Comment on: Democrat, Republican Gang Up on Incumbent - washingtonpost.com on 10/6/2007 8:32 AM

I live in the district and have been often chagrinned by Sensenbrenners "prickliness" and more by his position on issues. That he is a jerk is clear beyond cavil; even his fellow Republicans often get the bum's rush from him. Worse, he's a jerk who does things like engineer the scandalous federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. I would love to see someone beat him and send him home to Menomonee Falls, Wis. to stew in his own juices. Alas, I don't expect it to happen.

Comment on: Ruth Marcus - One Angry Man - washingtonpost.com on 10/3/2007 6:29 AM

Clarence Thomas' grandfather raised him and apparently was a very admirable man who taught his grandson many good life lessons. One he apparently missed, however, is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging.' Why in the world would Thomas bring to national attention again the sordid mess of his relationship with Anita Hill, and thus his relationship with other subordinate females in his workplace? As Ruth Marcus points out, Anita Hill was not the only one to testify to Thomas' abusive behavior and quirky fixation on pubic hairs and Coke cans. As I recall, this sexual quirkiness and abuse of power by Thomas occurred before he 'saw the light' and got religion but the behavior nonetheless cast some light on his character, specifically his willingness to abuse the power of his position to satisfy his personal desires. One can hardly help wondering how much of that we are seeing in his opinions on the Supreme Court, i.e., acting out his barely suppressed rage. His claim that his difficulties at the confirmation hearing were attributable to a desire on the part of whites to 'get the black man' or 'keep the black man in his place' is ludicrous, a transparent and pathetic throwback to the 60s and early 70s, when Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown were uttering such claims with greater eloquence and persuasivess than Thomas exhibits now. His troubles stemmed from his own nasty conduct toward pretty young black women who he harrassed in the hope of 'getting lucky.' As it turned out, his behavior came back to haunt him years later and he's been PO'd about it for going on two decades. It seems pretty clear he'll be PO'd about it till he goes to his Final Reward. Let's be more charitable than Thomas is and hope that his Final Reward will be to be relieved of the burden of anger, resentment and bitterness that he carries through life like the albatross around the neck of the Ancient Mariner.

Comment on: Eugene Robinson - Witness for The Persecution - washingtonpost.com on 10/2/2007 7:30 AM

Poor Clarence Thomas. He acted nastily towards Anita Hill and had it come back to haunt him when he was about to take Thurgood Marshall's seat on the Supreme Court. There he was, the most qualified person in the country according to George H. W. Bush, and Professor Hill barged in to spoil his party and sully his reputation as an nice Christian gentleman and a man of integrity, one whose behavior in private doesn't vary from his behavior in public. The miracle man from Pin Point turned out to be yet another hypocrite on the far right, morally righteous in public, a porn fan and utterer of salacious comments to workplace subordinates in private. God knows that there are an army of men who dabble in porn and support the multimillion dollar growth industry and there are many many men who troll in their workplaces with inappropriate sexual comments to co-workers and subordinates. These behaviors in a man's past don't necessarily disqualify him from high office. Unless they are persistent and egregious, perhaps they shouldn't even be brought up in a confirmation hearing. But they did surface in the Thomas hearings because those who opposed his confirmation because of his radical political and constitutional views were desparate for anything that would cause his nomination to fail. And Thomas has never forgiven those who brought his naughtiness to light.

With the publication of his autobiography, we now know for sure what we had long suspected: that Thomas is a pathologically angry man, unable to forget, unable to forgive. He would benefit from the teachings of Jesus and of Buddy Hackett. Jesus wisely advised Peter that he should forgive his wrongdoing brother not once, not seven times, but 'seven times seventy.' Those who forgive get over their wrongs and fell better. Buddy Hackett told Johnny Carson he refused to carry a grudge because 'while you're carrying that grudge around, the other guy is out dancing.' Live and learn, Clarence Thomas. Get over it. You'll feel better and maybe stop living a life of vengeance.

Comment on: House Panel Says Rice Is Hindering Its Work - washingtonpost.com on 9/26/2007 8:02 AM

Ah, Condoleeza, that piano-playing, smooth-talking, Bush-loving fascista. She is to George W(armonger) Bush what Tariq Aziz was to Saddam Hussein, the eloquent but mendacious public face of the dictator and Decider.

Comment on: Private Security Puts Diplomats, Military at Odds - washingtonpost.com on 9/26/2007 7:47 AM

It doesn't take a Clausewitz to realize that the use of "private security contractors" in a war zone was and is a bad idea. This is one of the scariest developments under the BushCheney Regime, a large, well-armed, government sponsored private army, subject to no rules and reminiscent of the Brownshirts and Blackshirts. Blackwater closely resembles the fascistic regime that succors them: secretive, militaristic, arrogant, unaccoutable and lawless and led by evangelical born-agains. What will become of this private army when the Iraq catastrophe is over, when we pull out or are driven out? Will the mercenary army disband? Will the highly paid former Seals and Recon marines and Rangers, etc., go home to shop at Walmart and raise families or will they be shopping for other missions? What assurance can we have that those new missions won't be domestic? Forgive me for shuddering for the country.

Comment on: George F. Will - A War Still Seeking a Mission - washingtonpost.com on 9/11/2007 8:57 AM

Mr. Will has sharpened the focus on what is probably the central issue facing the nation: is there an Iraq, are there Iraqis? It seems abundantly clear that the Kurds who happen to live within the borders of Iraq no more consider themselves to be Iraqis than Kurds who live withing the borders of Turkey or Iran consider themselves Turks or Persians. As for the Sunni and Shia Arabs within the Iraq borders, what reason is there to think that they are any more reconcilable than, for example, the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland? Yes, these folks have worked out, for now at least, a political accommodation but only after almost 40 years of sectarian violence and more than 80 years of ethnic hostility. The Catholics considered themselves Irish, not 'Northern Irish,' and the Protestants considered themselves British. Northern Ireland was a state cobbled together by the imperial Brits to serve British interests, just as Iraq was. Neither the presence of the Royal Irish Constabulary nor the presence of British occupation troops was sufficient to stop the sectarian violence that persisted over several decades, even though the Brits and the locals shared a common language, a common Christian religion, a common Western culture and regional history. What reason is there to believe that American soldiers and Marines, who have virtually nothing in common with the "Iraqis" can bring peace and reconciliation to the many ethnic and sectarian and tribal groups within 'Iraq'? George Bush, may a skunk set up shop in his nose and thrive, and his neocon dead-enders (thanks, Don Rumsfeld for this useful term that has acquired a meaning you never intended or expected) are indulging a pipe dream in thinking that we can create a recreate a nation in Iraq now that we have removed the country's real unifying force, i.e, the despotic rule of a ruthless dictator and his Baath Party apparatchiks. The Bush regime is simply playing its end-game in Iraq, keeping the war going under the pretense that 'victory is still attainable' so that when the inevitable bloody collapse comes they can blame it on the next administration and, of course, on the "lefties," the "cut and run" crowd, the "America haters." How despicable.

Comment on: David Ignatius - Bush's Lost Iraqi Election - washingtonpost.com on 8/30/2007 8:08 AM

Ah, yes. Another story demonstrating that the best friend Iran ever had is George "Mission Accomplished" Bush. First he removes (alas, temporarily) the hostile Sunni Taliban government to the east of Iran and then he removes the hostile Sunni government of Saddam Hussein to the west of Iran. Then he ineptly occupies Iraq, weakening the US's credibility throughout the region and he refuses to support moderate forces in the celebrated purple finger election, guaranteeing that Iranian-backed candidates would dominate. Now he wants to start yet another war in the region, this time with Iran, the 'axis of evil' country whose regional power has only been enhanced by the actions of Bush himself. What an incredibly dangerous jerk he is, like an irresponsible child playing with guns.

Comment on: Report Finds Little Progress On Iraq Goals - washingtonpost.com on 8/30/2007 7:36 AM

This is another piece of the growing mountain of evidence demonstrating the mendacity of George W. Bush and his team of hired liars at the White House. "We will hold the Iraqi government to these benchmarks." What nonsense. It suggests, falsely, that the Iraqi "government" actually governs Iraq. It clearly does not and never has. Saddam governed Iraq, cruelly but effectively. Malliki and Alawi before him and even the Coalition Provisional Authority have been pretense governments. Despite the predictable failure of the Iraqi 'government' to meet the benchmarks, Bush has made it clear that there will be no consequences, at least until next April when our overstretched Army, National Guard, and Marines will run out of troops and may stage some sort of mini-mutiny if Bush extends their tours yet again. No mater what happens or doesn't happen in Iraq, Bush will 'stay the course' so as not to be seen for the incompetent homicidal loser that he is. It's Lyndon Johnson again, "I will not the the first American president to lose a war." Johnson left the bloody endgame to Nixon, who turned out to be worse than Johnson. Bush will leave the endgame to whoever sits in the Oval Office in 2009. Then he will blame him (or her) for 'losing Iraq.' The set-up for this blame game has already started, just listen to the wingnuts on talk radio. For this guy our soldiers and Marines are being killed and wounded? Shame on us.

Comment on: Bush Wants $50 Billion More for Iraq War - washingtonpost.com on 8/29/2007 6:42 AM

To paraphrase Everett Dirksen, "50 billion here, 50 billion there, before you know it, you're talking real money." As a former Marine (RVN, 1965-66), I opposed ending the draft. I feared the ending conscription and creating a wholly voluntary Army would mean the end of deep and personal resistance to military adventurism by American presidents. If only professional soldiers were sacrificing lives and limbs on foreign battlegrounds, we wouldn't have the natural scepticism towards war of draft age men, their parents, their siblings, their girlfriends and others for whom waging war would carry personal costs. The all volunteer Army would become much like the all volunteer Marines. As much as I was proud to be a Marine, as my father had been in WWII, I didn't want the Army to lose its citizen-soldier character. Bush's Iraq catastrophe has demonstrated the unwisdom of abandoning the draft if for no other reason because the only reason we don't have this country convulsed by demonstrations, violence and other forms of war resistance like we experienced during Vietnam is because we have no draftees coming back in flag-draped boxes or missing legs, arms, or parts of their faces or brains. Bush will be able to keep this God-awful misadventure going until he is out of office, able to blame the inevitable bad ending on his successor, or the Congress, or 'lefties', or the Iraqis, or the Iranians, or the Syrians, or the man in the moon, or anyone other than himself and his criminal vice president. Meanwhile, we and our children and grandchildren will be left to deal with the shattered lives of our returning soldiers and Marines and with the real monetary cost of the war, in excess of $1 trillion. Others may wonder whether George W. Bush is the worst president in American history. I'm satisfied that not only is he the worst, he's in a class by himself.

Comment on: In the End, Realities Trumped Loyalty - washingtonpost.com on 8/28/2007 8:42 AM

Most Americans, I suspect, have long since concluded that Alberto Gonzales is a person with few if any moral values, the stuff that in the aggregate we call "character." Early on in his professional career he hitched his wagon to George W. Bush, a richer, more powerful, better connected version of himself, i.e., a man with few if any moral values. He succumbed to the fatal attraction that has brought many a lawyer to ruin: doing what a bad client wants him to do because the short-term payoff is so attractive. For some the payoff is a big fee or lucrative retainer, for others others it can be sexual favors, for others, including Gonzales, it is power and prestige. For the attractive payoffs, the lawyer sacrifices his independent professional judgment and become a toadeater for his client. Gonzales' fall from grace was apparent at least from the time he was routinely giving the 'all clear' signs to Bush on death penalty cases during Bush's governorship. Despite the sometimes appalling lack of due process in some capital punishment cases in Texas during that time, Bush was more willing to have blood on his hands (as long as it was someone else's blood) than he was to be called 'soft on crime' and Gonzales served as his willing toadie in these cases. As Bush rose to become president he got more blood on his hands (other people's blood, of course), this time on a wholesale level, in his catastrophic muscle-flexing misadventure in Iraq, and again Gonzales was there to do his bidding, which also meant doing the bidding of the aptly-named "Dick" Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove and other amoral Bushie miscreants. Whatever was required in terms of legal opinions to justify anything these guys wanted to do, kidnappings, torture, ignoring treaty obligations, warrantless searches, and so on, Gonzales could be counted on to deliver. He was a guy who just couldn't say 'no.' Now his loyalty to Bush has finally brought him low. The poor sap continues to praise and thank the one man (other than himelf) who has led to his disgrace, his patron Bush. How much more clueless can a man be to say "I have led the American dream" as he resigns high government office in disgrace, his integrity, his character, his credibility, his honor probably forever stained by his venal subservience to Bush. This is "the American dream" lived by Jay Gatsby perhaps, pursuing unobtainable and unworthy goals only to end up a tragic loser. Perhaps Gonzales' most revealing comment was that his worst day of Attorney General was better than his father's best day. I understand that his father was a construction worker who undoubtedly worked hard to earn an honest living for his family. That Gonzales' thinks that occupying a position of high status and power is superior to earning an honest living with your hands and back even if the more prestigious job costs you your reputation and your honor tells us what kind of a man he is. He and Bush deserved each other and I, for one, hope Bush leaves office with his reputation and place in history as indelibly stained as Gonzales'.