Friday, September 29, 2006
DO US ALL A FAVOR
Well, another pervert bites the dust:
“Foley Resigns From Congress Over E-Mails”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060929/D8KEQ83O0.html
“Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., abruptly resigned from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page.”
Do us all a favor… Blow out your brains.
“Foley Resigns From Congress Over E-Mails”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060929/D8KEQ83O0.html
“Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., abruptly resigned from Congress on Friday in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page.”
Do us all a favor… Blow out your brains.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
FALLING STRAIGHT OVER - GIVE LSU A NOOGIE
Karl Swenson over at LSU has decided to take a cue from Chris Wallace and write a hit piece… Really I’m flattered… I didn’t think I was big enough to hit… But as a matter of the record, I thought I’d re-post my responses to Karl’s “you messages”…
For this to make any sense, one first needs to read my posts:
“Republican Suicide: The New Reality Show”
http://dontlikeanyofthem.blogspot.com/2006/09/republican-party-suicide-new-reality.html
“Republican Suicide: The Lies that Backfired”
http://dontlikeanyofthem.blogspot.com/2006/09/republican-suicide-lies-that-backfired_27.html
Karl specifically comments on the former, his piece being titled:
“Roadkill weaves accross the center line and rides the left shoulder for a few miles”
http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/09/27/roadkill-weaves-accross-the-center-line-and-rides-the-left-shoulder-for-a-few-miles/
The entire piece, with these comments, can be found at the above LSU link… Or I think they can…
Enjoy… Beginning with a Karl quote:
"Politically, I am a fiscal conservative social moderate, which usually labels me a centrist."
Me, too, but we're talking about principles, not positioning. A moderate can appear to be on a fringe in an immoderate climate. If you define yourself by those around you, you have no real positions.
Digression: I endorsed Slate's analysis based on it's quality, not it's conclusions. I never took a position of who set who up... I assume both sides sought to set the other up...
"I had no trouble finding the unedited video, so I don’t understand his laziness."
TV is a drug, and these video snippets are as well. I don't want the damned video. I notice you have nothing to say about Crooks and Liars assertion the Youtube stuff was juiced... I'll assume that it in fact was...
I want a true written copy. If your arguments cannot be cogently presented in written format they aren't worth my time. I am not interested in subjective voodoo crap like body language - if you were more studied in the matter, you would understand 1) Body language is not universal and 2) Body language is manageable. In other words, people can learn to use it as a tool - it's called acting, Karl. Republicans used to deride Clinton for being able to "cry on cue" - I recall several memorable incidents where he was literally caught at it... But he didn't invent it. The first President to grasp the value of TV staging was Kennedy, and the first one to get really good at it was Reagan, which is reasonable, considering his vocational history. His successor, Bush 41, was a bad actor - which probably contributed to his demise. He ran against a clown and a genuine talent. What do you expect?
That, BTW, was about the time I unplugged. I'm right about this, and I don't care how many people gainsay it. You're all stoned.
You're stoned, Karl. And I don't care if everyone else is stoned, too. What everybody does doesn't alter my views. It may constrain my actions, but never my views.
You're stoned, Karl... And a bit infantile - which is one of the side effects of watching too much TV for too long. This form of media gets at you on an emotional level you can't control, at the same time degrading reason. Why do you think those idiotic commercials work?
Hate? Don't be silly, that's a five year old's reaction... Or the reaction of a mass murderer... Or someone stoned on the glass tit. The closest to an emotional reaction any of these antics inspires from me is a moderate disgust... Pardon the pun.
But on that score, I will add another digression: I think - not feel, but think - that the real emoters are to be found among the Bush supporters, not detractors. It is a parallel of what I refer to as hyper anti-anti Semitism – some people love Bush so much they automatically interpret any criticism as "Bush hate." I think the real issue is "Bush love:" People who are so fanatically devoted to Bush they cannot see him for what he really is - a failure. At the risk of over-using a bad, worn out analogy, I think - not feel - some of the hardcore are as devoted to Bush as the SS were to Hitler. That kind of devotion is unhealthy.
A failure? Reading, again - not watching - I am evaluating all sorts of accounts from all over the world. Even when I'm not posting, I'm reading - "listening" takes precedence over "speaking." If it's in English, I'll consider it. I cross check, fact check, and reality check. The conclusions are becoming clearer all the time: Everything this administration has done has backfired. Which leads to Rice... I stand on my position, which stands on her record. I notice you do not refute my conclusion on peoples' unwillingness to honestly assess her, and you offer no defense of her record, other than to say people on "both sides" admire her. I'm not on a side, and I'm not looking for endorsements that may well be as tainted as a confession obtained by torture.
So I'll ask again: What has she accomplished?
So was it "suicide?" I think I failed in making the point. I should have shortened the piece, I suppose, but...
Bill Clinton has kept his mouth shut to a remarkable degree since January 2001. He has conformed well to the "speak no evil" principle of former Presidents, unlike Jimmy Carter, an ex-President whose views I do appreciate. Clinton has gone so far as to say he would have done the same thing in Iraq as Bush - which means he would have been just as wrong.
But now, people who I assume get no direction from the White House, the Party, or even Rove - I don't believe in "talking points" - go after Slick Willie in a very personal way. I ask, as I asked yesterday: Are these boobs a fifth column?
Or are they just desperate? This matter would have never come up but for that "B" rate TV movie. Why provoke a rattlesnake?
Because the makers of that flick are stoned... And everything to them is a game. Because living in TV La La land has reduced them to all-feeling, no-thinking fools. Life isn't a game. People like that are a good argument for bringing back duelling.
One last. I'm sorry, but I have to call you on some "facts:"
"Well, not really. And again, you are comparing 8 years of active indecisiveness and bureaucratic dysfunction in the face of yearly attacks to 8 months of inaction before any attacks, which has been followed by 5 years of highly decisive action.
1) There was no "8 years." Al-Qaeda grew slowly from talk to fact. If we want to throw in the whole Kahuna, you need to go clear back to... Just keep going. Some might argue the writing was on the wall clear back when the Marines were bombed during the Reagan years - the people who pulled that off are the predecessors of today's Al-Qaeda allies. If the neocons are going to conflate, as some have, the Somalia disaster with Al-Qaeda - who had nothing to do with it at all but to cheer after the fact - then you have to add in a lot more conflations. Bin Laden - who I remind all was supported by the US when his Mujadaheen were kicking Russian butt - got his wind up when the Saudis allowed our troops to base in the Moslem Holy land - but it was just rock throwing until the embassy bombings, and the strength of the threat didn't really become apparent until the Cole bombing... In 2000...
Further, the August 6 2001 leaks - KUDOS TO THE PATRIOTIC LEAKERS - Make a real lie out of the idea the Bush administration pursued Al-Qaeda before 9-11.
And since then? A botched operation that we're still botching. It's getting serious. Newsweek has a good piece today: "The Rise of Jihadistan"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/
So let's not pretend the administration has done anything that is both effective and efficient. Really what has been done has been neither...
And a final matter:
"He also is hoping for more intelligence leaks, and in my comments has shown he clearly has no regard for what the consequences will be. Nothing leftist about that, right?"
Call it whatever you like. It is an issue of principle. Our government - especially this administration - has driven the "national secrets" concept into the ground. WE DON'T NEED ALL THESE SECRETS. THEY ARE ANTI-AMERICAN. We have an administration that attempts to cover its butt by classifying the evidence of failure. The consequences? Misplaced support of bad policies.
And I'll remind you most of the leakers are government employees...
Show me one example where any of these leaks have caused a genuine harm. We have reporters riding shotgun with troops on the ground. We have reporters connected with peoples the government tells us are the enemy. We're swimming in reporters. If there was a desire to cause harm with leaks, there is ample opportunity. Where has it happened?
It hasn't. The only thing that has been harmed is the shrub's reputation. Show me proof. Show me soldiers dead because somebody tipped the enemy. Show me a decisive operation pulled because of a leak. You can't. You can assert, but you have no examples because they don't exist.
The worst you can assert is that some reporters might choose to be better conduits for information to our side. 1) You don't know they aren't doing just that, and 2) Doing so would destroy their ability to contact the other side. There is ultimately no value in that.
George W Bush is not my leader. He isn't my Commander in Chief - I never served. He is my servant. He is in my employ, and I want to know what he is doing, or I want a straight explanation as to why I can't know. And in an environment where leak after leak demonstrates bungling at best and perfidy at worst, the burden of proof is on the servant...
For this to make any sense, one first needs to read my posts:
“Republican Suicide: The New Reality Show”
http://dontlikeanyofthem.blogspot.com/2006/09/republican-party-suicide-new-reality.html
“Republican Suicide: The Lies that Backfired”
http://dontlikeanyofthem.blogspot.com/2006/09/republican-suicide-lies-that-backfired_27.html
Karl specifically comments on the former, his piece being titled:
“Roadkill weaves accross the center line and rides the left shoulder for a few miles”
http://leaningstraightup.com/2006/09/27/roadkill-weaves-accross-the-center-line-and-rides-the-left-shoulder-for-a-few-miles/
The entire piece, with these comments, can be found at the above LSU link… Or I think they can…
Enjoy… Beginning with a Karl quote:
"Politically, I am a fiscal conservative social moderate, which usually labels me a centrist."
Me, too, but we're talking about principles, not positioning. A moderate can appear to be on a fringe in an immoderate climate. If you define yourself by those around you, you have no real positions.
Digression: I endorsed Slate's analysis based on it's quality, not it's conclusions. I never took a position of who set who up... I assume both sides sought to set the other up...
"I had no trouble finding the unedited video, so I don’t understand his laziness."
TV is a drug, and these video snippets are as well. I don't want the damned video. I notice you have nothing to say about Crooks and Liars assertion the Youtube stuff was juiced... I'll assume that it in fact was...
I want a true written copy. If your arguments cannot be cogently presented in written format they aren't worth my time. I am not interested in subjective voodoo crap like body language - if you were more studied in the matter, you would understand 1) Body language is not universal and 2) Body language is manageable. In other words, people can learn to use it as a tool - it's called acting, Karl. Republicans used to deride Clinton for being able to "cry on cue" - I recall several memorable incidents where he was literally caught at it... But he didn't invent it. The first President to grasp the value of TV staging was Kennedy, and the first one to get really good at it was Reagan, which is reasonable, considering his vocational history. His successor, Bush 41, was a bad actor - which probably contributed to his demise. He ran against a clown and a genuine talent. What do you expect?
That, BTW, was about the time I unplugged. I'm right about this, and I don't care how many people gainsay it. You're all stoned.
You're stoned, Karl. And I don't care if everyone else is stoned, too. What everybody does doesn't alter my views. It may constrain my actions, but never my views.
You're stoned, Karl... And a bit infantile - which is one of the side effects of watching too much TV for too long. This form of media gets at you on an emotional level you can't control, at the same time degrading reason. Why do you think those idiotic commercials work?
Hate? Don't be silly, that's a five year old's reaction... Or the reaction of a mass murderer... Or someone stoned on the glass tit. The closest to an emotional reaction any of these antics inspires from me is a moderate disgust... Pardon the pun.
But on that score, I will add another digression: I think - not feel, but think - that the real emoters are to be found among the Bush supporters, not detractors. It is a parallel of what I refer to as hyper anti-anti Semitism – some people love Bush so much they automatically interpret any criticism as "Bush hate." I think the real issue is "Bush love:" People who are so fanatically devoted to Bush they cannot see him for what he really is - a failure. At the risk of over-using a bad, worn out analogy, I think - not feel - some of the hardcore are as devoted to Bush as the SS were to Hitler. That kind of devotion is unhealthy.
A failure? Reading, again - not watching - I am evaluating all sorts of accounts from all over the world. Even when I'm not posting, I'm reading - "listening" takes precedence over "speaking." If it's in English, I'll consider it. I cross check, fact check, and reality check. The conclusions are becoming clearer all the time: Everything this administration has done has backfired. Which leads to Rice... I stand on my position, which stands on her record. I notice you do not refute my conclusion on peoples' unwillingness to honestly assess her, and you offer no defense of her record, other than to say people on "both sides" admire her. I'm not on a side, and I'm not looking for endorsements that may well be as tainted as a confession obtained by torture.
So I'll ask again: What has she accomplished?
So was it "suicide?" I think I failed in making the point. I should have shortened the piece, I suppose, but...
Bill Clinton has kept his mouth shut to a remarkable degree since January 2001. He has conformed well to the "speak no evil" principle of former Presidents, unlike Jimmy Carter, an ex-President whose views I do appreciate. Clinton has gone so far as to say he would have done the same thing in Iraq as Bush - which means he would have been just as wrong.
But now, people who I assume get no direction from the White House, the Party, or even Rove - I don't believe in "talking points" - go after Slick Willie in a very personal way. I ask, as I asked yesterday: Are these boobs a fifth column?
Or are they just desperate? This matter would have never come up but for that "B" rate TV movie. Why provoke a rattlesnake?
Because the makers of that flick are stoned... And everything to them is a game. Because living in TV La La land has reduced them to all-feeling, no-thinking fools. Life isn't a game. People like that are a good argument for bringing back duelling.
One last. I'm sorry, but I have to call you on some "facts:"
"Well, not really. And again, you are comparing 8 years of active indecisiveness and bureaucratic dysfunction in the face of yearly attacks to 8 months of inaction before any attacks, which has been followed by 5 years of highly decisive action.
1) There was no "8 years." Al-Qaeda grew slowly from talk to fact. If we want to throw in the whole Kahuna, you need to go clear back to... Just keep going. Some might argue the writing was on the wall clear back when the Marines were bombed during the Reagan years - the people who pulled that off are the predecessors of today's Al-Qaeda allies. If the neocons are going to conflate, as some have, the Somalia disaster with Al-Qaeda - who had nothing to do with it at all but to cheer after the fact - then you have to add in a lot more conflations. Bin Laden - who I remind all was supported by the US when his Mujadaheen were kicking Russian butt - got his wind up when the Saudis allowed our troops to base in the Moslem Holy land - but it was just rock throwing until the embassy bombings, and the strength of the threat didn't really become apparent until the Cole bombing... In 2000...
Further, the August 6 2001 leaks - KUDOS TO THE PATRIOTIC LEAKERS - Make a real lie out of the idea the Bush administration pursued Al-Qaeda before 9-11.
And since then? A botched operation that we're still botching. It's getting serious. Newsweek has a good piece today: "The Rise of Jihadistan"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/
So let's not pretend the administration has done anything that is both effective and efficient. Really what has been done has been neither...
And a final matter:
"He also is hoping for more intelligence leaks, and in my comments has shown he clearly has no regard for what the consequences will be. Nothing leftist about that, right?"
Call it whatever you like. It is an issue of principle. Our government - especially this administration - has driven the "national secrets" concept into the ground. WE DON'T NEED ALL THESE SECRETS. THEY ARE ANTI-AMERICAN. We have an administration that attempts to cover its butt by classifying the evidence of failure. The consequences? Misplaced support of bad policies.
And I'll remind you most of the leakers are government employees...
Show me one example where any of these leaks have caused a genuine harm. We have reporters riding shotgun with troops on the ground. We have reporters connected with peoples the government tells us are the enemy. We're swimming in reporters. If there was a desire to cause harm with leaks, there is ample opportunity. Where has it happened?
It hasn't. The only thing that has been harmed is the shrub's reputation. Show me proof. Show me soldiers dead because somebody tipped the enemy. Show me a decisive operation pulled because of a leak. You can't. You can assert, but you have no examples because they don't exist.
The worst you can assert is that some reporters might choose to be better conduits for information to our side. 1) You don't know they aren't doing just that, and 2) Doing so would destroy their ability to contact the other side. There is ultimately no value in that.
George W Bush is not my leader. He isn't my Commander in Chief - I never served. He is my servant. He is in my employ, and I want to know what he is doing, or I want a straight explanation as to why I can't know. And in an environment where leak after leak demonstrates bungling at best and perfidy at worst, the burden of proof is on the servant...
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
REPUBLICAN SUICIDE - THE LIES THAT BACKFIRED
It’s old news – it’s no news – that the neoconservative hatemongers are in full rabid-monkey attack mode, attempting assault on anything Democrat – and the truth – with such garbage as ABC’s right-wing 9-11 mockudrama and FoxNews weekend hit piece aimed at former President Clinton.
The right-wing trail on “The Path to 9-11,” which leads to a conservative evangelical group and is lousy with the footprints of radical neoconservative David Horowitz, is chronicled by Eat the Press:
“Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-right_b_29015.html
The bias of FoxNews needs no tracking… At Fox, all roads turn right…
But there is some new evidence out this morning demonstrating that the public isn’t buying it. From the well-respected pollsters at Gallup:
“Bush Blamed More Than Clinton for Failure to Capture Bin Laden”
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733
Noting “Views are predictably partisan; independents mostly blame Bush” the article goes on to state:
“The recent firestorm over former President Bill Clinton's culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was fueled on Tuesday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contrasted President Bush's efforts to pursue al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with Clinton's efforts. Clinton has strongly denied various suggestions that his administration missed key opportunities to kill bin Laden and left the Bush administration without a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. However, Bush -- whom Clinton says did nothing about al-Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency -- has the bigger image problem with Americans on the issue.
According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton.”
There’s a lot more detail, of course, but the synopsis covers it well.
Damn stupid neocons… Everything they have done in the last 5 years has backfired into a shambles. Now their hit squads pick a fight with the most popular politician on Earth…
What are these fools, a 5th column?
You know, WJC was a less than active campaigner for the Democrats in 2004. He could have done a lot more. Could he have turned the election?
He can certainly turn this issue, which these neocon Neanderthals have tried to shove down his throat in a very personal way. And on this issue the entire Republican chimera of being better on security issues rests…
And it is chimeric – the evidence mounts. Everything GWB has done in the war on terror has proven to be a failure.
He went into Afghanistan – pretty much following Clinton’s plan, the one our incompetent Secretary of State denies existed – missed Bin Laden and replaced a bad government with a worse anarchy… The only winners there are the world’s heroin users – and traffickers…
He went into Iraq naively believing he would be met by rose-strewing citizens singing ‘God Bless America”… He got a quagmire from which we cannot extricate ourselves and a civil war.
We can’t get out. The Iraqis – whose opinions hardly matter on this issue – are divided. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has been lobbying recently for a permanent US presence in Iraq, suggesting it is necessary to protect Iraq’s sovereignty:
“US troop presence keeps neighbors from invading Iraq: Talabani”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/060926231203.q6d2gwnv.html
Yet poll after poll of ordinary Iraqis suggests they the people want us the hell out, and yesterday…
We can’t get out… Can we stay? Very possibly not. As Fred Kaplan over at Slate notes, GWB’s policies have almost destroyed our army:
“How Bush Wrecked the Army”
http://www.slate.com/id/2150337/
Civilian interference by the White House’s chickenhawks has wrecked the battle... Meanwhile, failure to cope with the consequences of the failed battle plan has wrecked the army itself:
“Nearly 1,500 Humvees, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, and other vehicles were awaiting repair at the Red River Army Depot in Texas. The same was true of 500 M1 tanks at the Anniston depot in Alabama. None of the Army's five largest depots was operating at more than 50 percent capacity—all because of a shortage of money.”
A shortage of money… When the Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House… Is incompetence an impeachable offense? It should be…
Which brings us to the real rock-hard spot quandary: The situation clearly calls for more troops, but there are none to send… Again from Slate:
“Won't Deploy? Can't Deploy.
There are no more troops to send to Iraq.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2149684/
Noting neocon mad-dog William Kristol’s call for more troops
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100879.html
Slate’s Daniel Benjamin and Michèle A. Flournoy explain why it can’t be done… And less the source be suspect, Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times agrees:
“Army considers more combat units for Iraq”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060925-123036-8636r.htm
From the article:
“The Army is facing more demand for troops at a time when military analysts say it is nearly stressed to the breaking point.
Non-deployed combat brigades are experiencing low readiness ratings due mostly to a lack of usable weapons and equipment. The wear and tear in Iraq is ruining M1A1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvee vehicles and other equipment at such a fast pace that the Army has neither the money nor the industrial base to replace them… Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, this summer asked Congress for nearly $50 billion over three years to replace broken equipment in a process known as "resetting" the force.
"We have inadequate Army and Marine Corps combat power to sustain this level of deployment," said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a highly decorated Vietnam combatant who led the 24th Infantry Division in Desert Storm.
Gen. McCaffrey said the Army needs an immediate infusion of 80,000 new soldiers added to the active force of about 500,000.”
But the Republicans who got us into this mess are too cowardly to vote the resources to get us out. Why? Because it implies failure. And the neocons would rather see the army wrecked and the troops’ safety compromised than admit a failing.
We can’t go… We can’t stay… And either way, we’re breeding more terrorists. That’s the conclusion of the latest NIE, currently under scrutiny due to the timely work of an unknown patriot who provided the New York Times with at least a part copy. So desperate has GWB been to fend off the scathing conclusions of this document that he today ordered the release of about 10% of the document, which can be read here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2150435/entry/2150436/
Acerbically querying, “Can Bush Read?” author Timothy Noah points out that the National Intelligence Estimate abstract released says… Exactly what the Times claimed it did…
A shambles… A total shambles… Yet the neocons press the attack…
We are being led by madmen… And mad women; let’s not leave Condi out. Incompetence is equal opportunity in the Bush Administration…
All in all, Bush better hope Osama Bin Laden isn’t dead, and that they can pull him – or a reasonable facsimile – out of Karl Rove’s ass, and soon…
I’ll continue to hope he is dead – and the Republican majority in Congress is dead with him. This much is certain: If “we the people” continue to put up with this level of dishonesty and incompetence, then, well, we’ve earned whatever trouble that comes our way.
The right-wing trail on “The Path to 9-11,” which leads to a conservative evangelical group and is lousy with the footprints of radical neoconservative David Horowitz, is chronicled by Eat the Press:
“Discover the Secret Right-Wing Network Behind ABC's 9/11 Deception”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/discover-the-secret-right_b_29015.html
The bias of FoxNews needs no tracking… At Fox, all roads turn right…
But there is some new evidence out this morning demonstrating that the public isn’t buying it. From the well-respected pollsters at Gallup:
“Bush Blamed More Than Clinton for Failure to Capture Bin Laden”
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24733
Noting “Views are predictably partisan; independents mostly blame Bush” the article goes on to state:
“The recent firestorm over former President Bill Clinton's culpability for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks was fueled on Tuesday when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contrasted President Bush's efforts to pursue al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden with Clinton's efforts. Clinton has strongly denied various suggestions that his administration missed key opportunities to kill bin Laden and left the Bush administration without a comprehensive anti-terrorism strategy. However, Bush -- whom Clinton says did nothing about al-Qaeda for the first eight months of his presidency -- has the bigger image problem with Americans on the issue.
According to a recent Gallup Panel survey, the American public puts the primary blame on Bush rather than Clinton for the fact that bin Laden has not been captured. A majority of Americans say Bush is more to blame (53%), compared with 36% blaming Clinton.”
There’s a lot more detail, of course, but the synopsis covers it well.
Damn stupid neocons… Everything they have done in the last 5 years has backfired into a shambles. Now their hit squads pick a fight with the most popular politician on Earth…
What are these fools, a 5th column?
You know, WJC was a less than active campaigner for the Democrats in 2004. He could have done a lot more. Could he have turned the election?
He can certainly turn this issue, which these neocon Neanderthals have tried to shove down his throat in a very personal way. And on this issue the entire Republican chimera of being better on security issues rests…
And it is chimeric – the evidence mounts. Everything GWB has done in the war on terror has proven to be a failure.
He went into Afghanistan – pretty much following Clinton’s plan, the one our incompetent Secretary of State denies existed – missed Bin Laden and replaced a bad government with a worse anarchy… The only winners there are the world’s heroin users – and traffickers…
He went into Iraq naively believing he would be met by rose-strewing citizens singing ‘God Bless America”… He got a quagmire from which we cannot extricate ourselves and a civil war.
We can’t get out. The Iraqis – whose opinions hardly matter on this issue – are divided. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has been lobbying recently for a permanent US presence in Iraq, suggesting it is necessary to protect Iraq’s sovereignty:
“US troop presence keeps neighbors from invading Iraq: Talabani”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/26/060926231203.q6d2gwnv.html
Yet poll after poll of ordinary Iraqis suggests they the people want us the hell out, and yesterday…
We can’t get out… Can we stay? Very possibly not. As Fred Kaplan over at Slate notes, GWB’s policies have almost destroyed our army:
“How Bush Wrecked the Army”
http://www.slate.com/id/2150337/
Civilian interference by the White House’s chickenhawks has wrecked the battle... Meanwhile, failure to cope with the consequences of the failed battle plan has wrecked the army itself:
“Nearly 1,500 Humvees, M2 Bradley fighting vehicles, and other vehicles were awaiting repair at the Red River Army Depot in Texas. The same was true of 500 M1 tanks at the Anniston depot in Alabama. None of the Army's five largest depots was operating at more than 50 percent capacity—all because of a shortage of money.”
A shortage of money… When the Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House… Is incompetence an impeachable offense? It should be…
Which brings us to the real rock-hard spot quandary: The situation clearly calls for more troops, but there are none to send… Again from Slate:
“Won't Deploy? Can't Deploy.
There are no more troops to send to Iraq.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2149684/
Noting neocon mad-dog William Kristol’s call for more troops
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/11/AR2006091100879.html
Slate’s Daniel Benjamin and Michèle A. Flournoy explain why it can’t be done… And less the source be suspect, Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times agrees:
“Army considers more combat units for Iraq”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060925-123036-8636r.htm
From the article:
“The Army is facing more demand for troops at a time when military analysts say it is nearly stressed to the breaking point.
Non-deployed combat brigades are experiencing low readiness ratings due mostly to a lack of usable weapons and equipment. The wear and tear in Iraq is ruining M1A1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvee vehicles and other equipment at such a fast pace that the Army has neither the money nor the industrial base to replace them… Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, this summer asked Congress for nearly $50 billion over three years to replace broken equipment in a process known as "resetting" the force.
"We have inadequate Army and Marine Corps combat power to sustain this level of deployment," said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a highly decorated Vietnam combatant who led the 24th Infantry Division in Desert Storm.
Gen. McCaffrey said the Army needs an immediate infusion of 80,000 new soldiers added to the active force of about 500,000.”
But the Republicans who got us into this mess are too cowardly to vote the resources to get us out. Why? Because it implies failure. And the neocons would rather see the army wrecked and the troops’ safety compromised than admit a failing.
We can’t go… We can’t stay… And either way, we’re breeding more terrorists. That’s the conclusion of the latest NIE, currently under scrutiny due to the timely work of an unknown patriot who provided the New York Times with at least a part copy. So desperate has GWB been to fend off the scathing conclusions of this document that he today ordered the release of about 10% of the document, which can be read here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2150435/entry/2150436/
Acerbically querying, “Can Bush Read?” author Timothy Noah points out that the National Intelligence Estimate abstract released says… Exactly what the Times claimed it did…
A shambles… A total shambles… Yet the neocons press the attack…
We are being led by madmen… And mad women; let’s not leave Condi out. Incompetence is equal opportunity in the Bush Administration…
All in all, Bush better hope Osama Bin Laden isn’t dead, and that they can pull him – or a reasonable facsimile – out of Karl Rove’s ass, and soon…
I’ll continue to hope he is dead – and the Republican majority in Congress is dead with him. This much is certain: If “we the people” continue to put up with this level of dishonesty and incompetence, then, well, we’ve earned whatever trouble that comes our way.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
REPUBLICAN PARTY SUICIDE - THE NEW REALITY SHOW
By now most of us interested in politics has had a chance to view – or review – the “debate” between Bill Clinton and Chris Wallace aired by FoxNews over the weekend, and bootlegged by the Beavis channel over at YouTube…
I didn’t watch it – I don’t watch TV – and I won’t stoop to the level of the Drudge class hatemongers and patronize the Youtube crap, which, according to Crooks and Liars, has been deliberately altered to WJC’s detriment…
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/22/president-clinton-blasts-chris-wallace/#more-10457
I guess those who watch it will have to judge Crooks and Liars claim for themselves. For myself, I’d settle for a full transcript, which I haven’t been able to find at Fox – I suppose this means so few Fox viewers read that there’s no demand…
So I was forced to rely on what Crooks and Liars provide at the aforementioned link, claiming it to be “a rough transcript”…
Reading, not watching… Bill Clinton wiped the floor with that little smartass… I’m surprised he didn’t end the interview by giving Chrissy a noogie…
My conclusion seems to be reinforced by one of the few objective accounts I can find on the interview, that of Slate’s John Dickerson:
“Fox in the Henhouse
Clinton's strategic TV blowup.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2150335/?nav=tap3
Read it yourself. Good analysis.
I want the Republicans to get the biggest shellacking they have suffered since 1856 in this next election – so I shouldn’t be giving them what I believe to be good advice… But here it is…
Leave Bill Clinton alone. Muzzle and chain your rabid attack monkeys, if you have to, but leave him alone. He is hands down the most popular and charismatic politician alive today – there is more charisma in Slick’s “willie” than GWB’s administration. If you take him on, you will lose.
And that’s from someone who utterly detested Clinton when he was President.
I must admit, my opinion of WJC has improved since January 2001. He’s made a far better ex-President than he made President – his style better suites the elder statesman / I told you so niche. And things have gone so badly the last 6 years that his administration can’t help but look better than it actually was…
Don’t take him on…Especially on a subject where he is undeniably right. Any review of the facts will show Clinton did far more than Bush to find Bin Laden, and for less provocation. From the interview:
“after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afhanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed baseing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night.”
“special forces in helicopters and refuel at night.”… Shades of a debacle suffered by another Democratic President in that part of the world back in ’79…
That IS a rough transcript… Well at least you know it isn’t mine… I wouldn’t allow that many spelling errors… But I digress.
The GWB administration then sat on it’s hands for 8 months - even after the President was told, on in a private meeting August 6, 2001, that Al-Qaeda was planning on doing just exactly what they did five weeks later…
BRAVO to the patriotic leakers who bring us word of meetings like this…
And ultimately, Bush did follow Clinton’s plan, but with a lot more force at his disposal, more bases, and more allies… And he still didn’t get Bin Laden.
History vindicates Clinton… So predictably this morning the administration, in the person of Condi Rice, is shooting back. One of many accounts…
“Rice Challenges Clinton's Statements on Anti-Terror Record”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215779,00.html
“"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false… We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaeda…"”
It’s an understandable reaction, considering the source. I’ll offer an opinion you won’t find expressed anywhere else – not because it’s wrong, but because it’s taboo:
I think Rice is utterly incompetent.
The left – Ted Rall’s demented humor aside - won’t say it, because…
She’s black.
She’s a she…
The left just doesn’t criticize black women. The neocons won’t criticize their black women; they need every one they have…
But I will. Everything she has done since becoming Secretary of State – really, everything she has done since joining the administration – has been an utter failure. The Mideast peace process is ruined; Iraq is a disaster… Half the world, including Iran, Syria, and North Korea has told us to piss off… Even our allies treat us like a … I could say black sheep… but that’s too loaded… Whatever metaphor you pick, this much is certain: Since she’s been at State, our foreign policy has been a disaster.
So I’ll discount her butt-covering… She has plenty to cover… Policy failures, I mean.
And I’ll look forward to the next installment of this new reality show – a show I don’t need a TV to watch is right up my alley. Scurrilous leaks suggest it will be entitled:
“Bush orders Iraq/terrorism report revealed.”
The plot will involve trying to explain away all the new terrorists created since we went on the warpath to eradicate terrorism…
Somehow, I doubt the Republican mobsters will try to “hit” Slick Willie for an opinion on this one… But he may offer one anyway.
I didn’t watch it – I don’t watch TV – and I won’t stoop to the level of the Drudge class hatemongers and patronize the Youtube crap, which, according to Crooks and Liars, has been deliberately altered to WJC’s detriment…
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/22/president-clinton-blasts-chris-wallace/#more-10457
I guess those who watch it will have to judge Crooks and Liars claim for themselves. For myself, I’d settle for a full transcript, which I haven’t been able to find at Fox – I suppose this means so few Fox viewers read that there’s no demand…
So I was forced to rely on what Crooks and Liars provide at the aforementioned link, claiming it to be “a rough transcript”…
Reading, not watching… Bill Clinton wiped the floor with that little smartass… I’m surprised he didn’t end the interview by giving Chrissy a noogie…
My conclusion seems to be reinforced by one of the few objective accounts I can find on the interview, that of Slate’s John Dickerson:
“Fox in the Henhouse
Clinton's strategic TV blowup.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2150335/?nav=tap3
Read it yourself. Good analysis.
I want the Republicans to get the biggest shellacking they have suffered since 1856 in this next election – so I shouldn’t be giving them what I believe to be good advice… But here it is…
Leave Bill Clinton alone. Muzzle and chain your rabid attack monkeys, if you have to, but leave him alone. He is hands down the most popular and charismatic politician alive today – there is more charisma in Slick’s “willie” than GWB’s administration. If you take him on, you will lose.
And that’s from someone who utterly detested Clinton when he was President.
I must admit, my opinion of WJC has improved since January 2001. He’s made a far better ex-President than he made President – his style better suites the elder statesman / I told you so niche. And things have gone so badly the last 6 years that his administration can’t help but look better than it actually was…
Don’t take him on…Especially on a subject where he is undeniably right. Any review of the facts will show Clinton did far more than Bush to find Bin Laden, and for less provocation. From the interview:
“after the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afhanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full scale attack search for Bin Laden. But we needed baseing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11. The CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin laden was responsible while I was there. They refused to certify. So that meant I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in helicopters and refuel at night.”
“special forces in helicopters and refuel at night.”… Shades of a debacle suffered by another Democratic President in that part of the world back in ’79…
That IS a rough transcript… Well at least you know it isn’t mine… I wouldn’t allow that many spelling errors… But I digress.
The GWB administration then sat on it’s hands for 8 months - even after the President was told, on in a private meeting August 6, 2001, that Al-Qaeda was planning on doing just exactly what they did five weeks later…
BRAVO to the patriotic leakers who bring us word of meetings like this…
And ultimately, Bush did follow Clinton’s plan, but with a lot more force at his disposal, more bases, and more allies… And he still didn’t get Bin Laden.
History vindicates Clinton… So predictably this morning the administration, in the person of Condi Rice, is shooting back. One of many accounts…
“Rice Challenges Clinton's Statements on Anti-Terror Record”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215779,00.html
“"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false… We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight Al Qaeda…"”
It’s an understandable reaction, considering the source. I’ll offer an opinion you won’t find expressed anywhere else – not because it’s wrong, but because it’s taboo:
I think Rice is utterly incompetent.
The left – Ted Rall’s demented humor aside - won’t say it, because…
She’s black.
She’s a she…
The left just doesn’t criticize black women. The neocons won’t criticize their black women; they need every one they have…
But I will. Everything she has done since becoming Secretary of State – really, everything she has done since joining the administration – has been an utter failure. The Mideast peace process is ruined; Iraq is a disaster… Half the world, including Iran, Syria, and North Korea has told us to piss off… Even our allies treat us like a … I could say black sheep… but that’s too loaded… Whatever metaphor you pick, this much is certain: Since she’s been at State, our foreign policy has been a disaster.
So I’ll discount her butt-covering… She has plenty to cover… Policy failures, I mean.
And I’ll look forward to the next installment of this new reality show – a show I don’t need a TV to watch is right up my alley. Scurrilous leaks suggest it will be entitled:
“Bush orders Iraq/terrorism report revealed.”
The plot will involve trying to explain away all the new terrorists created since we went on the warpath to eradicate terrorism…
Somehow, I doubt the Republican mobsters will try to “hit” Slick Willie for an opinion on this one… But he may offer one anyway.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
WITH A WHIMPER, NOT A BANG
VIA My Way News this morning, AP is circulating a story from the French newspaper l'Est Republicain, which is reporting on the contents of a confidential document pilfered from somewhere in the upper circles of the French government.
The document claims Saudi secret services are convinced Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Bin Laden died in Pakistan of typhoid August 23, 2006:
“France Looks Into bin Laden Death Report”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060923/D8KAHRNG0.html
Predictably, our people aren’t able to confirm anything about this report…
“U.S. can't confirm bin Laden death report: official”
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060923/2006-09-23T122247Z_01_N23227995_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BINLADEN-USA-DC.html
Well, we’ve heard it all before… But I am intrigued by this juxtaposed against a bit of gossip from NewsMax published 9-21-06:
“Karl Rove Promises October Surprise”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/141615.shtml?s=rss
Maybe the Shrub’s #1 rabid sonofabitch just lost his little surprise…
Dead of typhoid. What an all-around cruelly perfect Karma. Not with a bang but a whimper… Not dead in any great action – not in the Eagle’s belly, as he once prophesied – but dead to a disease virtually eradicated in the West he contended against…
I hope he is dead – and dead of disease. It’ll take a little of the wind out of the warmongers… On both sides…
I hope because I think it is time to move on. We have been living in Hannity’s “post 9-11 world” too long. Not forget, not forgive. But stop the National obsession. Stop picking the scab - and heal.
I think that in a collective sense America has been behaving like a mugging victim since 9-11-01. Defensive, even a little paranoid… Packing heat and a little too inclined to use it… Looking for someone – anyone – to use it on.
Violated…
Oh, we were so smug. Muggings just didn’t happen to us – it didn’t happen in our neighborhoods. We were condescendingly sympathetic to the other mugging victims… Those poor dears… But the Ivory tower was safe – just one more attribute of American exceptionalism.
But just as we were never really safe, I don’t believe we are now in anywhere near as much danger as our leaders want us to think we are in. I think some among our leaders are way too willing to use fear to maintain their own positions and promote their agendas.
I think the one thing many of our leaders fear is that we will stop being afraid.
It’s time to do just that.
I’ve followed the grim speculations, the chatter spikes, the warnings… The successful and thwarted muggings of others in other places… The what if’s.
What if not? What does all this cost on so many levels?
I think Bin Laden and his people were the one non-governmental group that was sufficiently motivated, sufficiently skilled, and sufficiently funded to really pose a threat to this Nation – and I think they are a spent force. There isn’t going to be another 9-11.
But as long as we flinch every time some “Al-Qaeda spokesman” farts, there doesn’t have to be another 9-11, because the first one continues to pay them - and a lot of others - dividends.
So here’s hoping he’s dead, and dead so ignominiously – by his standards – that his own people are embarrassed to announce the passing of “the Mahdi.” Here’s hoping they find his crippled corpse buried anonymously in Pakistan.
And here’s hoping that becomes the last footnote to 9-11. The mugger is dead. The streets are as safe as they ever were.
The document claims Saudi secret services are convinced Osama Bin Laden is dead.
Bin Laden died in Pakistan of typhoid August 23, 2006:
“France Looks Into bin Laden Death Report”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060923/D8KAHRNG0.html
Predictably, our people aren’t able to confirm anything about this report…
“U.S. can't confirm bin Laden death report: official”
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060923/2006-09-23T122247Z_01_N23227995_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-BINLADEN-USA-DC.html
Well, we’ve heard it all before… But I am intrigued by this juxtaposed against a bit of gossip from NewsMax published 9-21-06:
“Karl Rove Promises October Surprise”
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/141615.shtml?s=rss
Maybe the Shrub’s #1 rabid sonofabitch just lost his little surprise…
Dead of typhoid. What an all-around cruelly perfect Karma. Not with a bang but a whimper… Not dead in any great action – not in the Eagle’s belly, as he once prophesied – but dead to a disease virtually eradicated in the West he contended against…
I hope he is dead – and dead of disease. It’ll take a little of the wind out of the warmongers… On both sides…
I hope because I think it is time to move on. We have been living in Hannity’s “post 9-11 world” too long. Not forget, not forgive. But stop the National obsession. Stop picking the scab - and heal.
I think that in a collective sense America has been behaving like a mugging victim since 9-11-01. Defensive, even a little paranoid… Packing heat and a little too inclined to use it… Looking for someone – anyone – to use it on.
Violated…
Oh, we were so smug. Muggings just didn’t happen to us – it didn’t happen in our neighborhoods. We were condescendingly sympathetic to the other mugging victims… Those poor dears… But the Ivory tower was safe – just one more attribute of American exceptionalism.
But just as we were never really safe, I don’t believe we are now in anywhere near as much danger as our leaders want us to think we are in. I think some among our leaders are way too willing to use fear to maintain their own positions and promote their agendas.
I think the one thing many of our leaders fear is that we will stop being afraid.
It’s time to do just that.
I’ve followed the grim speculations, the chatter spikes, the warnings… The successful and thwarted muggings of others in other places… The what if’s.
What if not? What does all this cost on so many levels?
I think Bin Laden and his people were the one non-governmental group that was sufficiently motivated, sufficiently skilled, and sufficiently funded to really pose a threat to this Nation – and I think they are a spent force. There isn’t going to be another 9-11.
But as long as we flinch every time some “Al-Qaeda spokesman” farts, there doesn’t have to be another 9-11, because the first one continues to pay them - and a lot of others - dividends.
So here’s hoping he’s dead, and dead so ignominiously – by his standards – that his own people are embarrassed to announce the passing of “the Mahdi.” Here’s hoping they find his crippled corpse buried anonymously in Pakistan.
And here’s hoping that becomes the last footnote to 9-11. The mugger is dead. The streets are as safe as they ever were.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
TOTALLY NEOCONSERVATIVE!!!
FoxNews brings us a short blurb today on Iran’s Banty Rooster In-Chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…
It seems he has a bone to pick with “liberal university lecturers:”
“Iran's Ahmadinejad Calls for Purge of Liberal Teachers”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212122,00.html
To quote His Truculence…
“"Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities,"”
Damn… How totally neoconservative… Has he been channeling Sean Hannity, who, according to WorldNetDaily, said on September 4th:
“"All you college kids out there, check your state laws, check your campus laws," Hannity said on his national radio program.
"Get your little tape recorders if legal, and I want you to start recording these left-wingers. Bring it to this program and we'll start airing it every single time on this program. I'm sick of this indoctrination. I'm sick of this left-wing propaganda."”
“Hannity igniting revolt against left-wing profs”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47601
Google “Sean Hannity liberal college professors”… 228,000 hits… It’s one of his favorite rants…
Here’s one from two years ago:
“Half An Education…The Left Half”
He’s teamed up here with David Horowitz, one of the [unofficial] representatives of our [unofficial] 51st State – Israel….
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97583,00.html
Now Google “Anne Coulter liberal college professors”… 816,000 hits, including this hawking of Horowitz’s latest rant, “"The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America."”
“Tuition soars due to knowledge shortfall”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2006/05/03/tuition_soars_due_to_knowledge_shortfall
Bill O’Reilly gets 379,000 hits…
The facts are clear: O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, and Ahmadinejad are on the same team…
Bastards of the same corrupt birth, I’d say…
But is it any surprise it is the “liberals” here in this Nation who are most willing – and able – to converse with conservative Moslem extremists without using a gun? After all, they have the practice, dealing with neoconservative Christian extremists here in the good ol’ USA…
It seems he has a bone to pick with “liberal university lecturers:”
“Iran's Ahmadinejad Calls for Purge of Liberal Teachers”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212122,00.html
To quote His Truculence…
“"Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities,"”
Damn… How totally neoconservative… Has he been channeling Sean Hannity, who, according to WorldNetDaily, said on September 4th:
“"All you college kids out there, check your state laws, check your campus laws," Hannity said on his national radio program.
"Get your little tape recorders if legal, and I want you to start recording these left-wingers. Bring it to this program and we'll start airing it every single time on this program. I'm sick of this indoctrination. I'm sick of this left-wing propaganda."”
“Hannity igniting revolt against left-wing profs”
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47601
Google “Sean Hannity liberal college professors”… 228,000 hits… It’s one of his favorite rants…
Here’s one from two years ago:
“Half An Education…The Left Half”
He’s teamed up here with David Horowitz, one of the [unofficial] representatives of our [unofficial] 51st State – Israel….
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97583,00.html
Now Google “Anne Coulter liberal college professors”… 816,000 hits, including this hawking of Horowitz’s latest rant, “"The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America."”
“Tuition soars due to knowledge shortfall”
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2006/05/03/tuition_soars_due_to_knowledge_shortfall
Bill O’Reilly gets 379,000 hits…
The facts are clear: O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, and Ahmadinejad are on the same team…
Bastards of the same corrupt birth, I’d say…
But is it any surprise it is the “liberals” here in this Nation who are most willing – and able – to converse with conservative Moslem extremists without using a gun? After all, they have the practice, dealing with neoconservative Christian extremists here in the good ol’ USA…
