TPP 2009 Predictions

Pat Robertson is making his annual predictions. I guess he has forgotten about the Bible's admonition against sooth saying and fortune telling.

However following Rev. Robertson lead and risking eternal damnation here are The Progressive Posts 2009 predictions:

1. RepubliCONS will strongly profess new faith in bi-partisan congressional action.
2. Despite their new faith in cooperation, CONS will obstruct (filibuster) many significant and needed bills throughout the year.
3. CONS will unceasingly question/undermine President Obama's policy in Iraq, Afghanistan in particular and the war on Terror in general. Least we forget, during the Bush administration this questioning of war aims was called treasonous unAmerican behavior.
4. CONS will push little more than union busting and tax cuts for the rich as "solutions" to the current economic crisis.
5. The RepubliCON party will continue to wallow throughout the year without real national leadership.
6. Despite an ongoing leadership vacuum, the CON base's love affair with Sarah Palin will sour.
7. Lacking a positive foreign policy vision, CONS will try to turn a minor international event into a major foreign policy crisis for the Obama administration.
8. The current Blogo scandal will have been forgotten long before this time next year.
9. Cons will scream that Roland Burris (a person who has been appointed) should be seated in the Senate, while opposing Al Franken's (a person elected to the chamber) joining the upper House.
10. Most of Pat Robertson's 2009 predictions will not come to pass.

Looking forward to the New Year!

What Scott Believes

Scott McClellan, former White House spokesman, is expected to release a tell all book next week. However, exerts have been leaked to the public and among the bombshell revelations, Scotty claims the White House was run in constant campaign mode, in denial regarding Hurricane Katrina and "surprise" trumped up the case for war in Iraq.

Former White House counsel Dan Bartlett states that McClellan betrayed the president's trust and asks "What did he really believe when he was serving as press secretary?"

Hmmm. . . Let's think about this.

Perhaps while press secretary Scotty believed America shouldn't go to war based on lies.

Or perhaps Scotty believed the Bush administration should worry more about disaster victims rather than its image.

Or maybe, just maybe Scotty finally realized as an American citizen ones true loyalty lies with the Constitution and the American public rather than an incompetent, wannabe emperor.

Update!

Not to let Scotty off the hook entirely, although its nice that he is finally listening to his conscience and telling the truth, his smack down of the failings of "liberal press" isn't entirely justified. While its true the mainstream media was complacent at best, a cheerleader at worst in the run up to the war, for Scotty to claim that a press corps that asked the right questions might have prevented the disaster is ridiculous.

First, its almost as if Scotty is stating that the administration would only tell the American public about issues related to media questions. Call it quaint but the federal government works for the public. If Scotty had information relevant to the sound workings of the government, he should have volunteered this information without question.

Next, many reporters did try to push McClellan on difficult subjects. Many, like Helen Thomas were smacked down. In fact, the White House went so far as to bring in fake reporters to lob Scotty soft ball questions, when press conferences got to heated.

Remember this guy?

Why Does Bush hate the troops?

President Bush is set to veto a Defense spending bill. The bill includes a pay raise for soldiers and money for veteran health care.

One question. Why does President Bush and the other republiCON lawmakers who voted against the bill hate the troops so much?

Iraq Exploding with Success

During the revolutionary war, America defined victory as independence from British tyranny. The civil war it was preservation of the union and destruction of the institution of slavery. Crushing fascist dreams of world domination was the goal in World War II.

Today, American war success isn't defined by grand goals such as independence, preserving the union, or crushing Nazi plans. Rather, President Bush says it's "not no violence" in Iraq. What? Not no violence is what America has spent precious lives, billions of dollars and our national prestige fighting for in Iraq these past four years.

If "not no violence" is now the measure of success, it appears we've arrived at our Iraqi equivalent of Yorktown, Appomattox, Berlin or Tokyo in just the past couple of days. Evidence of our victory can be found here, here, here, here, also here, and this one too, oh yeah and here.

Odd, victory doesn't seem so sweet.

What Would Bush Have Done?

On Fox News Sunday, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard asserted that a Democratic resolution opposing the President's escalation in Iraq would be like Democrats passing a resolution opposing further action in Europe right after the D-Day invasion. Kristol simply ignores the countless Republicans who are likely to support this resolution as well. However putting this aside, it's odd Kristol would want to compare Iraq to WWII given the United States defeated much stronger enemies in less time than the current war in Iraq.

Thankfully Roosevelt, rather than Bush, was in command during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or the United States might have been bogged down in a war with Mexico.

Lincoln Rolling in his Grave

Recently, conservative mouthpieces such as Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News have begun comparing George Bush to Abraham Lincoln. What a joke! The differences between our first Republican President and the current one are like night and day.

First, Mr. Lincoln’s war, unlike Bush’s incursion into Iraq, was forced upon him. Next, Mr. Lincoln’s policies were designed to hold the union together during a time of national crisis. By comparison Mr. Bush’s plans during an equally trying time appear to be tearing the nation apart. Third, Mr. Lincoln served and fought in our nation’s military. During Vietnam, Mr. Bush got a cozy deployment in the states. Finally, Mr. Lincoln was often referred to as “Honest” Abe. It is unlikely many would hang that nickname upon Mr. Bush and his administration.

Other than being Republicans, there is little these two Presidents share in common and it is doubtful Mr. Lincoln would appreciate the comparison.