that even one of the mouthbreathing hicks that comprise Malkin’s core audience would have found the email addresses without Malkin’s scarlet-blogpost?
It’s not private information. They posted it. Malkin posted it, in order to get them in contact with various parts of the right-wing blogosphere.
It’s not her fault that some alleged death threats have come in. Some of those threats are probably from liberals pretending to be conservative.
whoops, where did that old sig come from?
Hey Gary, that’s a pretty convenient explanation. How do we know it wasn’t conservatives pretending to be liberals pretending to be conservatives?
It’s not her fault that some alleged death threats have come in.
And with this comment, Gary whizzes by Annie, leaving her almost in the dust. Sorry, babe. (Except for the frozen orange juice thing. That’s a classic.)
I reckon it was libertarians pretending to be socialists pretending to be conservatives.
“Malkin posted it, in order to get them in contact with various parts of the right-wing blogosphere.”
Gary, will you post Michelle’s cell number, so I can get in contact with various parts of the right-wing blogosphere?
Bruh, I know she’d be a freak for me. I’m almost as brown as she used to be, and I hear she likes that in her booty callers.
g: redesigned the uniforms… contest for the biggest, baddest general. They could wear fancy hats! Or the invasion could include floats!
Ohmygod, now there’s an invasion I could support! Is there an Iranian version of “it’s raining men”?
The contact information is all over the place for those terrorist-supporting UCSC students anyways.
Anyways, whatever death threats that are being sent are being vastly outnumbered by the number of leftists who flame Malkin using racial slurs, death threats, and words which degrade women.
“Malkin posted it, in order to get them in contact with various parts of the right-wing blogosphere.”
Even if we’re being charitable here, the proper interpretation is: “Malkin posted it, in order to get various parts of the right-wing blogosphere in contact with them.”
If the students wanted to get into contact with the various parts of the right-wing blogosphere, I assure they would have initiated it themselves.
“the number of leftists who flame Malkin using racial slurs, death threats, and words which degrade women.”
I dunno, do you think maybe some of these flames are coming from Annieangel?
Cause, you know, Michelle doesn’t hand-squeeze orange juice for Jesse.
The fact is that a war with Iran to prevent them from acquiring WMDs would be a very popular war.
I can think of 3 or 4 countries right now who already have WMD’s. Should we bomb them? Maybe we should start right here at home and bomb our own weapons of mass destruction. And then we can proceed with the goofy hats and parade floats, by all means.
I can think of 3 or 4 countries right now who already have WMD’s. Should we bomb them?
Those nations aren’t recruiting terrorists to attack us like Iran is.
Maybe we should start right here at home and bomb our own weapons of mass destruction.
Another leftist who thinks America is the main source of evil in the world. Whatasurprise
Another leftist who thinks America is the main source of evil in the world. Whatasurprise
Butgarythefactisonlywingnutsactuallythinkthatliberalshateamericagofigurelol
Well, I guess that depends on how you define evil, Gary. Unprovoked attacks on small, defenseless countries? Torture? Wiretapping the citizens of one’s own country without cause? Locking people up forever without charging them with anything?
Any of those things evil, Gary?
You know what? I agree with Gary. Why not give pre-emptive invasion another chance? Sure, the Administration stretched the truth a little, but they did it for the right reasons (they knew that we couldn’t understand their complicated ideas in time, so they had no choice). Just because it didn’t go exactly as promised is no reason to think it will fail this time. In fact, I reckon Iran will be heaps easier, ’cause we’ve learnt so much from Iraq!
Gary’s right, we can’t give up now! For all we know, they were behind September 11. They could have nuclear weapons right NOW. What are you waiting for, lefties, are you with us?!
Wow, the Deacon’s really got this post-9/11 thinking down. It’s the most amazing routine of rhetorical gymnastics.
It’s a long way of him saying “Bush means well, and if he fucks up, no big loss politically.”
. . . shaking my head.
they knew that we couldn’t understand their complicated ideas in time, so they had no choice
Don’t be surprised when you see me use some variation of this phrase, elendil. That says so many things, all of them accurate.
Pakistan isn’t recruiting terrorists to attack us? Huh. You could have fooled me.
“President Bush can bomb Iran without congressional approval. Sullivan argues, without any real analysis or demontrated expertise in the subject matter, that this would be unconstitutional. ”
Aren’t the Powerline peeps legal types? Shouldn’t legal types have at least a passing familiarity with article 1, section 8 of the constitution, you know, the bit that defines the powers of Congress, like declaring war, repelling invasions, raising armies and so on?
When it comes to Malkin, there was nothing wrong with what she did, after all, those kids posted their numbers in a press release
I waited for that? Jesus. Don’t give it a big build-up unless you’re going to deliver, big boy. We have needs at this here bog, and that didn’t satify.
^s
Y’know, I’m really tired of gary. I’m sorry, he has bad BO and halitosis, his clothes just kind of fit him weird, and he’s just not funny!
But this has caused me to wonder: Can you think of anything, any behavior at all, if perpetrated by the Repulican Administration, that Gary would not approve of and support? I mean, suppose they were to bayonet anti-war activists on the white house lawn? Or the CHILDREN and PETS of anti-war activists? How about if they burned the original American Constitution, you know, kind of get rid of that pesky evidence?
Nah. I’m pretty sure there’s nothing, no outrageous manifestation of mendacious venality (wow-I really like that one) that gary wouldn’t support whole-heartedly.
But now, I’m bored with gary again-he’s just not funny…
mikey
Gary supports the use of HUGE STEEL ‘Freedom’ DILDOS to interrogate suspected lef..terrorists.
Those nations aren’t recruiting terrorists to attack us like Iran is.
The fact is that a war with Iran to prevent them from acquiring WMDs would be a very popular war.
I bet it would be even more popular than our war on that other country which we preemtively attacked even though it turned out they did not have a “collaborative relationship” with the Al Qaida terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, and were not only 45 minutes away from launching a WMD missile at us!
In fact…two of these wars would mean they would be twice as popular!
The most popular preemptive strike:
BEARS. Nuke the Woods!
Stephen Colbert is with us on this one.
And after that, we get those damn dolphins.
Can someone give me the update on the Gary Ruppert “the fact is” count? Maybe there should be a ticker, kind of like the national debt clock…
Sure.
If the entire administration, as well as their lobbyist cronies, got to line up and bugger Gary, one after the other, bareback. “Sloppy 3245ths!” *shudder*
That he might oppose. But, only if it were to be done to him.
Glad you liked it Travis. I promise not to be surprised at all.
Mikey: You’re right, it’s _really_ hard to think of something Republicans could do to alienate their base… Hrm… How about if George W Bush started wearing lipstick?
Nah, he held hands with another man and still nothing.
There is no question — or as Gary might say, the fact is — that Americans have developed a fondness for the “cult of personality” approach to our presidents. It got off to a ripping start with Reagan, faltered somewhat with Bush I, roared back to life with Clinton and now may have reached its pinnacle with Bush II. No matter how cultish the Clintonistas were, they did not accuse his detractors of sedition and treason, they did not call for internment or worse for dissenters. We have truly entered a new age of the cult of personality in our leadership, and I strongly suspect that, given half a chance, Gary, Marie Jon’ and their ilk would make Bush Dear Leader for Life and turn this country into North Korea.
It got off to a ripping start with Reagan, faltered somewhat with Bush I, roared back to life with Clinton and now may have reached its pinnacle with Bush II.
I suspect we’ve got a couple of iterations left with this fucker before it finally blows its load. There aren’t enough people with pictures of Bush in their living room to make a single battalion yet, after all.
Don’t worry, though – when we do fascism, we won’t do it with either the efficiency of the Germans or the passion of the Italians. And the music will suck. But the food will probably taste better.