Monday Dick Cheney makes a hillbilly/incest joke at West Virginia’s expense, and after all the notable politicians in the state — Republicans and Democrats alike — protest, has to take it back.
Tuesday Bush reveals that "we’ll be in Iraq for forty years" thus perfectly reinforcing McCain’s gaffe about being in Iraq for 100 years. (McCain protests every time Barack Obama brings this up, but Obama, no fool, knows that: it’s briar patch politics — the more McCain protests, the more he digs himself in.)
Further, the reliably sane conservative Ross Douthat (here) contends that if McCain wins in November, he will end up getting credit for "the surge" that has allegedly saved the war in Iraq, because he took the political risk of supporting it from the start, whereas if Obama triumphs, it will go to Bush-Cheney.
…if the Arizona Senator is elected President on the strength of his
support for the Surge (while insisting that he had the right Iraq
policy all along and Bush only came to it reluctantly, and when it was
almost too late), then the election results will reinforce an
already-existing narrative that associates the policy more with McCain
than with Bush
So from their point of view, why support McCain? Keep in mind, when it comes to Bush-Cheney, it’s all but impossible to be sufficiently cynical.
In 2006, the Prez declared the practice of "extraordinary rendition" had ended, but now word comes of a policy of holding political prisoners on Navy ships.Great. Now even the Navy is involved in torture.
What next — NASA astronauts implicated in torture?
Kit Stolz 