Friday, May 11, 2007

  • Iraqi parliament mirroring U.S. Democrats:
    A majority of members of Iraq's parliament have signed a draft bill that would require a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq and freeze current troop levels....The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded.
    Ahh, but what do they know, right? And how dare them try to run their own country -- the nerve.

  • Regarding the lack of votes thus far sparing Gonzales, Kevin Drum writes:
    Normally, cabinet officers who have been caught in multiple obvious lies have to either resign or else seriously try to defend themselves. But Gonzales realizes this is just tradition. Unless House Democrats have the votes to impeach him, he doesn't have to do anything. He can just mock them to their face and there's nothing much they can do about it.
    Yes, it comes to honor and dignity -- what GW was supposedly going to return to Washington -- versus simple math. Since lying is the norm for these guys, they have no shame when it comes to sticking it out when others would've resigned, and therefore there's no cost or penalty for lying.

  • Not exactly Dennis Kucinich saying this.

  • When scoundrels quarrel.

  • In the Bizzaro universe that is this administration, Snow's protests just mean it was most definitely the case:
    [Tony] Snow, who sat in on the meeting in the president's private quarters, said it should not be overdramatized or seen as another "marching up to Nixon," a reference to the critical moment during Watergate in 1974 when key congressional Republicans went to the White House to tell President Richard M. Nixon that it was time to resign. "This is not one of those great cresting moments when party discontents are coming in to read the president the riot act," he said.
  • Rudy is toast.

  • Try, try, try again -- but if you fail, don't worry about it:
    CHENEY: Well, we're interested in having benchmarks that we want to see the Iraqis meet. The President has talked about this previously. That's not a new concept or anything that one of the Democrats came up with. It's also not - I'm always a little puzzled when we talk about consequences....So when we talk to them about consequences in some kind of bureaucratic sense or threatening them with a cutoff of funds, for example, if they don't do A, B and C, it strikes me as, you know, that's Washington talk but it may not have all that relevance on the ground out there.
    Where's the incentive?

  • Quite a list, Bush must be so proud – you know, returning honor and dignity to the White House.
  • No comments: