Looks Like Sy Hersh Has Another Scoop

This morning's NYT reports that the Bush team intended to fix the free election in Iraq this past January. And Seymour Hersh tells all (or as much of all as it's possible to tell) in the July 18th issue of The New Yorker. The NYT article by Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger, “Plan Called for Covert Aid in Iraq Vote” reports “In the months before the Iraqi elections in January, President Bush approved a plan to provide covert support to certain Iraqi candidates and political parties, but rescinded the proposal because of Congressional opposition, current and former government officials said Saturday.” According to the NYT, Seymour M. Hersh's New Yorker article says “the administration proceeded with the covert plan over the Congressional objections. Several senior Bush administration officials disputed that, although they recalled renewed discussions within the administration last fall about how the United States might counter what was seen as extensive Iranian support to pro-Iranian Shiite parties.” The NYT says “Time magazine first reported in October 2004 that the administration had encountered Congressional opposition over a plan to provide covert support to Iraqi candidates." The Time mag article said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi had "strong words" with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Once again we see the fine hand of the White House Ladies trying to run the world by illegal means. The sole woman in the WH Ladies' club, Condoleezza Rice, promoted the scheme to fix the Iraq election. Of course, at the same moment as Rice and her pal, George W. Bush, had decided to mount a covert plan to fix the election, they were making high-flown statements about how the United States would faithfully abide by the persons and the parties the Iraqis chose in their so-called free elections. In the end, the plan to influence the election was never put into action because members of Congress strongly objected. The NYT said that President Bush had either signed the secret formal authorization, or was about to sign it, when the whole nefarious scheme was quashed. Lies to promote the unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq, false stories intended to ruin lives, whispers down the lane revealing state secrets, a fixed US election in 2000 with the help of the Supreme Court and now covert plans to influence the Iraqi elections. This is the legacy of the two GW Bush administrations. Tell me again, why are we allowing the White House Ladies to run our country?

The White House Ladies

Who are the White House Ladies? They are the vicious, malicious, bitchy, prissy, rumormongering, lying, spiteful crew of White House men and their favored friends who traffic in character assassination and dirty-tricks plots for the GOP. To name a few names, the White House Ladies include President George W. Bush, Vice President and PNAC signatory Dick Cheney, GWB's political advisor and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff and PNAC signatory I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Defense Policy board member and PNAC signatory Richard Perle. Why dub them ladies? Because they are acting like a girls club whose main delight is making mischief and telling lies. Am I suggesting that the White House Ladies are, if not gay, then not 100% male-oriented males? Of course not. A suggestion like that could ruin lives, would be difficult to verify, might end careers, and might even lead to suicide. Who would do something like that, other than the White House Ladies? And on another note: The New York Times reported this morning that, “The Bush administration said on Friday that it would decide by Sept. 1 whether to allow sales of an emergency contraceptive without a prescription”. The NYT's article needs a little elaboration. Any girl or woman can request the so-called morning-after pills in a hospital's Emergency Room, right now, even though prescriptions are required in pharmacies. So, whether or not the Bush administration decides to make the pills available without a prescription won't change the fact that if a rape has occurred or if a female person simply wants to make sure she doesn't have an unwanted pregnancy because of unprotected sex, she can take that precaution right now. The only requirement is that she go to an ER and take the pills within 72 hours of the sex act.

Krugman: “What's Happened to America?”

This morning, in his NYT Op/Ed column, Paul Krugman lays it on the line. He condemns “Karl Rove's America” and finally asks, “How did our political system get to this point?” Another relevant question might be: When did the USA start being run by a bunch of gossiping, backstabbing, catty, lying, old ladies dressed in men's suits and ties? Nixon's administration was characterized by the high testosterone level of its foul-mouthed and profane top men. But the Bush administration has distinguished itself for the squawks and squeals of its spiteful, malicious, manipulative, passive-aggressive, bitch-slapping male impersonators. Where have all the real men in the GOP gone? Are they hiding out? Are they afraid they will be seen as effeminate if they associate with the White House Ladies? Karl Rove acts like my Aunt Etta. I have no idea what his sexual preference is, but he is devious, he deals in half-truths, his covert activities run to character assassination by outright lying, he is petty and mean, he simpers and smiles even when plotting a spiteful smear...just like Aunt Etta. And his devoted disciple, George W. Bush, thinks whatever Uncle Karl does is fabulous. I have nothing against Sewing Circles and Women's Clubs, I just don't want my country run by my Aunt Etta.

Rove is Amoral, Nasty and Corrupt: No Crime

Even though Karl Rove is the most Machiavellian, smarmy, depraved and unpleasant President the United States has ever had, he cannot be indicted or put in jail on those grounds. In fact, it is Karl Rove's willingness to lie, cheat and do whatever it takes that won the election in 2000 and 2004. And it's Rove's cynical and corrupt modus operandi that has made him the darling of the GOP. Karl Rove is running the Republican Party, he is running the White House, he is running the US and there's nothing to keep him from running the world except that Karl Rove is amoral, nasty and corrupt. The Rove way of doing things is the visible face of the Republican Party and of America. The Rove way of doing things took over all branches of our government in a bloodless coup. Thanks to Karl Rove, the US is universally despised. The US has become a bully and aggressor, US leaders lie and are proud of their lies and the US cannot be trusted, Karl Rove has won every battle he has fought. And the Republican Party has lost its soul, George W. Bush has lost his mind and the United States has lost its way. Karl Rove is an undisputed evil genius. But the monster machine he created has just slithered up its own asshole and is eating itself. What will cause the last gasp? Mark my words, it will be some small thing and it will blow the lid off the Rove Regime.

What If…

What if George-the-Unwise had not made the disastrous claim in his January 28, 2003 SOTUS speech that the Brits claimed Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa? George-the-Dupe knew on January 28, 2003 that Saddam had not tried to buy uranium. He knew because Joseph Wilson had gone to Africa at the behest of the CIA in February 2002 and reported back in March 2002 that he doubted Iraq tried to purchase uranium in Africa. If George-the-Beloved-Disciple had not swallowed the lies being fed to him by Karl Rove, and had not made the uranium claim in his SOTUS speech, would Ari Fleischer (press secretary before suck-up Scott McClellan took the job) still be press secretary? Fleischer resigned May 19th, 2003. If the Bush team hadn't lied about Iraq buying uranium in Africa and if Colin Powell hadn't refused to repeat the lie to the United Nations would Powell still be secretary of state? Would the White House have been able to set the Iraq war plans in motion March 20th, 2003 without the Africa uranium lie? That's the real point about the Plame case. The importance of the Karl Rove connection isn't on whether Rove outed Plame as a CIA operative (which he obviously did, whether he used her name or called her Wilson's wife). But that's of lesser importance than the fact that Rove gave Time mag reporter Matthew Cooper “a big warning” in July 2003 that Joe Wilson's report on Iraq “might not be entirely accurate”. Rove knew Wilson's report that Iraq was not trying to buy uranium in Africa was true. But he tried to influence reporter Cooper to keep telling the Bush administration lie. On July 6th, 2003, in a New York Times op-ed piece, Wilson wrote that he could not verify that Niger sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq. Karl Rove knew Wilson had to be neutralized one way or another or the lies that rationalized the illegal war in Iraq could not be kept afloat. That is the crux of this matter. Karl Rove is the mastermind behind the Bush administration's unprecedented record of deceit, lying and down and dirty strategies. Will the Bush administration keep Rove as Captain and go down with the ship? Or have new orders been issued?: MAN THE LIFEBOATS…YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN!

You Can't Make Up Stuff Like This

Condoleezza Rice is blowing off a major annual meeting of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) in Laos later this month. She is the first US secretary of state not to attend the event in more than 20 years. Rice gave a lame excuse like she was too immersed in the problems of the Middle East. But everyone knows it's because the US wants to pressure ASEAN not to allow Myanmar (used to be called Burma), which is under military rule to chair the group next year. Then, sensing that perhaps she was being undiplomatic, Rice made a trip to Thailand to explain why she's not attending ASEAN. The town she visited in Thailand is named Phuket.

As Expected, Karl Rove Is Sweet/Pure/Guiltless

WaPo reports this morning that Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, admits “Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago.” But Luskin said his client did not identify her by name. The WaPo article says, “(Time mag's Matthew) Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.” Whew! I'm so glad that's cleared up. Karl Rove fingered Valerie Plame and gave particulars about her job with the CIA but didn't say her name. Ergo, Rove is off the hook. The Plame case game is entering the “Lawyers Wriggle and Twist” Semi-finals. The rules are: to be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the person doing it must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity. Good. That means if any government official accidentally and with no malice tells a reporter that the deputy chief of staff in the White House is a fat fascist twat who has committed war crimes and has never told the truth since he oiled his way into the Bush administration, that official won't get into trouble because he didn't say the name KARL ROVE. Coming up, the White House Whirl and Spin Finals: Karl Rove Reveals He's Jesus and George W. Bush is the Beloved Disciple.

NYT Says the Brits Are Breeding Terrorists

The day after the bombings in London last week, Peter Bergen of the New America Foundation wrote an article published in the New York Times claiming all terrorists to date have been British citizens. This morning, Elaine Sciolino and Don Van Natta, Jr. have written an article for the NYT saying that, “Long before bombings ripped through London on Thursday, Britain had become a breeding ground for hate, fed by a militant version of Islam.” It's been going on for a decade, they said. Not that the info in these articles is wrong. The info sounds well researched and probably is right on the nose. But how come wasn't this in banner headlines at the NYT when Bush/Blair were doing their war-chant-in-tandem routine? Now that Tony Blair is beginning to doubt his hawkish position on Iraq, he's no longer useful to the Bush administration. And it looks suspiciously like word has come down at the NYT that the Brits are fair game, to use a Karl Rove phrase. At least we have Frank Rich at the NYT keeping us on point. Frank Rich's Op/Ed article this morning (We're Not in Watergate Anymore) gets to the heart of the matter re the Plame case: Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, revealed that Bush/Blair lied to push us into the war in Iraq, the White House decided Wilson's wife was fair game and punished Wilson by outing her status at the CIA and 1753 American soldiers have died in Iraq because of the Bush/Blair lies. Those are the facts. Bush/Blair are two little toads who lied and killed 1753 American soldiers for no reason other than to feel powerful.

To: Christoph Cardinal Schönborn

Your Eminence: God is smarter than mankind, not dumber. And that is the sticking point with all fundamentalists, far-right zealots, and now the super conservatives in the Roman Catholic Church. Yesterday, you wrote an Op/Ed piece in the New York Times. You said the Darwinian concept of evolution is nonsense. You said, "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance." How about this? God's wisdom ordained that man should evolve from the primordial ooze. Your problem with that idea seems to be that you want God to have created the world literally in six days 6,000 years ago. Evolutionists say it took billions of years. The only difference seems to be that you are determined to bring God down to mankind's level. Conservative fundamentalists and now the RCC have created God in man's image. According to you, God is mean, vengeful, small-minded, ignorant, arbitrary, elitist, bigoted and ornery...exactly like we are. I see no conflict with believing in God and believing that He not only set evolution in motion but that He gave mankind free will. And I believe that there are great benefits to cooperating with a creator who is wise and merciful. The real nonsense in your position, Cardinal Schönborn, is you seem to believe that the RCC has figured God out so perfectly he now is in a box and under the RCC's control. God is God, Cardinal, and you are only a wee man.

Will It Sell?

Washington Post editor Bob Woodward, who has just published a new book about W. Mark Felt titled, “The Secret Man”, said on Larry King last night that the terrorist bombings in London yesterday made George W. Bush a wartime President once again. Woodward even went so far as to say he could see that the disasters in London had stiffened Bush's spine. Woodward said the Prez became, once more, the leader he needed to be. Are the people in the USA and the world going to buy that baloney? Yesterday, Bush looked like the floundering jerk that he is. One wishes he had grown a spine. One wishes he'd said, “Homeland Security is going to see to it that the subway systems in the USA are made even safer than they already are.” But no. He said, “…I instructed them (Homeland Security) to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here and in London and to be extra vigilant.” Extra vigilant. Translation: I'm not sure what I can say or what I can promise until I've asked for permission from Karl Rove, so I'll just say the most inoffensive thing I can think of. There was a very troubling Op/Ed piece in the New York Times this morning titled “Our Ally, Our Problem” by Peter Bergen. Bergen's position is that so far, terrorists have proven to be British citizens. And he had facts to back up his premise. But why did Bergen see fit to publish his article today of all days? And why did the NYT allow it to be published today of all days? Are we seeing the beginning of a new hidden agenda? As in, now that Prime Minister Tony Blair is a liability to the Bush administration and the Brits hate us, they have to be discredited. Peter Bergen is a fellow of the New America Foundation. Who are these people? Their mission statement says: “Powerful forces - from rapid technological change to massive demographic shifts, from economic globalization to terrorism - are remaking America. Now, more than ever, our nation needs a robust public debate, one that does justice to the complex challenges and opportunities of this unfolding era. Yet there remains a dearth of new thinking on both sides of the political divide, as well as a lack of investment in developing the creative young minds most capable of crafting new public policy solutions. The purpose of the New America Foundation is to bring exceptionally promising new voices and new ideas to the fore of our nation's public discourse. Relying on a venture capital approach, the Foundation invests in outstanding individuals and policy ideas that transcend the conventional political spectrum. Through its Fellowships and Policy Programs, New America sponsors a wide range of research, writing, conferences, and events on the most important issues of our time.” The NFA Internet site says, “The New America Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy institute that was conceived through the collaborative work of a diverse and intergenerational group of public intellectuals, civic leaders, and business executives. New America's founding President and CEO is Ted Halstead, and its Board of Directors is chaired by James Fallows. Based in our nation's capital, the Foundation opened its doors in January 1999.” NAF certainly sounds benign. Until one name on their board of directors pops out like a zit on prom night: Francis Fukuyama, Dean of Faculty, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University. Francis Fukuyama was a founding genius of the Project for the New American Century--that Iraq war breeding ground which was masterminded by William Kristol in 1997. PNAC's signers were: Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz. PNAC's mission statement is more aggressive, more obviously pro-military than the New America Foundation. But PNAC's aims also were cloaked in high-minded, freedom-loving rhetoric. In case you've forgotten, here is PNAC's Statement of Principles as written by the editor of the right-of-center Weekly Standard, William Kristol: “American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests? We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead. We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.” Also on the New America Foundation Board of Directors are: Christie Todd Whitman (former Gov. of NJ, and now President of the Whitman Strategy Group) and Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International. So, what am I saying? I'm just saying…Peter Bergen doesn't sound like he's up to any good, I wouldn't let Francis Fukuyama change my cat's litter box, and the New America Foundation may not be as non-threatening as they would like us to believe.

Bush's Extempore Remarks Re London Bombings

It's interesting that when Prez Bush talked off-the-cuff about the London Bombings he sounded like the boob he is. But already it's hard to find a transcript of his remarks, even on-line. And it's only seven hours since the bombings took place. But, thanks to the Associated Press, this is what he said: “I spent some time recently with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair; had the opportunity to express our heartfelt condolences to the people of London, people who lost lives. I appreciate Prime Minister Blair's steadfast determination and restraint. He's on his way now to London here from the G-8 to speak directly to the people of London, to carry a message of solidarity with him. This morning I've been in contact with our homeland security folks and I instructed them to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here and in London and to be extra vigilant as our folks start heading to work. The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taken place in London, what's taken place here is incredibly vivid to me. On the one hand, we got people here who are working to alleviate poverty and to help rid the world of the pandemic of AIDS and that are working on ways to have a clean environment. And on the other hand, you've got people killing innocent people. And the contrast couldn't be clearer between the intentions and the hearts of those of us who care deeply about human rights and human liberty, and those who kill, those who've got such evil in their heart that they will take the lives of innocent folks. The war on terror goes on. I was most impressed by the resolve of all the leaders in the room. Their resolve is as strong as my resolve. And that is, we will not yield to these people, will not yield to the terrorists. We will find them. We will bring them to justice. And at the same time we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate. Thank you very much.” And this is what UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "We condemn utterly these barbaric attacks. We send our profound condolences to the victims and their families. "All of our countries have suffered from the impact of terrorism. Those responsible have no respect for human life. We are united in our resolve to confront and defeat this terrorism that is not an attack on one nation, but all nations and on civilized people everywhere. "We will not allow violence to change our societies or our values, nor will we allow it to stop the work of this summit. We will continue our deliberations in the interest of a better world. "Here at the summit, the world's leaders are striving to combat world poverty and save and improve human life. "The perpetrators of today's attacks are intent on destroying human life. The terrorists will not succeed. Today's bombings will not weaken in any way our resolve to uphold the most deeply held principles of our societies and to defeat those who impose their fanaticism and extremism on all of us. "We shall prevail and they shall not." The print media is choosing to re-write Bush's moronic statement about telling Homeland Security to be “extra vigilant”. This is how NPR is now reporting Bush's off-the-cuff remarks: “President Bush warned Americans on Thursday to be "extra vigilant" as they head to work after the deadly explosions in London. Bush said he spoke with federal homeland security officials back in Washington. 'I instructed them to be in touch with local and state officials about the facts of what took place here in London,' Bush told reporters from a summit of world leaders here. Bush urged caution 'as our folks start heading to work.' 'The war on terrorism goes on,' he said. 'We will not yield to these people.' The president offered the 'heartfelt condolences' of the American people to the victims and their families in London. British Prime Minister Tony Blair left the summit being held at a posh resort here to rush to London. Bush said Blair would 'carry a message of solidarity with him' to London.” NPR's version certainly sounds better than what George W. Bush actually said. Because GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EMBARRASSMENT AND AN IDIOT!!! How many times do we have to see Bush flounder and be at a loss to know what to do during times of catastrophe? How many times do we have to hear him back-and-fill and play for time waiting for instructions during moments of dire emergencies? How many times do we have to see our President shown up by other world leaders on every criterion (diplomacy, mental acuity, intelligence, extemporaneous remarks, to name a few) before the entire country screams?: IMPEACH THIS KNOW-NOTHING MENTAL DEFECTIVE DIM-WITTED NARCISSIST SOCIOPATH BEFORE HE DESTROYS OUR COUNTRY!!!!

Bush Says, “Cool Off Rhetoric on Court”

President Bush told USA Today that the people who are mobilizing support for a fight over Justice O'Connor's replacement should "tone down the heated rhetoric." “Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush said. “When a friend gets attacked, I don't like it," he added. On September 18, 2001, Bush vowed to get Osama bin Laden. "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,' the President said. On July 2, 2003 Bush said American troops under fire in Iraq aren't about to pull out. “Bring them on,” he said of those who might attack U.S. forces. On May 31, 2003 the Washington Post reported that President Bush told television viewers in Poland that "U.S. forces in Iraq have found the weapons of mass destruction that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.” Bush added, "And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them,” he said. On March 24, 2004 at the annual black-tie dinner for the Radio and Television Correspondents Association, Bush did a stand-up routine where he looked for WMD's. “Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.” He was shown looking under papers, behind drapes, under his desk. “Nope, no weapons over there…Maybe under here?” he asked grinning. On January 28, 2005, Bush said in a speech at Fort Bragg, “Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country,” he said. Mr. Ratfucker suggests the next time Mr. Bush is tempted to lecture anyone, anywhere or anytime on toning down rhetoric, he find a quiet place to sit down and meditate, using an old Zen mantra: Owah tashum kyam…owah tashum kyam…owah tashum kyam….

On This July Fourth…

…the Prez said we should fly the flag, thank the men and women defending our freedom and help the military family down the street. Dear President Bush: Of course I'm flying the flag, you mindless craven toad. I always do. And I deeply thank the men and women who have defended America and ensured our freedom. I do that every year also. Ever since March 20, 2003, I have extended that thank you to the men and women in Iraq, because they had no way of knowing you lied to them about why they should be willing to die in the Middle East. They had no way of knowing they were being sent to a foreign land to fight a war planned long ago by insane zealots in America. They had no way of knowing Iraq was picked out because Iraq was weak and vulnerable and was thought to be an easy first target in a Bush administration scheme to rule the world and the world's oil. But most of all, I thank the men and women in the US military who are telling the truth about the dishonest, dissembling and deceitful Bush administration that forced us into a war with Iraq. These men and women are truly courageous. The only way I can help the military family down the street is to encourage them to rise up in protest against your war, Mr. Bush. The Bush administration has cut back aid to returning veterans. The Bush administration says Iraq veterans should pay for the drugs they need…drugs that are necessary only because these veterans were sent to die and be maimed in Iraq. The Bush administration is not giving our soldiers the basic protection of armor for themselves or for their vehicles in Iraq. I certainly am not going to assure the families of American soldiers in Iraq that the civilian population will rally round and collect money to give their sons and daughters the aid and protection that the Bush administration will not give them. I can only encourage American soldiers' families to gather together and march on Washington in protest against the illegal and unnecessary war in Iraq. That is how I'm supporting our troops this July Fourth, Mr. Bush. You, on the other hand, will be in Charleston, West Virginia telling more lies.

Boob Geldof Said About Live 8…

…“It's either crap or it's great.” Dear Boob: It's crap! The towns hosting Live 8 will benefit from Geldof's badly-produced junkathons yesterday because the attendees spent big bucks on beer, booze and fat burgers. But no one else will benefit. Geldof envisions that his rock-and-preach mobscenes will shame the world's corporations into ending famine and poverty in Africa. What a load of bull. How much did Geldof inspire The Carlyle Group to donate? How much is Rupert Murdoch donating to end famine in Africa due to the Live 8 concerts? How much was the Rev. Sun Myung Moon moved to donate? How about the dick Cheney's corporation, Halliburton? How much did Geldof shame Halliburton into donating? How much are all those has-been stars donating personally from their multi-million dollar coffers? But most importantly, how much of any of the donations will the corrupt dictators of the African nations allow to reach the African people? Boob said today that African nations don't have a corruption problem, they have a poverty problem. That would come as a surprise to the Africans who didn't get any of the money donated by misguided do-gooders the last time around because corrupt dictators glommed onto it first. Powerful nations could end the poverty problem in Africa by using military intervention. But egomaniac Bob Geldof is only adding to the problem by literally giving money to corrupt dictators. Geldof is a self-promoting ass. But the Bush administration is even more at fault by turning its back on Africa's problems. Saturday morning, the UK's Channel 4 gave its predictions re the audience at the Boob's concert in London: “Your Live 8 pie-chart guide: A. 40% Cynical freeloading industry scum. B. 20% Journalists who will later use the phrase "A gr8 day!" C. 12% Live 8 performers gathering to nod their heads respectfully during Paul McCartney's set. D. 10% Competition winners (very excited). E. 5% Politicians who've been told to go. F. 5% Politicians who've begged to go. G. 3% Madonna's bodyguards (possibly armed). H. Made up of: Chris Martin's extended family, tramps who refused to move when they were putting the fences up, Pink Floyd's biggest fans and women who at some point during the day will climb onto someone's shoulders, whip off their tops, and let 5 billion TV viewers see their tits on which they will have written 'Drop the debt!' in black marker pen. Check back on Monday to see if we were right.” Of course Channel 4 is right. Live 8 is crap. Total crap. 100% crap. Every Geldof famine-fest is complete unadulterated unmitigated pure CRAP!!!!

Rove is the White House Snitch

Last night on the McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell said he knew who ratted-out Valerie Plame to Time mag's Matt Cooper. O'Donnell said it was Karl Rove. Not that it's any surprise that Rove would commit such a down-and-dirty act. As a matter of fact, when most people pondered the nasty episode that resulted in former diplomat Joseph Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA operative being disclosed, Karl Rove was the most obvious culprit. But for O'Donnell to divulge Rove's name on a syndicated talk show before Time mag's documents are made public is huge news. O'Donnell said, “…I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." The discussion then centered on whether Rove would be indicted for perjury. After all, he told the grand jury he did not leak the info to Cooper. It's obvious to me that Rove took the risk of being the Plame case leak because he was absolutely sure that 1) no one would dare reveal his identity and 2) if it did come out he was the leak, no one would dare press criminal charges against him and 3) if someone did reveal his identity and criminal charges were pressed, he would beat the rap and come up smelling like a rose. And he may be right. But the problem for the White House is that all the arrogance and bad decisions of the Bush administration are piling up and it's resulting in an avalanche of bad news for the GOP. With the 2006 elections getting closer and closer, the GOP is faced with problems it never expected to have: It's having to pull in its horns; it's having to blunt its far-right message; its have to tread carefully. And that comes as a shock to the party that only six months ago boasted that Bush and Co. had a mandate to fuck the world-which included Iraq war vets. Message to Karl Rove: You may enjoy some of the fancier sex practices JimmyJeff Gannon can provide, but those Fort Bragg soldiers looked pretty grim during the Prez's recent speech. It was clear they don't like being on the receiving end, if you catch my drift.

Why Wasn't Robert Novak Threatened With Jail?

Now We Know. Time's up, Judge Thomas F. Hogan of New York's Federal District Court said in effect today. Hogan will put Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper in jail in one week if they don't give the grand jury the names of their sources. Last October, Judge Hogan said the two reporters would be jailed up to 18 months (or until the grand jury completes its work) for not revealing confidential sources. Judith Miller of the NYT and Matthew Cooper of Time mag said they'd rather go to jail than name names. This whole firestorm started when former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson disputed a statement made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union speech. Bush said Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake (an ore that is rich in uranium) in Africa. Wilson said he'd been sent to Africa by the CIA the year before and found that Iraq had not tried to buy the nuclear material. Wilson published an article in the NYT on July 6, 2003 stating his position. Eight days after Wilson's article, syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak reported that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Novak said two senior administration officials gave him the information. Cooper wrote an article about Plame that appeared in Time mag after Novak outed her. Miller wrote an article for the NYT but it was never published. The New York grand jury is investigating the identities of the senior officials who gave info to Novak, Miller and Cooper. Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the special prosecutor on the case. Miller and Cooper said through their lawyers today that they would elect to go to jail rather than rat out their sources. Judge Hogan says the grand jury will be finished with its investigation in 120 days, so the most the reporters would be in jail would be for 4 months, not 18 months. However, everyone has been wondering why Novak emerged unscathed. The NYT reported very clearly this morning the reason Novak isn't going to jail: “Since Mr. Novak appears not to be facing jail time, he presumably supplied information to Mr. Fitzgerald. It is not clear why that did not conclude the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Novak have consistently declined to discuss the matter.” This sleazy, unprincipled, craven, loud-mouth, neocon stooge, Robert Novak, not only put Plame in jeopardy by divulging her undercover status, but then without batting an eye, told Fitzgerald and Co. who his informants were. Now that we know for sure that Novak is a low-life lying fink and coward, the next question is: Since Novak immediately rolled over and named names, why did Fitzgerald demand Cooper and Miller's sources?

Prez Bush Suits Up as Cheerleader Again

Trouble was, during Bush's 30-minute Sis Boom Bah speech last night no one got fired up. The Fort Bragg, North Carolina soldiers who were used as props and back drops sat stoically silent until one of the White House advance men started to applaud and the soldiers had to join in or be reprimanded. Forcing the soldiers to applaud was such a dud it was tried only once during the speech. The President's ineptitude at extemporaneous speech-making is well known. But he's always been able to flawlessly read speeches from teleprompters. Or at least repeat the words piped into his earpiece. But last night he faltered three times and had to restart or rephrase sentences. Perhaps even blockheaded, ignorant, insensitive, over-medicated and self-absorbed George W. Bush felt embarrassed about the nonsense he was spewing in front of military men who knew it was bullshit. Bush said September 11th five times, using the attack on the World Trade Center to bolster his rhetoric in the same way he was using Fort Bragg as a stage set. He said fighting terrorism in Iraq has made us safer since 9/11. "We are fighting against men with blind hatred...they are trying to shake our will in Iraq - just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail," the Prez said. George W. Bush is such a mindless tool of the White House that he may actually believe this lie. But the WTC attack had nothing to do with Iraq. And Iraq only became a breeding ground for terrorists after we illegally invaded it. A few facts of history must be reviewed. Fifteen of the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudis. The Bush family has been best-buds with the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family for years. George Tenet (ex-CIA chief) saw to it that the Saudis who happened to be in the US on September 11, 2001 were given secret safe passage out of the US. So for President George W. Bush to keep implying that Iraqi terrorists spawned the 9/11 atack is re-writing history at its worst. Our invasion of Iraq has morphed from a pre-emptive strike against a country the US feared might attack us into a red-white-and-blue crusade to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East, and now it's become a fight against terrorism to insure that Ameicans are safe. Why did terrorists attack the World Trade Center? I surely don't know, and the true story may never be known. What is certain is that the GOP's greed for Middle East oil, the Bush family's ties to the Saudi Royal family and the bin Ladens, GHWBush's having been head of the CIA, his using Saddam Hussein as a paid assassin and his Gulf War in 1991 had more to do with the attack on the World Trade Center than any threat from Iraq. You want to blame somebody for the mess we're in? Blame the Bush clan.

Let's Get Something Straight…

…”this kind of thing” definitely does happen in small towns and always has. As the BTK killing spree of Dennis Rader in Kansas started to become known, the familiar phrase was heard from everyone who lived near his hometown, Park City, a Wichita suburb. And news anchors picked up on it, as usual. The litany never varies when people are interviewed after a horrendous event in a small town. “This is a quiet town…we're respectable people…we were so shocked…this kind of thing doesn't happen here…that's why we moved from the city.” And then the reporter says the townspeople always left their doors unlocked, that they trusted everyone, but no more, alas. So goes the myth about small towns. The one true thing about the small Illinois town I lived in, is that we did leave our doors unlocked. Three thousand people lived in my hometown. It was smack in the middle of cornfields. It was a quiet town. A very pretty town and it still is. It's a typical midwestern town. My hometown was 99% Republican. But I always suspected my mother was a Democrat. She never said so directly but she refused to vote in primaries where she would have to own up to her political preference. There were ten churches in my little community. They were all packed on Sunday mornings. However, for all the quiet, pious, upright, forthright teaching going on, stuff happened. During the 20 years I called this town home back in the 40's and 50's, the stuff included incest, molestation of children, shootings, and gay highschoolers. The newspaper editor contracted syphilis when the circus came to town, there were pregnancies in high school, some ended in abortion, football players got drunk after games, the Catholic priest and his housekeeper openly lived as man and wife for 25 years, two boys in my class in high school dated and slept with two female teachers, a respected matron was put on probation for prostitution, and my uncle smuggled cocaine in his wooden leg. Crimes and misdemeanors have not suddenly appeared in rural communities. Ask your grandmothers if you don't believe me. The new wrinkle is that the bad stuff is not being kept secret anymore. There never was a simpler time. There never was a time of innocence. And the reason is that towns, big and little, are populated by human beings. Human beings are the same all over. And they have not changed in 6,000 years, if the Old Testament is a true testament of human shenanigans. Five thousand church-goers will be as adulterous, murderous and thieving as five-thousand unchurched citizens. Five thousand yokels will be as lustful, immoral and sinful as five thousand city folks. Only one thing has changed, people lock their doors now. Why? Because they believe another myth: a locked door will protect them from humans acting like humans. It won't.

Three Interesting Facts

1. China Owns Us The White House blusters about new defense programs, about new nuclear programs, hints at the possibility the US will attack Iran or any country having the effrontery to disagree with us. And yet, our military is so weak we can't defeat a country like Iraq-which, it should be noted, we picked to attack because it was weak and vulnerable. But the most awkward truth about the helpless state of the United States is that we are owned by China. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has an eye-popping column today reporting on the US indebtedness to China. “Power usually ends up in the hands of those who hold the purse strings", Krugman says. “America, which imports far more than it exports, has been living for years on borrowed funds, and lately China has been buying many of our I.O.U.'s. Until now, the Chinese have mainly invested in U.S. government bonds. But bonds yield neither a high rate of return nor control over how the money is spent…So it was predictable that, sooner or later, the Chinese would stop buying so many dollar bonds. Either they would stop buying American I.O.U.'s altogether, causing a plunge in the dollar, or they would stop being satisfied with the role of passive financiers, and demand the power that comes with ownership. And we should be relieved that at least for now the Chinese aren't dumping their dollars; they're using them to buy American companies.” China is buying Maytag and is trying to buy Unocal. Krugman is not bothered by the sale of a quintessential American company like Maytag. He says, “Although Maytag is a piece of American business history, it isn't a prestige buy for Haier, the Chinese appliance manufacturer. Instead, it's a reasonable way to acquire a brand name and a distribution network to serve Haier's growing manufacturing capability.” Krugman says Maytag stockholders will gain from the sale, and fewer American workers will be dumped than if Maytag stayed in the USA. But Unocal is a different matter. Krugman says Unocal is “exactly the kind of company the Chinese government might want to control if it envisions a sort of "great game" in which major economic powers scramble for access to far-flung oil and natural gas reserves. (Buying a company is a lot cheaper, in lives and money, than invading an oil-producing country.) So the Unocal story gains extra resonance from the latest surge in oil prices.” As WaPo recently put it, “the US dollar is now at the mercy of Asian governments." That would come as a great surprise to the Bush-enamored uninformed far-right zealots who reside in the red states and idiotly believe the United States is its own master and is the most powerful nation on the planet. Krugman ended his column by saying, "If it were up to me, I'd block the Chinese bid for Unocal. But it would be a lot easier to take that position if the United States weren't so dependent on China right now, not just to buy our I.O.U.'s, but to help us deal with North Korea now that our military is bogged down in Iraq." 2. On June 13, 1971 the NYT started publishing the Pentagon Papers (the secret history of the Vietnam War). WaPo began publishing the papers that week. In order to find dirt on Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the papers, the “plumbers” burglarized Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office on September 3, 1971, which started the whole Watergate debacle, ending in Nixon's resignation on August 8, 1974. 3. The Downing Street Memos are every bit as important as the Pentagon Papers.

The Real Randy Cunningham's (R-CA) Quote

I put out an APB and asked anyone who had tivo'd The Daily Show last Thursday to report exactly what Congressman Randy Cunningham (R-CA) said re amending the Constitution to ban flag burning. An eagle-eyed reader tells me that she viewed the film clip, and this is what Cunningham said: "Ask the police and fire that stood on top of the World Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you, pass this amendment." She also said, referring to my claiming that his words didn't synch with the way his mouth moved, “that's what I heard and those are the words I saw pass his lips.” And I thank this reader very much for clearing this up. Now, the quote is simpleminded. First, no policemen or firefighters stood on top of the World Trade Center after the attack. And second, who is Randy Cunningham to presume to speak for the NYFD and NYPD? But the real point is, how come there are so many versions of this silly quote? When words are put within quotation marks, they supposedly are the exact words that were spoken. Associated Press reported the quote this way: "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment." CNN used AP's quote but expanded on “Trade Center” : "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the [World] Trade Center," said Rep. Randy [Duke] Cunningham, R-California. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment." The Moderate Voice used the AP quote, "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment." Centerfield, A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics reported that these were Cunningham's words: “Ask the men and women at Walter Reed or Bethesda. Ask the police and fire(fighters) that stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: 'Help pass this amendment.'” But it's important to note that all the writers kept their version of Cunningham's words within quotation marks. The more stupid the speaker, the more journalists will try to make them sound intelligent. It's an occupational hazard. Writers cannot help creating simple declarative sentences that make sense. Fine. But amending quotes to make them sound better, no matter how small the amendment, is wrong. The quotation marks should be removed when a writer changes the exact words in any way. If writers are assisting an inarticulate and no-account Congressman like Randy “Duke” Cunningham to sound less like the boob he is, we can only imagine what they are doing for George W. Bush when he speaks off-the-cuff.