Rarely is the question asked,

"Is our Fucktards learning?"

Apparently not.

But why not?

I think that’s an interesting question, so maybe this’ll be a Part 1 of 2 kinda thing. That is if the riptide of work that keeps sweeping me away from my keyboard will calm down a mite.

This from MoDo in the “other” New York Times.

The one with the Good Writers.

The Op-Ed is entitled, “W.'s Head in the Sand”, and I jotted a bit of it down…

…
The Bush warriors are so deluded, they're even faking their fakery.

This week, the president presented a plan-like plan for "victory" in Iraq, which Scott McClellan rather pompously called the unclassified version of their supersecret master plan. But there would be no way to achieve victory from this plan even if it were a real plan. If this is what they're telling themselves in the Sit Room, we're in bigger trouble than we thought.

Talk about your unknown unknowns, as Rummy would say.
…

It's not a military strategy - classified or unclassified. It's political talking points - and not even good ones. Are we really supposed to believe that anybody, even the most deeply delusional Bush sycophant, believes the phrase "Our strategy is working"?

…they are not just failing to bring democracy to Iraq as they help Iranian-backed mullahs install an Islamic republic with Saddamist torture chambers. They are also degrading democracy in America.

They've tarnished American moral leadership with illegal detentions, torture, secret C.I.A. prisons in countries only recently liberated from the Soviet gulag, and Soviet-style propaganda both at home and in Iraq.

…

You have to admire Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman. He kept a straight face when he called the U.S. "a leader when it comes to promoting and advocating a free and independent media around the world." He added, "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of the press."

Exceedingly clear. The Bushies don't believe in it. They disdain the whole democratic system of checks and balances.

About the contention that the battle of Tal Afar was “primarily led” by Iraqi’s, MoDo passes this along…

Anderson Cooper of CNN swiftly produced Time magazine's Baghdad bureau chief, Michael Ware, who was embedded with the U.S. military during the entire Tal Afar battle. "With the greatest respect to the president, that's completely wrong," Mr. Ware said, adding: "I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with Al Qaeda. They were not leading."

…

There’s slick lying, there’s bad lying, there’s insulting lying…and then there’s this.

Lazy lying.

Couch-potato-lazy lying. Lying by gag-reflex. Like a basement-dwelling chickenhawk shoveling in the Pringles, just as reflexively and automatically does this Administration shovel out the lies. Caught cold, in front of a burning city with a jerry-can of kerosene in one hand, a Zippo in the other, pockets stuffed with ampoules of jellied gas and white phosphorus poppers, wearing asbestos pants and an “I Heart Arson” tee-shirt…

…and having the gall to stand there and say, “What?!”

And the only thing that changes, month after month after month, is that despite the best efforts of the MSM to point the cameras somewhere – anywhere – else, the lies are falling apart, the truth in leaking through, and the Last Defenders of Dumbalot get more and more hysterically, derangedly desperate.

So why?

Not why lie – shit given the baby sparrow eagerness with which mentally underperforming rank-and-file Republicans swallow literally ANY crazy shit they are told, the utility of lying is self-evident. These are, after all, the New Stalinists. Fuckdumb toe-pickers who could watch Dick Cheney shoot their dog, dutifully weep over the eulogy Bush delivers at the gravesite, and then join the posse to go hunt for the “real” puppy-killer.

No, I mean, well, what in the hell are we doing in Baghdad at all?

Dogma, yes. And oil. And hubris. And Oedipus. All bundled up in a filthy theology. We have all watched past three year unspool. All lived the grief and rage of a wounded nation…and watched our collective agony being pimped and punched and hijacked for the basest of politically motives.

Watched a reckless idiot callously riding the nation into an entirely unnecessary war, shrieking “Wheeee-Haaaa!” all the way down to disaster like Slim Pickins riding the bomb.

Yes, we all know all the co-conspirators, but why were these poltroons so hysterical to invade on Monday that they pulled out every stop and held the truth -- screaming -- in a “stress position” until they got a very qualified and carefully parsed permission…

…then practically sprinted into downtown Baghdad on Tuesday…

…and then went suddenly, completely and suicidally inert on Wednesday?

Just from an Evil Republican Triangulation point of view, why didn’t we roll 100,000 troops into Afghanistan, wipe out the 90% of the Taliban, spend a few billions and gut/rehab the place into a functional, America-friendly demi-democracy?

Had he done that, Bush could have spent the rest of his first term drunk in a West Texas titty bar and still won re-election at a walk. He would have had credibility and “political capital” pouring out of this ass. He could have had a whole country as a forward base to mount a war against Hussein. And having shown his chops, he could have invaded Iraq – or anyplace else -- at his leisure.

Why pick the one scenario out of dozens that virtually guaranteed a protracted and debilitating war that would metastasize uncontrollably into a regional disaster?

Oil, yes, and all the other confluential causes, but more than that, Cheney and Rummy and the rest of the Gang that Couldn’t Loot Straight are golem that have existed in the permanent crouch of war their entire lives. Not actually fighting them, mind you – they are a Royalists to the bone and believe that dying for their pet projects is why god made hillbillies – but nourishing themselves on the chewy-chewy nougat of war.

That protein–rich slurry of Paranoia and Chaos that the God of War shits out.

But only a certain kind of war…