Dear Francis Fukuyama:

What the hell are you up to? I just read your Op/Ed piece (“Invasion of the Isolationists”) in this morning's NYT. You give the Bush administration fits for its foreign policy since 9/11. And yet, the war in Iraq and all the decisions made by the Bush administration since its disastrous decision to blame the WTC attack on Saddam Hussein are due to the warmongering precepts that you, William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and 19 others signed June 3rd 1997 called The Project for the New American Century. If you now feel the PNAC principles were wrong, I want to hear it. I want to hear you say it. First, you betrayed the American people by aligning yourself with a bunch of warmongering isolationists who advocated pre-emptive strikes on countries who didn't agree to let the USA rule the world. Now you are betraying the PNAC by saying the Bushites are wrong-headed isolationists. And into the bargain, you are on the board of directors of something called The New America Foundation, whose mission statement is a masterwork of obfuscating gobbledy-gook: “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.” Who are these “outstanding individuals” and what are the “policy ideas” that the New America Foundation plans to invest in? Are Jeb Bush, William Frist and Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts your type of outstanding individuals? Is privatizing Social Security, bringing back the draft and devising more deadly nuclear weapons in the US while making nuclear weapons illegal in the rest of the world your type of exceptional policy ideas? If the Bush administration's “Jacksonian isolationism” is "too pugnacious", what course would please you and your PNAC and New America cohorts? You take a dim view of our staying in Iraq because that would “ensure that the United States remains preoccupied with the Middle East to the detriment of other important regions - Asia, for example - for years to come.” So what are you suggesting? We should get out of Iraq in order to aggress on China? You may be right, Mr. Fukuyama, about the Bush administration's stupid isolationism. But if you are right it's for the wrong reasons. I doubt seriously your ideology has changed since 1997. By my lights you've simply become more devious and sneaky.

The Rationale for “Staying the Course” in Iraq

The White House wants to keep on fighting in Iraq, keep on sending soldiers to Iraq and keep on having American soldiers killed in Iraq because the Bush administration started a war it doesn't know how to end. That's it. You can take all the rhetoric about a pull-out weakening the area, all the hogwash about bringing freedom and liberty to the Middle East, all the military-speak about winning the war on terrorists, and all the nonsense about fighting over there so we don't have to fight here, and you can shove it up Karl Rove's ass (if George Bush's head has left any room, which I doubt). The White House, like the Roman Catholic Church, cannot admit it is wrong. From now until the insane asylum in the White House is closed down, we are going to hear THE BIGGEST LIE OF THEM ALL: the mission of the United States is to bring peace, democracy and women's rights to the Middle East. The United States started a war in Iraq because Iraq was supposed to crumble quickly, then we were going to aggress on other countries in the region, which were going to fall over like dominoes. Then we were going to crow about the moral superiority of the Christian religion and the military supremacy of our armed forced while we boasted and blustered about nuking the rest of the world if it didn't bow down to THE MASTER. And last, we and the Saudis and bin Ladens were going to control all the oil in the Middle East until the US knocked over the Saudis. Alas, it didn't quite work out that way. But not to worry, the US can spin lead into gold. Gone are the lies about finding Weapons of Mass Destruction, hounding Osama bin Laden out of his hidey-caves and making the world safe for the US to dominate. Now we get lies that corrupt Iraqi elections were free and democratic and that a hokey unworkable constitution will bring liberty and equality to the region. The only reason we are in Iraq is because BushII put us there through deceit and bad planning. And there isn't anyone in the White House or the Pentagon who has the foggiest idea how to end the little preemptive strike that was supposed to usher-in the US control of the world. We're in Iraq and we're going to stay there because the White House Ladies love to play soldier but they thought the other side would do the right thing and use fake ammo.

Thanks Frank Rich, I Needed That

As usual, Frank Rich is right. Although his Op/Ed piece this morning (“The Vietnamization of Bush's Vacation”) is an indictment of the Bush administration and its “hallucinatory loop of delusion” re Iraq, Rich is unsparing in his denunciation of the Democrats as well. By my count, Rich enumerated six ways the Democrats have fallen down on the job. And we Democrats must never forget our own culpability in the debacle in Iraq. Our sin has been to stand by and let it happen. Frank Rich is far from a Cindy Sheehan supporter. He admits she has been a catalyst that forced the people in the US to talk about the Iraq quagmire and to focus on the fact that we need to have a plan for getting out and that it needs to be sooner rather than later. But Rich is one of the few anti-Bush writers who is daring to say Camp Casey is now a circus and it's become counter-productive. Rich says that: 1) The Democrats have offered no alternative to the extremes of Bush's cant of “staying the course” or Sheehan's demand that we get out of Iraq now. 2) Russell Feingold is the only Dem “with a clue” re Iraq when he proposed that the US should have “a target date” for withdrawal and not a deadline. 3) Hillary Clinton who presumably will run for Prez in 2008 dropped the ball when a suicide bomber killed 27 children in Baghdad and Ms Clinton's response was to hold a press conference about protecting American children from the violence of video games. 4) The Dems policy of doing nothing in order to inherit the earth is not only immoral it's unpatriotic. 5) The Dems have been too cowardly to admit they made a grievous error three years ago when they bought the Republican lies and rubber-stamped the Iraq war. And this craven policy cane about at the time in order to win midterm elections. 6) The Republican polls are tanking but so are the Dems. And the Dems have no plans to rehabilitate themselves because they assume the Repubs will blink first. When Frank Rich is right, he's right. And we Democrats should listen and learn.

Is It Alzheimer’s Or Is It Propaganda?

George W. Bush keeps repeating himself. The montage of the President on The Daily Show last night said it all. We’re making progress, progress, progress, there are no timetables, no timetables, no timetables. And if you noticed…seeing the Prez indoors, outdoors and all around the globe, the left side of his face is drooping, drooping, drooping. And into the bargain his brain is not working, not working, not working. The worst of it is that George W. Bush does not realize the arguments his minders have given him for our being in Iraq (which he faithfully repeats, repeats, repeats like the robot he is) make no sense whatsoever--Christopher Hitchens notwithstanding. Bush and Hitchens say we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight them here. What a load of nonsense. We attacked Iraq, by Rumsfeld’s own admission, because Iraq was the “best target” for going back and finishing GHWBush’s war. There was no threat from Iraq. We were on the offensive, not defensive. The White House knew Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. The chickenhawks had decided to punish Saddam Hussein for GHWB’s humiliation and that’s what they did. But we’re still hearing the old cant that we have to stay and fight in Iraq so that they don’t bring the war here. Huh? We’re the ones going around provoking war in the world, not Iraq. The groups fighting against us in Iraq are defending themselves against our aggression and war of revenge. They did not start this war. We attacked them specifically because the army in Iraq was weak and we wanted to show them who was boss. The quote from the old comic strip “Pogo” is still right: “We has seen the enemy and they is us”. But…credit where credit is due. The GOP was brilliant in picking out GWB to run for Prez and to be fraudulently installed as President of the USA. There is not a single solitary man in politics except George W. Bush who would allow himself to be used as a mindless propaganda machine. There is not one other politician who would repeat the lies that GWB is willing to repeat. And God help us all, his brain is so addled, he actually believes the twaddle he’s told to say. However, GWB is not immune to feeling overwhelmed, inadequate and hyper. Another stroke/seizure is inevitable.

The Heartland

The tide seems to have turned out there in Illinois where the majority of my friends have always voted Republican. It's not that the folks in my hometown have switched sides. They are still Republicans. But they are Republicans who have come to despise the asshole they voted-in for President. They hate the war in Iraq, think we should pull out, and they are talking about it. At our reunion two years ago, I didn't dare mention that I was a Yellowdog Democrat. This time, I felt free to voice my views, although none of us got into heavy debates. But I am wondering about an issue which will be a BIG factor in the 2008 election: Will these one-time staunch defenders of the Republican Party vote against a GOP candidate, or will they sit the election out and wait for their guys to regain their senses? The Democratic Party is going to need to woo and win these Republicans who hate the war in Iraq. The issue of the war will be the deciding factor in 2008. Bush has now painted himself into a corner about the war and he leaves no wiggle-room in which 2008 GOP candidates can maneuver. The GOP Candidate has to agree with Bush on the war. If John McCain stands up and forcefully supports the idea that the US must stay the course in Iraq, many Republicans simply won't vote rather than vote against McCain. However, if the GOP has eyes to put Jeb Bush up as a candidate, the whole thing becomes easier for the Democratic Party. The Bush name in the Heartland is a four-letter word. On another topic: When Lance Armstrong used to compete in the big bike race in Philadelphia (this was before he was able to use cancer as a rallying cry), I despised him. It was something about his over-weaning stage-mother Mom. It was like watching an updated Oedipus story. I felt kind of guilty loathing Lance because he had a mother problem. But now I have a good excuse for those strong feelings of revulsion and antipathy. The man hobnobs with George W. Bush. I'll even discount the fact that (yup, seems to be a FACT) Lance Armstrong uses and has used performance-enhancing drugs. Lance Armstrong going down to Crawford, Texas to kiss GWB's ass is an ughly sight no matter how you look at it. Was Lance Armstrong bought and paid for by the White House Ladies? I wouldn't bet against it.

High School Reunion

I'm off to the Midwest to reune. Back on the 25th.

Dear Zev Chafets:

Your Op/Ed piece in the New York Times this morning (Mother Knows Best) is a piece of crap. However, you probably should be forgiven for writing this piece of crap because you're sitting there in Tel Aviv and you may not know (but more likely, you would rather not consider the truth of the fact) that President George W. Bush is a mentally defective, delusional, self-absorbed idiot. You praise GWB for being “a master politician”. You say GWB was able to coerce Ariel Sharon into ordering the pullout of Israelis from Gaza and the West Bank by his use of “common sense and credibility.” GWB has no common sense, Mr. Chafets. And he is the master of nothing in the US or in the world. He lost whatever credibility the Bush name conferred on him by acting like the arrogant, grandiose, narcissist that he is and always has been. You say that a letter Bush sent to Sharon in April of 2004 sealed the deal re the Gaza/West Bank pullout. You say no other American president had given Sharon the assurances that Bush gave him. First, Bush can't even say a simple declarative sentence, much less write one, so let's be clear: Bush writes nothing, Bush makes no policies, Bush has no thoughts on his own. The words in that letter were the words of Karl Rove and the White House speech writers, with a sentence or two thrown in by Richard Perle, Irving Kristol and Andy Card. The roadmap referred to in that April 2004 letter was basically the roadmap laid out by President Bill Clinton. However, the deal made behind closed doors between Sharon and the White House thugs was a deal that the US cannot and has no means to honor. That deal was that the US would make war on any enemy of Israel and that Israel might just as well kiss Palestine's ass because the US had Israel's back. This is the biggest lie the Bush administration has ever told, of course. The US can't even pull its dick out of the sand in Iraq, let alone make more wars just to be friendly. And another part of the closed-door deal was that if Israel didn't kiss Palestine's ass, the US would stop sending all those nice dollars to Israel. So, put a sock in it about the US saying the right words to Sharon and that the right words sweetened the pot and encouraged Sharon to order the Gaza/West Bank pullout. I am not a Sharon fan, but I have too much respect for his ability to make sharp deals and his stubborn cussedness to believe that sweet-talk turned the tide. What I find most irritating about your Op/Ed piece is the transparent way you suck up to President George W. Bush. Do you honestly think anyone in the world believes Bush is more than a mental patient living in the White House? Why don't you just come out and say what's really on your mind, which is: We now have done what the Americans have wanted Israel to do for decades. Oh please, please, please don't stop sending us money for services rendered. Oh please! It is interesting, though, Mr. Chafets, I have to admit, that both Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush are Mama's Boys. Many serial killers are Mama's Boys.

I Give You Our Hopelessly Addled President

Cox News Service posted a story by Ken Herman Sunday, August 14, 2005. It was George W. Bush's explanation of why he can't find the time to speak with Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan's son was killed in GWB's war in Iraq. It doesn't matter what Ms Sheehan has said in the past about George Bush or whether she has changed her mind over the months since her son's death in Iraq. It doesn't matter if she comes off strident or articulate, zany or thoughtful, anti- or pro-Bush. Cindy Sheehan is a mother whose son was killed in Iraq. And she wants to talk to George W. Bush about it. She wants her two minutes with GWB so much that she's willing to live in a camp-site down the road from the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas. She's willing to wait for him to give her a moment. As you know, the economy is going to hell, our war debt is through the roof, the majority of US citizens want us out of Iraq, Israel is in a precarious situation what with the ouster of Israeli's from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Iran and Korea want nuclear weapons, Social Security needs to be overhauled but no one likes the White House ideas on how to do it, the President's ratings are in the toilet. Nevermind. President George Bush is taking a five-week vacation at his ranch. And inbetween his naps, here's what George Bush told Cox News about Cindy Sheehan. He said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Ms Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch. “But,” he said, “whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job, and I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say." Then he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life." He clarified this point by saying, "I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so." Now let's recap this important statement to make sure we've got the president's message absolutely right. The president feels that it's part of his job to speak to anyone anywhere who has something to say to him. It's so important, in fact, that he wants to be thoughtful and sensitive when he speaks to people who have something to say to him. That's why he's decided not to speak to people who have something to say to him. Into the bargain, he believes that the people of the United States want him to be healthy and to make good decisions. Therefore, he's decided to go outside and exercise instead of speaking to people who want to speak to him even though it's part of his job to speak to anyone anywhere who has something to say. Our President makes it way too easy for Comedy Central. But the fucking buffoon is president of the United States. The United States has a mountain-bike riding bozo for president. Any rumors about the possibility of a presidential assassination won't be because of Bush's enemies or from Democrats. Be mindful of your friends, George. Stuff happens.

Frank Rich: The Iraq War is Over; Notify GWB

Thank God Frank Rich is back from vacation and writing for the New York Times again. For a couple weeks, no one was telling the unvarnished truth. But Rich is back and his Op/Ed piece this morning (“Someone Tell the President the War Is Over”) lays it on the line: Fox News Bill O'Reilly is bad-mouthing Rumsfeld, CNN's Bob Novak got the hell out while he could still walk under his own power, the shakers and spinners in the White House are now trying to call their war of choice a “struggle”, and old GOP loyalists are lining up on the other side against Bush. As Rich says, “On this sinking ship, it's hard to know which rat to root for”. And yet, our silly grinning Prez tells us from his ranch in Texas where he is performing the extraordinary feat of having his head in the sand and up his ass, that we will stay the course in Iraq. As of this morning, 1853 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and President Bush prates that it's undecided as to when troops will start to be withdrawn. Which, of course, is a lie. It is absolutely known when the pullout will begin. The only one in government who doesn't know when we're going to extricate ourselves from George W. Bush's war is George W. Bush. But at this point, since Prez Bush is mentally incompetent, he's not kept in the loop about anything. He believes his mandate is to be the first King of the World. He thinks he can brush off the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who is camped out down the road from his Crawford ranch. He's convinced no one knows about his gay escapades. And he believes God put him in the White House. But the madness of President Bush is not the important issue facing the United States. The big dilemma is how can the intelligent men and women in Congress and in the President's cabinet lead the country for the next two years and six months through the morass that the present Bush administration has placed us in. It's the Bush administration that's in its last throes, not the war in Iraq. The war will go on until we pull our troops out. Therefore, our troops must be pulled out and the decision as to when that will be has already been made. The next decision is: How can an administration that has made wrong decisions in every aspect of its leadership start to govern according to Democrat precepts but still appear to be Republican? Now that's a helluva challenge.

What? NBC's Parent Makes War Machines?

John Hockenberry, who no longer works at MSNBC, mentioned in passing on The Daily Show last night that NBC's parent, GE, is in the war business. It had never occurred to me. So I looked it up. Sure enough, GE produces helicopters, unmanned aircraft, and engines used in jet fighters, In the good old days when wars in Kuwait and Iraq were being promoted by the MSM as being the patriot duty of good Americans, GE bragged that the military weapons it produced “continue to operate in critical missions around the world.” GE has been involved in nuclear weapons production and the construction of nuclear power plants since the end of the Second World War. So…what do you think? Would NBC be interested in pushing a rosy view of the Republican's war in Iraq? Would NBC have an interest in fanning the flames of small wars around the planet? You bet your sweet ass it would. But here's the BIG question. We know that the Carlyle Group is amoral and corrupt and that it invests in defense, government shenanigans and industry throughout the world. But how far would the Carlyle Group and GE go in order to make money from nuclear weapons and power plants? Would these two mega-corps invest in nuclear weapons produced by countries unfriendly to the US? I'm just asking.

Yo…Prez Bush! The Shiites Just Took Baghdad…

…and not only that, according to a report out of Iran, Osama Bin Laden says he'll enter Iraq in October for Ramadan. Let me remind you White House Ladies of a thing or two. You planned to force Iraq to accept your choices for Iraq leaders in spite of all your freedom and democracy rhetoric. Well, they sure turned the tables on you. Your Paul Bremer installed the Baghdad Mayor the Shiites just deposed, Alaa al-Tamimi. That was before Bremer fled Iraq with his tail between his legs. "This is the new Iraq," Mr. Tamimi said, according to this morning's New York Times. Tamini is a secular engineer who is beholden to no party. "They use force to achieve their goal,” he said. This isn't the “new Iraq”. This is the old Iraq. Nothing has changed. As of today, 1842 American soldiers have died and Iraq is still ruled by force. And the awful irony is that the aim of the Republican Party was to rule Iraq by US force. Only we called it freedom and democracy. Our gutless President, who avoided serving in the armed forces by hook, crook and Daddy's favors, is so lily-livered he won't even walk down a country lane to talk to the mother of one of the soldiers he killed in Iraq. By the way, Mr. Hide-Behind-Any-Bush, how's that Osama “Dead or Alive” threat going?

Idiot Bush Calls Cindy Sheehan “Mom”

Cindy Sheehan's son Casey was killed in Iraq last year at age 24. Ms. Sheehan wants to confront President Bush and ask him, “Why did you kill my son? What did he die for?” Ms. Sheehan is camping-out down the road from the President's Crawford, TX ranch. Not too long ago, the president's minders would have sent thugs down that winding road to strong-arm Ms. Sheehan into understanding she should vamoose. But the President is in such bad odor these days that his advisors have seen the wisdom of sending senior officials to reason with Ms. Sheehan. Saturday afternoon, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and deputy WH chief of staff Joe Hagin hotfooted it down the road to have a confab. However, Ms. Sheehan is adamant. She's staying at her improvised camp-site until President Bush meets with her. The Prez would do well to set up a meet with Ms Sheehan ASAP, because she's already talked to a reporter from The Associated Press, CBS was taping a segment on her, she had appeared on CNN, and this morning she is appearing live on ABC. And her cell phone is alive with reporters from all over asking for interviews. Cindy Sheehan already has divulged a piece of information that has not hit the news shows from families of other soldiers killed in Iraq. And it may be the most interesting bit of info to come out of this standoff. Two months after her son Casey's death, Ms Sheehan and her family met with President Bush. The Prez holds these sessions regularly when he travels around the country. He uses them as photo-ops and tries to wring every ounce of human-interest sentimentality he can squeeze from the encounters. But we've never heard details about how the President conducts himself during these meetings. Until now. The NYT reported this morning re the Bush meeting with Ms. Sheehan, “Mr. Bush did not know her son's name when she and her family met with him in June 2004 at Fort Lewis. Mr. Bush, she said, acted as if he were at a party and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as 'Mom' throughout the meeting.” In another revealing exchange, Cindy Sheehan said Bush said he couldn't imagine what it was like to lose a loved one like an aunt or uncle. Ms. Sheehan told Mr. Bush that Casey was her son, and that she thought he could imagine what it would be like since he has two daughters and that he should think about what it would be like sending them off to war. Ms. Sheehan said, “Trust me, you don't want to go there.” Bush said, "You're right, I don't.” And Ms. Sheehan said, “Well, thanks for putting me there.” Here's what President George W. Bush should do. In fact, this is the only thing he can do to salvage any shred of credibility he may still have about the war in Iraq. Prez Bush should immediately meet with Cindy Sheehan. But before he ambles down that winding road to her camp-site, he should call up Donald Rumsfeld, tell him to ready the first boot-camp he can think of for two new recruits, because his twin daughters are signing up for duty in Iraq as soon they can be made ready and be deployed. After advising his daughters they are in the army now and he's proud as proud can be, then the President can meet with Casey Sheehan's mom and tell her all about his plans for Iraq and why her son died.

Presby Church Boycotting the Wrong Bad Guys

The Presbyterian Church has gotten righteously indignant and plans to take a vote about divesting itself of holdings in: Caterpillar, Motorola, ITT Industries and United Technologies. The Presbyterians say that these companies are providing military equipment and technology to Israel to aid the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Not to seem biased, the Presbyterians are blackballing Citigroup because the church elders say Citigroup is connected to a bank that provides money from Islamic charities to the families of suicide bombers from Palestine. Laurie Goodstein's article in the NYT this morning (Threat to Divest Is Church Tool in Israeli Fight)reports that the Presbyterians got the goods on Citigroup from an article in the Wall Street Journal. Goodstein wrote that, “The Episcopal Church U.S.A., the United Church of Christ, two regions of the United Methodist Church, as well as international groups like the World Council of Churches and the Anglican Consultative Council have all urged consideration of divestment or economic pressure in recent months.” As you might imagine, Jewish groups are pissed and are saying Israel is being unfairly blamed and Palestine should be shown as perpetuating the violence in Israel. But conspicuously absent from the Protestant hue and cry about ungodly US corporations is The Carlyle Group. Why doesn't the moral outrage of the Presbyterians and the Episcopal Church et al. extend to the biggest promoter of war and violence throughout the world-the Carlyle Group? The Carlyle Group and its investment in war munitions plants (as in, Cheney's Halliburton) are the nice folks who gave us the war in Iraq. Where were these Bible thumpers on that morally repugnant assault on humanity? When you get Christian churches defending Israel or Palestine, what you have are special-interest groups obsessed with keeping the birthplace of Jesus sacrosanct for Christians. Goodstein quotes The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, clerk of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., saying: "It's not a campaign to divest from the state of Israel. We're fully committed to the state of Israel. But it is a campaign to divest from particular activities that are doing damage and creating injustice and violence, whether that's the building of the separation barrier, construction related to the occupation, or weapons and materials that lead to suicide bombings." Christian churches are fully committed to the state of Israel because it's the birthplace of Christ. All the rhetoric about damage and injustice and violence is crap. The injustice and violence issue is only spin and justification. The real point is that Israel/Palestine is the location of all the action in The New Testament, and that location needs to be defended from all comers. It's not about morals it's about real estate. Let the Christian churches come out and loudly boycott the war in Iraq. Let the Christian churches demand truth-telling from the warmongering White House. Let the Christian churches stand up and stand for an end to the violence, lying and injustice promoted by the Republican Party and the Carlyle Group. Then, maybe, Christian churches will have some credibility. But until that day, they are just talking out their collective ass.

Robert Novak's Meltdown…Oh Happy Day!

I take it quite personally. Novak's breakdown was a gift to me. But then, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show saw Novak's profane snit and swivet as a personal gift to him. I dare say, all the 60,000,000 voters who voted against GWB in the 2004 election probably think Novak's on-camera temper tantrum was a personal gift to them. And the best part of this August Surprise is that CNN immediately told the sneaky, scumsucking, lying, White House shill to make himself scarce for an indefinite period of time. And then over at WNYC, Rick-the-dick Santorum lost his cool about gays and had a shouting fit on the Brian Lehrer show. Wheeeee!!! What's going on? With Santorum, it's just that he's a zealot and a moron. But with Novak, it's tempting to speculate. Why now? Was it a set up? Was it staged? Did CNN give Novak a way to exit the show that was more palatable to him that getting canned? Did Novak know that Ed Henry's next question was going to be a real stinker about the Plame case? It's probably none of the above. Most likely, it was a random mercy from God and we all should give a donation to our favorite charity to give thanks. Paul Krugman's Op/Ed piece in the NYT this morning says the expression “intelligent design” came from Irving Kristol. Intelligent design is a less loaded phrase than creationism, but it means the same thing. That is, everything that is now in existence came into being 6,000 years ago and was formed by God in six days, after which, God rested for a day. Irving Kristol is known as the founder of neo-conservatism. He also gave us the expression “supply side economics”--another theory that doesn't add up: tax cuts can be had for free because they don't cause budget deficits. Irving Kristol created William Kristol, who created the Project for a New American Century and was Dan Quayle's speechwriter. My point? The events of each day show more and more persuasively that it has taken man billions of years to get to his current apelike status and he's still not very far out of the trees. Plus, the events of every day point away from there being anything intelligent whatsoever about mankind. And, further, I would suggest that the kindest possible view of the intelligent design theory is that God is still resting.

The President's Priorities

Never has one article shown the President's mind-set as plainly as the one in the NYT this morning by Richard W. Stevenson, “President Makes It Clear: Phrase Is 'War on Terror'”. Let me quote a few sentences: “Mr. Bush arrived in Texas on Tuesday, and is spending the rest of the month at his vacation home in Crawford.” “In a speech here (Grapevine, Texas) Mr. Bush used the phrase 'war on terror' no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the 'global struggle against violent extremism'”. “Administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy.” “He used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech, most of which was about domestic policy.” “In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, said that the conflict was 'more than just a military war on terror' and that the United States needed to counter 'the gloomy vision' of the extremists and 'offer a positive alternative.'” So. There you have it. The Prez is going to kick back for a month in Texas now that his work is done. That global struggle language had to be given the old one-two. But having put us back on-track with the war on terror rhetoric and an upbeat view of war in general, the Prez plans to enjoy a month of R&R. Spreading propaganda is exhausting. What does not concern the President is that as of this morning, 1826 American soldiers have died in his unnecessary war in Iraq. (Or, as others have so eloquently pointed out, the President just doesn't give a fuck.) That men have died and been horribly maimed is a gloomy vision. To a man's man like George W. Bush who admires manly talk, and engages in manly pursuits like riding a mountain bike and chopping down scrub-brush on his ranch, and dressing up like a cowboy, war is grand. To a manly man like GWB, war is, well, war is just fabulous.

Bolton Another Lame Duck

There are two possible reasons why President George Bush decided on the end-run smart-ass recess appointment of John Bolton to the post of Ambassador to the UN. 1) The Prez has such contempt for the UN that Bolton is his best worst choice. Or, 2) Prez Bush is so giddy with power he decided to wait until Congress left town to use his constitutional right to appoint his personal choice, no matter how disastrous the appointment may be for the UN, for the US, and for his own reputation. I favor the latter reason, because it also accomplishes the former. If Bush had waited for Congress to affirm the Bolton appointment, Bolton would have served until the end of Bush's term. As it is, Bolton will only serve until the next one-year session of Congress. That is, Bolton's appointment lasts only until January 2007. Bush has chosen to flip the bird at Congress and the world rather than follow the normal course of events for confirming a UN Ambassador. And in doing so, his little show of disdain has seriously limited Bolton's ability to do the job of US Ambassador to the UN. Bush did not have to make this recess appointment. Bolton would no doubt have been confirmed. It has gotten to the point that President Bush's grandiose behavior is undermining his party and his own authority. And the White House Ladies are allowing him to do it. That is another puzzlement. Rove, Cheney, Mehlman and McClellan could have talked Bush out of his insane ploy to show everyone who's boss. Why didn't they? One can only ask the key question: Who benefits if Bush is discredited and found to be unfit and mentally unstable?