Wednesday, September 27, 2006

I’ll Be Away For a Couple Days

Gone to God’s country—Brooklyn, NY.

At Least Now We Know How A REAL Prez Acts

After six years of George W. Bush, I had forgotten how real presidents comport themselves. But when Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf appeared on The Daily Show last night, it suddenly came back to me. Oh my God! Real presidents are dignified, knowledgeable, articulate, respectful, amusing, and mirabile dictu! Real presidents put the welfare of their country and its citizens ahead of their own egos. Real presidents are diplomatic and thoughtful. When Jon Stewart broached the subject of Richard Armitage (then-deputy secretary of state) threatening to “bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age” if Musharraf didn’t support the US after 9/11, Musharraf said, "I've had to learn the art of tightrope-walking many times, and I think I've become quite an expert of that." And real presidents speak the truth without hesitation. Putting Musharraf on the hot seat, Stewart asked, "George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden - be truthful - who would win a popular vote in Pakistan?" "I think they’d both lose miserably," Musharraf said.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

You Have to Feel Sorry For Spokespersons

Transportation Security Administration assistant secretary Kip Hawley held a news conference this morning at Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC. His mission was to give the latest poop on carry-on regulations. Poor thing. He had to say things like: “While this novel type of liquid explosives is now an ongoing part of the terrorists’ playbook and must be dealt with, we now know enough to say that a total ban is no longer needed from a security point of view,” When he said you had to buy your bottled water at the airport after you pass through the checkpoint, he had to put up with knowing glances that implied there is a conspiracy to make people pay airport high prices. And he had to field questions like: How can you trust the workers? How do we know they bought their bottled water in the airport? How do we know they didn’t sneak the water in to give it to a terrorist? When he countered by saying workers at stores beyond the checkpoint passed through security and that other maintenance workers were subject to background checks and TSA officers would increase random inspections of airport workers, Hawley had to put up with eyeball rolls and under-the-breath Uh-huhs. It was Hawley’s job to explain that airports don’t have the proper equipment to check for liquid explosives because developing and deploying this equipment at the 753 airport checkpoints would take months, maybe years. He said new equipment was being tested and, “We don’t want to be in the position of, out of the urgent need to do this, we essentially waste the taxpayers’ money...we want to take our time to do it right.” He had to know he’d be quoted. He had to know his quotes might wind up on comedy shows. He had to know people would say it’s a little late in the game to worry about Homeland Security wasting the taxpayer’s money. He had to know that it didn’t take a math major to add two-plus-two and realize that if the need is urgent you can’t take your time. When Hawley said the FBI had done tests that showed that a quart-size bag filled with three-ounce containers would not hold enough explosives to destroy a plane, he had to know people would wonder where the FBI got the state-of-the-art explosives that terrorists use, and why they didn’t just shut the terrorists’ down after they got their explosives? Kip Hawley had to know the response to his news conference would be skepticism or outright laughter because the public doesn’t trust the Transportation Security Administration, Homeland Security, the FBI or the CIA. The public doesn’t think these agencies know their ass about terrorists or their explosives. The public never did think lipsticks and gels had to be banned in the first place, and allowing them back on the carry-on list doesn’t mean tests have been carried out or that any items have actually been cleared for take-off. There may have been a very real threat on Aug. 10 when the Brits arrested a group of suspected terrorists who were said to be plotting to blow up U.S.-bound flights with liquid explosives. But within a week or two, the terrorists were being called wannabes, and the plot to mix explosive liquids in the plane’s WC while in-flight was being called ludicrous. Whenever the Bush administration needs a diversion, we get a terror alert. Whenever the Bush administration wants to change the subject we hear from or about Osama bin Laden. Are these coincidences? So now the items that were being shit-canned in airports last week are okay to bring on board this week because the FBI has done tests? Boloney! I still have in my mind the video of airport checkpoint officials pouring liquids, one after the other, into trash cans, oblivious of the fact that if they were too dangerous to bring on board, then they might explode when poured, willy-nilly, one on top of the other. That was the FBI’s test. Hawley called the changes a common-sense approach, which will "keep us at a high level of security but make it a little bit easier for passengers." No. The US is, and always has been, at a low-level of security in airports and everywhere else. The White House ploy is to keep us at a high level of fear, but under the level of mob fury. Like a lot of White House strategies, the Keep ‘Em Scared ploy isn’t working. And we’ve gone way beyond the Mad as Hell point. Ken Hawley seems like a nice-enough person. He should get an honest job.

Monday, September 25, 2006

McCain Links 9/11 and Iraq War (Again)

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the war in Iraq has been harmful to the war on terrorism. The report is a classified analysis of the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies. It was delivered to lawmakers this past April. According to Republicans and Democrats who received the analysis, it said that the war in Iraq had spread radicalism throughout the Middle East and the longer the war goes on, the more terrorist plots will be advanced. Republicans are not disputing the accuracy of the report. But according to the LA Times this morning, White House spokesman Peter Watkins said, “much of the radicals' rage at the United States and Israel goes back generations and is not linked to the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.” Using that logic, the problems of the world today go back to Esau selling his birthright to Jacob. But that explanation is a little remote for any rational discussion about the unnecessary war in Iraq that was embarked on unilaterally by the Bush administration and has “spawned radical terrorism throughout the Middle East”. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) didn’t bring up Biblical feuds or rage that goes back generations. But on CBS News “Face the Nation” yesterday, he did invoke the old White House saw about 9/11. McCain said, ”I think it’s obvious that the difficulties we’ve experienced in Iraq have certainly emboldened them (terrorist groups)...but I would also argue that these people didn’t need any motivation to attack us on Sept. 11.” “THESE PEOPLE”? What people, Mr. McCain? The Saudi’s slammed into the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. The report by the intelligence agencies says the war in Iraq has engendered terrorist groups. And dumb as we are, even Donald Rumsfeld did not attack Iraq because he thought it was Saudi Arabia. Dumb as he is, even Rumsfeld knew the difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. And how did Rumsfeld know the difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq? Because right up to, through and including the Saudi attack on 9/11, and even to the point that the Bush administration decided to obliterate Iraq, George W. Bush was playing kissy-face with his great good pal Saudi Prince Bandar. Saudi Arabia is and always has been off-limits for blame or reprisals. Was Al-Qaeda operating in Saudi Arabia? Yes. Did the US know that the Saudi’s attacked the WTC and that Al-Qaeda had cells in Saudi Arabia? Yes. Did the US ever go after the Saudi’s or Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia for the attack on the WTC? No. What did the US do? Because the Saud friendship with the Bush regime was sacrosanct, the US blamed Iraq for 9/11. And now that the analysis of 16 intelligence agencies reports that terrorism throughout the Middle East has been spread by the war in Iraq, the Bush administration is still flogging the old lie that terrorist groups in Iraq are the same terrorists who attacked the WTC. Let us never forget that the terrorists who attacked the WTC were from Saudi Arabia and that at the time of the attack the Bush administration was in bed with the Saud royal family. And the Bush administration saw to it that 40 Saudi’s who were on American soil on September 11, 2001 were whisked out of the US on US planes the night of the attack. It would be nice if Senator McCain would be a little more explicit about his “these people” allegations. The people who attacked us on 9/11 may well have been members of Al-Qaeda, but they were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq. And the US surely wasn’t going to go to war with the Sauds because our Saudi oil deals trumped our Iraq oil deals. So the answer was to hold Saudi Arabia harmless, blame Iraq for everything going back to Isaac and Ishmael and seize Iraq’s oil into the bargain. And that’s what we set out to do. But because the US strategists are stupid, arrogant and ignorant, it hasn't worked out. We have fouled the whole Iraq nation, ruined Iraqi lives, murdered their citizens, killed their economy, and we didn’t even get Iraq’s oil. Plus, we’re in debt up to our eyeballs. And the LA Times reports this morning, “The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.” Now we find out 16 intelligence agencies say the United States has “spawned radical terrorism throughout the Middle East”. So, what people are responsible for all of the above, Mr. McCain? None other than your political party and THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION--those fine folks that protected Saudi Arabia, the nation responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

Here’s a Scenario I REALLY Love!

I don’t usually pass along rumors, unless of course it’s about George Bush being drunk or gay, or drunk and gay, or about Condi being a dominatrix, or about Cheney being threatened with a gun. (By the way, did I tell you that one? That Henry Whittington was going to shoot Cheney and put the US out of its misery and that’s why Cheney shot him? I didn’t tell you that? My mistake.) Anyway, here’s a shout I just read on BuzzFlash that I am prepared to believe down to my toes. “Reports of Osama's Death May be Too Premature for Rove. Karl Doesn't Care if He Died of Typhus, But Rove Then Needed People Not to Know, So He Could Send in An Army Squad to Pretend They Had a Shoot Out with Osama's Guards. Then They'd Spray Some Bullets Into Osama's Body That Had Been Kept on Ice, and Bush Would Triumphantly Arrive in a Helicopter That He "Flew in" to View the Body, Wearing His "Mission Accomplished" Cod Piece GI Joe Outfit. 9/24” Oh yummy! Wouldn’t that have been great? Karl must be so disappointed. When you think about the bogus crap the Bush administration gave out about Zarqawi’s death last June, this scenario about Osama’s body being kept on ice until the right moment when US soldiers could be filmed spraying bullets at it, followed by Bush doing his wow finish wearing a GI Joe costume, sounds just right. If you remember, the initial news coverage about Zarqawi reported that he was killed in a US “precision airsstrike” when two 500-pound bombs were dropped on his house near Baqouba, Iraq. First, he was killed instantly. Then he wasn’t killed instantly, he lived after the airstrike. Then he not only lived after being hit by two 500-pound bombs, he said a few words. Then he tried to run away after he said a few words. Then it was reported that US soldiers beat the crap out of him after he said a few words, after he tried to run away, after he was hit by two 500-pound bombs. Then he was put on a gurney for medical treatment. However, after heroic measures to save his life, he died alas and George W. Bush got to intone that Zarqawi’s death "is a severe blow to Al Qaeda and it is a significant victory in the war on terror." Which, of course, it wasn’t. The movie of the “The Killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” was written, produced, directed and filmed by the independent White House production team and film school headed by Karl Rove. Rove had written, produced, directed and filmed a short teaser the previous May featuring Zarqawi. Unfortunately, that little video was a dud because the Zarqawi look-alike appeared to be standing in a desert in the US and someone had to show him how to operate a gun. In any case, the current fad in government-run film schools seems to be to bring leaders back from the dead. Castro, for instance. Resurrections are not that difficult these days. You have the leader get sick, lose weight, become unrecognizable, then you bring in a clone to rise up from a sick bed and Bob’s your uncle. What the White House film school will do now to resurrect Osama is anybody’s guess. Dying from typhus is a tough act to follow and whatever they come up with will be very anti-climatic. Resurrecting people just to kill them seems so joyless and mean-spirited. Nevermind. I’ll suspend my disbelief just to get to see the Prez decked out again as a World War II flying ace when he proclaims victory over…whatever he’ll claim victory over as he takes credit for killing Osama. Oh, and the codpiece accouterment. Yes indeedy. What a treat! Bring it on, Georgie! Let’s hear it for Donkeyboy Devil George. There He Is, Mister America!

Saturday, September 23, 2006

McCain Will NEVER Oppose His Neocon Pals

This morning the New York Times reported, “Mr. McCain (R-AZ) said on the ‘Today’ show on Friday, ‘We got what we wanted.’” You can count on this: When John McCain says “we”, he always means the Dick Cheney faction in the White House. McCain may have seemed to run counter to the most vicious, fear-mongering hate merchants in the White House. But when he sided with John Warner (R-VA) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) in their opposition to legislation proposed by the White House, which would allow interrogators to torture detainees, that was a pretense. McCain is an unscrupulous opportunist who has no problem lying with a straight face and kissing whatever ass he has to kiss. If ever a politician routinely talks out of both sides of his mouth, it is President-Wannabe Senator John McCain. And Democrats like Democrat leader Harry Reid may be hailing the compromise reached between Republicans and the White House, but of this you may be assured: the fact that the compromise is, as the New York Times deemed it, “a series of interlocking paradoxes”, is because of John McCain. According to an article by Adam Liptak in this morning’s NYT, ("Detainee Deal Comes With Contradictions"), “It (the compromise) imposes new legal standards that it forbids the courts to enforce.” Thank you, John McCain. “It would guarantee terrorist masterminds charged with war crimes an array of procedural protections. But it would bar hundreds of minor figures and people who say they are innocent bystanders from access to the courts to challenge their potentially lifelong detentions.” Thank you, John McCain. “And while there is substantial disagreement about just which harsh interrogation techniques the compromise would prohibit, there is no dispute that it would allow military prosecutors to use statements that had been obtained under harsh techniques that are now banned.” Thank you, John McCain. Eric M. Freedman, a professor at Hofstra University and the author of a book on habeas corpus said, “The only thing that was actually accomplished was that the politicians got to announce the existence of a compromise. But in fact, most of the critical issues were not resolved.” There you go. That’s the John McCain modus operandi in a nutshell. A teacher of constitutional law at Georgetown, Martin S. Lederman, said the bill continued to allow the CIA to inflict harsh treatment on detainees. "They appear to have negotiated a statutory definition of cruel treatment that doesn't cover the C.I.A. techniques," Lederman said. "And they pruport to foreclose the ability of the courts to determine whether they satisfy the Geneva obligations." The Liptak article says, “About 430 people are being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and there is no guarantee that they will ever be tried. The legislation, unchanged by the compromise, would prohibit habeas corpus challenges to these indefinite detentions.” This so-called compromise is a total sham. But, as McCain said, he (and the neocons in the Bush administration) got what they wanted. Why did the Democrats go along? Because, they say, they don’t want to appear to be “obstructionist”. And the only thing one can say to that lily-livered argument is: WHY NOT?

Friday, September 22, 2006

Venezuelan Prez Chavez and the “D” Words

When a man is right, he’s right. You can’t just discount the pearls of wisdom that issue forth from a man because he’s a hothead and a despot. I mean, if the Republican Party decided that the current resident of the White House couldn’t be taken seriously because he’s an idiot, where would the Republican Party be? Bad analogy. The Republican Party would not be in its current world of troubles if George W. Bush weren’t at the helm. But my point is, even psychopaths can have brilliant insights. Like Hitler when he said, “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” The first time Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez showed his keen perception into our President was last March 19th during Chavez’s weekly Sunday television broadcast. In English, he said, "You are a donkey, Mr. Bush…you're an alcoholic, Mr. Danger, or rather, you're a drunkard." Say what you will about Chavez, but he couldn’t even be sued for slander with those shrewd assessments. They’re true. George W. Bush is a silly ass and he’s got a drinking problem. But Chavez hit the heights this past Wednesday at the UN, when he responded to Bush’s Tuesday dispute with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Referring to Bush, Chavez made the sign of the cross and said, "The devil came here yesterday...he came here talking as if he were the owner of the world." What could be truer than that? Wise words. Accurate words. Precise and correct words. But US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton said, “I'm just not going to comment on this because his (Chavez) remarks just don't warrant a response…serious people can listen to what he had to say and if they do they will reject it.” Poppycock! I’m serious and I don’t reject it. I embrace it. George W. Bush is the devil. As a matter of fact, I have to echo all of Hugo Chavez’s perspicacious, astute, D-word discernments about the 43rd president of the United States. George W. Bush is a donkey, a drunkard and the devil. On other subjects and policies, I would have to disagree with Chavez. But on George W. Bush, he’s distilled the essence of the man into three words. Well done!

Thursday, September 21, 2006

The Right To Whine and The Devil You Know

This morning, a New York Times headline says, “Only 25% in Poll Approve of the Congress”. The poll was the latest Times and CBS poll which began last Friday and finished up Tuesday night. The poll was nationwide. It included 1131 adults of whom 1007 said they were registered to vote. It was conducted by phone. In this poll, Bush’s job approval rating was at 37% and 77% of those polled (including 65% of Republicans) said most members of Congress hadn’t done a good enough job to be re-elected. The results of the poll sound like good news for the Democrats, right? Not so fast. The problem is human nature. In America, we have the right to loudly piss and moan, complain, whine and rail against everything from politics to the sit-coms on television. And we take that right seriously. But for most of us, our complaints don’t translate into action. We don’t even write letters to our representatives in Congress. And when it gets to the point that we go to the polls to vote, statistics report that we tend to pull the lever of the name we recognize. Even though that name is the person we think is a doofus and we’ve been calling the candidate’s political party the worst names we can think of for four years…or in the case of Senators, six years. The old axiom that the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know, plays out in most elections. Those who were polled said that Democrats were more likely to tell the truth than Republicans regarding the war in Iraq and terrorism. Fifty-nine percent said Bush was hiding something when he talked about progress in Iraq. And twenty-five percent said he mostly lied about the war. The Democrats didn’t fare that well either when the subject of hiding and lying came up. Seventy-one percent said Democrats in Congress were hiding something and 13 percent said Democrats were mostly lying. The last paragraph of the NYT article quoted Robert Allen, a Democrat from Ventura, Calif. Allen said, “We’re in a stalemate right now. They’re not getting hardly anything done. It’s time to elect a whole new bunch so they can do something.” That’s true. And nearly everyone with an opinion seems to agree. But when we stand in the voting booth, will we act on the conviction that the idiots should be thrown out? Probably not.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Democrat Plans

It’s always annoyed me that the Republicans keep yammering that the Democrats have no plan regarding Iraq. And therefore, according to the GOP, the country had best leave the control of government in the hands of Republicans who have a plan. The Republican plan is to keep our soldiers in Iraq to fight the civil war the Bush administration fomented through incompetence. But the Democrats did have a plan early on. The Democrats plan was: Don’t attack Iraq. Then when the White House decided it was going to attack Iraq no matter what, in order to show the world that the US wouldn’t put up with small nations that didn’t willingly hand over their riches to rich Americans, the Democrats kept pushing forward its plan: Don’t attack Iraq, but if you’re going to attack Iraq, do it right. Stuck with a war they didn’t want, the Democrats had a new plan. And that was: put as many soldiers and as much equipment in Iraq as an intelligent war strategist would need in order to get the war over with quickly and our soldiers back home as soon as possible. But the Republicans used the stupidest neocon war strategist they could find and decided to fight their unnecessary war on the cheap. Stuck with a war they didn’t want, devised by the stupidest neocon war strategist in the world, and cheered on by the most incompetent and ignorant president the US has ever had, when the Democrats saw that a civil war had erupted in Iraq, they had another plan: Bring our soldiers home to keep them from being in the position of fighting Iraq’s civil war. But the Republicans said there was no civil war. The Republicans said our soldiers would have to stay in Iraq until the US had taught the Iraqis how to live peaceably among themselves while at the same time the Republicans systematically stole all of Iraq’s riches and resources, and made pots of money by stealing US money ear-marked to rehab Iraq. Currently, the Republicans are saying that all plans devised by Democrats were weak and wouldn’t have worked anyhow. Besides, the Democrats never had a plan. So now the Democrats have a new plan: Vote the Republican assholes out, unload all that secrecy crap, shitcan the bullshit, get a handle on what’s really going on in Iraq and bring the guys home as soon as possible. So there’s the Prez yesterday giving a speech in front of the UN. And just because he can’t remember anything before two hours ago without a cheat sheet, he assumes the whole world has amnesia. But the whole world remembers him standing before the UN on September 12, 2002 as though it was yesterday, when he said: “Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons…the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons…Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a nuclear weapon is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.” The one contingency that neither Repubs nor Dems took into account was the fact that George W. Bush would so completely blow his credibility. No one listened to him yesterday. He spoke to deaf ears. Time to quote Bobby Burns and his “best-laid plans aft gang agley” line.

Monday, September 18, 2006

The Pope Is a Provocateur And Science Ninny

This past August Pope Ratzinger sacked his chief astronomer, the American Jesuit priest Father George Coyne. Father Coyne contradicted the Pope’s ignorant endorsement of “intelligent design” (creationism). The Pope won’t stand for dissent. In the Pope’s Vatican there is no room for discussion or dialogue. If you don’t agree with Pope Ratz, you are out. Last Tuesday in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th century Christian emperor who said Muslims were evil and inhuman. He didn’t say he didn’t agree with the statement. He just let it hang in the air to do the nasty work it was intended to do. And that intention was to put all Muslims on notice that the Roman Catholic Church views Islam and all Muslims as beneath contempt. Apologists are saying the Pope wrote the speech himself and did not realize his words were provocative and that they would offend the entire Muslim world. Pope Ratzinger is many things. He’s mean, he’s vicious, he’s stubborn, and he’s unmovable. But stupid he is not. This Pope absolutely realizes that his every word reaches into the most remote areas of the world. And as God’s spokesman on earth, he expects his every word to be heeded and taken seriously. Pope Ratz recently moved the Vatican’s senior Arabist to Cairo. It is the general consensus among religious experts that the meaning of that reassignment is that Ratz sees no reason to have any discussions whatever with Muslims. The Pope has rid himself and the Vatican of his former second-in-command and he has appointed a new foreign minister. There is no one in the Vatican who looks over or edits the Pope’s speeches. There is no one who dares to advise him on diplomacy or to suggest that he change ill-advised rhetoric. Which is exactly the way this Pope wants it. Ratz managed to choke out a bland and inadequate non-apology apology at the summer papal palace yesterday. He said, "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address, which were considered offensive." Ratz added, “These were in fact quotations from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.” Boloney! Why make the quotation in the first place? In the same speech, why define jihad as “holy war” and say that violence in the name of religion is contrary to God’s nature and to reason? Why? To provoke and to make a public statement about how the Roman Catholic Church views Islam. This alarm bell was struck by the man that over a billion Roman Catholics see as God’s surrogate. And no matter what the Pope now says or doesn’t say, claims or doesn’t claim, this bell cannot be unrung.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Today in NYT: Two Tied-in News Stories

1) “In Campaign Ads for Democrats, Bush Is the Star” 2) “Iraq Stumbling in Bid to Purge Its Rogue Police” Quote from Article No. 1: “Democrats said using advertisements involving Mr. Bush was almost an obvious thing to do, given his lack of popularity, and reflects the effort by many in the party to turn this election into a national referendum on Mr. Bush. At a minimum, millions are being spent by the Democrats on ads featuring Mr. Bush.” However, the NYT says, “The strategy has risks…Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster, said that the constant attacks on Mr. Bush appeared to be accomplishing something Republicans had been unable to do: riling up Republican base voters.” RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman, using his patented rebuttal technique of fast-talking in hopes that no one notices his errors, said that the Republicans’ own experience in politics suggested that running against someone who is not on the ballot is challenging. “The last time this kind of morph ad was tried was in ’98.” Mehlman said, “when we tried to nationalize the races against Clinton and it didn’t work.” It almost seems unnecessary to point out that the GOP plan to mobilize the election against Clinton in 1998 didn’t work because Clinton was an intelligent, informed and likeable president. And he had not lied the nation into war Quote from Article No. 2: “The ministry (headed by Iraq Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki) recently discovered that more than 1,200 policemen and other employees had been convicted years ago of murder, rape and other violent crimes, said a Western diplomat who has close contact with the ministry. Some were even on death row. Few have been fired. “A senior American commander said that of the 27 paramilitary police battalions, ‘we think 5 or 6 battalions probably have leaders that have led that part of the organization in a way that is either criminal or sectarian or both.’” The article went on to state. “death squads in uniforms could be responsible for the recent surge in sectarian violence, with at least 165 bodies found across Baghdad since Wednesday.” This is the “freedom and democracy” that the Bush administration decided to sell as the reason for starting the war in Iraq when Saddam having WMD’s was proven false. The news coming out of Iraq is so bad that the Bush Administration has switched from using the Iraq war as a selling point in the upcoming elections to using terrorism as a selling point. And it is clear that this switch to terrorism has included terrorizing Americans by secretly wiretapping us and by using fear as a political ploy. The “Republican base voters” that Glen Bolger refers to are the knee-jerk neocons and lock-step born-agains who applaud with equal vigor when the Prez says he wants Osama bin Laden “dead or alive”, and when he says, “I truly am not that concerned about him (Osama bin Laden)”. This base is shrinking daily. Of course the Dems are using Bush in their campaign ads. When the idiot says things like "as long as I am president, we're not leaving Iraq" (August 21 press briefing) it would be a ridiculous loss of opportunity not to use Bush against the Republicans. But Bush is doing his level best to bring down the Republican Party himself, as we can see from the news coming out of Iraq and the White House campaign to allow all nations to torture war captives. Which, of course, would enable all nations to torture captured American soldiers. This morning, on George Steph’s This Week show on ABC, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said that one reason he is against the Bush administration’s plan to rewrite the Geneva Convention rules is that it would mean the US “will lose the high ground” as regards the esteem the US is held in around the world for its moral and ethical standards. And that’s the problem with John McCain as a wanna-be president. He actually believes that the US has the high ground. WE DO NOT HAVE THE HIGH GROUND. When George W. Bush became President in 2000 and ushered in a regime of fascists, the US lost the high ground. And it will be a very long time, maybe forever, until we get it back. One thing is for dead certain. John McCain would not give the high ground back to the United States. He’s a smiling, soft-spoken, man who appears reasonable and likeable. Unfortunately, John McCain is a neocon warmonger who agrees with the Bush administration on almost all issues that negatively affect Americans.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Pope Calls Islam Evil; Didn’t Mean to Offend

So, let me think about this. If a big mahoff in the Islam world cited an obscure 14th century text in which a Christian emperor and a Muslim scholar were having a conversation, and if the Muslim scholar called Christianity “evil and inhuman”, am I to believe that Pope Ratz would not be offended? And then if a flunky in the Islam world said, “Our leader didn’t mean to offend the sensibilities of Christians”, would Ratz say, “Okay, that’s good enough for me”? Ha! And double HA! You bet your sweet ass he would not! The Pope was making a speech about reason and faith in the West at Regensburg University in Germany last Tuesday. Before Ratz became God’s mouthpiece on earth, he taught theology at Regensburg University. By all accounts, the speech was long-winded and scholarly. Ratz began his discourse by relating a conversation that took place between a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar. The conversation was about the truths of Christianity and Islam. The Christian emperor says, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” That’s what the Pope said and that’s why Muslims are outraged. And although neither Ratz nor the Vatican has released an official comment, when Ratz returned from his six-day trip to Germany, his flunkies said he was very “upset about the reaction of Muslims to his speech”. Which is typical of the Roman Catholic Church. When pedophile priests were being protected by the Church and shunted from one diocese to another, allowing them to persist in their defiling of little children, the Vatican was upset at the reaction of the world to “a few bad apples”. It took months for the Vatican to admit that their bad applies' crime of pedophilia was a horrendous and bad thing. And it took more months for the Vatican to admit that enabling and protecting their bad apples was an equally bad thing. Now the Roman Catholic Church is upset at Muslims for taking offense when the Pope baldfacedly calls Islam “evil and inhuman”. As the Associated Press put it: “The remarks -- tucked into an address at a German university where he formerly taught theology -- were interpreted by many experts in interfaith relations as a signal that the Vatican is staking a new and more demanding stance for its dealings with the Muslim world.” You can’t call someone’s mother a whore and then get righteously indignant about the “sensibilities” of the woman’s son when he gets pissed. Somehow, the RCC and the Bush administration believe that if insults, slander, libel and calls for holy war are couched in just the right rhetoric then the poisonous vitriol becomes hypothetical questions posed by objective pedants. Which of course could not be more wrong. An insult is an insult. And an exhortation to rise up in holy fury against a religious foe is exactly that. When the Pope cites a Christian emperor who proclaimed that Islam is evil and inhuman, no matter what century the emperor said it, there is no reason for the Pope to say it other than to iterate that Islam is evil and inhuman. When the president of the United States said, "this crusade, this war on terrorism", on September 16, 2001, he really meant that the US response to 9/11 would be a crusade, in every sense of the word crusade. At best, the Vatican claiming that the Pope didn’t mean what he said is childish. At worst, the Pope took a political stance against a worldwide religious community and damned all Muslims as being evil and inhuman. Advice to Pope Ratz and the Republican Party: When you are not the biggest and strongest, watch your mouth. There are 1.3 billion adherents to Islam in the world. There are 1.1 billion Roman Catholics in the world. And 56% of the people recently polled view Bush unfavorably.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Powell: World “Would Doubt” US Moral Basis

Former secretary of state and current toadying suck-up Colin Powell sided with Senators Warner (R-VA), McCain (R-VA), Graham (R-SC) and Collins (R-MA) in their opposition to the Bush administration’s plan to rewrite the Geneva Conventions regarding the trial and interrogation of terrorism suspects. Powell sent a letter to the Prez saying that the White House plan “would encourage the world to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism and would put our own troops at risk.” Dear Colin Powell: The world already doubts our morals. And the senseless and unnecessary war in Iraq already has put our troops at risk. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Mr. Powell, 2680 US soldiers have died in the war you lied us into in Iraq. It was you, after all, who said at the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons." Many of our soldiers'deaths are because the US failed to give our troops proper equipment and adequate training. Plus, everyday our soldiers are being put at further risk by being re-deployed time and again back to Iraq when they are already physically and mentally taxed beyond their endurance. The White House plan to spit on the Geneva Convention rules would merely add more risks to our soldiers, should they be captured. But they already are at risk because of the White House, the Pentagon, and your stupidity, arrogance and ignorance. And you think the world “would be encouraged” to doubt our morals? The world has no doubt whatsoever right now, today, this hour that under the leadership of the Bush administration (that includes you, Mr. Powell), the United States has no moral or ethical standards whatsoever. I can only assume Colin Powell is hopeful that John McCain would give him a job in his cabinet if McCain wins the 2008 election. And therefore Powell has now traded in the most-favored kissed ass of George W. Bush for a new and more appealing most-favored kissed ass of John McCain.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Oh the Irony of It!

New York Times headline today: “Wolfowitz Corruption Drive Rattles World Bank” Lead paragraphs: “In his first 15 months as president of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz has made the fight against corruption in poor countries a hallmark issue, waging an aggressive campaign that has led to the suspension of hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contracts to nations including India, Chad, Kenya, Congo, Ethiopia and Bangladesh. “It is a new incarnation for Mr. Wolfowitz, a neoconservative intellectual who was a primary architect of the Iraq war during four years as deputy secretary of defense.” Paul Wolfowitz, you may remember, was a signer of the Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997 which advocated pre-emptive strikes against small countries as a means of furthering US plans for global supremacy. On October 29, 2005, TruthOut quoted Elizabeth Varga: “From the fall of 2001 to at least March 2003, the following officials, and others, made hundreds of false assertions in speeches, on television, at the United Nations, to foreign leaders and to Congress: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Under Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Their statements were remarkably consistent and consistently false.” On December 28, 2005 Congressman (D-MI) John Conyers released a report that said the Bush Administration leaked classified information to support its case that Iraq was a threat to the United States. Conyers said, "Subsequent media accounts have traced the story, at least in part, to Paul Wolfowitz.” But now, Wolfowitz is so concerned about the evils of corruption that he is suspending loans to third world countries until they cleanse themselves of sleazy practices. The NYT article about Wolfowitz’s crusade against corruption goes on to say: “Distrust of Mr. Wolfowitz remains high…The doubts center on Mr. Wolfowitz’s role as a leading advocate of the American invasion of Iraq, with many critics contending that his zeal on corruption reminds them of what they say was his messianic but unrealistic faith that installing democracy by force in Iraq, and by other means through the Middle East, would bring stability to the region.” Well, you can’t keep a lying, messianic zealot down. Just ask Joe Lieberman.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Yikes! WH is Planting Condi Romance Stories

Dear God, the White House is now planting romance stories in the New York Times about Secretary of State Rice. How pathetic is that? The conjectures posited in “Dance of Diplomacy Is Grist for the Gossip Mill” about Condi Rice and various men are so asinine and childish that only maniacs in the White House could have thought them up. And only the NYT in its sycophantic and slavish desire to do the GOP bidding would print such a foolish story. First Helene Cooper cites a number of rumors about Condi and a few hapless single men (including descriptions of Rice wearing short skirts and stiletto heels), and then Cooper says they aren’t true. But why would the Bush administration think it’s necessary to plant this story? It would be like getting the NYT to publish a story about RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman being a hunky macho man and that he squires hotties around and then claiming he doesn’t have time for a serious romance. LMFAO! Even the WH knows that story wouldn’t sell. Give me a minute while I compose myself. But seriously folks, what is the White House suggesting when it gets the NYT to publish a story about Condi Rice and her feminine wiles? Remember the story the WH planted a few months ago about Condi and the Prez getting it on? Apparently that preposterous idea had so many people rolling on the floor that it was laughed out of the rumor mill before it got a decent start. The GOP brought Clinton down by outing his sexual excesses with women. Now the GOP has to make up stories about ANYTHING sexual with members of the opposite sex in the Bush administration. Now that’s newsworthy!

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

What a Relief!

I watched Letterman last night mainly because I wanted to see Aaron Brown on Craig Ferguson’s Late Late Show, which comes on right after Letterman. There was not one mention of 9/11 on Letterman’s Late Show. And what a relief! I thought his second guest, Martha Stewart, might possibly breach the ban when she said she’d been making food during the day for “the firemen”, but Letterman ignored the lead-in. The Bush administration has made a mockery of any and all 9/11 commemorations. And David Letterman’s total blackout of the subject was a blessing. Unfortunately, Craig Ferguson’s sentimental and maudlin trip down memory lane regarding his 9/11 experience played into this nation’s 9/11 orgies perfectly. And it left Aaron Brown nowhere to go but to replay his 15-hour CNN reporting tour de force of five years ago. What I wanted to know was what Aaron Brown has been doing since he was summarily canned by CNN last November. I wanted to know what his plans are now. But Ferguson would have none of that. What we got was sappy and sentimental memories and photos from five years ago. And the same mawkish nostalgia that everyone with a camera or microphone (or computer) was using to bolster ratings in one way and another. The only 9/11 anniversary “celebration” I could have gotten behind would have been for each and every program and event to heap shame on the Republican Party for using 9/11 to advance its political agenda. Since that was not about to happen, shunning the public memorials was the next best thing. I applaud David Letterman for doing just that. BTW, there was a 9/11 before America’s 9/11 in 2001. The first 9/11 happened on September 11, 1973. That’s when the Moneda Palace was bombed in Chile and Salvador Allende and General Augusto Pinochet seized power. That 9/11 was facilitated by US-sponsored and CIA-backed terrorists. When the Bush administration blathers about terrorists, many people in the world quake with fear because they are frightened out of their minds that American terrorists will attack their country and kill innocent citizens.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Sacred Place

By me, Ground Zero is Holy Ground. It would have been folly to hope that buildings would never again occupy the real estate where the World Trade Center towers stood. It’s New York City, after all, and the land is valuable. But still, there is a part of me that will always feel that new buildings and the transaction of business at Ground Zero dishonors the memory of the 3000 men and women who died there. Never have I had that feeling more strongly than this morning when I heard that George W. Bush will be in New York City and will be at Ground Zero for the next two days. If ever, holy ground was desecrated it will be when George W. Bush sets his feet on the land where the World Trade Center was attacked and then spews his 9/11 garbage. Another site that Bush plans to visit and therefore will desecrate is the nearby Episcopal Church, Saint Paul’s Chapel, at Broadway and Wall Streets. Saint Paul’s served as a resting place for weary firemen after the attack. And who can forget the surrounding fence that was hung with thousands and thousands of pieces of memorabilia from mourning families and friends? Our wee president Bush--mental defective and draft-dodger--who sat mute and incapable of taking action for five minutes until he was told what to do when the World Trade Center was attacked, and who has done nothing since but tell lies and prove that he is a silly little man, has no right to come within a hundred miles of Ground Zero. And yet, there he will be, befouling the air on sacred ground. About that we can do nothing. But what we can do is remember what really happened on September 11, 2001. And we can refuse to be a part of all the other hype and nonsense.

Friday, September 08, 2006

The Crux of the 9/11 Film Fracas

No doubt unwittingly, Thomas Kean, ex-New Jersey Guv, co-chair of the 9/11 commission and consultant on the Disney/ABC film, “The Path to 9/11”, hit the nail on the head re the controversy over the film. This morning the New York Times reported, “Mr. Kean said he was surprised by the outcry, since most of the critics have not seen the film.” Right, Mr. Kean. That’s true. And why have no Democrats, including those who are mis-quoted and maligned in the film not seen the film? Because the weaselly producers, director and Disney/ABC saw to that only Republicans were sent advanced copies. The same stripe of Republicans who are now fighting tooth and nail to keep detained terrorists from seeing the evidence that will execute them, also decided that only Republicans would be allowed to review the 9/11 film before it is aired. These are totalitarian fascistic maneuvers. However, the review that Chicago Sun-Times television critic, Doug Elfman, gave the film today is so deliciously scathing that it puts the entire controversy in perspective in a way that mere complaints about unfair tactics cannot come close to. I’m reprinting some of the review here: Doug Elfman said, “I once sat in a car forever waiting for my mom to come out of a grocery store. I thought that was the definition of "interminable." I had no idea "The Path to 9/11" was in my future. “This is what happens during 4-1/2 lonnng hours of "Path." Terrorists talk about killing Americans for Allah. FBI and other security officials try to track them but fail. 9/11 happens. “You don't say. “This is the most anticlimactic, tension-free movie in the history of terrorist TV. Elfman gives the film a zero-stars rating, then says, “It's hard to fathom a brouhaha brewed over such a bore. ABC has received tens of thousands of letters -- including one from Bill Clinton's office -- insisting "Path" is wildly inaccurate and should not air. But ABC still plans to air the two-part movie. “Controversy could boost viewership, except "Path" is the dullest, worst-shot TV movie since ABC's disastrous "Ten Commandments" remake. It substitutes shaky handheld cameras and dumb dialogue for craftsmanship. It could not be more amateurish or poorly constructed unless someone had forgotten to light the sets.” He goes on, but read it yourself:

Thursday, September 07, 2006

NYT Nails White House “Challenge”

Of course the New York Times calls it “A Challenge From Bush to Congress” and we all know that the Prez can’t issue a simple declarative sentence on his own, let alone make a challenge to Congress without a cheat sheet. Still, it’s heartening that the NYT so clearly saw through and detailed the Bush administration’s latest strategy for scaring Americans and getting voters on its side. White House ploy: 1. By transferring 14 notorious Qaeda suspects to Guantánamo Bay and by demanding that war-crime trials take place at Guantánamo, the White House is making book that the critical election on November 7th guarantees that neither the Dems nor the Repubs will dare dispute the WH’s right to detain, interrogate and try the suspects in whatever way it sees fit. 2. With this challenge, the WH is issuing a rebuff to the Supreme Court that had the nerve to rule that the Bush administration procedures for interrogation and trials violated both the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. 3. The Bush administration is trying to divert attention from the mess in Iraq by reviving the dispute over what powers the president should be able to use to defend the country. 4. In the week before the Guantánamo announcement yesterday, Rumsfeld said Iraq war critics were cowards like Neville Chamberlain who tried to appease Hitler in 1928. Then Bush called terrorists “Islamo-fascists.” This week Bush said the world was ignoring terrorists the way the world ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler. And finally, the Prez, who himself has been ignoring the fact that Osama bin Laden still remains at large, quoted at length Osama’s visions of a “caliphate” that encircles the world. 5. The Bush administration is saying it is America’s last line of defense. By moving the 14 prisoners to Guantánamo, the White House has now admitted it has had secret prisons all along. But its point in making this admission is to claim that if the White House is not given whatever powers it demands, the terrorists will be in American streets before we can blink. Will this gambit work? Maybe not. The NYT said, “It may also force members of Mr. Bush’s party — many of whom have been creating as much strategic distance from the president as possible — to nationalize the midterm elections, making them a referendum on Mr. Bush and his tactics. “Democrats have been trying to do that for months, betting that the chaos in Iraq is their ticket to regaining a majority in the House, and perhaps the longer shot of the Senate. Now Mr. Bush is betting that once again Americans will look at the faces of the terrorists the C.I.A. has captured, and give the president one last shot at fighting the war on his terms.” No doubt Karl Rove thinks it's a sure thing not a gamble. But I’m betting that unless the White House lets the Queer Eye guys do a makeover on the one face we’ve seen, the response is going to be, “THAT’s a TERRORIST?”

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

And the Big News Is…

A New York Times headline this morning reports “Fidel Castro Says He's Lost 41 Pounds” According to the NYT, Castro reported that the last stitches from his recent surgery for an intestinal operation were recently removed. Castro said, “I can affirm that the most critical moment has been left behind.” He soon would be meeting with “dignitaries”, he said. But “images would not necessarily be provided.” He warned his recovery could be lengthy. “All of us must also understand realistically that the complete recovery time, whether we like it or not, will be prolonged…at this moment I am not in a hurry, and no one should be in a hurry.” Recent photos purporting to be Fidel Castro have shown a tall, gaunt, bearded man. What do you suppose they did with the body of the real Fidel Castro? How many people do you think are in on this charade? Twenty? Thirty? It’s only going to get funnier and funnier. Speaking of funny. Yesterday, president Bush said, "History teaches that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake." Oh my! How true! Unfortunately, the Prez was not having a rare moment of clarity about himself. He was comparing bin Laden with Lenin and Hitler at a speech he gave to the Military Officers Association of America. Bin Laden now is like Lenin? Oh well, consider the source. Funnier: Yes indeed, the hugely absurd Katherine Harris easily won the GOP Senate primary yesterday, so she’ll be running against Democrat Senator Bill Nelson in November--an uphill battle for Miss Flirty-flirty if ever there was one. And funniest: A few weeks ago BuzzFlash posted an item from “US News and World Report” that had been underreported. An article called “Washington Whispers” said that our Prez loves flatulence jokes. “A top insider let that slip”, the article said, “when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides.” And now your prayers have been asnwered. You can get your very own “Farting George Bush Doll - The Pull My Finger President”. A BuzzFlash review of the doll says, "Not only does he fart, he sings and shakes too! Standing over 8" tall, pull the Commander-in-Chiefs finger and he'll shake, fart and say 7 wacky phrases and a fart song in the off-beat tradition of our great leader." There you have it. The top news stories of the day.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Florida’s GOP Primary is Today

The Washington Post and Seattle Times ran the same Associated Press article yesterday. The headline tells it all: Harris Looks Like Primary Winner. Katherine Harris is Florida's GOP Senate nominee. “Her makeup and clothes are mocked on national TV. Her flirty interview style embarrasses her campaign handlers. Staffers keep quitting”, the AP article said. “She has been linked to a shady defense contractor, caught in fibs and scolded for telling voters that non-Christian politicians "legislate sin." This is the same Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris who certified George W. Bush had defeated Al Gore in the popular vote in Florida in 2000. Then the US Supreme Court ruled that Gore’s request for a recount had no merit. Which meant that the official count gave Bush a victory of 537 votes and Florida’s electoral votes went to Bush. Harris’s ex-campaign manager Jim Dornan said, “This campaign will go down in history as one of the most disastrous ever run in the United States." Dornan left after three months. He added, “She doesn't interview, she flirts. And it's offensive to professional women and it's embarrassing.” The AP article reported that her key staff described her as a candidate who wouldn't take advice, threw tantrums and bawled. The replacements she hired left after three months. And yet, she’s going to win the primary because of name recognition and because Florida couldn’t find anyone to run against her. Her opponents are three unknowns who entered the race late in the game. I have to say, I’m kind of leaning toward the same view as Alex Pareene, Wonkette’s editor. He said, "On a very personal level, I would be thrilled if she won election to the Senate…it would make my job easier for the next six years. Mean-spirited or not, I am rooting for her all the way." Jon Stewart, Jay Leno and David Letterman no doubt feel the same way.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Al-Qaeda No. 2 Guy, Isn’t

The Mainstream Media has been crowing over the arrest in Iraq of Hamid Juma Faris Jouri al-Saeedi, an Al-Qaeda leader. It would be funny if it weren’t so maddening that the MSM continues to call Al-Saeedi the second most important official in the Al-Qaeda. And yet, even yesterday, U.S. military officials said Saeedi was "one of the top five al-Qaeda in Iraq leaders" but they refused to identify him as the second-highest official in the group. Never mind. The LA Times headline said, “Al Qaeda's No. 2 in Iraq Captured” even though the body copy said, “A high-level operative of Al Qaeda in Iraq… has been captured.” The Washington Post online edition had a huge shout that screamed, “No.2 Al-Qaeda in Iraq Leader is Arrested”, but the news story headline wasn’t quite so sure. It read, “Iraq Cites Arrest of a Top Local Insurgent”, with a subhead that toned down the claim to: “Officials Call Detainee No. 2 in Al-Qaeda Group”. This morning, the New York Times headline was more truthful: “Iraqi Official Reports Capture of Top Insurgent Leader Linked to Shrine Bombing”. The fact is the Iraqis were the ones who boasted Al-Saeedi was the No. 2 Al-Qaeda leader. But US officials knew he wasn’t that high on the list and said so. The NYT story reported, “a United States military official was more cautious in describing Mr. Saeedi’s place in the organization’s pecking order. While he was a “top-tier guy” who supervised those who carried out the Samarra bombing, “I’m not sure we are ready to put a number on him,” said the American official, who agreed to speak only without being named because Iraqi officials had been designated to announce the capture. “It’s a very decentralized operation.” God, but that’s pitiful. The Iraqis and the Bush administration have so totally lost this war in Iraq that they are reduced to putting numbers on Al-Qaeda thugs that the rest of the world knows are guerillas making it up as they go along. “Decentralized” means every man jack in the organization is boss. So what it boils down to is this: The Bush administration wanted Iraqi officials to announce the capture, because they knew the Iraqis would ratchet up his status as being the No. 2 Al-Qaeda guy, even though the Bush administration was fully aware Saeedi was just another Al-Qaeda “boss”. If, as the WaPo story has it, “The arrest of Hamed Jumaa Faris Juri al-Saeidi, described by Iraqi officials as the No. 2 leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, was the latest in a series of blows to the Sunni Arab insurgent group”, the news that Al-Qaeda has received a series of blows has not yet reached Al-Qaeda. Remember what Bush said when the White House produced that made-for-prime-time movie last June about the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Bush said, “The death of the Jordanian-born Zarqawi is a severe blow to Al Qaeda…the killing of Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, offers a chance to ‘turn the tide’ in the war.” And on June 20, 2005, Dick Cheney said, "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." The only tide that’s turning is the one against the GOP, which for certain is in its last throes. How can we tell? Watch the MSM for clues. The MSM, at the behest of the fascists in the White House, is mounting a renewed attack against Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the Plame affair. That means that Fitzgerald is just about to indict more Bush administration hooligans.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

New York Times Headlines

I won’t know what the NYT’s Op/Ed Columnist Frank Rich has to say this Sunday until I go out and buy a copy of today’s paper. I’m still pissed off that the Times would have the balls to demand ransom payments of $49.95 a year (or $7.85 per month) for Internet access (snottily called “Times Select”) to its columnists. However, I might possibly have considered paying the extortionate demand just to read Frank Rich, Paul Krugman and Nicholas Kristof online. But the payoff also would include access to the NYT’s supreme assholes, Tom Friedman, John Tierney and David Brooks (plus honorary asshole Maureen Dowd) and screw that. The headline for Rich’s column today is great though, “Donald Rumsfeld's Dance With the Nazis”, and the teaser gives a pretty good hint what it’s about: “What made Mr. Rumsfeld’s invocation of Hitler’s appeasers so special was the preview it offered of the ambitious propaganda campaign planned between now and Election Day.” Two NYT news-story headlines also are grabbers: “Rove’s Word Is No Longer G.O.P. Gospel”, and “G.O.P. Hopeful Says Rumsfeld Should Resign”. The GOP hopeful is State Senator Thomas H. Kean, Jr who is running for the United States Senate in New Jersey. The article takes 964 words to say that Rummy should resign and that the Iraq war is an albatross around all GOP candidates’ necks. The article about Rove’s word being full of shit takes 1,762 words to say just that. So there you have it, the NYT in a nutshell. You’re welcome.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

MSM Weighs in on Armitage Vis-à-vis Plame

And guess what? The New York Times and Washington Post have filed such biased accounts they both sound as though they were written by White House flacks. On August 31, the LATimes published a balanced account (“Ex-State Department Official Said to Be Source of Plame Leak”) re former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage being the Valerie Plame leaker. But the New York Times article this morning, “New Questions About Inquiry in CIA Leak” sounds like a pro-Bush editorial. And yesterday’s WaPo article (“End of an Affair”) actually was an editorial. That hatchet job winds up with this stunning paragraph: “Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.” So when George W. Bush said in his State of the Union Speech on January 28, 2003, that, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on CNN on July 14, 2003, “So yes, it is unfortunate that this one sentence, this 16 words, remained in the State of the Union speech,” that all never happened? When was Wilson’s claim proven false? I must have missed that. As did Secretary of State Rice when she spent minutes on CNN explaining away the fact that the Prez made a statement in his SOTU Speech that was not true. But the WaPo editorial does prove one thing. WaPo obviously believes that Plame’s status with the CIA was leaked to the press as retribution for her husband telling the truth. WaPo says, “Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge… he ought to have expected that (questions) would point to his wife.” Yes, the Wilsons probably did suspect the Bush administration would try to ruin then both for telling the truth. That’s why they have filed a suit in federal court in Washington against Rove, Libby and Cheney, alleging that these men conspired to deprive them of their constitutional rights by leaking Plame's CIA connection.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Bush the Despot Warns Against Despotism

The Bush new strategy for winning votes is: Scare the bejesus out of all Americans, insult everyone who lived through WWII, and cry. This strategy is remarkable on two levels: First, the Bush administration is using a war it started to threaten the American people with “terrorists in the streets of our own cities,” if they vote for Democrats. And second, the Bush administration says that victory in Iraq will keep terrorists from our cities even though the White House has never defined how victory will be achieved in Iraq or what would be recognized as victory in order to claim that it had been achieved. Yesterday, Bush gave a speech in Salt Lake City. He said, “If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities.” He went on to quote Thomas Jefferson. He said peace in the Middle East would be “uphill and uneven” but that Thomas Jefferson had said nations cannot go “from despotism to liberty in a featherbed.” How ironic that the United States has gone from liberty to despotism not only in a featherbed but in less than six years. It’s insulting to those who lived through World War II and to the memories of those who died in WWII to hear a little dictator like George W. Bush rant that today’s terrorists are "successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century." Today’s terrorists are the result of the Bush administration’s ill-conceived and botched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today’s terrorists have nothing in common with our enemies in WWII. In 1941, the United States entered into a foreign war because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on us all in the month of December of that year. The men who fought that war put their lives on the line because they truly had to defend the United States against enemy armies, enemy navies and enemy air forces. But the cowardly little putzes who decided to attack a weak Iraq to further their plan to control Middle East oil and who now speak so forcefully about that unnecessary war being like WWII were NEVER in the military. They know nothing about war first hand and they seem to be totally ignorant about anything having to do with the Second World War. I can’t print this often enough. The following men never served in the military: President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Political Strategist Karl Rove, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Senator Rick Santorum, former Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft, former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, Majority Whip Mitch McConnell. The latest script the president is reading from says we’ll have terrorists in American streets if we leave Iraq, the war in Iraq is a carbon copy of WWII, then the script says, “Cry”. The Prez cried for war widow Hildi Halley on August 25, and he cried again yesterday. Or as the New York Times tells it, “Wiping a tear from his eye, Mr. Bush told the story of Cpl. Adam Galvez of Salt Lake City, a marine who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq and was buried Wednesday.” He may be the worst president the United States has had in 230 years, but he can produce tears like Katherine Hepburn. Word has it he can also fart and belch on cue.