Much Harder to Shovel Horseshit These Days

Iraq Prime Minister al-Maliki says he didn’t snub President Bush when he backed out of a meeting with Bush on Wednesday. We know he did. Bush says he didn’t take the snub that didn’t happen seriously. We know he did. Bush had breakfast with Maliki this morning. Bush told Maliki the US troops will stay in Iraq as long as Maliki wants them there. We know US troops are going to be pulled out and soon. Bush says he won’t pull US troops out of Iraq until the mission is complete. We know the mission will be called complete whenever Maliki can convincingly be put in a frame for allowing the civil war (currently called sectarian violence) in Iraq. And the reason we know everything that is going on is because it’s become so easy to copy memos, reports, inter-office e-mail and so-called Eyes Only Top-Secret Classified info. And it’s become so easy to find leakers who are only too happy to deliver the goods to any and all media. Last night on CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight” Lee Hamilton of the Iraq Study Group said, “Let me say two things about the Iraq Study Group. Number One, early this afternoon we reached a consensus. And Number Two, we will announce that on December 6th. That's all I can say.” No problem. This morning the New York Times had a fairly detailed news story (“Panel to Recommend Pullback of Combat Troops”) on what the ISG recommendations will be. ISG is recommending that the US pull back troops from Iraq but gives no timetable. However, the timetable is implicit. We will start the pullback early this coming year. The major part of the ISG’s report had to do with recommending that the US start diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria. It’s just possible that Iraq’s Prime Minister al-Maliki took offense to a November 8th memo from National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley to Bush and Co. The memo was reprinted and analyzed yesterday by the New York Times, Hadley said it was unclear if al-Maliki was simply refusing to take steps to slow the militias' power and drum them out of Iraq's security forces -- or if he lacked the power to do so. Hadley said, “Despite Maliki’s reassuring words, repeated reports from our commanders on the ground contributed to our concerns about Maliki’s government. Reports of nondelivery of services to Sunni areas, intervention by the prime minister’s office to stop military action against Shia targets and to encourage them against Sunni ones, removal of Iraq’s most effective commanders on a sectarian basis and efforts to ensure Shia majorities in all ministries — when combined with the escalation of Jaish al-Mahdi’s (JAM) [the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army] killings — all suggest a campaign to consolidate Shia power in Baghdad.” Think this may have pissed Maliki off? Think pissing off Maliki may have been the reason the memo was leaked? Think the Bush administration may have leaked it? Hadley listed nine things Malaki could do to be an effective leader. Then, after listing six things the US could do to help Malaki, Hadley wrote: “The above approach may prove difficult to execute even if Maliki has the right intentions. He may simply not have the political or security capabilities to take such steps, which risk alienating his narrow Sadrist political base and require a greater number of more reliable forces. Pushing Maliki to take these steps without augmenting his capabilities could force him to failure — if the Parliament removes him from office with a majority vote or if action against the Mahdi militia (JAM) causes elements of the Iraqi Security Forces to fracture and leads to major Shia disturbances in southern Iraq. We must also be mindful of Maliki’s personal history as a figure in the Dawa Party — an underground conspiratorial movement — during Saddam’s rule. Maliki and those around him are naturally inclined to distrust new actors, and it may take strong assurances from the United States ultimately to convince him to expand his circle of advisers or take action against the interests of his own Shia coalition and for the benefit of Iraq as a whole. “If it is Maliki’s assessment that he does not have the capability — politically or militarily — to take the steps outlined above, we will need to work with him to augment his capabilities. We could do so in two ways. First, we could help him form a new political base among moderate politicians from Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and other communities. Ideally, this base would constitute a new parliamentary bloc that would free Maliki from his current narrow reliance on Shia actors. (This bloc would not require a new election, but would rather involve a realignment of political actors within the Parliament). In its creation, Maliki would need to be willing to risk alienating some of his Shia political base and may need to get the approval of Ayatollah Sistani for actions that could split the Shia politically. Second, we need to provide Maliki with additional forces of some kind.” Hadley listed three more things we could do…with subheads, yet. And six “Moving Ahead” items with subheads. Oh my yes…what a detailed little memo. And if the written words weren’t enough to infuriate Maliki, the between-the-lines message was: Maliki is incompetent and dangerous and he’s got to go. Think Maliki was a little put off by it? Think that was the intent of the leak? Time was, when politicians said a thing, even if it sounded like baloney, there was no way to prove it was baloney. Now, when a politician makes a statement, it can be shown six ways to Sunday that it’s a lie. Plus, the real intent of the politician can be shown with subsequent leaks of inter-office memos. But all this access to information is good news and bad news. Having as much information as possible is a good thing. But leaks provide a way for politicians to say what they really believe without saying what they really believe. Duplicity has become triplicity. Which forces us back to trying to discern the truth by reading signs and omens and looking in the eyes of the person speaking. Bush makes it easy. He always lies and is an ignorant sociopath. McCain is almost as easy to read. He’s an ass-kissing, egomaniac neocon who wants to be president more than life itself and he loves war, any war. Cheney is an angry, mean, lying old pol who can’t get it up anymore. But is anyone in the rarified atmosphere of Washington, DC politics thinking about what is best for America and the American people? No. Good Lord no. That’s the last thing in the mind of anyone on Capitol Hill.

Now We Know Exactly What Bush Will Do

On February 8, 2004 Bush said, “I’m a war president”. On July 20 2004 Bush said, "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president." On November 2. 2006 Bush said Rumsfeld would remain until the end of his presidency. On November 8, 2006 Bush canned Rumsfeld. Yesterday at the NATO summit in Latvia Bush said regarding the war in Iraq, “I’m not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.” That clears that up. Bush will pull the troops out of Iraq. When will the Bush administration declare the mission is once again and finally accomplished? That’s tricky but it’s inevitable. In the same speech in Latvia, Bush said there was no civil war in Iraq and that the violence and unrest was due to Al Qaeda. Bush said that when he meets with Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki today, his questions to him will be: “What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?” Bush added, “I will assure him that we will continue to pursue Al Qaeda to make sure that they do not establish a safe haven in Iraq.” The set-up is complete. The troubles in Iraq are all about sectarian violence and they have nothing to do with the Bush administration’s attacking and occupying Iraq. The problems are now Prime Minister Maliki’s to solve. Next, Bush will declare that because Maliki is inept and has not trained the Iraqi soldiers properly, the situation has spiralled down into civil war and Bush will not commit American soldiers to fight Iraq’s civil war. Bush has assured Maliki that the United States will pursue Al Qaeda in order that it does not establish a safe haven in Iraq. Translation: Bush will not pursue Al Qaeda. At some point in the very near future, Bush will say that Maliki’s incompetence has produced a civil war, which has allowed terrorists to establish a safe haven. Bush will say the US has done all it can to pull Maliki’s chestnuts out of the fire, but our patience has run out. Iraq’s President Talabani who never liked Maliki in the first place will agree that Maliki has brought about a civil war and that Al Qaeda is now running rampant through Iraq because Maliki has been a traitor all along. The Bush administration will reluctantly agree that our soldiers have to be pulled out of Iraq to save them from a fate worse than death, even though they were sent there to bring freedom, peace and democracy to that egregiously ungrateful nation. The US will enter into diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria to try to enlist their aid in pulling Iraq out of the quagmire that Maliki has caused. Done. Mission accomplished.

Rehabilitating Clunkers and Duds

The world has produced some astoundingly ghastly human beings and events, particularly within recent memory. And yet, many of these people and events are being rehabilitated and reassessed. The rehab is due to the lucky happenstance that other people and newer events have proved to be worse. Idi Amin’s murderous and corrupt rule of Uganda from 1971 through 1978 didn’t look nearly as bad when compared with Saddam Hussein’s murderous and corrupt rule of Iraq from 1980 through 2001. When Jeffrey Dahmer’s disgusting acts of dismemberment and cannibalism between 1989 ad 1991 came to light, Ted Bundy’s serial murders between 1974-1978 didn’t seem so repellent. At least Bundy didn’t eat his victims. The art world was scandalized by Jackson Pollack’s drips and splashes in the 40’s and 50’s. But his paintings look benign and acceptable when compared with Andres Serrano’s 1999 “Piss Christ” that consisted of a crucifix submerged in a tank of Serrano’s urine. When Anderson and Ulvaeus cobbled together the pop music of Sweden’s Abba with a silly story and opened on Broadway in 2001, it was called featherweight, kitchy, shamelessly manipulative and critics said it seemed to be written by a committee. But now that Twyla Tharp has done the same thing with Bob Dylan’s tunes in “The Times They Are A-Changin’” and it’s getting bashed and battered in reviews, critics are saying “Mamma Mia” looks brilliant when compared with Tharp's effort. The luckiest man alive is Mel Gibson. Michael Richard’s tirade using racial slurs while doing his standup routine at West Hollywood’s Laugh Factory last week has people looking at Mel Gibson’s tirade using racial slurs last July and saying, “At least Gibson is a productive member of society.” Apparently even Gibson doesn’t find his hateful words about Jews as offensive as Richard’s hateful words about blacks. Gibson said, “Just hearing the word n----r is hurtful to millions of Americans…why use the word n—-r?” And thus Gibson neatly took himself off the hook. Now that George Herbert Walker Bush is in the public eye again, not only because of his involvement with the folks in the Iraq Study Group, but because he is vociferously defending his idiot ne’er-do-well son the president, GHWB’s term as 41st president looks, if not stellar, at least half-way decent when compared with his son's presidency. Who could make George W. Bush look good? There actually is someone. The guy William Bennett wants to propose as a Republican candidate for president: Rick Santorum.

Here’s The Big Problem

The Bush administration doesn’t have the slightest understanding of the culture of the people who live in the Middle East. And the Bush administration has no desire to understand. The ethos, culture and mindset of the folks who live in the Middle East has changed very little since the beliefs of the Old Testament were set down in writing. The Old Testament is a disturbingly bigoted, mean-spirited, superstitious, paranoid, xenophobic treatise on how to keep a small group of rich men in power by making everyone else scared shitless of everything, most particularly of God. The God in the Old Testament was created in the likeness of the nasty, bigoted small group of rich men who ruled the known world at the time. And that God is merciful and good only to those who oppress dissenters and the disenfranchised. As I said, the Bush administration has no understanding of the people who live in the Middle East. But the Bush administration has a complete and comprehensive understanding of, and is in total agreement with the way theocracies ruled the world in the Old Testament. And that’s a problem. The Bush administration has to constantly put out reports about how different and morally superior it is from the Iraqis it claims it is trying to educate and reform. But in fact, the ethos and value system of the Bush fascists is the same if not on a lower level than those of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi nation in general. The Iraqis may live in a culture very different from that of most Americans, but stupid they are not. They can’t figure out why they should embrace a bunch of foreign tyrants who have killed them, raped them, tortured them, stolen from them, and destroyed their land, when if these foreign tyrants had stayed home, the Iraqis could have been killed, raped, and stolen from by home-grown tyrants. And at least they would have understood the language of the hometown bullies who would have looked like them and had familiar attitudes. In a land where wars, pillaging and blood feuds have been going on for 6,000 years, a new oppressor is not going to make much of a dent. To the warring factions in Iraq, the United States army (such as it is) including the United States consultants and advisors are just more assholes to be outwitted. And not only has the United States lost the war in Iraq, it has been outwitted in spades. We look like fools. Our own weapons are killing our soldiers and our money is now in the coffers of Iraqi insurgents. Through fraudulent arms deals former Iraq officials stole $800 million from the new Iraq government. That money had been earmarked to buy equipment for the Iraqi army. And let us be clear. The new bunch of bullies taking advantage of the Iraqi people is not only made up of Shiites and Sunnis. The new Iraq government that is fucking over the Iraqis includes Americans. The Iraqis, and not a few Americans are asking themselves, “How is Iraq better off with this new band of thieves than it was with the old band of thieves?” And of course, the answer is that Iraq is not better off. The Americans who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein have become Saddam Hussein. The worst of it is, the Americans who attacked Iraq always were Saddam clones. They only needed to invade a weak oppressed nation to let their true natures burst forth and flourish.

Charles Rangel (D-NY) Calls White House Bluff

When the man is right, he’s right. And whether Rangel actually would fight to reinstate the draft or not, is not the point. Rangel is the only person in Congress with the balls to state the obvious and to call the bluff of the Bush administration. Seventy-six-year-old Charles Bernard Rangel, representing Upper Manhattan, Harlem, Spanish Harlem and part of the Upper West Side in New York City says, “as long as this country is placing thousands of young men and women in harm's way in Iraq…as long as Americans are being shipped off to war, then everyone should be vulnerable, not just those who, because of economic circumstances, are attracted by lucrative enlistment bonuses and educational incentives.” In his Press Release of November 21, stating his reasons for calling for a reinstatement of a universal military draft, Rangel went on to say: “Even before the first bomb was dropped, before the first American casualty, I have opposed the war in Iraq. I continue to believe that decision-makers would never have supported the invasion if more of them had family members in line for deployment. “Those who do the fighting have no choice; when the flag goes up, they salute and follow orders. So far, more than 2,800 have died and 21,000 wounded. They are our unrecognized American heroes. “The great majority of people bearing arms for this country in Iraq are from the poorer communities in our inner cities and rural areas, places where enlistment bonuses up to $40,000 and thousands in educational benefits are very attractive. For people who have college as an option, those incentives--at the risk to one's life--don't mean a thing.” In stating the obvious and unpopular fact that if Congress is not prepared to shut down this immoral ego-war of the Bush administration, then a draft cannot be avoided, at least Rangel knows exactly what he’s asking for. He was in the United States Army from 1948 to 1952 and was awarded both a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. Which is far more than can be said for the following list of neocons, all of who avoided serving in the military: President George W. Bush Vice President Dick Cheney Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay Former House Majority Whip Roy Blunt Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist Former Majority Whip Mitch McConnell Former Senator (R-PA) Rick Santorum Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott Former Attorney General John Ashcroft Florida Governor Jeb Bush White House Consultant Karl Rove Senator (Independent-CT) Joseph I. Lieberman All of the above love war so much they want thousands more soldiers to be deployed (and redeployed) to both Iraq and Afghanistan. And not one of the above knows from first-hand experience what war is all about. Rangel is right. If the war in Iraq MUST GO ON, if the United States MUST FINISH THE JOB, if the United States MUST STAY THE COURSE, if the United States MUST FIGHT UNTIL VICTORY IS ACHIEVED, if this MISSION MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED, then everyone’s son and daughter MUST BE AVAILABLE to be called up to serve. EVERYONE’S son and daughter. And that includes the children of Congressmen, the spoiled-brat twins of the President and the children of the super-rich on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. ALL kids must be available to be sent to fight the Bush administration's wars If the US is not prepared to call for this unavoidable solution to the problem of having enough young people to fight and be killed in wars, then we should bring our soldiers home. Because the volunteer army is not equal to the job. The volunteer army lost the war as soon as it was started.

Bush Sr. Defends Bush Jr.

GHWBush was at a leadership conference yesterday in Abu Dhabi, the capital of Abu Dhabi, one of the seven countries that comprise the United Arab Emirates in Southwest Asia on the Persian Gulf. During a question-and-answer period after Bush Sr,’s address on leadership (which was characterized as “folksy” in an Associated Press article by Jim Krane), the audience hooted and whistled in derision when the subject of George W. Bush came up. "We do not respect your son. We do not respect what he's doing all over the world," one woman said. Bush Sr. had opened the door for comments such as this when he told the audience he feels deeply hurt when the president is criticized. Bush Sr. said his son is “an honest man”. He said he was very proud of both his sons--Jeb who is governor of Florida and George who is the president. Okay. I personally do not believe that GHWB is proud of his two despicable sons who have both disgraced themselves while in political office. Nor do I believe GHWB is proud of his other two sons, Neil and Marvin. who have both been involved in shady, if not, outright illegal shenanigans. Neil was director of Silverado Banking, Savings and Loan in Colorado. Silverado went belly up, mainly because Neil’s two partners welshed on $132 milliion in loans. Marvin was on the board of directors of Securacom (now named Stratesec) which provided electronic security for the World Trade Center up to and including the day the buildings collapsed. The company was backed by the Kuwait-American Corp., which has been linked to the Bush family for years George W. Bush dissed his father when he became president and said he would not ask him for advice. But now, the arrogant, gormless, and delusional little weasel is in the position of having to eat crow and accept advice from his father and his father’s cronies who are members of the Iraq Study Group. No. I do not believe for a minute that GHWB is proud of his sons. But nevermind. Bush Sr. took the highroad and felt he had to defend his son the President when he was being mocked and ridiculed. What else was the 82-year-old father going to do? However, that is not the interesting part of this story. One audience member asked Bush, Sr. what advice he gives his son on Iraq. Bush Sr. said he couldn’t reveal his advice because there were reporters in the audience. He said, "I have strong opinions on a lot of these things. But the reason I can't voice them is, if I did what you ask me to do — tell you what advice I give my son — that would then be flashed all over the world," He added, "If it happened to deviate one iota, one little inch, from what the president's doing or thinks he ought to be doing, it would be terrible. It'd bring great anxiety not only to him but to his supporters.” Obviously, if Bush Sr. agreed with what the Prez is doing, he would have said so. Bush Sr. is as capable of lying as any other politician. He said he had spoken with James Baker recently. Baker is head of the Iraq Study Group and was Secretary of State when Bush Sr. was president. The two men are neighbors in Houston. He said he preferred to reminisce about old times with Baker than discuss what America ought to do in Iraq. "In the early 1960s,” Bush Sr. said, “Jim Baker and I were the men's doubles champions in tennis in the city of Houston…If I were to suggest what they ought to do, it just would not be constructive and certainly would not be helpful to the president. It would cause grief to him." George Herbert Walker Bush is 82. He’s not as good at dissembling as he once was. Why would advice cause grief to the Prez? It would only cause grief if it ran counter to what the Prez is doing. What we can take away from the events in Abu Dhabi is that of course the former president and Jim Baker talk about Bush Jr. And of course they talk about Iraq and the mess Jr. has made of things. And of course they talk about whether the Bush name can be rehabilitated. And of course they talk about whether and how the reputation of the United States can be returned to its former state of good standing. And of course George Herbert Walker Bush thinks his son the president is a worthless ne’er-do-well piece of crap who has to be saved from disaster after disaster. But GHWB differs from all his sons in that he really does care about the United States of America. And he is absolutely right that saying publicly that he and Barbara Bush have spawned one of the worst human beings ever to walk the earth would not be constructive, politically or personally. If Bush Sr. seemed “stunned”, as Jim Krane’s article reports, that the audience at Abu Dhabi whistled and hooted its approval when the woman said people don’t like what Bush Jr. Is doing and they don’t respect him, then it may be because at that moment, George Herbert Walker Bush realized nothing could save the Bush name from dishonor and infamy. It’s been a long time coming, but the Bush family has been heading for jail and/or dishonor for decades. All the lying and nefarious deals have finally caught up to them.

How Powerful is Dick Cheney?

Sy Hersh’s new 6000 word article (“The Next Act”) for The New Yorker’s November 27 issue is now available online. The sub head reads: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more? Hersh’s high-level sources told him that the big issue in the Bush administration now is “whether Cheney would be as influential in the last two years of George W. Bush’s Presidency as he was in its first six.” Obviously, Cheney thinks his influence remains intact when he says, referring to Iraq, “we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We’re looking for victory.” Current and former administration officials told Hersh that Cheney is “equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran.” Apparently, we are in for a very nasty internecine power struggle. A former CIA official told Hersh, “Cheney’s relationship with Rumsfeld was among the closest inside the Administration, and (Robert) Gates’s nomination (to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense) was seen by some Republicans as a clear signal that the Vice-President’s influence in the White House could be challenged… Critical decisions will be made in the next few months, the former C.I.A. official said. ‘Bush has followed Cheney’s advice for six years, and the story line will be: ‘Will he continue to choose Cheney over his father?’ We’ll know soon.’” Former Deputy Secretary of State in GWB’s first term, Richard Armitage, told Hersh he believes the Administration “has backed off” from a campaign to use the military against Iran. Armitage said, “Iraq is as bad as it looks, and Afghanistan is worse than it looks…A year ago, the Taliban were fighting us in units of eight to twelve, and now they’re sometimes in company-size, and even larger.” Armitage said bombing Iran and expecting the Iranian public “to rise up” and overthrow the government, “is a fool’s errand.” Nevertheless, “Once Gates is installed at the Pentagon, he will have to contend with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Rumsfeld legacy—and Dick Cheney,” Hersh said. The Bush administration has promoted the idea that Iran is an imminent nuclear threat to the Middle East. However, the CIA has refuted that argument, Hersh said, in a “highly classified draft assessment” which found “no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency.” A Pentagon consultant told Hersh, “The C.I.A.’s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran’s nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran’s hands—bolstering support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage.” Surely it will come as no surprise that Dick Cheney is capable of trying to push the Bush administration into attacking Iran only to prove that he can still cut the mustard. And there are still neocons in the White House who would welcome any plan that includes bombs, pre-emptive strikes and military mayhem. Fortunately, the Iraq Study Group is more open to diplomatic strategies than supporting Dick Cheney’s insane fantacies about ruling the world with military might. Hersh said, “In the most significant recommendation, Baker and Hamilton were expected to urge President Bush to do what he has thus far refused to do—bring Syria and Iran into a regional conference to help stabilize Iraq.” It’s not that I can’t see some wisdom in the idea of showing Iran that the US is bigger, stronger and smarter than a little country in the Middle East with its primitive nuclear technology. But the US can’t sustain a show of power over the long haul because the US has shot its wad thanks to Donald Rumsfeld’s incompetence and thanks to the neocons in the GOP who like to play soldier but have never been in the military. Dick Cheney is a pitbull and pitbulls cannot be retrained. Dick Cheney needs to be defused, switched off, deactivated. Actually, neutralized, is the word I am searching for.

How Will the US Staying in Iraq Stabilize Iraq?

We attacked Iraq for the most venal reasons. The idea of spreading democracy was not part of the original preemptive strike ideology. The Pentagon, the Bush administration and Department of Defense head Donald Rumsfeld miscalculated all levels of carrying on a war, mismanaged the so-called rehabilitation of Iraq that we had destroyed. And they misled the American people every step of the way. The Iraq war was a mistake from the moment it was conceived by the Project for the New American Century autocrats in 1998 up to and including today. But the Republicans’ say that if we don’t stay in Iraq, terrible things will ensue. How can things get worse in Iraq? They now have a civil war thanks to us. We destroyed whatever basic services Saddam had provided for the people and we have not given those services back because Americans have stolen the money earmarked for rebuilding Iraq. Terrorism has proliferated throughout the Middle East because of the situation the United Stated provided with our war. And the whole world is less safe than it was before we bumbled and blundered our way into the Middle East to steal its oil and to occupy and conquer its countries. If we brought all of our soldiers, equipment and idiotic consultants home today, how could things get worse in Iraq? The GOP rationale is that since we caused all the problems in Iraq, we owe it to the Iraqis to stay in Iraq and watch the problems that we caused get worse. Which, the GOP forgets to mention, would entail our watching things go from worse to worse-than-worse in the United States. Why can’t we watch Iraq’s problems get worse at a distance? Which would, by extension, save the United States from destroying itself.

Cheney in Wonderland

On Friday, Vice President Dick Cheney resolutely persisted in his demand that America stay the course in Iraq. At a time when the Bush administration is making conciliatory sounds regarding pulling back from its intransigent stance on Iraq, Cheney said in a speech at the annual convention of the Federalist Society, “Some in our country may believe in good faith that retreating from Iraq would make America safer. Recent experience teaches the opposite lesson.” What recent experience? The fact is recent experience teaches that the whole world is less safe than it was before the Project for the New Century fascists took charge and began to put into effect their pre-emptive strike ideology. Cheney then told the gathered lawyers of the Federaiist Society that Donald Rumsfeld was an important reformer and “one of the great public servants of the age”. An article in the New York Times this morning (“A Somber Annual Meeting for Conservative Lawyers”) said about the Federalist Society “No group has been more influential in sending up candidates for the federal courts; when President Bush took office in 2001, the society had recommended to him the majority of his first slate of 11 federal appeals court judges. His appointments to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., were both active in the Federalist Society and enjoyed strong support from it.” It was the first time since the November 7th elections that Cheney had spoken publicly. At a time when his buddies from the good old days have joined hands and seem on the point of trotting out peace beads at the Iraq Study Group, Dick Cheney went to the Federalist Society and preached a stay-the-course sermon. It’s as though Cheney has no understanding, or has willfully decided to ignore the fact that everything changed on November 7th. This morning’s NYT article said, “The wheel of judicial fortune has turned. The Senate Democrats who will be seated in January will constitute a majority, and they say they are determined to block any of Mr. Bush’s judicial nominees whom they deem too conservative…since that might include almost all of his nominees, there was a little less jauntiness as the conservative lawyers gathered this year.” How glum was the mood at the convention? the NYT asked. “”Well, I guess I’ve just about climbed back from the ledge — the one I was about to jump off of,’ said Daniel McLaughlin, a New York lawyer who attended the convention. Mr. McLaughlin said he could not stop fretting over who would be confirmed to the federal bench in the next two years.” John C. Yoo, the University of California law professor who wrote the 2002 memo on torture, which claimed the Prez is above the law, said the grim mood was because it’s likely the Democrats would block all conservatives from the federal appeals courts or the Supreme Court. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) agreed. He said the election “dramatically changed everything… days when the Federalist Society would get just about anything it wanted are over,” Schumer said. And yet Cheney said in his speech, “Nothing in the past two weeks has happened that will keep the President from appointing conservative judges.” The Federalist Society is anything but united in its views. The NYT reported, “At a spirited panel discussion Friday with Professor Yoo, one of the revered figures of the group, Prof. Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School, branded as dangerous the notion of expanded powers for the executive branch because of the continuing fight against terrorism. ‘This is an issue which splits this group right down the middle,’ Professor Epstein said. The Federalist Society has capitulated. Rumsfeld is out. Rove is out. Condi never was in but she’s totally out now. Former Cheney supporters (one-time Reagan official Ken Adelman, for one) are no longer speaking to him. Iraq is in chaos and in the midst of an all-out civil war. The Prez is smirkin’, jivin’, clueless and has a 31% approval rating. And Vice President Dick Cheney is saying stay the course, keep the faith, victory is ours, and all the conservative judges your hearts desire are on the way. Seriously, guys, who caused this state of affairs? Lots of things, lots of people, lots of undefined, indefinable crap, corruption, venality, horrible ideologies, avarice and greed have caused us to come to this place where we are. But if the GOP is determined to find a scapegoat to pin this on, I say, drag Cheney out of his comfy habitat in Wonderland and blame it all on him. No bigger bastard nor more worthy son of a bitch ever existed.

Crafty, Wily, Deceitful: Who Could That Be?

Devious women and their hidden agendas annoy me. But I can understand how and why some women have opted to be underhanded and sly. A world run by men has rarely looked with favor on forthright, strong, truth-telling women. And in particular, the Roman Catholic Church has taught women to seem to be compliant and fawning of the men who believe women are second-class citizens, if women do not want to be treated like witches, temptresses, whores and demons. Saint Augustine’s analysis of the sins of the world was that they were caused by the “concupiscence” of women. But devious men are a particular abomination to me. Yes, I mean Senator Joseph Lieberman…as in, I-CT. As the New York Times pointed out in its article this morning about the first post-election hearing on the Iraq war (“With Politics as Subtext, Senators Clash on Iraq”), “Was that red tie a hint?” The NYT went on to say, “But no sooner had Mr. Levin outlined his case for a phased pullout of troops beginning in four to six months than the new Independent Democratic hero of the hawkish wing, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, began acting the role of cross-examiner, leading Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American military commander in the Middle East, to say that such a withdrawal would increase violence and instability. “I take it by your answer that you profoundly disagree?” Mr. Lieberman asked. With the Democrats, he meant. “We have a window of opportunity and, really, responsibility now, after the election,” he said, “to find a bipartisan consensus for being supportive of the efforts of our troops and our diplomats there to achieve success.” The Lieberman modus operandi is now clear: Talk the bipartisan talk while walking the partisan walk. Mention supporting our troops as often as possible while meaning we should stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future and killing more American soldiers is inevitable. Imply that “success” by any criterion is possible, which it isn’t. Do the highroad rhetoric while pandering to the lowest lowlifes in Washington, DC. Trot out the let-us-reason-together façade while, in fact, being as unreasonable, inflexible, intransigent and stubborn as Vice President Dick Cheney. I used to think William Kristol was the most smug devious sack of crap in the GOP. That honor now belongs to Joe Lieberman.

To Dem Senators Re Lieberman: GROW UP!

A story in the New York Times this morning (“Enter, Pariah: Now It’s Hugs for Lieberman”) reports that Democrat Senators are now kissing up to Joseph Lieberman (Independent-CT) because the little worm said during his recent campaign that he would continue to vote with Democrats even though he had switched his party affiliation to Independent. Last Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, Lieberman threatened the Dems by saying he hoped it didn’t get to the point that he would switch his allegiance and become a Republican. Dear Democrat Senators: You can pay Lieberman his blackmail fee or not. But he’s going to flip you the bird on important issues anyway. It’s a grade school ploy. Remember the kid who only got to play baseball because he brought the bat, and when things didn’t go his way he threatened to take his bat and go home? Then, at a crucial point in the game, to show who was boss, he took his bat and went home. That little kid is Joseph I. Lieberman. Being nice to Joe Lieberman will have only one result: It will make life easier for Joe Lieberman. But trust me, the first time he betrays the Democratic Congress, the whole lot of you are going to feel like fools. At the time Lieberman ran for the Senate as an Independent, there were calls for the Dems to strip him of seniority and committee seats. That initial response was a correct response. Lieberman is a vindictive, mean-spirited, small-minded, vicious, malicious little Washington insider. He is going to exact his revenge. So y’all might as well get in your licks now and treat Lieberman the way he deserves to be treated—like the turncoat deserter and traitor that he is. Because Joe Lieberman will NEVER EVER forget that the Democrats did him dirt. And by Joe Lieberman, a thousand hugs and kisses will never be enough to make up for the Democrats' transgressions. Face it, Democrat Senators, Joe Lieberman is going to make you pay. You might as well shun him from the get-go and be done with it.

Iraq Study Group, They Came From Where?

The United States Institute for Peace put out a whaddayacallit. I guess it’s a press release. It says: “At the urging of Congress, the United States Institute of Peace is facilitating the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by co-chairs James A. Baker, III, former secretary of state and honorary chairman of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, and Lee H. Hamilton, former congressman and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Iraq Study Group will conduct a forward-looking, independent assessment of the current and prospective situation on the ground in Iraq, its impact on the surrounding region, and consequences for U.S. interests.” Uh huh. Think Progress says, “A 10-member bipartisan commission that is charged with assessing Bush’s Iraq strategy has reportedly ‘ruled out the prospect for victory'… The commission was established at the instigation of Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and was intended to 'devise a fresh set of policies to help the president chart a new course.'" Uh huh. The International Herald Tribune listed the following members of the Iraq Study Group and said, “the bipartisan commission assessing U.S. policy in Iraq met with President George W. Bush and other administration officials on Monday.” James A. Baker III, co-chairman, secretary of state under the first President George Bush and treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan. Lee Hamilton, co-chairman, former Democratic congressman from Indiana and a leader of the 9/11 commission that studied the 2001 terrorist attacks. Lawrence Eagleberger, secretary of state under the first President Bush and a career diplomat. Vernon Jordan, former adviser to President Bill Clinton, attorney. Edwin Meese III, attorney general under Reagan. Sandra Day O'Connor, former Supreme Court justice. Leon Panetta, chief of staff to Clinton, former Democratic congressman from California. William Perry, secretary of defense under Clinton. Charles Robb, former Democratic senator from Virginia. Alan Simpson, former Republican senator from Wyoming. Uh huh. The New York Times reported that the Prez said he and the Iraq Study Group had “a good discussion,” and that he was “looking forward to interesting ideas.” Other news sources say the Prez is “excited” about working with the ISG. Uh huh. Okay. You know what? In less exalted circles, this would be called AN INTERVENTION. That’s where concerned family members and friends get together with an addicted/nutsoid member of the family and try to talk him/her into going into rehab. Or the nuthouse. Whatever. Of course it’s totally up to the addict/nutcase whether he sees the wisdom of getting clean, sober and/or relatively rational. What are the chances that the Prez will commit himself to a reasoned course re Iraq? Or put another way: What are the chances the Prez will choose to become sane? Right. Slim and None. And as a friend of mine used to say, Slim just left town.

Mr. Ratfucker Is Not One To Gloat

Indeed, Mr. Ratfucker feels that the unabashed satisfaction the writer of Ratbang Diary has taken in the recent crushing blows sustained by the Republican Party is unseemly. However, Mr. Ratfucker admits, this writer has been incredibly prescient over the past two years about the GOP downfall and that it would be understandable for one to exhibit a modicum of pleasure at being right. If not, in fact, very, very fucking right. Mr. Ratfucker says he’s been feeling a bit nostalgic lately about what he calls “the good old days” when Ratbang Diary was called Ratfuck Diary. He’s been reading some of the old Ratfucks and Mr. Ratfucker would like to state once again that he wouldn't have changed the name to pander to prissy twits if he had personally gotten ratfucked by Karl Rove, WHIG and Dick Cheney in a White House ratfuck orgy. And once again, Mr. Ratfucker’s displeasure has been noted. Mr. Ratfucker would like to mention that he feels a blanket Roy Cohn Award should be presented to the entire White House staff since picking just one stellar recipient would be difficult if not impossible. As older readers of Ratfuck…um…Ratbang know, Roy Cohn was Senator Joseph McCarthy’s (R-WI-1947-1957) lawyer-henchman who persecuted gays even though he and McCarthy both were gay. Mr. Ratfucker, in his nostalgic trip through Ratfuck memories, is particularly fond of the February 22, 2005 Ratfuck column, headlined, “Two 800-Pound Gorillas Sit in the White House”. The lead paragraph said, “And we’re not supposed to look at or talk about either one. Gorilla No. 1 is the President’s health problems...mental and physical. Gorilla No. 2 is the increasing evidence that the Bush administration is up to its neck in Roy Cohns.” In addition, Ratfuck said, “Maybe the White House has tried to turn a gay hooker (Jeff Gannon) legit so he won’t let the cat out of the bag about all the Roy Cohns in the administration. As Bill Maher said last Friday night...was Jeff Gannon going to ‘spill the beans while he...um...spilled the beans?’ You can’t ignore two 800-pound gorillas forever.” Mr. Ratfucker says he definitely is not gloating. It’s just that he’s been re-reading Ratfucks. Like the November 3, 2004 post, “Can You Win When the Other Side Cheats?” Ratfuck said: “I’m assuming the final count in Ohio and Florida will go to George W. Bush. I’m assuming that because the GOP wanted it so much and had so little faith in Bush’s ability to win honestly that they stacked the deck in both states…The thing you (Democrats) do win is the ghoulish satisfaction of watching an undeserved victory turn to dust. I have faith in the law of karma more than I have faith in organized religion. What goes around comes around. If Bush in fact has been elected President of the United States, have a little patience. The unraveling is about to start.” Mr. Ratfucker says he has a small bit of advice for the Republican Party: Don’t waste a lot of energy trying to find someone to blame for the downfall of the Republican Party, just look in the mirror.

Feingold Says He Won’t Run For President

Senator (D-WI) Feingold sent a letter to his supporters (I am one of them) saying he will not seek the Dem nomination for president in 2008. I’m hopeful that the rumors are true that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is coming to the same conclusion about running for president. I think she’d be a very good president, but I don’t think she could win in 2008. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) would probably make a good president but I simply don’t want to look at him or hear him drone for four years. Ditto Gore. Gore’s not hard to look at, but he drones and he bores me to distraction. I’m disappointed about Feingold’s decision. Of course, he could change his mind and I hope he does. He’s fine to look at and he doesn’t drone. Nor does he bore. However, here’s my point and yes, I’m finally getting to it. Given the way the 2006-midterm elections turned out. And you bet your sweet ass, I am going to gloat. I have so missed any gloating. Everyone is being so well mannered. I have hopes for a little gloating on the Sunday morning talk shows…but I doubt it will happen. Therefore, it’s up to me. We won, you arrogant, fascistic, warmongering, neocon, numnut assholes! We won! Alrighty, then. Given the way the 2006 midterm elections turned out, the person who receives the Democrat nomination for president in 2008 is less important than the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the House of Representative. It’s terribly important for the Democrats to have really good, smart, articulate, quick-witted, tenacious and brave Senators in Congress. Which, as luck and the voters in America have ordained, we do. So I will throw my support for a president nominee behind any Democrat who is engaging, intelligent, sharp as a newly honed butcher knife, energetic, pretty, and has a sense of humor. (Oh, and is male, because a woman cannot win this time. A woman may be able to win in 2012.) Sounds like former Dem Senator from NC and 2004 VP nominee John Edwards to me. However, a major fact that both Dems and Repubs may not be seeing, or in any case, may not be aware of, is this: Voters in America are sick and tired of being yammered at by the same old tired faces. If anything is going to defeat John McCain in 2008, it’s that we’ve been looking at him and listening to him and hearing about his being a prisoner of war (at long last, get over it!) for 20 years. And that shit-eating smile.

What About Cheney?

Well, first, Bush cannot fire him. The Vice President is an elected office, not an appointed one. Cheney could resign. He could be removed from office for Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. He could die. There is all manner of conjecture floating around about who will be the designated scapegoat for the massive failure of the Bush administration now that the Democrats have gained control of the Senate and House of Representatives. When Bush said on November 1 that he wanted “Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain in his administration until the end of his presidency,” everyone knew Bush meant he had no intention to support either man. It was easy enough to fire Rumsfeld. But setting up Cheney as a designated scapegoat is another proposition altogether. It’s not a matter of getting rid of Cheney. He’s sick. Seeing to his imminent demise would be simple. Cheney has to be discredited and forced to resign or removed from office in order to make him wear the scapegoat mantle. I don’t see enough support for Bush to make that happen. Finding Cheney guilty of crimes and misdemeanors that don’t also taint George W. Bush is tricky. Yes, this might be accomplished through the Patrick J. Fitzgerald investigation. But the GOP is not in love with George Bush. The GOP is in love with the GOP. Question One: in the Machiavellian Bush administration, will the evil geniuses be more likely to pick George Bush or Dick Cheney as the fall guy for all the problems of the last six years? Question Two: In the GOP and in the wider world of supporters of the GOP (Carlyle Group, arms manufacturers, White House Iraq Group, Wall Street, William Kristol’s Project for the New American Century fiefdom) is there solid support for Dick Cheney or for George Bush? The reputation of the 43rd United States presidency cannot be salvaged. Therefore, who is the likely candidate for taking the fall? An intelligent, loyal, tireless behind-the-scenes workhorse or a bumbling, narcissistic, fratboy pretender?

The Truth Is Not an Option, of Course

On October 18th, John McCain was asked what he would do if the Dems gained control of the House and Senate. “I think I’d just commit suicide,” he said, adding, “I don’t want to face that eventuality because I don’t think it’s going to happen.” All the reports of that stupid remark begin or end by noting that McCain answered “with dark humor”, or that he smiled when saying it. That’s okay, Mr. McCain, don’t sweat it. We don’t expect you to mean what you say any more than we expect George W. Bush to mean what he says. On November 1, the Prez told Rush Limbaugh that he wanted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney to remain in his administration until the end of his presidency. "Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them,” Bush said. Of course Bush canned Rumsfeld on November 8 and reports now are surfacing that he’d been planning to get rid of Rummy since last summer. It’s still a mystery why Bush even mentioned that he wanted Dick Cheney to remain. The Prez couldn’t dislodge Cheney from his administration with the Jaws of Life. But, insane and delusional as George W. Bush is, I would bet he actually thinks he can fire Cheney, and his remark was a heads-up warning. On November 8th Bush said, ”By putting this election and partisanship behind us, we can launch a new era of cooperation and make these next two years productive ones for the American people.” George Bush will expect bipartisanship from the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, while he will remain as partisan as before. But the fun part is going to be watching Bush behave exactly the way he has behaved for the last six years, believing that he can do whatever he wants to do, and that because he's the president, nothing has changed. When, in fact, the midterm elections on November 7th changed everything and night has now become day. We would like to remind the Little Pretender President that when he was fraudulently installed as the 43rd president of the United States, he dissed his father, the 41st president of the United States George Herbert Walker Bush. And now that Mr. God-Wants-Me-To-Be-President has become Mr. Limp-Dick-George, wiser heads have decided to call in GHWB’s buddies to pull GWB’s chestnuts out of the fire. And then, we would like to mention that the fast-talking and haughty Ken Mehlman decided to quit his job as Chairman of the Republican National Committee the day after Bill Maher said “Mehlman is gay” on the Larry King show. And the reason we mention this, is that George W. Bush may have to face up to half of his staff leaving town rather than coming under the spotlight of the new game in town: How AC-DC is DC? Oh, and by no means a non sequitur, has Karl Rove slithered out of town yet? Just asking. And finally, isn’t it a hoot that CNN sent a cease and desist letter to YouTube for their video of the juicy piece in the Larry King show? And now CNN has completely rewritten the transcript, and has excised the truth telling part. ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

But The Big News Is Bill Maher’s Stunner

Bush says he lied about Rumsfeld last week because he didn’t want to influence the election. Right. And the Prez went on that last-ditch desperate junket to Lastgasp Kansas to scope out a retirement community. Fortunately, since Bush is getting sillier and his lies are getting dumber, Bill Maher offered up a juicy tidbit on Larry King last night that we all can get our teeth into. Right after Maher said a lot of Republicans wanted to vote a straight Republican ticket but they couldn't find a straight Republican, he blurted out that Ken Mehlman is gay. Not that we didn’t know that. But it surely was the first time that the Republican National Committee Chairman had been outed with such authority on a big time talk show like Larry King. I think it might be a good idea if someone…oh, say, a really nasty religious right piece-of-work-prick like Ralph Reed got his own talk show totally devoted to outing Republican hypocrisy. That way, the regular talk shows won’t get all clogged up with the truthtelling orgies that are bound to start occurring now that the GOP is in no position to bring down the IRS, INS, NSA, ATF, DEA, Carlyle Group, Attorney General, Reverend Moon, Rupert Murdock, Robert Novak, Rush, Tucker, et alia on people who tell the truth about White House shenanigans. Because for sure, the Mehlman morsel is just the beginning. And since the GOP made such a big deal about the evils of the gay lifestyle, stories about seemingly straight Republicans having homosexual dalliances are going to hit the news daily. Watch for outings of Generals in the Pentagon and Iraq to put the GOP’s favorite war back on the front page.

HA!

The Democratic Party picked up more than two-dozen House of Representatives seats in yesterday’s midterm elections. Since the Dems needed only 15 seats, they now are back in the driver’s seat in the House. And when the dust settles and all votes are counted (and recounted) it may turn out they rule the Senate as well. The fate of the Senate rests on Virginia and Montana. Paul Begala, President Bill Clinton’s counselor and CNN Democratic strategist, said it best: “The President is remarkably unpopular tonight”. I have made a wager. I think the remarkably unpopular president will be “sillily defiant” at his 1:00 pee-em press conference today. The other side of the wager believes he will be “mockingly gracious”. Nearly everyone who voted watched the results roll in last night on the three major network TV channels or on cable channels. Everyone, that is, except the president of the United States. Bush-the-Arrogant-and-Terminally-Ignorant had to be informed by Karl Rove that the House of Representatives had gone back to Democratic control. The Prez was said to be “disappointed”. I’ll bet. The man who seemed to believe he and the GOP had a special dispensation from God to piss on the people of the United States and its Constitution for as long as it amused him to do so, must have been disbelieving, disdainful, disgusted and disputatious as well as a tad disappointed. Personally, I am delighted that Ed Rendell was resoundingly re-elected Governor of Pennsylvania. But for me, the high point of the whole evening was the news that Pennsylvania voters had kicked Senator Rick Santorum out of the Senate. Now that he’s out of work, perhaps the troglodytic and moronic little religious fanatic can get a job with The Flat Earth Society. But, mainly, I would like to say: Ha! That’s pretty much the essence of my analysis of the upshot of the Midterm elections of 2006. HA!

New York Times Editorial

It took the New York Times Editorial staff only 813 words yesterday to lay out the sins of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress for the past six years. The editorial, “The Difference Two Years Made”, was written to explain why the NYT was endorsing “no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory”. It’s a clear and concise recitation of the arrogant and illegal acts of the Bush regime, which have left the United States in the impotent and impoverished condition it finds itself just prior to the midterm elections of 2006. Yesterday’s NYT editorial is a must-read: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?n= Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fEditorials On the same day, November 5th, an announcement was made that Saddam Hussein had been sentenced to death by hanging. And knee-jerk so-called patriotic Americans were heard to cheer and yell their approval. Another must-read article appeared in the Washington Post on December 30, 2002 by Michael Dobbs. Its title is “U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup--Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29 This article spells out the close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Republican leaders in the USA. Let us never forget that George Herbert Walker Bush used Saddam Hussein as a paid assassin when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA. Let us never forget that the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with the chemicals he used on the Kurds. Let us never forget that the USA shared our intelligence with Saddam Hussein. And let us never forget that it was Donald Rumsfeld who was appointed a special envoy to Baghdad in the 1980’s and Rumsfeld was in constant contact with Saddam Hussein even though his meetings with Hussein were against international conventions of the time. Let us never forget that the United States of America was in bed with Saddam Hussein and that we were supplying him with arms, chemical weapons and information. Evil as Saddam Hussein was, he became a persona non grata only when the current Bush administration decided to invent reasons why it was necessary to attack Iraq. In the decades before March 19, 2003, the Republican Party and the Bush family had been kissing Saddam Hussein’s ass and presenting him with all manner of goodies that allowed him to intimidate and bully his own people. The verdict that Hussein must die by hanging is no occasion for cheering. It’s an occasion for seeing how the Republican Party and the Bush family sold the soul of the USA to the highest bidder and brought this once great American nation to the low estate where we find ourselves on November 6, 2006. Now is the time for the American people to vow: NEVER AGAIN!

Yep, Two to One They Set You Up, Son

Democratic Underground received an advance copy of a Military Times editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle. DU has reprinted the editorial. The gist of the editorial is that military mavens have decided Rumsfeld has to go. The SF Chronicle reported, “An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.” You can read it on DU, but the last two paragraphs say it all, “This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth: Donald Rumsfeld must go.” Vanity Fair printed an exclusive article on November 3rd by David Rose highlighting important parts of interviews with key Republicans that will appear in Vanity Fair in January. The men interviewed are all blaming George W. Bush for the failure of the war in Iraq. If Bush remains stubbornly devoted to Rumsfeld, it will be one more indication of his stupidity and failure as president. George W. Bush is now and always has been the designated scapegoat for the Republican Party. If he acts in his all-too-predictable fashion for the next two years, he will simply be carrying out the role the Republican Party has assigned to him: Dummy Asshole Fallguy. Richard Perle was an assistant Secretary of Defense under president Ronald Reagan, he served on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004, and was Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2003 under George W. Bush. Perle signed the Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles in 1997 that called for the US to “meet threats before they become dire”, and to “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values”. He was vociferously behind the US attack on Iraq because it furthered the PNAC principles. But now he is as disillusioned about the US ability to make pre-emptive attacks as many stalwart fascists became about Hitler. Perle now says, “At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.” Perle told David Rose, "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.'”. Neocon par excellence Kenneth Adelman told David Rose: “They (the national-security team) turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional." Adelman added, “Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what, you just have to put them in the drawer marked can't do. And that's very different from let's go." David Frum who coined the “axis of evil” phrase, told David Rose, "I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything." And on and on it goes: Former Pentagon Office of Special Plans and Coalition Provisional Authority staffer Michael Rubin said, "Where I most blame George Bush is that through his rhetoric people trusted him, people believed him.” Frank Gaffney, who was an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and founder of the Center for Security Policy (and also signed the PNAC Statement of Principles) said, "[Bush] doesn't in fact seem to be a man of principle who's steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn't track with the rhetoric.” The sell-out is a fait accompli. George W. Bush who never was anything more than a water boy has now officially been saddled with having brought down the Republican Party and singlehandedly causing all the White House woes. Fortunately for Bush, he is so mentally impaired and psychotic that he has no idea what has happened.

Well My-my!

According to Harper’s Magazine (May 2005, Soldiers of Christ, Inside America's most powerful megachurch with Pastor Ted Haggard), Pastor Ted "talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday." So what do you reckon they talk about? Do they discuss who will advise and counsel God and sit at His right hand when they come to their final reward—Ted or George? Or do they trade stories about what is the best high—buying meth and not using it or buying booze and not drinking it? Or do they get all overheated trying to figure out which male hooker they have known and not had sex with is the very very best—Jeffy Jim Gannon-Guckert or Mike Jones? Oh! To be a fly on the wall at that every Monday unburdening-the-soul-and prayer session! But even more interesting than that…or at least as interesting, was a little poll a Ratbang reader discovered on Al-Jazeera, the Arabic and English language television channel and website. POLL Is Iraq right to extend the presence of US forces for another year? Yes : 32% No : 59% Don't know : 9% Number of pollers : 15046 So…Iraq decides every year if US forces will stay or go? Who knew? My-My Number Two! So all this crap about whether we should send more occupying-force troops into Iraq has just been crap? So all the stay-the-course or cut-and-run crap has been crap? So it’s always been up to Iraq whether we stay or go? And this year they want us to go? Well shut my mouth and call me speechless! What sly boots our little Bush administration has turned out to be. Now they can cut-and-run and leave Iraq in the lurch and let civil war rage undeterred and let the terrorism devils plot and scheme with unholy wrath and blow the entire Middle East to smithereens if they want to because it’s what the Iraqis want. You’re off the hook, George. What are you waiting for? Well, okay…on Monday you can talk it over with Ted-the Ready-and-Willing, but let’s go…let’s get out of that quagmire. And you could make your announcement on Tuesday, November 7th.

How Detached From Reality is the Prez?

Here’s a pretty good indication: Yesterday George W. Bush said, “I wish I could report to you that there was no war, but there is.” Dear President Braindead Numnuts: We sympathize with the fact that you are so overmedicated that you can’t remember how the United States got in the mess you put us in, but the war in Iraq was not brought about by a random act of nature. You cannot report that there is no war in Iraq because you started it. Your brain may not be able to recall anything more remote than three hours ago, but back on March 19, 2003 at 10:15 pm, you said: “At this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq…on my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance…these are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign.” See, Mr. Worst-President-Ever, that’s why 2826 American soldiers have died in Iraq, you sent them there. You and Colin Powell stood up at the UN and told lies so that you could start a war in Iraq. Does this jog your failing memory banks a little? No? Well, that’s the way it is when you are afflicted with an irreversible mental disorder. Even though you are incapable of processing a cogent thought or reflecting on your immoral and unethical actions, you should know that 62% of the American people wish they could report that you had never been born, or failing that, that you will reach a nonexistent state in the immediate future. You say you wish you could report that there is no war? Well, we wish we could report that you are experiencing the pain and horror that you have caused, but your vacant stare and idiot smirk tell us that you are beyond all feeling and comprehension. Apparently, we will just have to settle for watching you ramble and tic your way through important meetings for the next two years as you retreat further and further from reality into dithering madness. And that may be good enough.

“Creepy” Prez Defends Vice Prez…Why?

A New York Times editorial this morning says the Prez “hit a particularly creepy low” when he “distorted” Kerry’s “lame” joke. Which of course is true. The whole faux outrage the Repubs are displaying is creepy. Senator Santorum (R-PA) whose creep quotient is higher than anyone else in Congress said that his opponent Bob Casey, Jr. failed as a leader because he didn’t demand that Kerry apologize. This is from a guy who wanted to make a law that intelligent design be taught in schools because he didn’t believe in evolution, and that contraception be made illegal for everyone including married folks. Creepy is the perfect description of the Bush administration and its conservative base. But this morning what was more astonishing than creepy was the report that Bush said he intended to keep Vice President Dick Cheney in office until the end of Bush’s current term. Bush was defending Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but threw in Cheney’s name also. The NYT said, “Mr. Bush, in an interview with wire service reporters on Wednesday, said he intended to keep Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and Mr. Cheney in the vice presidency until he leaves office in 2009.” Huh? Did Bush decide all on his own that he needed to show who's Boss? Since Cheney is the guy who calls the shots in the White House, along with Karl Rove, one wonders if Cheney and Rove intend to keep Bush in the presidency until Cheney leaves office? Or are they just going to let him blither and ramble in the Bush administration idiot wing? Creepy, sinister, insane, delusional. George W. Bush is all that and a bag of happy pills.

Bush Is An Idiot; Kerry Acts Like An Idiot

It’s a distinction without a difference because the only conclusion one can make is the same: Neither George W. Bush nor Senator (D-MA) John Kerry should be president. Kerry’s latest unfortunate remark, which he made to reporters in Seattle, Washington, may be a blessing. Perhaps now, finally, he will give up any thought of running for President in 2008. Kerry is damaged goods. He killed his chances of being President in 2004. He cannot unring that career death knell. He would never receive the nomination from his fellow Democrats and he should get out of the political arena. That’s the main thing. But secondly, the man has no understanding of what is appropriate or inappropriate to say just prior to crucial elections. And thirdly, the man has no sense of humor. John Kerry's words were: "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting stuck in a war in Iraq." It may well be, as Senator Kerry’s apologists are claiming, that he meant to poke fun at the president. It may well be that he meant to say, “You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.” But, that is not what he said. And in any case, whether he said what he meant to say or botched what he meant to say, neither version is clever, humorous or even droll. Did Kerry insult our troops by saying that if you don’t study, aren’t smart and are intellectually lazy you will wind up in Iraq? Yes. But the stunning thing that Kerry didn’t say is that if you have made politics your career, you don’t have to serve in the military and your kids don’t wind up in Iraq. And on the face of it, it surely looks as though the kids who have to go into the army to get an education are the kids who are getting stuck in Iraq. I haven't seen any statistics, but I would love to know the number of Congressmen's sons and daughters who are serving in Iraq. We know the number of current Presidents and Vice Presidents and their children who have served in the military. NONE. I agree with John Kerry that the president of the United States and the entire Bush administration should apologize to the troops for starting an unnecessary war that is getting American soldiers killed. And I agree that the phrase "getting stuck in Iraq" is apt. It's not being assigned a duty. It's a punishment. But that isn’t the point regarding Kerry’s gaffe. The point is, he should not have said anything remotely like what he said. The point is: John Kerry should find another line of work.