JABbering Stooge

• More from Billmon on the Israeli situation: Israel’s equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan "Enron" Halutz is suspected of engaging in insider trading when the recently-ended conflict began, while Ha’aretz reports that the withdrawl may be more problematic than previously anticipated. (No shit, Sherlock!)

  Helpfully, a commenter on Colonel W. Patrick Lang’s blog suggests a possible means by which the international community can help the Lebanese Army counter the growing influence of Hezbollah, especially in the wake of the recent conflict.

• Incidentally, I hate to be a party pooper, but I find it mildly ironic at best (in the Alanis Morisette sense, anyway) that some liberal blogs have taken to refering to the soon-to-be-former Senator Holier-Than-Thou Joe Lieberman as "Sore Loserman." Come on, guys. That shit wasn’t funny when the wingnuts were doing it to shut down the recount in 2000 - it’s certainly not any better when we do it - even when we actually have a point to make by doing it.

• In the wake of the code brown alert, it helps to remind certain people with a knee-jerk habit of accusing Democrats of politicizing the war on terror (or is it just a jerk habit?) that The Most Holy George W. Christ is not above politicizing national security. In fact, he does it on a regular basis. But when even your most dutiful shill suggests, in so many words, that "‘Hulk Smash!’ is not a foreign policy," perhaps it’s time to seriously rethink both the current political and military strategery.

• Not that that matters to the "librul" media, who have been so insistent on calling Ned Lamont "the al Qaeda candidate." (Gee, why does that remind me of the time when Neal Boortz said that Kerry voters = al Qaeda members? How’s that for being "unserious" about the war on a tactic?)

• And while we’re at it, let’s ask ourselves just who is undermining national security? The NYT for reporting on illegal programs used to spy on ordinary Americans, or Don Wildmon and his propaganda organ for whining that "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" doesn’t go far enough in kicking gay Arabic translators out of the military - even going so far as to pursue legal action against a West Point cadet for daring to disagree?

Yesterday, the local fishwrap took a cue from the McPaper and had a Fight It Out!: Conservatives vs. Liberals editorial battle. The combatants were Paul Krugman - a Princeton economics professor - and Charles Krauthammer - a hard-right neoCon devoted to the "Faster Israel! Kill! Kill!" school of foreign policy. The subject: Sen. Joseph I., Robot Lieberman’s ignominious defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary.

Krugman’s editorial, not available in the Statesman’s online edition (gee, I wonder why?), is available at truthout.org, with a link to the version behind the TimesSelect paywall here.

Meanwhile, Krauthammer’s "editorial" is available here and here.

The best moments in the Krugman editorial, especially laid side-by-side with the Krauthammer piece, come here:

Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes. In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race is that of crickets chirping.

here:

Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and that the invasion’s aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do?

You could admit your error and move on - and some have. But all too many Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war’s critics.

and here:

But in his non-concession speech, Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Lamont as representative of a political tendency in which "every disagreement is considered disloyal" - a statement of remarkable chutzpah from someone who famously warned Democrats that "we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril."

It kind of tells you all you need to know about the butcher-porn addicts on the right, doesn’t it? Remember, kids: