The Iraq quote hall of fame

iraqwhoppers720 One New York Times columnist is especially delusional when it comes to Iraq:

It’s really hard to give simple sound-bite answers about past mistakes. The question, would you go back and undo your errors is unanswerable. It’s only useful to ask, what wisdom have you learned from your misjudgments that will help you going forward?

Which brings us to Iraq. From the current vantage point, the decision to go to war was a clear misjudgment, made by President George W. Bush and supported by 72 percent of the American public who were polled at the time. I supported it, too.

While another has a complete grasp on reality:

Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.

Well, let’s not — because that’s a false narrative, and everyone who was involved in the debate over the war knows that it’s false. The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.

Our family values story for the day

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

The Tennessee Republican congressman who supported his ex-wife’s decision to get two abortions was among those who voted in favor of a ban on most late-term abortions.

Republican U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, a Jasper physician, was one of 242 House members who voted Wednesday to pass the bill, which forbids most abortions starting with the 20th week of pregnancy.

“Congressman DesJarlais was proud to vote in favor of this legislation,” said his spokesman Robert Jameson, who added that DesJarlais has maintained a “100 percent pro-life voting record” during his five years in Congress and “has always advocated for pro-life values.”

DesJarlais’ support of his ex-wife’s abortions, which occurred before their 1995 marriage, was revealed after his 2012 re-election to Congress in a divorce trial transcript. The transcript also showed the physician had engaged in multiple affairs with patients, and pressured one of them to get an abortion after she told him she was pregnant. The outcome of that pregnancy is unknown.

People complain about government malfunction in Washington, but they keep electing hypocrites like this. The problem isn’t in Washington, it’s with the voters sending these kinds of people to Washington.

 

No, we don’t have enough nukes to destroy the world

nukes_550

We were always told that there were enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world multiple times over. But then we went off and had those nuclear arms talks that the conservatives were all freaked out about, and now, we don’t even have enough to destroy 1 percent of the world.

Those peaceniks. Always trying to save the world from itself.

Your guide to the next election

What’s the next presidential election going to be about and who’s going to decide it.

Let’s look at the voters (click to enlarge, from Information Is Beautiful):

1276_left_right_usa

And let’s look at the choices, from Paul Krugman:

… [T]here has never been a time in American history when the alleged personal traits of candidates mattered less. As we head into 2016, each party is quite unified on major policy issues — and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.

For example, any Democrat would, if elected, seek to maintain the basic U.S. social insurance programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — in essentially their current form, while also preserving and extending the Affordable Care Act. Any Republican would seek to destroy Obamacare, make deep cuts in Medicaid, and probably try to convert Medicare into a voucher system.

Any Democrat would retain the tax hikes on high-income Americans that went into effect in 2013, and possibly seek more. Any Republican would try to cut taxes on the wealthy — House Republicans plan to vote next week to repeal the estate tax — while slashing programs that aid low-income families.

Any Democrat would try to preserve the 2010 financial reform, which has recently been looking much more effective than critics suggested. Any Republican would seek to roll it back, eliminating both consumer protection and the extra regulation applied to large, “systemically important” financial institutions.

And any Democrat would try to move forward on climate policy, through executive action if necessary, while any Republican — whether or not he is an outright climate-science denialist — would block efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

It doesn’t matter who gets the nomination for either party. What matters is what the parties stand for. And when you view the chart and the positions, you see there’s no ambiguity on what side you’re going to pick.

When it gets late in the election season and you hear people say they’re undecided, you should immediately know that they are either liars or morons.

Rand Paul, running (away) for president

This will sound odd, but I’m enjoying Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul’s run ins (or should I say run aways) with the media. When the questions get tough, Randmaster Flash find the nearest exit. Click here for Talking Points Memos list of Rand’s great escapes.

And just after this list came out, the Kentucky quickster did this:

Staffers of The Guardian newspaper tweeted that Paul refused to answer a question from reporter Paul Lewis and abruptly ended the interview:

I give the British media credit though. When a politician gives an evasive answer to a question, U.K. reporters keep going at it until they get an answer. Unlike American reporters, especially TV reporters, who go on to the next question without even listening to the answer.