More Proof That Ideology Is A Mental Disorder!

Perhaps, we should call it cirrhosis of the brain; a condition in which deep ruts form in the cortex, causing knee-jerk reaction to anything which challenges the world view of the owner of said brain, and the executive function of the brain is severely impaired, unless the person sticks with a clearly defined thinking pattern, and talking points, delivered from on-high.

Another term for ideological brain damage could be aplastic, executive brain function.

People with this mental disorder should be prevented from holding high offfice in this country!



Neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol believes that any increase of U.S. troops in Iraq must be a permanent increase to achieve success.


There's no point having a short term surge," Kristol said on Fox News Channel. "Especially, if it's proclaimed ahead of time that it's just short term. Then [the enemy] goes into hiding for 3 or 6 months."

"We pull back and we're in the same situation," the Weekly Standard editor said. "Bush will commit -- I believe, when he speaks in a couple of weeks -- to doing this. That this is a strategy for victory and that he's willing to do this for the remaining 2 years of his presidency."

(He is willing to do just about anything to dump this mess in the lap of the next President. Karl is telling him it will be a Democrat, and do the Rovians ever have plans for him or her.)

Forecasting the president's plan for Iraq, Kristol adds, "I think [Bush] will say 'We can win. We have to win. We're going to increase troop levels as part of a new strategy for the sake of victory.' And, so, it will not be a short term surge."

(Yeah, more like a heave, after a bit to much New Years celebration.)

Kristol respects the president for increasing troops against conventional wisdom in D.C. and against the wishes of public sentiment, but mocks the majority of people that have doubts about a troop increase, saying, "This is a remarkable moment, though. I came to Washington 30 years ago. How often does a president go against -- what Juan referred to -- the wider consensus in this town, 'the military solution isn't possible?' It's a very broad consensus of the establishment and, I think, that's why there's so much anger among the establishment-types. 'Gee. The Baker-Hamilton Commission pronounced its verdict. And how dare the president make up his own mind and decide that he's not just going to just gracefully accept defeat with this nice bi-partisan patina of the Baker-Hamilton Commission. How dare he decide that we might win in Iraq."

(Mr. Kristol, how can you be such an idiot. Do you not believe in the wisdom of the "group conscious," especially when it has finally awakened from a fear and deception induced coma? )

Kristol praises the president's embrace of the neocon-preferred Iraq plan and compares him to President Reagan, saying, "It's nice to see a president showing leadership and courage. It reminds me that the only time I've really seen this was Reagan at Reykjavik [talks] in 1987.

(God, what an incredible ass!)

He turned down Gorbachev's -- what was thought to be, a very generous offer. You remember this well -- to get rid of so many weapons. And Reagan said, 'No. We're not getting rid of SDI [aka Star Wars]' He went against the bipartisan consensus, the conventional wisdom. He was right and this time Bush is going to do it. It's impressive. It's impressive to take charge in this way."

(He was not right. The cold war is not over, in case you haven't noticed, and a new arms race has already begun. Reagan, when he finally saw the light, tried to halt the cold war (or as some of us call it the nuclear threat) and was greatly aided by Gorbachav.) They are both to be commended, but their great effort has been sabotaged by the current fools who threaten the planet.

Juan Williams thinks that it may be too early to praise President Bush for an expected increase in Iraq troops. Expressing his doubts, Williams says to Kristol, "So, you can dress up the fact that [the president] might be wrong, but he might be wrong. And he's been wrong. One of the theories here, if you wanted a troop increase, it should have been done several years ago. And we have tried it, Fred. You say I'm wrong but, Fred, this has been tried -- to secure Baghdad -- this is not a new idea. We tried it and it didn't work.

( Why the hell isn't this simple fact being mentioned more often: We have incresed troops before, and to little or no avail, except the PR of yet another election in Iraq. Elections do not a Democracy make, as we have learned here, recently, in our own country.)