I thought setting a timetable for withdrawal was a "cut and run" strategy

I guess that when it comes from Captain Codpiece's mouth, it's OK:

The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.

Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.

Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.

And what might those "changes in military strategies" be?

Guestblogging

I'm guestblogging at Pam's House Blend this morning while the lovely Pam is, interestingly enough, up north here on business. What a world, where a blogger in Jersey guestblogs for a blogger in North Carolina while that blogger is on business in New Jersey. I wish I'd thought of having Pam guestblog for me while I was in North Carolina last week. Now that would be really weird. Why not stop over and visit, read some hopefully not TOO inflammatory musings I posted there exclusively this morning, and also read some of the many other fine people who are crashing Pam's place this week?

Stop digging, dammit!

Remember when the Idiot-in-Chief was being lauded by the media as being "steadfast" and "resolute" and "unwavering"? Haven't heard that old adage that "a foolish consistency of the hobgoblin of little minds" in a while, now, have you?

Well, maybe it's time to start dragging it out again:

President Bush conceded Friday that "right now it's tough" for American forces in Iraq, but the White House said he would not change U.S. strategy in the face of pre-election polls that show voters are upset.

"We are constantly adjusting our tactics so that we achieve the objective, and right now it's tough, it's tough," Bush said in an Associated Press interview.

[snip]

Bush met with Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, at the White House for a half-hour Friday afternoon. The White House said Abizaid already was in town and Bush asked him over. The president also will consult by video conference on Saturday with Abizaid at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., and with Gen. George Casey, who leads the U.S.-led Multinational Forces in Iraq, to determine if a change in tactics is necessary to combat the increasing violence.

Despite calls for change, Bush said, "Our goal has not changed. Our goal is a country that can defend, sustain and govern itself, a country that which will serve as an ally in this war. Our tactics are adjusting."

[snip]

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said that while Bush might change tactics, he would not change his overall strategy.

"He's not somebody who gets jumpy at polls," Snow said of Bush.

Nor does he get jumpy at reality, it seems.

Bush won't change strategy because he CAN'T change strategy. So convinced is he of his own infallibility, so determined is he to NOT meet the same failed presidency fate as his father, that he is willing to completely destroy what remains of America's future and as many thousands of soldiers it takes to prop up this sinking ship long enough for him to get outta Dodge and leave the problem for someone else to clean up -- just as he's been doing his whole life.

But why should this surprise anyone? If you have a kid who keeps wrecking every car you buy him, do you keep buying him ever-more-expensive cars? Of course not. So why did anyone think that if you give this guy the most powerful position in the world, he'd handle it any differently than he has any of the businesses in which he's been involved?

Again, he called the Democrats "the party of cut and run", indicating that his buddy Karl Rove is similarly unable to change strategies. But this is interesting, considering what some Republicans have said.

Sen. John Warner,, 10/6/06:

"It seems to me the situation is simply drifting sideways It was a markedly different trip from ones before. We just did not have the freedom and ability to travel where I have been before."

Warner says we should set a timetable of 60-90 days and if things don't improve, a "change of course" is appropriate.

Rep. Chris Shays, 8/24/06:

"My view is that it may be that the only way we are able to encourage some political will on the part of Iraqis is to have a timeline for troop withdrawal,"

Sen. Chuck Hagel, 8/21/05:

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there...I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Even Krazy and Korrupt PA Rep. Curt Weldon favors withdrawal:

The second-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, who is a strong supporter of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, has drafted a resolution that would give military commanders — instead of President Bush or Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld — decision-making authority over when American troops should return home.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), the vice chairman of the Armed Services panel and chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, told Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) Monday of his plans to introduce the resolution shortly.

I guess those Republicans are cut-and-run cowards too.

The real question is how much Americans should be asked to sacrifice in the name of salvaging George W. Bush's legacy. Because given that the Iraq war has destabilized the Middle East, recruited terrorists, turned Iraq into an Al Qaeda haven, bankrupted our treasury and mortgaged our future, Bush's legacy is the ONLY thing that can be saved by remaining.

(cross-posted at Pam's House Blend)

Hypocrite-in-Chief

Can we please stop talking about George W. Bush as a Godly man and the Republican party as the party of "family values" now?

What other word besides "hypocrite" would you use to describe a president who last Friday declares this week to be "National Character Counts Week" and then right smack in the middle of that week stumps for a Republican Congressman accused of choking his mistress?

Here's what he said in signing this utterly useless piece of legislation:

America's strength is found in the spirit and character of our people. During National Character Counts Week, we renew our commitment to instilling values in our young people and to encouraging all Americans to remember the importance of good character.

Sherwood settled a $5.5 million lawsuit late last year filed by his ex-mistress, Cynthia Ore, who accused him of choking her. This adulterer and domestic abuser has a 100% rating from "Concerned Women for America" and an 84% rating from the Christian Coalition.

And here is what Bush said yesterday in a campaign appearance for Sherwood:

“I’m pleased to be here with Don Sherwood: he is the right man to represent the people of the 10th Congressional District from the state of Pennsylvania.”

and:

"He has got a record of accomplishment."

I guess slapping women around is part of the culture in PA District 10...why else would a president say such a thing? [/snark]

The simultaneously glib and unctuous Tony Snow had this to say when questioned about the seeming incongruity between the two events:

“The president understands it’s important to set high standards.”

So now we know what those standards are: If you're a Republican, it's OK to trumpet family values while you're an adulterer, and if your mistress gets out of line, it's OK to slap her around.

Character counts indeed.

And so it ends....

...not with a bang, but with a whimper -- or rather, a bat held on the shoulder while strike three of the third out in the bottom of the ninth with the winning run on base whizzes by you.

I didn't watch all of it. I was watching the game with some friends while we mailed invitations to the kickoff party for this, and when not even Endy Chavez' -- ok, I'll say it -- Amazin' catch in the sixth, against a sign that read, fittingly, "The Strength to Be There", wasn't enough to get the Mets' offense going, I had a feeling that this just wasn't going to be the Mets' night. So since I had to get up and actually go to work today, I decided to record the rest of the game -- just in case -- a case I felt in my bones wasn't going to be necessary.



In any game, someone's going to win and someone's going to lose, and baseball is a game of inches. I could say that given the circumstances in the bottom of the 9th, even with Aaron Heilman giving up a 2-run home run in the top of the ninth after Willie Randolph, obviously loath to bring in "Heart Attack Billy" Wagner again, left Heilman in just a pitch too long, there's no excuse for striking out with the bat on your shoulder. But Mets fans are not Yankees fans. Unlike Alex Rodriguez, who in all likelihood will be shipped out of town rather than have his very life at risk for a similar "offense", Beltran will still be able to walk down the streets of New York. When the dust settles and the disappointment starts to fade, Mets fans will remember what Carlos Beltran did all season -- and just as they forgot 2005 once he started hitting in 2006, they will forget that last at-bat in the 2006 NLCS. We will do that because we know that even when the puppy poops on the brand-new carpet, you may be angry, but you still love that puppy.

It's easy to forget that the Mets weren't even supposed to get this far. It just doesn't happen that you lose your #1 starter AND your most reliable postseason guy, cobble together a postseason rotation consisting of a 40-year-old (even one who's a future Hall of Famer), a kid who was a throw-in in what was otherwise an awful trade, and a guy with the ignominious distinction of being on the scrap heap of the pathetic Pittsburgh Pirates, and get to the ninth inning of game 7 of the NLCS. But that's what the Mets did. Yes, there was the Trachsel debacle, but one can hardly blame Willie Randolph for wanting experience in there until proven incapable.

It would be a crime to dwell on one pitch gone wrong when Aaron Heilman has eaten innings like John Pinette at a buffet table. It would be a crime to dwell on one at-bat given the importance of Carlos Beltran to this team. And it would be a crime to focus on these things to the exclusion of recognizing just what Oliver Perez did last night. This is a guy against whom opposing teams batted .293 this year; a guy with the highest ERA of any starting pitcher in postseason history, a guy with a 3-13 record and 6.55 regular season ERA this year -- and last night he proved that sometimes you go out there a kid, but you come back a star.

The emergence of John Maine and Oliver Perez as big-game pitchers this postseason makes an otherwise dire pitching situation as we look ahead to 2006 look not quite so dire. Pedro is still out until midseason, Trachsel is gone, and how long can El Duque go before he remembers he's in his mid-40's? But with two guys who have earned at least a very close look in spring training, and guys like Heath Bell and Royce Ring and Brian Bannister in the offing, and a Frank Cashen-quality baseball man in the front office, the future for this team looks so bright I gotta wear shades.

Thank you, Mets, for providing some diversion for a little while from our relentless march to fascism. Thank you for reminding us why we love baseball. Thank you for a great season. See you in Port St. Lucie in February.

We now return you to our regular schedule of Bush Administration follies, foibles, and disasters.

Southern Cross Hotel, St Peters

Salt and pepper calamariFollowing persistent natterings about my experiences at Oscars in Pyrmont, Veruca Salt and I (along with A and A) decided to head to its sister restaurant Oscars Grill at the Southern Cross Hotel in St Peters. We find it on a corner block along the semi-industrial Princess Highway, a large but meagrely-lit car park provided behind the suburban-hotel.Inside, it's furnished

Southern Cross Hotel, St Peters

Salt and pepper calamariFollowing persistent natterings about my experiences at Oscars in Pyrmont, Veruca Salt and I (along with A and A) decided to head to its sister restaurant Oscars Grill at the Southern Cross Hotel in St Peters. We find it on a corner block along the semi-industrial Princess Highway, a large but meagrely-lit car park provided behind the suburban-hotel.Inside, it's furnished