Tough vs. Strong

Smirky threatening air strikes against Iran.

Rudy-the-Perv singing the praises of torture.

Hillary the War Slut promising to maintain the Permanent War On A Noun.

As the tough-guy rhetoric heats up and pushes us ever closer to the brink of nuclear war, let's step back for a minute and remember that tough is the opposite of strong.

Salon commenter Taliesan put it best a few weeks ago:

Tough Vs Strong

The really strong don't just weather the storm, they build a house so they can weather it in comfort.

The tough stand out in the rain.

The really strong stop and think about their actions, and when their actions prove futile, change tactics.

The tough act first and stick to it especially when those actions prove futile.

The strong lead their countries, the tough lead their parties.

The rightwing is obsessed with being tough, and that is all you need to know about their policies on war, peace, poverty and wealth.

The leftwing would much rather be strong.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Tough vs. Strong" >>

Bush: We're Still in Iraq Because Osama Wants to Know Who Wins

In his Tuesday speech at Charleston Air Force Base, Bush claimed the reason we must stay in Iraq is because Osama Bin Laden thinks we should so that a winner may be declared:

He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Osama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

So Osama bin Laden is dictating American policy. Nice to know who's actually in charge, at least in George Bush's world.

In case you've forgotten, today is the 2,144th day since 9/11 and the man who ordered the massacre of nearly 3,000 people is still at large. Unfortunately, the men responsible for the deaths of 3,637 American soldiers in a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 are still in office.

John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi. . .are you listening?

There's more: "Bush: We're Still in Iraq Because Osama Wants to Know Who Wins" >>

Congress More Trusted Than Bush on Iraq

For months the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans have been telling Democrats not to micromanage the Iraq war.

Rice: Congress shouldn't micromanage war
Feb. 25, 2007

The White House said it does not want Congress to micromanage U.S. commanders in Iraq. . . .
February 27, 2007

Bush said some lawmakers see a chance "to micromanage our military commanders, force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and spend billions on domestic projects that have nothing to do with the war on terror."
March 17, 2007

GOP Rep. Christopher Shays said Congress shouldn't try to "micromanage" the war.
March 22, 2007

Republicans said the bill is an attempt by politicians to micromanage the war. “This bill is designed to bring failure. Failure in Iraq means chaos in Iraq,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).
May 10, 2007

But a new poll shows that most Americans would rather have Congress manage the Iraq war than Bush.

Most Americans see President George W. Bush as too inflexible on the war in Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-run Congress have the final word on when to withdraw U.S. forces, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed on Monday.

Nearly 80 percent of those polled said Bush is not willing enough to change policies over the unpopular war that has taken a huge toll on his approval ratings, the Post reported.

The poll was conducted last week, after Senate Democrats failed to advance a plan that would force Bush to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq by April 2008.

More than six in 10 Americans -- 62 percent -- said Congress should have the final say on when to pull out U.S. forces, compared with 31 percent who said the decision should rest with Bush, the poll showed.

A narrow majority, 55 percent, said they supported the proposed pullout plan, which the Senate may not consider again until after its August recess.

The percentage of Americans seeing Bush as too rigid on Iraq has climbed 12 percentage points since December, the Post said.

[snip]

But on the issue of Iraq, the Post/ABC poll showed that the public stands with Congress.

Fifty-five percent said they trusted congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trusted Bush, the Post said.

The poll of 1,125 adults was conducted on July 18-21 and had a three-point margin of error.

Polls taken during July show President Bush's approval ratings ranging from 26 percent (Newsweek, July 2-3) to 33 percent (AP-Ipsos, July 9-11; ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21).

However, approval ratings for Congress remain just as low, ranging from 24 percent (AP=Ipsos, July 9-11) to 37 percent (ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21).

Yet Americans say Democrats are doing a better job in Congress than Republicans. (ABC/Washington Post, July 18-21, 46 percent approve the way Democrats in Congress are doing their job; 34 percent approve the way Republicans in Congress are doing their job).

House and Senate Democrats need to take these numbers to heart and continue to push for a change in Iraq that includes a plan to pull troops out. Such efforts need to be accompanied by prompt responses to Republican smear attacks, as Corpus Juris has noted. After more than six years it should be clear to everyone that calm, civil discourse is not part of the Republican play book.

There's more: "Congress More Trusted Than Bush on Iraq" >>

This could be a sign of the apocolypse

God help me…I can’t believe I am about to write this…

must…make…fingers…respond…

Okay…here goes…Rick Moran at The Rightwing Nuthouse is nearly as offended by the current occupant and the seeming rush to war with Iran as I am, and I applaud him for writing the post.

What is the world coming to? Last week I gave Kit Bond a standing ovation for being a Mensch, and this week, I can’t even get through Monday without saying something about the Nuthouse that borders on nice.

Oy Vey.

They might revoke my membership in whatever club we lefties are all supposed to belong to if this continues.

But c'mon...what's not to agree with here? So what if a rightie said it? It's still...swallows hard...right...as in correct.

They don’t “trust” any potential successors to “deal with Iran decisively?” I can’t begin to tell you how offensive that idea is – not to mention its raw stupidity. The world may look a lot different to a new President on January 20, 2009 than it does to Dick Cheney and his advisers today or even next year.. And any military action taken against Iran next year – which is the current timetable – will mean that Cheney and Bush’s successor will be reaping the bulk of the whirlwind sown by the current Administration following any massive attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

And make no mistake. That “whirlwind” will be the mother of all blowbacks. We’ve been over and over the downside to attacking Iran so repeating the enormous cost to the United States and perhaps the west would be redundant punditry.

Actually, before Cheney/Bush, I was probably better described as purple. Let me give an example of what I mean when I say that…In the past, I simultaneously worked for the campaigns of Nancy Kassebaum and Dan Glickman. (How many regular readers just un-bookmarked me for admitting that I have cast votes for Republicans in the past when they were the best candidate?)

I have never cast a vote that I regret, and I have never cast a vote I would deny. I don’t take my civic duty lightly. Voting is definitely on the list of things I think are worth dying for if necessary.

Anyway, when the Nuthouse and I can find a parcel of common ground, either the four horsemen are galloping toward us full speed, or they just retreated out of view…I’m not sure which…but they are definitely involved when such unholy alliances are made.

There's more: "This could be a sign of the apocolypse" >>