Is There a Penalty For Early Withdrawl?

This morning, CNN revealed that Bush will withdraw the nomination of Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court. It was a move that was pretty much inevitable. Many notable Senators on both sides of the aisle had openly opposed the nomination, she was clearly ill-prepared for the grueling confirmation process, conservatives hated her because she didn't love fetuses quite enough and might not be extremely hostile to gay people. I mean, they knew she didn't like gay people, but in the modern Republican Party, mere distaste is not enough. You have to really loathe the gays, with a hatred and disdain typically reserved for pederasts, necrophiliacs and liberals living on the coast who occasionally enjoy a nice latte.

Bush's presidency really does seem to be imploding all around him, doesn't it? You know what's weird? We've got a good long while left to go with this thing. Next President isn't elected until 2008, people. He's already starting to sound like he's on his way out the door.

"Alright, folks, good luck with the whole Iraq thing. Freedom on the march and all that. Sorry about that Harriett lady, and all them dang ol' storms. Man, that was weird, huh? Okay, my time's almost up here, please remember to tip your waiters and waitresses. Okay, you guys have been great, my name's W."

I'm genuinely becoming concerned for his mental stability. I mean, there were those tabloid reports about how he was back to drinking, all of his good buddies are either being indicted or rejected from the high offices in which he's placing them, he and his brother keep forgetting to help people following huge storms...Even the soccer moms and NASCAR dads are getting sick of his lame, recycled bullshit. That is, if those people even exist. Also, if recent poll numbers are to be believed, nearly every black person in America wants to kick his ass. It's not looking good.

Then there's this article by Sidney Blumenthal, casting Bush as a kind of Shakespearean tragic figure, albeit more of a Falstaffian nature than, say, Hamlet. Bush, who resents the father who has bailed him out over and over again during his life, will now once again rely on the Old Republican establishment to bail out his presidency.

But bringing in the elders, even if they could be summoned, would be psychologically devastating to Bush, a humiliating admission that his long history of recklessness and failure, from the Texas Air National Guard to Harken Energy, with rescue only through the intervention of his father and his father's friends, has reached its culmination.

Ouch. I hope Oliver Stone doesn't do too much drunk driving, because I want him healthy enough to make the George Bush movie in 20-some-odd years. Man, that's going to be good. "Matthew McConaughey is...Bush, coming Spring 2029 to a small LCD flip-up screen attached to an mp3 player/DVD/PS12/Blackberry/cell phone unit attached to you."

Think about it. Wooderson is going to be perfect to play Bush in 2029! Someone get him contractually obliged to do this right now!

The one annoying thing about this whole situation is how happy it makes conservatives. They're all jumping around and gloating and getting excited, as if this is some kind of victory. You guys like this President, remember? That's why you keep voting for him and calling those of us who hate him traitorous insolent dogs, right? Because if you don't like him, and we don't like him...why is he still president? Let's just get him out of there ASAP and move on with our lives, shall we? I mean, you guys all indicted Clinton for rubbing one out on the office intern. And yet we just have to live with 3 more years of this goon?

I mean, now that he's been exposed as a blundering rube who suggests his close friends every time a big important job opens up, how come you're still content? Why are you now confident he'll nominate someone you like? I think it's extremely likely that his old housekeeper is on deck. Or perhaps his tennis instructor.

"Tab is a really solid dude who totally improved my backhand. And I know tennis is kind of fruity, but he's also into baseball. And I like baseball. I mean, what's more American than baseball, am I right? That's why I'm appointing Tab (or Tabby Cat, as I like to call him) the new director of NASA. Wait...What's NASA do again?"

Don't believe me? Check out some of the bright, shiny optimism the National Review has become famous for:

You know what the relief is this morning? A return to the feeling that this president gets the big things right. There was a detour, but I’m confident we’re going to have good news shortly on SCOTUS, because this president tends to get the big things right. That’s the confidence so many of us have always had in him. And we may have been worried about our assessment for a few weeks there, but there's a renewed confidence this morning.

Awesome. Man, that is awesome. You have got to love the logic. The President clearly makes a lot of stupid mistakes. Conservative pundit Kathryn Jean Lopez can't actually deny that. So instead, she creates this bizarre fantasy of a man who makes mistakes, but then corrects them, and his corrected mistake is therefore even better than any original solution could have been! See, he fucks up constantly, but he gets the big things right.

What big things are those exactly? Ending the Iraq War? Boosting the stagnant economy? Solving the growing problem of outsourcing? Combating cyclical poverty? Disaster relief? The growing environmental crisis? The Department of Homeland Security? Stemming massive government corruption? Or wasteful pork? Investigating egregious corporate greed and abuse of the public trust? Fixing Social Security? Simplifying the tax code? A mission to Mars? Gas prices? Steroid abuse in professional sports?

Tell me, K. Lo, which exactly of these big things has the president "gotten right"? Give me one single big thing. I can't even believe we're even discussing this.

And the ridiculously misplaced faith of the conservatives doesn't end with the removal of Harriett Miers from public life. There's hope all around the right wing about the continued success of the entire embattled Bush presidency. Check out this unfathomable editorial from the Washington Post, praising Bush's fine work in the Middle East and urging all of us to get the hell off of his back.

This is from the very first paragraph:

The sacrifice of American lives, and the debilitating injuries suffered by thousands of others, have devastated families and wounded the nation. That the totals are relatively small compared with those of previous U.S. wars, or the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died, does not change that.

Yeah, it doesn't change the fact that the loss of these 2,000 lives have devastated families. But you bring it up anyway. They couldn't just say "We are saddened by the loss of 2,000 American lives in Iraq." That's not a political judgement at all. You're just acknowledging that many Americans, and many many more Iraqis, have died in this conflict. But, no, that would be too classy. Instead, it's, "Yeah, 2,000 lives is sad, but that's really no big deal, man. I mean, way more people died in some other wars, you know?"

Bastards. I can't believe I live in a world where people think this way. "What? Only 2,000 people died so far? So what? 23,000 Americans died in Antietam, pussy! You want to quit now?"

What does matter is what has come from those sacrifices. The most brutal and dangerous dictator in the modern history of the Middle East was deposed, and last week he was put on trial before an Iraqi court. Millions of Iraqis he oppressed continue to be grateful for their liberation; unlike most Americans, they still believe that the invasion was worth the cost.

I just have one question for the Washington Post editorial board...

Can I buy some pot from you?

Cause, seriously, they must be sparking some crazy blunts up in there. This statement has absolutely no connection with reality. Millions of Iraqis are grateful for the American presence in Iraq, believing the invasion is worth the cost? MILLIONS? I mean, yes, sure, there are certainly Iraqis who continue to support the American military occupation of their country. Many of them are invested in Westernizing Iraq for financial reasons, or theorize that, in the American-backed post-Saddam government, they will have some degree of influence or power.

But it seems to me, and anyone with a functioning brain, eyes and ears, that this occupation is not going well. We're several years on and the situation doesn't seem to be improving. In fact, it's getting worse. Iraq seems poised on the brink of all-out Civil War. (I'd say, more accurately, that they have been involved in a kind of Civil War since 2003).

Also, was Saddam really the most brutal and dangerous dictator in the modern history of the Middle East? I don't really know for sure...But I still, years and years later, have not seen solid evidence for this much-stated contention. He was a bad guy, for sure. A horrible man. An evil dictator. But there are a lot of those. Some of those kinds of men are our allies, friends of our government.

And don't we, as a nation, now subscribe to the idea that detaining people without due process of law, torturing them severely for information and even killing them in the process, is okay? What's to differentiate the cruel dictator who initially operated Abu Gharib prison and the administration in charge of that prison today? It's getting murkier and murkier all the time, I'm sorry to say.

But, no, it's easier to just say "He was an evil horrible man and George Bush stopped him!" I mean, they only have so much column space every day. You've got to simplify the message sometimes, in order to better catapult the propaganda.

That the war remains broadly unpopular among Americans, and is routinely and glibly described as a catastrophe by administration critics, shows that these achievements are cloaked by the continuing bloodshed.

Oh, I'm sorry, Washington Post. Was I being glib just now? Because I thought it was glib to say something like, "2,000 deaths is bad, but we've suffered worse before. Bring it on, Al Qaeda scum!" Maybe we just have different definitions of glib.

There are no easy solutions to these problems, nor is there a quick way to end American losses. In fact, one of the greatest dangers of Iraq is that domestic disenchantment with the mission will lead to a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops, a step that would greatly increase the carnage and hand a major victory to this country's foremost enemy, the Islamic extremist movement headed by al Qaeda. Mr. Bush could have avoided much of that disillusionment had he been more honest with the country from the beginning about the likely costs of the war.

See, they criticize the President here, but in a very measured way. They don't really say anything about the man's actions, his handling of the war. They just object to the manner with which he sold Americans on his plans. That's it. "He should have been more honest with teh country from the beginning." Otherwise, though, everything's good!

It kind of seems like they knew they couldn't write this entire piece without criticizing something about the President, lest they come off as completely removed from the real world. So they do the next best thing - pick apart the least important aspect of his planning for war, his marketing of the war, and continue backing his miserably failed effort 100%.

He did say on Tuesday that "this war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve." As U.S. servicemen continue to give their lives, the president must explain more clearly and more honestly why that is so -- and why it is necessary.

Oh, please, WaPo. This is insane and stupid. More explanations? That's what you think we need? We need him to get up there and blather some more at us about freedom and smoking them out of their holes? He gives the same goddamn idiot speech every fucking day, and it doesn't do one shred of good.

I appreciate the sentiment. In the past, Presidents were more honest with Americans about the need for sacrifice in the face of a crisis. They used to go on TV or the radio and tell people, in as straight-forward a manner as possible, what America was facing and what they could do to help. Bush refuses to ask anything from people, refuses to honestly evaluate the difficulty of a given policy. He's a coward. He wants to just do what he wants, and worry about the consequences later (if then). And he hates being criticized. So it's easier to just lie all the time and refuse to accept any feedback.

So, yeah, the point is well-taken. But it's such a meek point to make right now. We're facing numerous major crises in this country right now, some I've mentioned above and some I haven't gotten around to. There's so many more important things that need to be done at the highest levels than giving more speeches defending failed policies. Let's fucking problem-solve for once.

I'm just sick of this. At long last, has the right-wing no decency? Can we just admit that the last 5 years have been a total wash and move on? Why continue to stand up for this scumbag? Can anyone tell me? What's the deal?