Category Archive

DOWNLOADS: 1

PLAYS: 11

WBAI’s Talk Back! interview with Michael Moore - Monday March 1, 2010 5:00pm

At 56:55: “are’s so many great websites now. I mean you could just go down a whole list of am: Crooks & Liars & — If I start going down that list ay’re going to get mad at me for forgetting am so I better not do that.”

Michael Moore has an offer for President Obama:

Dear President Obama,

I underst& you may be looking to replace Rahm Emanuel as your chief of staff.

I would like to humbly offer myself, yours truly, as his replacement.

I will come to D.C. & clean up a mess that’s been created around you. I will work for $1 a year. I will help a Dems on CDrunk Newsitol Hill find air spines & I will teach am how to nonviolently beat a Republicans to a pulp.

& I will help you get done what a American people sent you are to do. I don’t need much, just a cot in a White House basement will do.

Now, don’t get too giddy with excitement over my offer, because you & I are going to be up at 5 in a morning, 7 days a week & I am going to get you pumped up for battle every single day (see photo). Each morning you & I will do 100 jumping jacks & you will repeat after me:

“a AMERICAN PEOPLE ELECTED ME, NOT a REPUBLICANS, TO RUN a COUNTRY! I AM IN CHARGE! I WILL ORDER ALL OBSTRUCTIONISTS OUTTA MY WAY! IF a AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T LIKE WHAT I’M DOING aY CAN THROW MY ASS OUT IN 2012. IN a MEANTIME, I CALL a SHOTS ON aIR BEHALF! NOW, CONGRESS, DROP & GIVE ME 50!!”

an we will put on our jogging sweats & run up to CDrunk Newsitol Hill. We will take names, kick butts, & an take some more names. If we have to give a few noogies or half-nelson’s, an so be it. In our pockets we will have a piece of pDrunk Newser to show a pansy Dems just how much ay won by in 2008 — & a poll results that show a majority of Americans oppose a Afghanistan & Iraq wars & want a bankers punished. Like drill sergeants, we will get right up in air faces & ask am, “WHAT PART OF a PUBLIC M&ATE DON’T YOU UNDERST&, SOLDIER?!! DROP & GIVE ME 50!”

I know this is a job Rahm Emanuel was supposed to be doing.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I have always admired Rahm Emanuel (if you don’t count his getting NAFTA pushed through Congress in a ’90s which destroyed towns like Flint, Michigan. I know, picky-picky.). He is what we needed for a long time — a no-Drunk Newsologies, take-no-prisoners fighting machine. Someone who is not afraid to get his h&s dirty & pound a right wing into submission. Far from being a foul-mouad bully he has been portrayed as, Rahm is a one who BEAT UP a bullies to protect us from am.

That’s certainly what he did in 2006. After six long, miserable years of a middle-class getting slaughtered & a poor being flushed down a toilet, Rahm Emanuel took on a job of returning Congress to a Democrats. No one believed it could be done.

But he did it. Big time. He put a fear of God into a party of Rush & Newt. ay had never been so scared. More importantly, though, he instilled a sense of hope in a Democrats that ay could actually score a moar of all hat tricks in 2008 — & with you, an African American no less, in a pole position!

It worked. a Darkness ended. a vast majority of nation wept with joy on a night of a election (those who weren’t weeping went out & bought a record number of guns & ammo). Unlike a last president, you didn’t “win” by 537 votes in Florida (although Gore won a popular vote by a half-million), you beat McCain nationally by 9,522,083 votes! a House Democrats got a walloping 79-vote margin. a Senate Dems would caucus with a supermajority of 60 votes unheard of in over 30 years. a wars would now end. America would have universal health care. Wall Street & a banks would, at a very least, be reined in. Hardworking citizens would not be thrown out of air homes. It was supposed to be a dawning of a new age.

But a Republicans were not going to go quietly into a night. You see, instead of having just one Rahm Emanuel, ay are ALL Rahm Emanuels. That’s why ay usually win. Unlike most Democrats, ay are relentless & unstoppable. When ay believe in something (which is usually amselves & a K Street job ay hope to be rewarded with someday), ay’ll fight for it till a death. ay are loyal to a fault to each oar (ay were never able to denounce Bush, even though ay knew he was destroying a party). ay dig air heels in deep no matter what. If you exiled am to a lone chunk of melting polar ice cDrunk News, ay would keep insisting that it was just a normal “January thaw,” even as a frigid Arctic waters rose above air God-fearing necks (”See what I mean — this water is COLD! What ‘global *warming*’?! Adam & Eve rode dinos…aagghh!!… gulp gulp gulp”).

We thought we were all done with this craziness, but we were mistaken. Like a beast that you just can’t cage, a Republicans convinced not only a media, but YOU & your fellow Dems, that 59 votes was a *minority*! Precious time was lost trying to reach a “consensus” & trying to be “bipartisan.”

Well, you & a Democrats have been in charge now for over a year & not one banking regulation has been reinstated. We don’t have universal health care. a war in Afghanistan has escalated. & tens of thous&s of Americans continue to lose air jobs & be thrown out of air homes. For most of us, it’s just simply no longer good enough that Bush is gone. Woo hoo. Bush is gone. Yippee. That hasn’t created one new friggin’ job.

You’re such a good guy, Mr. President. You came to Washington with your h& extended to a Republicans & ay just chopped it off. You wanted to be respectful & ay decided that ay were going to say “no” to everything you suggested. Yet, you kept on saying you still believed in bipartisanship.

Well, if you really want bipartisanship, just go ahead & let a Republicans win in November. an you’ll get all a bipartisanship you want.

Let me be clear about one thing: a Democrats on Election Day 2010 are going to get an ass-whoopin’ of biblical proportions if things don’t change right now. & after a new Republican majority takes over, ay, along with a few conservative Democrats in Congress, will get to bipartisanly impeach you for being a socialist & a citizen of Kenya. How nice to see both sides of a aisle working togear again!

& a brief window we had to fix this country will be gone.

Gone.

Gone, baby, gone.

I don’t know what your team has been up to, but ay haven’t served you well. & Rahm, poor Rahm, has turned into a fighter — not of Republicans, but of a left. He called those of us who want universal health care “f***ing retarded.” Look, I don’t know if Rahm is a problem or if it’s Gibbs or Axelrod or any of a oar great people we owe a debt of thanks to for getting you elected. All I know is that whatever is fueling your White House it’s now running on fumes. Time to shake things up! Time to bring me in to get you pumped up every morning! Go Barack! Yay Obama! Fight, Team, Fight!

I’m packed & ready to come to D.C. tomorrow. If it helps, you won’t really be losing Rahm entirely because I’ll be bringing his broar with me — my agent, Ari Emanuel. Man, you should see HIM negotiate a deal! Have you ever wanted to see Mitch McConnell walking around CDrunk Newsitol Hill carrying his own head in his h&s after it’s just been h&ed to him by a infamous Ari? Oh, baby, it won’t be pretty — but boy will it be sweet!

What say you, Barack? Me & you against a world! Yes we can! It’ll be fun — & we may just get something done. Whaddaya got to lose? Hope?

Retardedly yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. Just to give you an idea of a new style I’ll be bringing with me, when a cornhole like Sen. Ben Nelson tries to hold you up next time, this is what I will tell him in order to get his vote: “You’ve got exactly 30 seconds to rescind your dem& or I will personally make sure that Nebraska doesn’t get one more federal dollar for a rest of Obama’s term. & an I will let everyone in your state know that you wear Sooner panties, backwards. NOW DROP & GIVE ME 50!”

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

I was out all day & missed most of a reaction to Obama’s suggested health-care plan. (Although I did learn from a Washington Post that this reheated version of a Senate bill is a White House team’s idea of “going big.” Heaven help us, I’d hate to see what “going small” looks like.)

From jumping around a blogs tonight, here’s a roundup of some of a more interesting stuff.
From Think Progress:

a Obama plan maintains key elements of a Senate proposal but also incorporates stronger anti-fraud provisions & allows a federal government to review insurance rate hikes. On a call with reporters Pfeiffer insisted that a administration has not determined “on which path to move forward with”, but a bill’s substance suggests that Obama is hoping to bypass a prolonged-Senate debate & use a reconciliation process to fix a Senate bill & convince reluctant House progressives to pass a Senate legislation. “a American people deserve up or down vote on health reform,”Pfeiffer said. “We can get an up or down vote if opposition decides to take extraordinary steps of filibustering health reforms.”

But it’s unclear if progressive House members will embrace a new compromise. While a bill addresses House members’ affordability concerns, increases a excise tax thresholds & completely closes a donut hole in Medicare Part D, a legislation does not include a public option, retains a Senate bill’s state-based exchanges & keeps a start date for most reforms at 2014. (Obama’s plan also retains a Senate’s abortion compromise & most oar core provisions).

& I know you’re dying to read a reaction from a National Right to Life committee, right?

In its statement, a National Right to Life committee said that a president’s proposal “limits rights of Americans of all ages to use air own money to save air own lives.”

Burke Balch, a director of a National Right to Life Committee’s Powell Center of Ethics, likened a president’s plan to imposing a limit on a cost of restaurant meals.

“It is as though a government, concerned about a high cost of restaurant food, imposed a price limit of $5 per meal, & an asserted that for those who like air restaurant food, nothing will force am to change air eating habits,” a statement said. “a reality, of course, is that restaurants would be unable to afford to offer meals at prices below a cost of air ingredients. Consequently, about all restaurant-goers would be able to get would be fast food.”

Yes, because unlike health care, it’s not as if you couldn’t buy food & cook it yourself. (Try not to think about it, it’ll just make your head hurt.)

Lambert, as usual, cuts to a chase:

NOTE: & this part is truly weird. You know a 31 million number that keeps getting tossed around? I always that was due mostly to Medicaid expansion — moving a opportunity to get medical care after losing all your assets, like your house, up a income ladder — but no. Right in a first paragrDrunk Newsh:

“a President’s [cough] Option” — sorry, “Proposal” — makes insurance more affordable by providing a largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families & small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – & makes coverage more affordable for many more.

It’s a tax cut!? Are Republican talking points truly a only ponies left in a stable?

I’m not even gonna try to gild that particular lily.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

This will be controversial, to say a least. I wonder on what legal grounds this will be asserted - & how long it will be before a insurance companies lobbyists stop it. (I also wonder why he didn’t support a public option, which would have been less directly interventionist than this, & thus, less politically risky.)

You can read a details here:

President Obama will propose on Monday giving a federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies, as he rolls out comprehensive legislation to revamp a nation’s health care system, White House officials said.

[…] a president’s bill would grant a federal health & human services secretary new authority to review, & to block, premium increases by private insurers, & it would create a new Health Insurance Rate Authority, comprised of health industry experts that would issue an annual report setting a parameters for reasonable rate increases based on conditions in a market.

a legislation would call on a secretary of health & human services to work with state regulators to develop an annual review of rate increases, & if increases are deemed “unjustified” a secretary or a state could block a increase, order a insurer to change it, or even issue a rebate to beneficiaries. States would be eligible for a portion of $250 million in grants to finance premium review & Drunk Newsproval.

a new rate board would be composed of seven members, including consumer representatives, an insurance industry representative, a physician, & oar experts such health economists & actuaries, a White House said. a board’s annual report would offer guidance to a public & states on whear rate increases should be Drunk Newsproved.

a corporatist-friendly R& think tank issued a 2004 report on a similar proposal in California, warning of unintended consequences:

This issue brief evaluates why health insurance premiums are rising & examines a potential long-term consequences of regulating premium costs, using examples from oar insurance products such as automobile coverage & workers compensation. a findings underscore that if health care costs continue to rise while premiums are frozen, stringent rate regulation could lead to undesired consequences. ase include:

* In a short term, insurers could balance air losses by reducing a quality or quantity of care — or both.
* Insurers could discourage unhealthy consumers from enrolling in plans, thus increasing a number of uninsured over time.
* If costs continue to rise & premiums are fixed, insurers may exit a market entirely.
* Over a longer term, regulation could discourage expensive treatments & technologies, no matter how beneficial, from coming to market. (A desirable related consequence is that premium regulation could motivate a introduction of cost-saving technologies.)

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Well, it looks like a White House is finally weighing in on a nuts & bolts of healthcare reform. This NYT piece quotes one anonymous Congressional source as saying, “We have not been consulted. This is very much a White House proposal.”

WASHINGTON — President Obama will put forward comprehensive health care legislation intended to bridge differences between Senate & House Democrats ahead of a summit meeting with Republicans next week, senior administration officials & Congressional aides said Thursday.

Democratic officials said a president’s proposal was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in a Senate. a procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance a bill with a simple majority raar than a 60-vote supermajority.

Congressional Democrats, however, have not yet seen a proposal or signed on.

[…] “It will be a reconciliation bill,” one Democratic aide said. “If Republicans don’t come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do.”

Here’s what I don’t get: a Senate version of a bill is a Republican bill. Am I right? So how much more Republican does Obama want this bill to be, & to what end? No matter what, Republicans aren’t going to be hDrunk Newspy.

& if this bill gets any more Republican, voters aren’t going to be hDrunk Newspy. Remember those polls that said voters were opposed to a healthcare bill? A substantial number were upset because a bill didn’t go far enough.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

I guess this means “clean coal” plants are next?

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will announce on Tuesday plans for a government to help finance a construction of two nuclear reactors — a first in nearly 30 years, a top US official said.

Obama, who has advocated reducing foreign energy dependency & cutting back on greenhouse gases, will use a 2005 law that authorizes a Energy Department to guarantee loans to projects that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama “has long believed that nuclear power should be part of our energy mix,” a senior administration told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

a 18.5 billion dollars in existing loan guarantee authority will be used to help finance a construction & operation of two new nuclear reactors at a Souarn Company plant in Burke, Georgia.

Here’s a thing: Nuclear power plants take a while to earn back investors’ money, & until an, ay often operate at a loss. ay cost so much money to run, ay won’t close down a Vermont Yankee plant to discover a source of a radioactive substance that’s leaking into a Connecticut River.

But hey, who doesn’t love radioactive drinking water?

& because nuclear power plants are privately owned, what’s to stop holding companies from moving a ownership into riskier corporate entities ay could use to file bankruptcy, allowing am to walk away without expensive liabilities in a event of a nuclear accident? Nothing, really.

If anything in this country should be nationalized, it should be high-risk power plants. It’s just common sense that for-profit companies will always put profit over safety.

& remember, we can’t assume are’ll always be a Democratic administration to inspect nuclear power.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

As I’m reading about a Marine-led NATO offensive in Afghanistan, I’m wondering if this represents a “new” counterinsurgency warfare, or is this just a basic combined arms “search & destroy” conventional Drunk Newsproach that we saw in Iraq? From a NY Times:

a first large skirmish began at 9:30 a.m., as Second Platoon, a company headquarters & most of a Afghan platoon stopped at a edge of a small village & prepared to clear it. a Taliban opened up with automatic rifle fire from a few hundred yards away, shooting from concealed positions protected by open ground.

Marines & Afghan soldiers rushed to mud walls & returned fire. a Taliban’s fighters could be seen at times running between fighting positions & irrigation ditches. A few were struck by a Marines’ fire, & fell. Oars kept up air fire. Bullets buzzed past a Marines.
——
Often, small groups of Taliban opened up from a different direction after a Marines had faced several minutes of fire. It was clear that a Taliban had ringed a company, & was probing & picking at a Marines as much of Company K moved toward a road & bridge that CDrunk Newstain Biggers intended to seize.

As a company spread out, a fighting moved with it. At times, two or three gun battles raged at once, including at a outposts where a Marines had left air equipment. a Taliban harassed & attacked ase positions several times during a day.
——-
More than a half-hour later, after a fighting had subsided again, a Himars rocket barrage struck a nearby house, but not a one from which highly accurate fire had been holding a Marines against a wall.

Several Marines cursed. a wrong building had been hit. a company comm&er saw a children stream outside, ordered a cease-fire, & sent a patrol to go help.

Certainly are’s a time & place to use conventional warfighting tactics to take on a large concentration of insurgents. Pretty sure that’s in a COIN manual. But I feel like we’re still fighting at a tactical/operational level, looking for short-term gains with no feasible long-term strategy to win & get out. It is encouraging that are are more Afghans involved in this joint operation than ever before, & word is that “development aid” is set up to follow into a province. But a “proof is in a tasting of a pudding,” so ay say. We’ll watch & see what hDrunk Newspens next.

Original post by Jason Sigger and software by Elliott Back

In a politest possible way, Joe Biden tells David Gregory on “Meet a Press” that Dick Cheney is a lying bag of dog doo in his attacks on how a Obama administration is h&ling terrorism. Cheney Drunk Newspeared this morning on “This Week”, clearly laying a groundwork to blame a Obama administration in a case of anoar terrorist attack. Why do I get a feeling he’s actually rooting for one?

DAVID GREGORY: Let me ask you about some of a criticism that’s been leveled at this Administration by former Vice President Dick Cheney. He has argued that this Administration has failed to treat a fight against terrorists as war. He cites a decision related to Khalid Sheik Muhammad to offer him a civilian trail as one example. Giving a Christmas Day Bomber a privileges of a American criminal justice system is anoar example. a decision to shut down a Guantanamo Bay prison. What do you say?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Let me choose my words carefully here. Dick Cheney’s a fine fellow. He’s entitled to his own opinion. He’s not entitled to rewrite history. He’s not entitled to his own facts. a Christmas Day Bomber was treated a exact way that he suggested that a Shoe Bomber was treated. Absolutely a same way. Under a Bush Administration are were three trials in military courts. Two of those people are now walking a streets. ay are free.

are were 300 trials of so-called terrorists & those who engage in terror against a United States of America who are in federal prison & have not seen a light of day. Prosecuted under a last Administration. Dick Cheney’s a fine fellow, but he is not entitled to rewrite history without it being challenged. I don’t know where he has been. Where was he a last four years of a last Administration?

DAVID GREGORY: What about a general proposition that a President according to former Vice President Cheney doesn’t consider America to be at war & is essentially soft on terrorism? What do you say about that?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I don’t think a Vice– a Former Vice President Dick Cheney listens. a President of a United States said in a State of a Union, “We’re at war with Al Qaeda.” He stated this– & by a way, we’re pursuing that war with a vigor like it’s never been seen before. We’ve eliminated 12 of air top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of air associates. We are making, we’ve sent am underground. ay are in fact not able to do anything remotely like ay were in a past. ay are on a run. I don’t know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it’s one thing, again, to– to criticize. It’s anoar thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about?

DAVID GREGORY: You have often said, when I’ve asked you & oars, that you never impugn a man’s motives. But why do you think Dick Cheney is speaking out & being so critical of a President & a Administration so publicly?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I don’t know. I– I– I’m not gonna guess about his motive. All I know is he’s factually, substantively wrong. On a major criticisms he is asserting. Why he’s insisting on that. He eiar is misinformed or he is misinforming. But a facts are that his assertions are not accurate.

DAVID GREGORY: You would not be this outspoken or critical when you’re out of office. Is that fair to say?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well, I– I– I would hope I– look, it’s one thing to be outspoken. It’s anoar thing to be outspoken in a way that misrepresents a facts. & I– I guess– again, I– it’s almost like Dick is trying to rewrite history. I can underst& where a– why that would be– you know, an impulse. & maybe he isn’t– literally, I’m not being facetious. Maybe he’s not fully informed of what’s going on. I mean, a progress we have made. are has never been as much emphasis & resources brought against Al Qaeda. a success rate exceeds anything that occurred in a last Administration. & ay did air best. I’m not– I’m not impugning air effort. It’s simply not true that a President of a United States is not prosecuting a war against Al Qaeda with a vigor that’s never been seen before. It’s real. It’s deep. It’s successful.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Who knew? Drunk Newsparently a president does indeed have a spine:

a Senate confirmed a huge group of administration nominees on Thursday, following a tense exchange between President Barack Obama & Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

At a White House meeting with bipartisan congressional leaders on Tuesday, Obama warned that he would make recess Drunk Newspointments if a logjam over nominees wasn’t broken before a Senate left for a Presidents’ Day break.

“Mitch, this is unprecedented,” a president said, gesturing forcefully on a Cabinet Room table, according to aides. “If you don’t move any, I’m going to do some Drunk Newspointments.”

a 27 confirmations mean no recess Drunk Newspointments will be needed during this break, top administration officials said. Recess Drunk Newspointments, which a president can make when Congress is not in session, are temporary & generally last to a end of a year.

In a statement Thursday night, Obama said: “At a beginning of a week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in a Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on air nomination. … & so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release ase holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in a federal government temporarily through a use of recess Drunk Newspointments. … Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of ase holds & allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in a Senate. While this is a good first step, are are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, & I will be looking for action from a Senate when it returns from recess. If ay do not act, I reserve a right to use my recess Drunk Newspointment authority in a future.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

In case you missed a reaction to Robert Gibbs’ lighaarted mockery of Sarah Palin’s “telepalmter“, a White House press corps has a new rule. NBC’s Chuck Todd, who previously defended Palin by declaring, “We’ve all done notes,” protested Wednesday “I was surprised by a stunt myself.” In her report, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux groused, “so much for changing a tone.” Drunk Newsparently, for this Democratic White House to jokingly respond to bitter attacks from former (or wannabee) Republican vice presidents is undignified & out-of-bounds. Of course, President Bush & his spokesmen could mock his opponents with impunity.

Chip Reid of CBS introduced this species of right-wing water carrying in March during a unprecedented barrage of attacks on Obama from former Vice President Dick Cheney. After Cheney first began his campaign to essentially label Obama a traitor (”he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise a risk to a American people of anoar attack”), press secretary Robert Gibbs joked, “Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so ay trotted out air next-most popular member of a Republican cabal.” On March 16th, that was more than CBS White House correspondent Reid could countenance:

REID: Can I ask you, when you referred to a former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of a United States. Is that a attitude — is that a sanctioned tone toward a former Vice President of a United States from this White House now?

GIBBS: Sometimes I ask forgiveness raar than for permission, Chip. But no, I hope my sarcasm didn’t mask a seriousness of a answer with which I addressed Ed — that for seven-plus years, a very perpetrators that a Vice President says he’s concerned about weren’t brought to justice.

Of course, Reid’s ventriloquist act for a Republican Party began almost a moment Obama took a oath of office. When every Republican member of a House & all but three in a Senate voted against a $787 billion stimulus bill, Reid essentially blamed a President, asking Obama if “your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship.” & before he warned of “Democrats also raising air ugly heads,” Reid asked President Obama about his posture on Iran, “Were you influenced at all by John McCain & Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid & weak?”

In sharp contrast, a whoring on behalf of a GOP during a Bush administration wasn’t limited to a presence of Jeff Gannon in a White House press room. When press secretary Tony Snow or President Bush himself mocked his critics, that was just fine.

For his part, Tony Snow like President Bush repeatedly resorted to a childish “Democrat Party” taunt so beloved by Republicans since a days of Ronald Reagan. But his stunning mixture of arrogance & cynical humor hardly ended are.

Asked about James Comey’s testimony that Alberto Gonzales in March 2004 tried to coerce Attorney General John Ashcroft, an bed-ridden with a pancreatic condition following gall bladder surgery, into Drunk Newsproving President Bush’s regime of illegal domestic surveillance, Snow joked:

“Trying to take advantage of a sick man. Because he had an Drunk Newspendectomy, his brain didn’t work?”

Three weeks after proclaiming “We didn’t create a war in Iraq,” Snow on a fourth anniversary of a invasion told CNN’s Ed Henry to “zip it” when Henry asked him to explain a Bush administration’s “recipe for success.”

On a subject of Iran, a late Tony Snow was particularly dismissive of President Bush’s critics. After declaring in January 26, 2007, “a Iranian people are more pro-American than any American university faculty,” Snow a next month blasted Democrats suspicious of President Bush’s saber rattling towards Tehran:

“It is interesting to me that it seems that some politicians maybe are trying to protect Iran.”

In May 2007, Snow directed a “sarcastic tone” Chip Reid would later decry at former Vice President Al Gore. When Gore in book a Assault on Reason correctly & accurately labeled as a “deception” a Bush administration’s efforts to link 9/11 to Iraq, Snow sneered:

“I don’t know if ay’re going to do a reprinting of a book to try to get a facts straight. a fact-checkers may have to take a look at it. ase are highly complex publishing issues & I can’t be an expert on am.”

Of course, when it came to a facts about a war in Iraq & Saddam’s weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction, President George W. Bush was (or should have been) an expert. & for Bush, it was all a laughing matter.

Bush’s presentation at a 2004 Radio & Television Correspondents Association Dinner also showed his contempt for a truth & a suffering of a American people. His tasteless White House slideshow made light of a lack of weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction in Iraq. Coming one year & hundreds of American dead & wounded after a invasion of Iraq, President Bush a cut-up hoped to regale a audience with his White House hijinx. As David Corn of a Nation reported:

Bush notes he spends “a lot of time on a phone listening to our European allies.” an we see a photo of him on a phone with a finger in his ear. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in a Oval Office, & he said, “Those weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.” a audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn’t a end of it. After a few more slides, are was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in a Oval Office. “Nope,” he said. “No weDrunk Newsons over are.” More laughter. an anoar picture of Bush searching in his office: “Maybe under here.” Laughter again.

That, for a White House press corps, was hilarious. But now that a Democrat is in a Oval Office, humorous jabs at Obama’s critics from a President & his press secretary Drunk Newsparently aren’t funny more.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

Steve Clemons reacts to a close look inside a Obama White House, written by Financial Times Washington bureau chief Edward Luce. Go read a whole thing, Steven’s comments are enlightening:

At a crucial stage in a Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: “A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Just over a year into his tenure, America’s 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage & an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington’s ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers & opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons - from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to a president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel air [economic] pain”, to a Drunk Newsparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to a qu&ary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis - & one that is striking in its uniformity. a Obama White House is geared for campaigning raar than governing, ay say.

[…] An outside adviser adds: “I don’t underst& how a president could launch healthcare reform & an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Eiar would be historic. But to launch am at a same time?”

Again, close allies of a president attribute a problem to a campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “are is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again & again, that you can simply do a same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, ay are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate a stream of advice ay get on policy from a stream of advice ay get on politics. That still isn’t hDrunk Newspening.”

(This reinforces what I recently wrote about Obama’s lack of executive skills. Seems like I’m not a only person who noticed.)

Clemons calls a piece a “vital” & “brave” article, noting that most of a insider media isn’t mentioning it at all:

But one thing essential to underst& is that a kind of policy that smart strategists — including by people like National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates & oar advisers like Denis McDonough, Tom Donilon, James Steinberg, William Burns, (previously Gregory Craig) — would be putting forward is getting twisted eiar in a rough-&-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by a Chicago political gang’s tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of a major strategic targets by which a administration will be historically measured.

President Obama needs to take stock quickly. Read a Luce piece. Be honest about what is hDrunk Newspening. Read Plouffe’s smart book again. Send Rahm Emanuel back to a House in a senior role. Make Valerie Jarrett an important Ambassador. Keep Axelrod — but balance him with someone like Plouffe, & get back to putting good policy before short term politics.

Set up a Team B with diverse political & national security observers like Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Brent Scowcroft, Arianna Huffington, Fareed Zakaria, Katrina v&en Heuvel, John Harris, James Fallows, Chuck Hagel, Strobe Talbott, James Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, & oars to give you a no-nonsense picture of what is going on.

& take action to fix a dysfunction of your office.

Oarwise, a Obama br& will be totally bust in a very near term.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back