The dumbest poll ever

The headline in USA Today reads: "Bush tops 'most admired' poll."

But that isn't exactly what the story says. The poll actually shows that President Bush and former President Bill Clinton are statistically tied as the most admired men. (Bush is the choice of 10 percent of respondents, and Clinton gets 8 percent. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, so Bush and Clinton are tied.)

Of course, the whole exercise is stupid. Sitting U.S. presidents, no matter how low their overall approval ratings, almost always come out at or near the top in these "most admired" polls. With nine out of every 10 respondents choosing somebody other than the so-called winner, the effort is rightly regarded as a waste of time.

And what are we to make of Hillary Clinton garnering six times as many votes as Laura Bush for the title of most admired woman? We should make nothing of it -- or of anything else having to do with this ridiculous poll.

Bush defies generals on torture ban

President Bush likes to say that he sides with the nation's military brass in the face of criticism from those lily-livered Democrats in Congress.

The truth, of course, is something else.

The House has passed a measure banning the torture of terrorism suspects by CIA interrogators. It mirrors a ban already in effect in the U.S. Army. Bush is vowing to veto the measure if it's approved by the Senate.

Ah, but what have we here? Why, it's a letter from no less than 30 retired generals and admirals urging congressional Democrats to hang tough on the torture ban in the face of the president's opposition.

So much for Bush's fealty to the brass.

Most military families oppose Bush's war

Barely one-third of U.S. military families approve of George W. Bush's war in Iraq.

These people must be dirty, commie, hippie scumbags, right? True patriots stand behind our president in a time of war, right? That's what I hear from the folks on Fox News and on talk radio.

No! This is too funny! Stop! I can't take it!

That Karl Rove is one hell of a humorous guy, as he demonstrates here.

Former WH mouthpiece spills the beans

If this sort of thing happened in a Democratic administration, the Republican establishment and much of the media would be howling for impeachment.

They don't understand the Constitution

In his radio address today, President Bush faulted Congress for passing a war-funding bill that includes a condition setting goals for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

"We do not need members of Congress telling our commanders what to do," Bush said.

Lots of people who support Bush in this controversy have the mistaken notion that the only constitutional roles for Congress in matters of war are to authorize the war and provide the funds. Their theory is that only the commander-in-chief and his generals have any authority under the Constitution to prosecute the war.

But these people, Bush included, are woefully uninformed on the constitutional niceties of such matters.

Consider these remarks by legendary American statesman Daniel Webster during the Mexican War of the late 1840s:

If the war should become odious to the people, if they shall disapprove the objects for which it appears to be prosecuted, then it will be the bounden duty of their representatives in Congress to demand of the President a full statement of his objects and purposes, and if those purposes shall appear to them not to be founded in the public good, or not consistent with the honor and character of the country, then it shall be their duty to put an end to it, by the exercise of their constitutional authority. . . . If Congress, in whom the war-making power is expressly made to reside, is to have no voice in the declaration or continuance of war, if it is not to judge of the beginning or carrying it on, then we depart at once from the Constitution.

Or consider these words from Henry Clay during that same period:

Must we blindly continue the conflict without any visible object, or any prospect of a definite termination? . . . If it be contended that war having been once commenced, the President of the United States may direct it to the accomplishment of any object he pleases, without consulting and without any regard to the will of Congress, the Convention will have utterly failed in guarding the nation against the abuses and ambition of a single individual. Either Congress or the President must have the right of determining upon the objects for which a war shall be prosecuted. There is no other alternative. If the President possess it and may prosecute it and may prosecute it for the objects against the will of Congress, where is the difference between our free government and that of any other nation which may be governed by an absolute czar, emperor, or king?

Turkish genocide against Armenians?

President Bush is right, for once, in urging Congress not to adopt a resolution condemning Turkish actions against Armenians during World War I.

Let history be the judge of something like that. Why needlessly piss off today's Turks, none of whom were around at the time in question?

BooMan has the correct slant on this matter.

UPDATE: Amazingly, RascalLand Congressman Don Manzullo bucked the Bush administration in a committee vote on this issue.

Loonies attack 12-year-old and his family

In their pathetic efforts to defend President Bush from public outrage over his veto of legislation funding the Children's Health Insurance Program, a gang of right-wing zealots, including Michelle Malkin (right), are going after a 12-year-old boy.

Lovely people, these extremists.

Bush's Columbus Day Address

The Great Decider decides to impart some of his edumacational historicalness to the Merkin Peepul.

Why do Sean Hannity and Fred Thompson hate America and denegrate our brave troops?

Decent folks have been up in arms the past few days over news that Barack Obama doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin.

The nerve of the guy! Oh, sure, he says he prefers to show his patriotism in more substantive ways. Who's he kidding? He's just a terrorist sympathizer, that's what he is. He has no respect for our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The man's a damned traitor.

You wouldn't find Sean Hannity or Fred Thompson without flags on their lapels, would you?

Oops! I guess you would.

Uh-oh! There seems to be lots of pictures of the Republican presidential candidates all dressed up in their Sunday best -- but most of them without flags on their lapels.

Wait! It gets worse. Here's President Bush shaking hands with some guy, and the prez is completely flagless! No wonder his approval rating is in the dumper.

Man! This country's in big, big trouble.

Compassionate conservatism

By the way, if you're from the Rockford area, you should know that Don Manzullo voted against the State Children's Health Insurance Program and almost certainly will vote to uphold President Bush's veto.

POSTSCRIPT: Paul Krugman says conservatives generally regard the problems of the downtrodden -- sick kids among the poor, for example -- as funny.

Teach your childrens well

George W. Bush, the pride of Andover Prep and Yale University, declared today that "childrens do learn when standards are high."

The man has a problem with words...among other things.

More on Dubya's fear of horses

I told you here yesterday that George W. Bush, self-styled cowboy, reportedly is afraid of horses.

Today, I've got a video from a few years ago that puts the issue in context:

Is Georgie skeered of horsies?

The Rascal doesn't ordinarily traffick in such trivialities, but this is too delicious to pass up, especially in light of the great importance your typical Republican male attaches to macho symbolism.

Olbermann cuts Bush a new one -- and how!

This is good.

A math lesson

This is from MoveOn.org:

Uh-oh! Newtie's making sense again

As I've noted here on several occasions recently, Newt Gingrich has been speaking some truths of late.

Today, for example, Gingrich told a group of reporters that the Republican presidential nominee next year will be toast if he doesn't represent a "clean break" from the policies of George W. Bush.

I, for one, hope that Newtie takes the presidential plunge himself. I won't vote for him, but I'm sure he'll make the process much more interesting.

Prebuttal to Bush's speech

This is from the National Security Network:

The pols should heed what this guy says

Matthew Dowd, who was chief strategist for President Bush's re-election campaign in 2004, offers this analysis of how Americans view the war in Iraq.

Politicians of all stripes, but especially the Democrats, would do well to consider its implications.

How stupid can one person be?

Here's the answer.