Don’t you see?

No matter what happens, no matter how bad something in reality is for the GOP, it’s always presented as something positive, as something great, as proof that they are winning. Duncan explains.

You see, if we could tear ourselves free of the Wurlitzer’s deafening roar, there would be a whole different reality out there. But we’re slaves to it – we allow ourselves to be deluded into seeing Lamont’s victory as something bad, something calamitous. When Lamont wins, it’s great for the GOP. If he had lost, it would have been great for the GOP. Until we can block out the GOP talking point machine, none of us is safe from infection. Truth is falsehood, ignorance is strength, war is peace. (Where have I heard that before?)

Don’t you get it? Everything that happens is good for Bush, and bad for the Dems. Don’t you wonder about that? It will persist only as long as we allow it to. The surrender of your critical faculties is a choice. As Nancy Reagan would put it, Just say No. These Regimes of Truth exist only as long as we let them. Time to stop letting them. It’s now or never.

The Discussion: 20 Comments

Now, now, Richard…remember, if you carry on toothpaste, the terrorists win!

BTW, apparently Bush/Cheney knew of this plot for some period of time (not sure how long) and Lieberman knew of it for a week, according to an Aussie newspaper. This article also states that:

” (A) senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Mr Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.

Que coincidencia!

August 10, 2006 @ 10:56 pm | Comment

[Note: This comment turned out to be a forgery posted by some infantile loser who thinks it’s witty to pretend he’s another commenter. Always something to amaze me.]

August 10, 2006 @ 11:00 pm | Comment

Sam, I responded to your point about going into Iraq with “good intentions” in an earlier thread: having good intentions doesn’t make up for the fact that thousands of our boys are dead and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis are dead, all for literally no reason, with nothing gained. Oops.

I read Disco Mao’s reply and had a good laugh over it. Notice how, aside from Disco Mao, all the “commenters” are people with names like “Therese” who no one has ever seen comment before in the Chinese blogosphere, who all gather to sing the praises of our Foucaultian sage. Strange, that.

August 10, 2006 @ 11:10 pm | Comment


That’s classic.

Sam, I’d argue about that “good intentions” part. Remember what – which one of ’em it was who said this? – they agreed on pushing the WMD explanation because it was the easiest thing to get everybody to agree on and the easiest thing to sell. They “fixed” and stove-piped intelligence to make their case. Maybe people in the White House believed the WMDs were there and that justified “sexing up” the intelligence to make their case. But that wasn’t the reason for the invasion. There was no Al Qaeda connection. This was about a hubristic attempt to remake the Middle East into something more amenable to these guys’ vision – I don’t even want to say more amenable to US interests, because that would basically require me to define “US interests” as consisting mainly of oil companies and defense contractors.

9/11 gave them the political cover to do what they’d intended to do since before Bush even took office.

Look at PNAC. Look at “A Clean Break” (that’s the policy paper that guys like Doug Feith drew up for Benjamin Netanyahu, which even Netanyahu thought was too radical).

Though I suppose it all depends on one’s definition of “good intentions.”

August 10, 2006 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

“We only have good intentions. We wish you all the best – really! Sorry that we reduced your country to a reeking pile of smoldering rubble, but we wish you all the best!”

August 10, 2006 @ 11:14 pm | Comment

Tut-tut, Richard. It’s just “birth pangs.”

Of the “what rough beast, its hour comes round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” variety…

August 10, 2006 @ 11:18 pm | Comment

Seriously…sometimes I am pretty sure that my head is just going to explode from all this. Because I start thinking things like, “hmmm, the White House saw how the polls were looking for Lamont/Lieberman. Bush asked his buddy Blair to hold off on the raid till the news could be deployed for maximum political gain. A Republican doesn’t have a chance for that CT Senate seat. So hey, so what if Lamont wins? The GOP can back Lieberman as an ‘Independent’ – this is already happening – with a good shot at beating Lamont.”

The day after Lamont wins, they announce this bust. After Cheney has had a chance to go out and lay the groundwork (once again) for how Democrats are weak on terrorism and we shouldn’t be ignoring terrorism.

And why is it that we go to “Code Red” after the arrests?

Where’s my Reynolds Wrap, dammit?!

August 10, 2006 @ 11:32 pm | Comment

Exactly, Lisa.

August 10, 2006 @ 11:35 pm | Comment

Hmm. I see I’ve been involved in a conversation I didn’t know about! Someone is spoofing for me, Richard and Lisa. Anyway, nice “talking” to you, whatever I said.

August 11, 2006 @ 3:28 pm | Comment

Fascinating. Wonder who?

August 11, 2006 @ 3:47 pm | Comment

It all makes sense now – I was wondering why someone sent me an email saying how he was annoyed with Sam recently. Too frikkin’ much. Some things never, ever change. And here I believed for a moment there was a serious conversation taking place.

To everyone but Lisa, and maybe Sam, these comments must be very cryptic. Sorry, they’ll have to stay that way. We’re dealing with toxic substances.

August 11, 2006 @ 6:07 pm | Comment

I thought it was very odd that Sam_S would suddenly seem so interested in commenting in multiple threads on the boring nonsense a certain worthless troll is posting at a site no one cares about (not even a little). Why would Sam_S start posting things like “Gee, he seems so friendly now”???

Sam, THANKS for letting us know it wasn’t really you!

I guess we all need to be skeptical of posts by known Ducklings that seem strangely out of character.

Maybe this is a good time to re-state that some guy alledgedly living in Suzhou is using my “Shanghai Slim” monicker at Huffington Post (where I have to post as “Shanghai Guy” instead). Seems like a suspicious coincidence – why doesn’t he go by “Suzhou Slim”? Someone also posted here at PD recently as “Slim”, also not me (although at least that post was not objectionable).

Jeezuz, do we need some sort of poster ID verification system? A pssword linked to our PD ID? A retinal scan each time we click on “post”?

Shame and scorn for the imposters who hijack other people’s reputations, rather than post on their own mmerits. LAME.

August 12, 2006 @ 1:51 am | Comment

Yes, isn’t it remarkable, Sam_S suddenly sending everyone over to….well, let’s just let it go. It’s good to see that these things get corrected thanks to the honesty of most of the commenters here.

August 12, 2006 @ 3:49 am | Comment

Sam, THANKS for letting us know it wasn’t really you!

Oh, Jeesus pleasus, what else did I say? I’ve been away awhile….hope my stellar reputation hasn’t fallen through the floor. Anyway, if it had anything to do with various schools of Marxism, sexual androgyny, or self-compliments from mysterious people, I honestly couldn’t care less about those subjects. Not guilty, yer honor!

August 13, 2006 @ 12:55 am | Comment

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The truth is – we will never know the full truth about the Iraqi invasion. The present administration will never admit to any errors and any future administration (even Democratic) will cover it up also.

Much as I hate to rain on the Bush/Cheney bashing parade – the reason the suspects were not arrested immediately was simple. The Brits were tracking them attempting to find out who was supplying the logisitical and financial support. The Brits knew who they were and had them under constant survelaince. The arrest was made when it was because there was a message to one of the leaders that said to attack now. The Brits wanted to wait a few days but US authorities said do it now.

Of course the GOP made political hay out of it. That is what all politicians do. Had the plot succeeded the Dems would have done the same thing over Bush’s failure to prevent the attack. Politicians main concern is power. How to get it. How to keep it. How to use it to their personal advantage. Call me a cynic, but that is the way I see it.

August 13, 2006 @ 9:41 pm | Comment

Read Krugman’s column today to see why the GOP’s making political hay out of this was the epitome of surrealism and deception. And let’s toss in deceit for good meansure.

August 13, 2006 @ 9:43 pm | Comment

Erm, there’s all kinds of stories out now that say the Bush Administration tried to pressure the Brits into making the arrests early (like, well, before the the CT primary). Anybody recall the time that Condi, I think it was, blew the name of a confidential AQ informant in Pakistan right after Kerry’s nomination?

And I’ve also heard that these plotters didn’t actually have passports yet – can anyone confirm this?

Remember…if toothpaste is outlawed…only Islamofascists will have toothpaste…or something.

August 14, 2006 @ 1:04 am | Comment

The Dems might take the House back due to Bush’s bungling. But it’s quite unlikely the Dems can re-take the White House in 2008.

If you really think about it, the Dems never won a real presidential election after Jimmy Carter. But then again, there were more GOP presidents than Democratic ones after 1980.

Bill Clinton, (in as much as I like him), won because the GOP vote was split between Bush Sr. and Ross Perot.

Gore should not have lost given Clinton’s popularity. Nor should Kerry given Bush’s IQ. Losing only proves the Dems (or much of the party) is out of touch with core values of the nation.

August 14, 2006 @ 12:27 pm | Comment

Has anyone noticed – amid the incredible circle jerk amongst the security forces now going on – the whole thing was started by a tip from a British muslim woman about the odd behavior and talk of one of the suspects? No high tech snooping. No brilliant breakthroughs. No James Bond super-sluething. Just a phone call saying “Hey this guy is acting nuts and somebody needs to take a good look at him.”

August 15, 2006 @ 12:50 am | Comment

Jim, don’t you get it -? On the ground, boring police work isn’t nearly as sexy as blowing things up and “projecting” military might…


August 15, 2006 @ 1:17 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.