IRT Billmon’s update on Knight Ridder going to the dark side, I think he expects too much. The article did seem quite factual and clearly stated that all the “critics” were supporters of the war but were not thrilled with its execution. It would not be fair to blame the reporter for the headline…..IIRC editors decide that.
c’mon now, did you really think anyone in this government will discuss complete withdrawal from Iraq? there is still money to be made and if what I am hearing about this whole oil grab being a life or death decider of the superstar status of the US, people with much to lose will not give up until all those around them are dead (they certainly won’t get mixed up in the bleeding part).
all of the critics, even Cindy Sheehan have complained about the prosecution of the war, whether it is just or not is left to loonies like us to fret over.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 14 2006 6:03 utc | 3

i know damn well you are waitng on bated breath for my commentary. well, you will not get it until you cough up. i’m serious. luxor, now, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. spit it out.

Posted by: annie | Jun 14 2006 7:54 utc | 5

[annie has a headache]

Posted by: beq | Jun 14 2006 11:19 utc | 7

tour de force billmon. but in no way can bush’s declining favorables confirm a “main street” backlash. people don’t like the war, and it would be uncouth to admit support of bush, but most americans who matter–the white middleclass–are willing to accept the fait accompli of american use of power. that is, the american voter is lying.
aside from economic collapse, only immigration can derail the repubs, and this will not happen because, as we’ve seen recently in california, the dems will be painted as mexican-lovers. and the dem “platform” helps repubs: more health care, balanced deficits! and w/out a position on the war, dem candidates will all be “cut & run.”
ahh. bend over. grab ankles.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 14 2006 16:27 utc | 9

But, you’ve gotta give Bush credit where credit is due, least the corpse in Iraq spring back to life on its own accord. And judging from what I saw of Maliki’s body language, he received Bushes plastic turkey of sunny optimism like finding a dead horses head in his bed. And yet there he was, without any advance warning,in the set up, the head of the newly formed government sitting silently captive at the side of the decider in chief, spinning his skipping record rhetoric like it was themusic he needed to hear. I would imagine that whatever little credibility Maliki has managed to garner with the Iraqi people, as to their future independence, was squandered on the rocks of another Bush photo-op.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 14 2006 18:33 utc | 11

Love this: Bush upbeat about Iraqis
Why doesn’t anyone ask if the Iraqis are upbeat about bush?
he said:

pulling out too soon would “make the world a more dangerous place.”
snip
Bush’s lightning trip was cloaked in extreme secrecy and security. Only a few top aides knew about the trip ahead of time — not even most members of his Cabinet.
As Bush left, his plane sat in total darkness on the runway and lifted off with no running lights. Air Force One had not been completely refueled so that it could get up high faster. As a result, a refueling stop was required en route back to Washington and it was nearing dawn Wednesday when Bush made it back to the White House.
Bush defended the tactics, including not even telling al-Maliki about the visit until just five minutes before he and the Iraqi prime minister met in Baghdad.
“It’s a security concern because I’m a high value target for some,” Bush said. “Iraq’s a dangerous place.”

Ow Ow, my head.

Posted by: beq | Jun 14 2006 19:05 utc | 13

The best bit of the whole bush in baghdad circus, were the post mortems.
Apparently the performing monkeys known as the whitehouse press corp, think it is a perfectly fine thing if the centre of their world ups sticks, drops tent and pisses off to the other side of the world “to make history” (HAH) taking only the “CNN pool crew” with him.
That certainly appears to be the case from the dearth of negative comments about bush’s slink into baghdad.
Anyway all the pundit talking head washington press corp boyos were left to do was retell a few morsels of gossip as told them by the servants downstairs.
One of them came up with a remark which would have gob smacked most people outside the US but which seemed to be received by the good folks back home as just another example of the US’s power and purity.
It went something like this.
“Yep the presidential visit was a complete secret to all but a few closest to president bush jnr.
The iraqi government was informed the day before that there would be a joint cabinet meeting between the US and Iraq by vidlink. They were therefore told to be at the US Embassy the next day.”
For those who need the dots filled in, it is a somewhat ‘interesting’ state of affairs when the ‘legitimate’ government of an allegedly sovereign state is ordered to be anywhere by anyone else much less some functionary of a foreign state. Even worse they aren’t notified that a few planeloads of confirmed psychopathic assholes are ‘secretly’ coming to their nation. But worst of all is the intentional insult of a foreign head of state arriving unannounced into that sovereign nation and summoning it’s leaders to his court.
If Dubya had intended to show Iraqis that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was an impotent puppet he did an excellent job.
If on the other hand the purpose of his visit was, at least in part, to tell Iraqis that Nouri al-Maliki was a strong leader who had won Dubya’s respect and support, just ‘turning up’ in the manner he did was a major fuck-up.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 15 2006 22:51 utc | 15