Tuesday, February 7, 2006
What's wrong
The NRA and the American gun industry are getting way out of hand. I believe in the right to keep and bear, but if hunting is supposed to be a sport, why not let the prey get a bit closer?
Personally, I don't get hunting but I see the need so have at it. But I don't see a need for some yahoo to be better equipped than a Marine Expeditionary Force. Last I heard, bear and deer don't shoot back.
I'm tired of the NRA horseshit and what the gun industry, from top to bottom, has been able to get away with. It's time some serious controls are enacted before this lassez faire attitude will bite us in the ass. The days of Jesse James and Wyatt Earp are over. At least those guys were close enough to look into the eyes of the men they killed.
Tip: You wanna protect your home? Buy a pump action shotgun with a pistol grip if possible and the shortest barrel for ease of movement in close quarters. You don't need to be accurate, just able to fill the space in front of you with BBs. Load your first round with small bird shot, the next with 00-buckshot. If whoever is trying to break in doesn't get the hint with the first shot, the second will blow his chest open.
Who needs a gun that is accurate to more than a mile, can down an airliner on take-off or landing, and can penetrate steel plating? If you're the gun lobby and its friends in the firearms industry, the answer is simple: sportsmen! If you're law enforcement, the answer is equally simple: terrorists.
...
Personally, I don't get hunting but I see the need so have at it. But I don't see a need for some yahoo to be better equipped than a Marine Expeditionary Force. Last I heard, bear and deer don't shoot back.
I'm tired of the NRA horseshit and what the gun industry, from top to bottom, has been able to get away with. It's time some serious controls are enacted before this lassez faire attitude will bite us in the ass. The days of Jesse James and Wyatt Earp are over. At least those guys were close enough to look into the eyes of the men they killed.
Tip: You wanna protect your home? Buy a pump action shotgun with a pistol grip if possible and the shortest barrel for ease of movement in close quarters. You don't need to be accurate, just able to fill the space in front of you with BBs. Load your first round with small bird shot, the next with 00-buckshot. If whoever is trying to break in doesn't get the hint with the first shot, the second will blow his chest open.
The French
Yes, the French:
Fuck you wingnuts. The Saudis aren't our friends. The Europeans are and have proven it more times than is necessary.
...
They made commitments to donate several million dollars to the reconstruction, brining [sic] total contributions by French companies and their US subsidiaries to more than 22 million dollars.
The French government has also contributed a million dollars to help rebuild the city's French schools. [my em]
...
Fuck you wingnuts. The Saudis aren't our friends. The Europeans are and have proven it more times than is necessary.
Vets' ills mounting fast
New York Daily News
Swell. If he can't afford to care for the service people he sent to his criminal adventure, at least he can bury his mistake.
The World Socialist Web Site chimes in on the same topic:
Those programs are being cut to the bone to help Bush "reduce spending". Most likely, the Veterans will just have to fend for themselves at some point or die. Then there's no problem.
When these Vets' children are living in poverty from having to pay for this war with taxes on their minimum wage income, brought about by a lack of education and foreign economic competition, and not able to adequately care for their sick or injured Vet parent, it's likely to be considered "patriotic" for them to pull the plug.
About that time, their children will be sent to fight India or China, perhaps for "economic" reasons.
Go read both those articles and you will be as pissed off as I am right now.
We need to get rid of Bush and his cabal NOW so we have at least a chance of aiming this country at fiscal and foreign policy sanity. May God damn that sonofabitch.
Nearly 120,000 veterans - more than one of every four who served in Iraq and Afghanistan - have already sought treatment at Veterans Health Administration hospitals for a wide range of illnesses, according to an internal study the VHA completed late last year.
More than 30% of those sick veterans are afflicted with some type of mental disorder, mostly posttraumatic stress and depression.
An additional 35,000 - more than 29% of the total - were diagnosed with "ill-defined conditions," according to the study, which was prepared in October by VHA epidemiologist Dr. Han Kang but has yet to be publicly released.
"Those numbers are way higher than during the Persian Gulf War for 'ill-defined' symptoms," said one Department of Veterans Affairs official who asked not to be identified.
Mental disorders, however, rank as the biggest problem among ailing veterans.
Two previous military studies of combat troops in Iraq found that 17% to 25% of U.S. soldiers suffer from major depression or combat stress.
The Department of Veterans Affairs "does not have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of new combat veterans while still providing for veterans of past wars," the GAO concluded.
But in a chilling sign of the terrible toll our nation has yet to pay for this dreadful war in Iraq, Bush earmarked an additional $78 million to build six new national cemeteries and expand three existing ones.
Swell. If he can't afford to care for the service people he sent to his criminal adventure, at least he can bury his mistake.
The World Socialist Web Site chimes in on the same topic:
One of the terrible legacies of the criminal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is the number of maimed, sick or traumatised former US soldiers - many of them barely in their twenties - who will require medical assistance for the rest of their lives. For political reasons, the scope of the tragedy is barely being reported despite the impact it is having on a significant layer of young men and women, their families and communities.
Concern over the long-term fate of the wounded is compounded when the true dimensions of the casualties that have been suffered by the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq are considered. On top of the official figure of close to 20,000 killed or wounded-in-action since November 2001, there are now tens of thousands of soldiers who have been evacuated from Central Asia or the Middle East for "non-battle injuries" or disease, and tens of thousands more who have developed psychological problems since their return to the United States.
The extent of war casualties soars once soldiers return. The number of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans who have sought health care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has already passed 100,000 - or close to one out of every four of the troops who has served in the occupied countries and subsequently left the US military.
An internal army survey, cited in Stars and Stripes in December 2005, showed alcohol abuse among returned veterans was 21 percent one year after returning from the war zone; 22 percent suffered from anger and aggression issues; and 15 percent intended to break up with their partner.
The wave of new victims of American militarism arriving home and needing treatment at VA hospitals and clinics comes at a time of growing need of the VA system by veterans of earlier wars. An increased numbers of veterans of the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War are registering for VA health care, possibly because falling living standards are making more eligible for the means-tested assistance. As well, the surviving veterans of WWII are at an advanced age.
The Bush administration's proposed budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs in fiscal year 2007 is $US80.6 billion, with some $US34.3 billion being requested for health care - an 11 percent increase. The soaring cost of benefits and medical treatment for the war wounded will more than likely be met by cutbacks to other programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Those programs are being cut to the bone to help Bush "reduce spending". Most likely, the Veterans will just have to fend for themselves at some point or die. Then there's no problem.
When these Vets' children are living in poverty from having to pay for this war with taxes on their minimum wage income, brought about by a lack of education and foreign economic competition, and not able to adequately care for their sick or injured Vet parent, it's likely to be considered "patriotic" for them to pull the plug.
About that time, their children will be sent to fight India or China, perhaps for "economic" reasons.
Go read both those articles and you will be as pissed off as I am right now.
We need to get rid of Bush and his cabal NOW so we have at least a chance of aiming this country at fiscal and foreign policy sanity. May God damn that sonofabitch.
Cheaper peanut butter
From The Carpetbagger Report:
Rationed to one spoonful per day. Bread is an excessive luxury when you have to keep gas in those Humjobs, after all.
Go read some Republican responses to Bush's budget.
Mr. Bush proposed an array of savings in domestic programs, including big reductions or cuts in 141 programs. Critics asserted those reductions would do little to ease the deficit even as they imposed real hardship on some people, constituting pain for little gain. Gene B. Sperling, a former economic adviser to President Bill Clinton, compared it to a man who leases three fully loaded Hummers, finds it stretches his family's budget to the breaking point, and decides his family has to start buying cheaper peanut butter.
Rationed to one spoonful per day. Bread is an excessive luxury when you have to keep gas in those Humjobs, after all.
Go read some Republican responses to Bush's budget.
Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee
Rove is sweating. Good. From Insight:
And a comment from About:
If warrantless spying on Americans is legal, as Bush claims, what is Rove so worried about? After all, if you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about...
The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping.
Congressional sources said Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has threatened to blacklist any Republican who votes against the president. The sources said the blacklist would mean a halt in any White House political or financial support of senators running for re-election in November.
And a comment from About:
Karl Rove wouldn't feel the need to threaten senators unless he and/or others in the White House thought that there was a good chance that even a Republican senator might conclude, based upon the evidence, that President Bush broke the law and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. Such senators probably start out any evaluation with at least some bias in favor of the president, so it's reasonable to conclude that if these senators are likely to end up voting against the president unless they are threatened, then the evidence against the president must be pretty strong.
If warrantless spying on Americans is legal, as Bush claims, what is Rove so worried about? After all, if you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about...
Send O'Reilly to Darfur
This is the best idea I've heard in a long time! From Editor & Publisher
Stop collecting money when you have enough to buy him a one-way ticket.
In the same article is this jewel:
And they give it to such worthy causes.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof resumed his exchange with TV/radio talkster Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday, asking readers to contribute to a fund to send O'Reilly to Darfur.
Kristof said he would ante up the first $1000.
"Mr. O'Reilly has a big audience and a knack for stirring outrage. Lately, he (quite properly) galvanized an outcry over a ridiculously light sentence for a sexual predator in Vermont. The upshot was that the sentence was increased. Good for him.
"So imagine the furor Mr. O'Reilly could stir up if he publicized the hundreds of thousands of rapes, murders and mutilations in Darfur. He could save lives on a grand scale.
"Join the pledge drive!"
Stop collecting money when you have enough to buy him a one-way ticket.
In the same article is this jewel:
Another New York Times column on Tuesday sure to draw attention comes from John Tierney, who mocks concerns about energy independence and conservation. "For now, the best strategy is to buy gasoline and stop worrying that it's sinful or dangerous," Tierney writes.
The column, entitled "Burn Baby Burn," concludes: "After you fill up your tank, twist the rear-view mirror so you can gaze at yourself. Repeat these words: 'I'm good enough, I'm rich enough, and doggone it, people in the Middle East like my money.'"
And they give it to such worthy causes.
The sad future
...
So remember, when you are old and gray and still paying for Mess O'Potamia, reflect that once upon a time we had a chance to rid ourselves of these noxious fuckers, but some people chose party over public policy.
Try explaining that to the pharmacist as you beg for meds, or some goverment bureaucrat who will take your home just to toss you into a sub-standard, government-funded "assisted living facility". It will be ugly, but there will be no going back, because with government, once the invisible hand has writ, it's a stone bitch to erase it.
...
Rights, once lost, generally aren't returned without armed resistance. Unfortunately, most of you are too cowardly to stand up now, let alone when the rest of us will be dying to get back what you gave away.
Monday, February 6, 2006
An open letter to Bubba
Via Bob Geiger, an Iraq vet talks to the chickenhawks:
That's the way it is.
...
You have the audacity to claim that by not supporting the president, I don't support the troops. Yet, the president chose to send over 160,000 of us to unprepared and without a defined mission. We had no body armor, no vehicle armor, and poor supplies of ammunition. Our families spent thousands of dollars that they did not have to supply us, while President Bush did nothing. In fact he didn't even scold his Offensive Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, when he told our forward deployed troops, "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." Moreover, the mission was originally about weapons of mass destruction, but there were none. Then it was making a democracy, but yet the "insurgency" worsens. Now the president has decided that in order to honor those who died for nothing, more must die for nothing.
...
That's the way it is.
Questions
Is it me, or do other people want to give CNN's Ed Henry a wedgie too? I'm watching him on the news and I just want to hang him in a closet by his shorts.
'Good news' from Iraq
Oh yeah, we got generators, top of the line. Ain't got fuel to run 'em though. Oh the ineptitude.
And you wonder where our money goes?
...
"The basic problem with Qud[a]s is, we have four LM6000s out there that essentially don't have a fuel supply," says a U.S. power-generation engineer who did a yearlong tour in Iraq. "We installed a third of a billion dollars' worth of combustion turbines that can't be fueled."
The LM6000 combustion turbines are a type known as aeroderivative. They are basically Boeing 747 turbines mounted on heavy stands. They work well on natural gas, but to run on diesel, they need high-quality fuel and a fair amount of operational sophistication, two things in short supply today in Iraq. "The first time I went to Quds and saw those LM6000s, the first words out of my mouth were, 'What the hell are those things doing here?'" says the generation specialist in Iraq.
...
And you wonder where our money goes?
Braintip: Atrios
Brutalized & Arrested in Cleveland
From World Can't Wait
Go read it.
My name is Carol Fisher, and I am on the staff of Revolution Books in Cleveland OH. At the bookstore we have been immersed in building and supporting the initiatives of World Cant Wait. Yesterday, 1.28.06, while putting "Bush Step Down" posters on telephone poles along a major thoroughfare on a sunny Saturday afternoon, I was brutalized by Cleveland Heights police, charged with 2 counts of felony assault and held incommunicado under police custody in the hospital! This outrage and others like it must be exposed and opposed by all who hate the direction that the Bush regime is taking this country and the world.
Here is what happened:
Go read it.
" I participated in a hoax..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, former aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, on his participation in the cooked intelligence that led up to Bush's Criminal War, on NOW:
No, it isn't. Perhaps you could shorten your prison sentence by coming clean the rest of the way.
That's the fight for the soul of our nation that we're in now. If we lose, we lose everything.
I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? Thirty-one years in the United States Army and I more or less end my career with that kind of a blot on my record? That's not a very comforting thing.
No, it isn't. Perhaps you could shorten your prison sentence by coming clean the rest of the way.
Suppose we get people who can't make good decisions as FDR was pretty good at. I'm worried and I would rather have the discussion and debate in the process we've designed than I would a dictate from a dumb strongman. And that dumb strongman is his felicitous phrase.
Oh I think it's come to that. I think we've had some decisions at this administration that were more or less dictates. We've had a decision that the Constitution as read by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and a few other very selected administration lawyers doesn't pertain the way it has pertained for 200-plus years. A very ahistorical reading of the Constitution.
And these people marshal such stellar lights as-- Alexander Hamilton. They haven't even read Federalist Six. I'm sure they haven't. Where Alexander Hamilton lays down his markers about the dangers of a dictate-issuing chief executive. This is not the way America was intended to be run by its founders and it is not the interpretation of the Constitution that any of the founders as far as I read the Federalist Papers and other discussions about their views would have subscribed to. This is an interpretation of the constitution that is outlandish and as I said, clearly ahistorical.
Dictatorships work on occasion. You're right. Dictatorships do work but I-- I'm like Ferdinand Eberstadt. I'd prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators.
That's the fight for the soul of our nation that we're in now. If we lose, we lose everything.
They're getting our rooms ready...
Long Beach (CA) Press-Telegram
Does this mean we won't even get to go Gitmo?
On a related note from Working for Change:
Japanese-Americans, Reality-based Americans, what's the diff?
The story showed up in Tuesday's Press-Telegram, as I was reading "Night," Elie Wiesel's horrifying autobiography of a teenager in Buchenwald and Auschwitz.
Appearing on page A5, the story said the federal government had awarded a $385 million contract for the construction of "temporary detention facilities." These would be used, the story said, in the event of an "immigration emergency."
The new detention camps will be built by Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton. The latter, as you likely know, is the defense-related corporate giant with fists full of contracts involving the war in Iraq.
Considering what took place in Nazi Germany, as well as the shameful incarceration of Japanese-Americans in 1942, no detention camp should be built without the widest possible public scrutiny.
Bottom line: The contract cries out for greater attention. So far, the government's expressed reason for building them is insufficient and ill-defined. And even if the camps do relate to illegal immigration, their purpose could be changed overnight.
Let's not have it said, years from now, that no one ever questioned this.
Does this mean we won't even get to go Gitmo?
On a related note from Working for Change:
2/6/1943: U.S. government requires the 110,000 Japanese-Americans imprisoned in internment camps to answer loyalty surveys.
Japanese-Americans, Reality-based Americans, what's the diff?
Mushroom clouds...again
The guy in the fancy suit takes a look at the escalation of the rhetoric toward Iran:
Call me anti-Semitic if you will, but Badtux quotes my friend Lurch, with whom I wholeheartedly agree:
And as the article (which you should read beginning to end) Gord's post last night points up, uber-Right Jews and Evangelical Christians have formed an alliance to push the 'neocon dream'. This scares me because I know there is probably more than one hawk in Israel who would love to nuke the shit out of Iran. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Frum are the ones who make policy here (regardless some of their little legal problems). You figure it out.
Update:
Wolcott sees it too:
A mushroom cloud over Iran, that is. From U.S. low-yield "bunker buster" nuclear explosives.
Because, of course, we must nuke the planet to protect the planet from nukes.
...
Call me anti-Semitic if you will, but Badtux quotes my friend Lurch, with whom I wholeheartedly agree:
...
Iran MUST be defeated militarily. The Neocon plan calls for it. Israel must be defended to the last American.
And as the article (which you should read beginning to end) Gord's post last night points up, uber-Right Jews and Evangelical Christians have formed an alliance to push the 'neocon dream'. This scares me because I know there is probably more than one hawk in Israel who would love to nuke the shit out of Iran. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, and Frum are the ones who make policy here (regardless some of their little legal problems). You figure it out.
Update:
Wolcott sees it too:
...
Cockburn believes sanity will prevail. Lind sees the inmates still in control of the asylum. "In Washington, the same brilliant crowd who said invading Iraq would be a cakewalk is still in power. While a few prominent neocons have left the limelight, others remain highly influential behind the scenes. For them, the question is not whether to attack Iran (and Syria), but when. Their answer will be the same as Israel's."
...
Chickenhawk Heroes
Jesus' General, of course:
Rep. Bob Beauprez
Beauprez for Governor
Dear Rep. Beauprez,
It takes a lot of guts to parade around in military garb after requesting and receiving three separate draft deferments and then, finally, a medical release. Unlike you and Our Leader, Eurocrats like John Kerry and Max Cleland took the easier path, earning their right to wear a uniform by serving in combat. Suckers. Didn't they know that a bumpersticker is enough.
...
Cross-posted at Main and Central.
Sunday, February 5, 2006
Killer Fact! Reading the Following Post May Save Your Life!
As Buffy would say, Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
Death squads in the United States? Yet again the 1600 Crew are using the ticking bomb approach to amend or create executive orders. Newsweek reports that during a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, suggested that in certain circumstances the President could "order a killing on U.S. soil".
Apparently this was an "academic discussion of theoretical contingencies", but are there not multiple levels of policing and law enforcement services from the local to the federal that can respond to any situation where there is reasonable suspicion of immediate danger? Certainly the Patriot Act has given all federal and local enforcement agencies broad powers. When the police encounter situations where they have evidence a crime is about to be committed or they catch someone in the act of committing a crime they are authorized to respond. There are procedures in place; they are permitted to use force if they believe a suspect to be a danger and they can use deadly force if the situation warrants. Why would the police not be able to cope with the theoretical terrorist bomber about to unleash a dirty bomb on the unsuspecting populace? Why should our government require death squads instead?
As for Flight 93, from what I understand, our Air Force could have been ordered to shoot those hijacked planes down on 9/11. The President would indeed have issued that tragic order but he does not need any special extra-constitutional privileges to give such an order. Well, I'm relieved that someone had the cojones to tell us what the 1600 Crew are likely already up to anyway--would we have known about the FISA go-round if someone hadn't blown the whistle?
(No lights-out this evening--Fixer and Gordon will be live-blogging during the Super Bowl--;P I think they intend to discuss the underlying structures of our society and the need to spend millions of dollars glorifying violence etc. They will also tell us which team has God on its side.)
Death squads in the United States? Yet again the 1600 Crew are using the ticking bomb approach to amend or create executive orders. Newsweek reports that during a closed-door Senate intelligence committee meeting last week Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, suggested that in certain circumstances the President could "order a killing on U.S. soil".
"Dianne Feinstein asked Bradbury questions about the extent of presidential powers to fight Al Qaeda; could Bush, for instance, order the killing of a Qaeda suspect known to be on U.S. soil? Bradbury replied that he believed Bush could indeed do this, at least in certain circumstances... Current and former government officials said they could think of several scenarios in which a president might consider ordering the killing of a terror suspect inside the United States. One former official noted that before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, top administration officials weighed shooting down the aircraft if it got too close to Washington, D.C. What if the president had strong evidence that a Qaeda suspect was holed up with a dirty bomb and was about to attack?"
Apparently this was an "academic discussion of theoretical contingencies", but are there not multiple levels of policing and law enforcement services from the local to the federal that can respond to any situation where there is reasonable suspicion of immediate danger? Certainly the Patriot Act has given all federal and local enforcement agencies broad powers. When the police encounter situations where they have evidence a crime is about to be committed or they catch someone in the act of committing a crime they are authorized to respond. There are procedures in place; they are permitted to use force if they believe a suspect to be a danger and they can use deadly force if the situation warrants. Why would the police not be able to cope with the theoretical terrorist bomber about to unleash a dirty bomb on the unsuspecting populace? Why should our government require death squads instead?
As for Flight 93, from what I understand, our Air Force could have been ordered to shoot those hijacked planes down on 9/11. The President would indeed have issued that tragic order but he does not need any special extra-constitutional privileges to give such an order. Well, I'm relieved that someone had the cojones to tell us what the 1600 Crew are likely already up to anyway--would we have known about the FISA go-round if someone hadn't blown the whistle?
(No lights-out this evening--Fixer and Gordon will be live-blogging during the Super Bowl--;P I think they intend to discuss the underlying structures of our society and the need to spend millions of dollars glorifying violence etc. They will also tell us which team has God on its side.)
Crying 'wolf'
So we all see the escalating tension between Iran and the West. It's been documented here and many other places. My question to you, inspired by this post from John Emerson.
Are you of this same opinion, like I am, that this is just more Chimp rhetoric or do you believe Iran is a real, credible, and most of all, an immediate threat?
Update:
Atrios sees the same thing.
...
I do not believe that the Iran crisis is what Bush says it is. There's something there that we have to deal with, but we cannot take anything Bush says at face value.
...
Are you of this same opinion, like I am, that this is just more Chimp rhetoric or do you believe Iran is a real, credible, and most of all, an immediate threat?
Update:
Atrios sees the same thing.
...
But note how a central part of the propaganda campaign works: several months ago, the usual estimate for the time Iran would need to develop nuclear weapons was about ten years. Then it got reduced to five years. Now, people speak as if Iran will have nuclear weapons in the next few months.
...
The Valley's Not So Civil War
This is a long article in today's LATimes Magazine. It's well worth a read.
That subhead doesn't begin to cover it. A lot about christian-zionists, neocons, self-hating lefty and right-wing Jews, communists, Okies, Mexicans, raisin farmer Victor Davis Hanson and his pal the frog farmer, dead Marines, in short, all the crap Bush has got us into and how it's being exploited. Oh, yeah, there's a little about how Israel figures into the picture.
In Central California, Mark Arax sees what fear--over terrorism, over our commitment in Iraq--can do to a community. Hatred between Right and Left. Hawk and Dove. Too bad they aren't listening to one grieving parent, who found some peace.
That subhead doesn't begin to cover it. A lot about christian-zionists, neocons, self-hating lefty and right-wing Jews, communists, Okies, Mexicans, raisin farmer Victor Davis Hanson and his pal the frog farmer, dead Marines, in short, all the crap Bush has got us into and how it's being exploited. Oh, yeah, there's a little about how Israel figures into the picture.
A strange symbiosis
Chicago Tribune, and about time too...
I don't doubt for a second that all these bastards are in cahoots.
A dozen days before the 2006 State of the Union Message, Osama bin Laden reached out from some cave halfway around the world to give the president a much-needed public-relations boost for the second time in about 15 months.
This new appearance by the leader of Al Qaeda came as the president's polling numbers are at a low ebb and he is under serious pressure to pull at least some troops out of Iraq. Bin Laden's earlier appearance helped re-elect Bush.
Bush and bin Laden each will get exactly what they want from the latest message, reinforcing the view that both halves of this odd couple really need each other--and neither wants to quit the other.
The fact is, each plays the role of organizing symbol for the other, strengthening respective political bases. Nothing helps a political leader rally his troops more than having a clearly defined enemy.
Bin Laden understands that by attacking Bush he enhances him and by seeming to support American war critics he discredits them in many quarters. In short, he wants Bush around as long as possible, he wants Bush to have public support and he wants the occupation to continue for all the reasons stated above.
Why do you think he made a video public on Oct. 29, 2004, fully aware that it was only four days before the presidential election, reminding us that he was alive and kicking and still mighty dangerous?
Because he, and most of the world, knew that the so-called war on terror and U.S. security were Bush's strongest suits, and his appearance would outrage Americans and enhance Bush on Election Day.
On the Friday the video aired, Democrats' Democracy Corps poll showed John Kerry ahead by 3 points and possibly growing. On Saturday the tracking poll showed an immediate drop of 1.5 points and the next day an even race. We know what happened on that Tuesday.
Bin Laden denounces him, and Bush once again can rally his troops, shout "stay the course" and denounce the Democratic peaceniks. Most of all he can again echo bin Laden's threat to attack us on our homeland and reassure us all that only he can keep us safe and secure.
Bin Laden's re-emergence was so perfect it might as well have been staged by Bush strategist Karl Rove.
I don't doubt for a second that all these bastards are in cahoots.
Silencing science
I wrote about this last week. Today, PZ Myers shows us how deep the rot really goes.
More Iran
So you heard the rhetoric from the Chimp and now the Iranians have raised the stakes. The U.N Security Council has the issue. Fine, it can go a lot of ways from here, most of it not good unless the Iranians are given the opportunity to back down gracefully and save face. I think the Chimp is too myopic to give them that opportunity, to even recognize the option is open to him, if the Iranians even want one by now. Remember, this situation is one of our own making.
When the Chimp, with his grandiose vision of 'remaking the region', branded Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the 'Axis of Evil', he put them all on notice they were in the U.S.' gunsights. He backed that up by attacking Iraq. The Iranians countered by electing a radical, reactionary government. They see what's going on in Iraq, are probably funding some of the insurgency along with an intelligence gathering network, and they know there is not much we can do against them. There is little we can do diplomatically either. Quoting Taylor Marsh (take the time to read the whole post):
With all due respect to the lovely Taylor, I doubt airstrikes will seriously disable the Iranian nuclear initiative [short of a Linebacker I & II campaign; i.e. carpet bombing and all the collateral damage and bad press that comes with it]. Personally, I don't think the Iranians would have raised the rhetoric to this level if they weren't pretty certain they were immune from conventional attacks against the infrastrutcure. I mean Good lord, we have air bases all around them.
Remember this: A guy doesn't go waving his prick around with the expectation of getting it cut off. Iran wouldn't put all that money at risk of being bombed into dust so easily. So that means we'll have to put boots on the ground to ferret out the labs and processing facilities. Where will we get the troops from? Are we gonna use nukes? Are we gonna let Israel use them? Are we prepared for the Armageddon that will surely follow such actions. And what about the Iranian oil? We are addicted after all.
How did we paint ourselves into this corner? We put the Republicans in charge.
Update:
The Russians might be the key to diffusing the situation. This would be a good time for the Chimp to back off the rhetoric and allow the Iranians the wiggle room to accept this offer.
When the Chimp, with his grandiose vision of 'remaking the region', branded Iran, Iraq, and North Korea the 'Axis of Evil', he put them all on notice they were in the U.S.' gunsights. He backed that up by attacking Iraq. The Iranians countered by electing a radical, reactionary government. They see what's going on in Iraq, are probably funding some of the insurgency along with an intelligence gathering network, and they know there is not much we can do against them. There is little we can do diplomatically either. Quoting Taylor Marsh (take the time to read the whole post):
...
Because of our situation in Iraq and the lack of credibility of President Bush, which has spilled over to brand America, this is going to be a very long month, with what lies at the end presenting a very ugly scenario. For some of us, the country of true malevolence has always been Iran, and because of Bush's preoccupation with preemption and his naivety on Iran, not to mention the lack of real intel inside that country, today, our options are between Israel and a U.S. airstrike.
...
With all due respect to the lovely Taylor, I doubt airstrikes will seriously disable the Iranian nuclear initiative [short of a Linebacker I & II campaign; i.e. carpet bombing and all the collateral damage and bad press that comes with it]. Personally, I don't think the Iranians would have raised the rhetoric to this level if they weren't pretty certain they were immune from conventional attacks against the infrastrutcure. I mean Good lord, we have air bases all around them.
Remember this: A guy doesn't go waving his prick around with the expectation of getting it cut off. Iran wouldn't put all that money at risk of being bombed into dust so easily. So that means we'll have to put boots on the ground to ferret out the labs and processing facilities. Where will we get the troops from? Are we gonna use nukes? Are we gonna let Israel use them? Are we prepared for the Armageddon that will surely follow such actions. And what about the Iranian oil? We are addicted after all.
How did we paint ourselves into this corner? We put the Republicans in charge.
Update:
The Russians might be the key to diffusing the situation. This would be a good time for the Chimp to back off the rhetoric and allow the Iranians the wiggle room to accept this offer.
Saturday, February 4, 2006
Shades of yesteryear
You see what my friend Lurch and the rest of us old vets do, don't ya? You know the rhetoric by now, don't ya? Fool me once...
Putting it out there
A couple days ago (the last time I was pissed at the Dems), one of the regular commenters here suggested I run for office of some type. One reason is because there are too many pictures floating around of me doing embarrassing shit. When I used to drink a lot, I'd do it more often. Mrs. F, after close to 16 years of marriage (God bless her), doesn't embarrass at all anymore. I could stand on my head in public and make sparks shoot out my ass and she'd just carry on without missing a beat. So I was laughing my ass off when I read PZ Myers is worried about facing his students on Monday. Been there and done that, pal. Hold your head up and be proud, my friend, wear it like a badge of courage.
Contrasts
Scout Prime (another gem I've found recently by the way):
...
King of Jordan-- recognized Katrina'a impact immediately
King of America--never thought levees would break even when his Palace had been told they would.
...............
King of Jordan--glued to TV
King of America--got the DVD 5 days later
...............
King of Jordan--Visited the 9th Ward
King of America--Bypasses unwashed to meet with landed gentry
...
Women haters
I run into a lot of guys like this in the course of my day. Guys who have to make up for their insecurities by treating women like shit. I'm not talking about violence toward women, but guys who dislike and feel castrated by capable, intelligent, opinionated women. Women that turn me on, by the way.
...
Ugly as it is to state bluntly, a lot of men enjoy power-tripping on women, and there's evidence for this everywhere you look-from sexual harassment and rape to bizarre inventions like breast implants that function primarily as a signal that the woman owning them will go so far as to mutiliate her body with a painful surgery in order to please men. That breast implants are actually ugly is beside the point-that women suffer so much for men's pleasure is the important message. Take these common cultural attitudes and place anti-choice attitudes, where sex is treated, like PZ said, like a game of Russian roulette where the gun is always pointed at the woman, and I think it's pretty fucking clear what the appeal of "moral" imperatives against contraception is to the bizarro minority of men who believe them. If a woman can't use contraception, every time you fuck her, you're putting her at risk. Pregnant bellies are the fundie version of breast implants-proof to the power-hungry, woman-loathing men that they are the ones with power, that they have so much power over women they can change their bodies.
...
Great thanks to Coturnix for the heads up.
Matthews is off his meds...
...Batshit crazy, or on somebody's payroll.
Details. Does NBC want him to be the next O'Reilly or do the Rethugs make his lips move?
On his TV show tonight Chris Matthews suggested, without any proof at all, that maybe liberals or gays were responsible for a series of terrible church burnings last night in central Alabama.
...
Details. Does NBC want him to be the next O'Reilly or do the Rethugs make his lips move?
Braintip to C&L.
Words I never thought I'd use
In the same sentence. Radical. Militant. Librarians. At least somebody is standing up for free speech. Thanks to Mark for the pointer.
Friday, February 3, 2006
State of Delusion
Paul Krugman on Bush's oil 'policy'. Via Lettrist.
I just love that guy. Krugman, not Bush. I despise Bush. Go read the rest.
Here's the story on oil: In the State of the Union address Mr. Bush suggested that "cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol" and other technologies would allow us "to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East."
But the next day, officials explained that he didn't really mean what he said. "This was purely an example," said Samuel Bodman, the energy secretary. And the administration has actually been scaling back the very research that Mr. Bush hyped Tuesday night: the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is about to lay off staff because of budget cuts. "A veteran researcher," reports The New York Times, "said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol."
Why announce impressive sounding goals when you have no plan to achieve them? The best guess is that the energy "plan" was hastily thrown together to give Mr. Bush something positive to say.
What about the rest of the speech? The State of the Union is normally an occasion for boasting about an administration's achievements. But what's a speechwriter to do when there are no achievements?
One answer is to pretend that the bad stuff never happened. The Medicare drug benefit is Mr. Bush's largest domestic initiative to date. It's also a disaster: at enormous cost, the administration has managed to make millions of elderly Americans worse off. So drugs went unmentioned in the State of the Union.
There's a common theme underlying the botched reconstruction of Iraq, the botched response to Katrina (which Mr. Bush never mentioned), the botched drug program, and the nonexistent energy program. John DiIulio, the former White House head of faith-based policy, explained it more than three years ago. He told the reporter Ron Suskind how this administration operates: "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. ... I heard many, many staff discussions but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues."
In other words, this administration is all politics and no policy. It knows how to attain power, but has no idea how to govern. That's why the administration was caught unaware when Katrina hit, and why it was totally unprepared for the predictable problems with its drug plan. It's why Mr. Bush announced an energy plan with no substance behind it. And it's why the state of the union - the thing itself, not the speech - is so grim.
I just love that guy. Krugman, not Bush. I despise Bush. Go read the rest.
Learning from Iceland
I've had the pleasure of visiting Iceland three times*. It is one of the mose beautiful places on the planet and the people are...different (it's the only way I can explain it)...in a very good way. Michael Stickings looks at their State of the Union address. A must-read.
*I should add that I went there in July all three times and temps were in the upper 20s and low 30s. I would not want to be there in February.
High-tech instead of injury and death
LATimes
If it prevents endangering innocent bystanders, crashes, and shootings by adrenaline-and-doughnut-crazed trigger-happy buffoon cops, I'm all for it. Cops today seem to feel that letting a speeder get away from them endangers their Empire. They must 'win' at any cost.
The sporting days of outrunnin' the cops are pretty much over. I won a few and lost a few. I'm glad I got to enjoy them.
Question: "Chief, you said Los Angeles is the car chase capital of the world. What makes it that way?"
Answer: "There are a lot of nuts here."
With that street-cop psychology, Chief William J. Bratton unveiled Thursday a new and decidedly strange weapon in the LAPD's effort to halt high-speed pursuits.
It is an air-propelled miniature dart equipped with a global positioning device. Once fired from a patrol car, it sticks to a fleeing motorist's vehicle and emits a radio signal to police.
Bratton hailed the dart as "the big new idea" and said that if the pilot program was successful, Los Angeles' seemingly daily TV fix of police chases could be a thing of the past.
If it prevents endangering innocent bystanders, crashes, and shootings by adrenaline-and-doughnut-crazed trigger-happy buffoon cops, I'm all for it. Cops today seem to feel that letting a speeder get away from them endangers their Empire. They must 'win' at any cost.
The sporting days of outrunnin' the cops are pretty much over. I won a few and lost a few. I'm glad I got to enjoy them.
"Just like a Caribbean cruise...
...Without the water and the chicks or booze..."
Go see this one at Freeway Blogger. It's a don't miss.
Go see this one at Freeway Blogger. It's a don't miss.
Shit You Can't Make Up: Bush to Lay Off Renewable Energy Researchers
From Kos in toto:
Some people would wait a few days, you know, a decent interval, before pissin' backwards on something they said in a little thing like the SOTU speech. Not these brazen bastards. I must admit, I kinda enjoy shit like this!
We are asked to suffer the Secretary of Energy telling us within 24 hours that Bush lied in his speech about reducing Middle Eastern oil imports. We are asked to suffer oil-state Republicans who once gave away the oil under federal land but who are now tightwads when it comes to subsidizing other fuels.
And, now, we are asked to suffer this:
From today's NYT:
The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.
A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
Some people would wait a few days, you know, a decent interval, before pissin' backwards on something they said in a little thing like the SOTU speech. Not these brazen bastards. I must admit, I kinda enjoy shit like this!
The Mother of All Downing Street Memos?
David Corn at HuffPo on the memo I posted about last night:
Only if we push it, just like the DSM. It never would have seen the light of day in the media without a little assist and this one is the same kind of deal. It's just another arrow in the quivver of charges against these war criminals.
To be fair, I first heard about this on Keith Olbermann's 'Countdown'. Me and the other fifty people that watch it.
To my thinking, this is a rather big deal. The president of the United States caught conspiring to create a modern-day version of the sinking of the Maine? Talk about an impeachable offense. I'm presuming the memo is legit. It was first obtained by British human rights lawyer Philippe Sands for a new version of his book, Lawless World. Sands is a friend of friends of mine. He is a trustworthy fellow, and I know that last year he did succeed in prying sensitive documents out of the British government concerning the legality -- or illegality -- of the invasion of Iraq. His sources were obviously British officials upset with the war. So my informed hunch is that this document is real. If so, how will the White House respond? Will members of the press corps at 1600 Pennsylvania press the point? This revelation -- which is more shocking than anything in the Downing Street Memos -- should be major news here. But will it?
Only if we push it, just like the DSM. It never would have seen the light of day in the media without a little assist and this one is the same kind of deal. It's just another arrow in the quivver of charges against these war criminals.
To be fair, I first heard about this on Keith Olbermann's 'Countdown'. Me and the other fifty people that watch it.
Recruiting
Blondie has a story about a kid, arrested on drug charges, allowed to enlist in the Air National Guard. The last time I saw this was when I went in (I myself receiving a waiver thanks to a pending conviction for grand theft auto when I was 17), when the military couldn't get anybody to join after Vietnam. Hmmmm...
Another guilty Rethug bastid
Glen tells us all about it.
...A Pentagon contractor put in charge of at least $82 million in reconstruction money earmarked for the Iraqi city of Hilla will plead guilty to conspiracy, bribery, money laundering and other crimes, The New York Times reported on its Web site on Thursday...
More cartoons
Just this to our Muslim friends concerning the hubbub over the cartoon in a Danish paper: You're as fucked up as the Jesus freaks in this country. It's a fucking cartoon. Get over yourselves. It's known as free speech.
Update:
Maurinsky agrees, albeit more 'delicately'. Heh...
Update:
Maurinsky agrees, albeit more 'delicately'. Heh...
Thursday, February 2, 2006
Bush told Blair we're going to war, memo reveals
From the Guardian(UK)
Bush and Blair both got a lotta esplainin' to do.
This is really nothing new, but I'm glad there's more evidence.
About painting US planes in UN colors so Saddam would fire on them, it reminds me a lot of how Hitler started WWII: he killed some political prisoners, put them in Polish uniforms and planted them inside Germany and claimed Poland had invaded.
· PM backed invasion despite illegality warnings
· Plan to disguise US jets as UN planes
· Bush: postwar violence unlikely
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".
· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.
· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.
The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.
Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry, into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view.
Sir Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions, with decision for military action already taken."
Sir Menzies continued: "The prime minister's offer of February 23 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."
Bush and Blair both got a lotta esplainin' to do.
This is really nothing new, but I'm glad there's more evidence.
About painting US planes in UN colors so Saddam would fire on them, it reminds me a lot of how Hitler started WWII: he killed some political prisoners, put them in Polish uniforms and planted them inside Germany and claimed Poland had invaded.
Shamelessness
Fuck everybody but me:
About that $70bn you want so you can continue to play 'War Preznit'?
Update:
The cynicism of tax cuts. As Motherlode says:
...
The budget-busting Bush who has destroyed the surplus, exploded the deficit, and increased the size of the federal government by more than thirty percent since coming to office set a record for shamelessness by announcing that the vote "will continue to build on the spending restraint we have achieved." And the Times prints this straight-faced. Ha... [my em]
About that $70bn you want so you can continue to play 'War Preznit'?
Update:
The cynicism of tax cuts. As Motherlode says:
... POND SCUM -- NO, THE FUNGUS THAT FEEDS ON POND SCUM...
Sometimes cartoons make a point without being funny...
This Tom Toles cartoon drew an angry protest from all six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
WaPo replies in defense of the cartoon.
If the JCS would think back to their younger days when they still had some pride and integrity as soldiers, they might realize that the honorable thing to do would be to take their tanks and ships and planes and grunts 'n shit and forcibly depose this insane criminal administration and return this country to its rightful rule of law under the Constitution. We, the Nation's rightful owners, would be forever grateful to them for once again defeating fascism, and I don't think the rest of the world would mind much either.
WaPo replies in defense of the cartoon.
Talking to Kurtz, Toles cited recent remarks by Rumsfeld about "battle-hardened" troops and "what came soon to mind was the catastrophic level of injuries the Army and members of the armed services have sustained . . . I thought my portrayal of it was a fair depiction of the reality of the situation. I certainly never intended it to be in any way a personal attack on, or a derogatory comment on, the service or sacrifice of American soldiers."
Aravosis from AmericaBlog told E&P: "Now that the Joint Chiefs have addressed the insidious threat cartoons pose to our troops, perhaps they can move on to less pressing issues like getting them their damn body armor."
If the JCS would think back to their younger days when they still had some pride and integrity as soldiers, they might realize that the honorable thing to do would be to take their tanks and ships and planes and grunts 'n shit and forcibly depose this insane criminal administration and return this country to its rightful rule of law under the Constitution. We, the Nation's rightful owners, would be forever grateful to them for once again defeating fascism, and I don't think the rest of the world would mind much either.
Well, that's wrecked
So much for ending that 'oil addiction'.
Not bad, 48 hours before he...say it with me...'flip-flops'.
...
First, the Preznit said we'd be reducing our addiction to foreign oil, and backed off that promise yesterday. Now we find he'd already cut the budget for the very alternative fuel initiatives he touted as potential substitutes -- before he ever gave the State of the Union.
...
Not bad, 48 hours before he...say it with me...'flip-flops'.
Didn't See It Coming, Again
Maureen Dowd at Topplebush:
You mean there are cultural differences in the Middle East? Who'da thunk it? State Department? CIA? Maybe Habib down at the 7-11 knew, but who asked him?
You mean they might not like what we're doingto for them? Why, the ungrateful bastards! Let's just take our football and go home.
Shit, there's 'cultural differences' between here where I sit and Reno, thirty miles away and I don't need any highly paid advisors to know it. They'd probably be wrong about it anyway.
The more the White House tries to force-feed democracy to tempestuous parts of the world, the more it discovers that you may be able to spin and scare voters in the U.S., but the Middle East is not so easy to manipulate. W. believes in self-determination only if he's doing the determining. Fundamentalists in America like to vote for Mr. Bush, but elsewhere they're violently opposing him.
Like many other presidential candidates I've interviewed, W. said he liked Winston Churchill. But if he really had read Churchill, he would at least have understood that the Middle East never turns out the way you expect. Churchill, who called Iraq "an ungrateful volcano," would not have been surprised by the new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll showing that close to half of Iraqis approve of attacks on American forces.
The State of the Union is a non-event. But Bob Woodruff and his cameraman, Doug Vogt, being blown up by a roadside bomb has forced the media to focus on what the Bushies try to hide -- all the injured and maimed coming home from Iraq.
A more honest TV moment was Christiane Amanpour labeling Iraq "a black hole." The "spiraling security disaster," she told Larry King, had robbed Iraqis of hope, "and by any indication whether you take the number of journalists killed or wounded, whether you take the number of American soldiers killed or wounded, whether you take the number of Iraqi soldiers killed and wounded, contractors, people working there, it just gets worse and worse."
But, hey, how could the Bushies have known that occupying a Middle East country -- and flipping the balance of power from one sect to another -- without enough troops to secure it could go wrong? Who on earth could predict the inevitable?
You mean there are cultural differences in the Middle East? Who'da thunk it? State Department? CIA? Maybe Habib down at the 7-11 knew, but who asked him?
You mean they might not like what we're doing
Shit, there's 'cultural differences' between here where I sit and Reno, thirty miles away and I don't need any highly paid advisors to know it. They'd probably be wrong about it anyway.
California Rep speaks out for all of us
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today issued the following statement regarding Cindy Sheehan's arrest in the gallery of the House of Representatives before the State of the Union address. Mrs. Sheehan was Rep. Lynn Woolsey's guest to the President's State of the Union address.
"Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives. She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the President. Free speech and the First Amendment exist to protect dissenting statements like Ms. Sheehan's last night.
"Stifling the truth will not blind Americans to the immorality of sending young Americans to die in an unnecessary war, against a nation that posed no threat to our security. The President's speech last night was yet another attempt to distort history, as he suggested -- once again -- that the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Everyone knows this is not true. We must not be afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes. It's time to bring our troops home."
Please pardon me if my pride in one of my state's congresspersons is showing.
The first
Remember when I said I was going to do what I can to get the Business-As-Usual Dems out of office. The first one in my sights is Holy Joe 'Joementum' Lieberman. Connecticut voters, I'd like to introduce Ned Lamont.
...
Ned is considering running because, like most Connecticut Democrats, he is tired of being represented by a senator who is not willing to stand up to the President on the war - and on the rest of his extreme right wing agenda which is so harmful to our country.
...
The nation Bush doesn't see
An EssEffChron editorial:
There's stuff in between those quotes as well.
PRESIDENT BUSH'S bemoaning of America's addiction to oil last night was just one measure of his disconnect with the effects of his administration's policies.
Yes, this nation does need to push more aggressively conservation and alternative-energy technologies to break its dependence on oil that is "often imported from unstable parts of the world," as Bush observed in his State of the Union address. Yet this is the same president who began his administration by inviting energy industry executives to meet behind closed doors with Vice President Dick Cheney. It's fair to say the industry recommendations -- many of which were incorporated into the Bush plan -- were not aimed at easing this nation's addiction to oil.
The Bush administration's energy-policy emphasis to date has been on feeding the nation's oil addiction by pushing for greatly expanded drilling on public lands, from the Rocky Mountains to Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
His defense of warrantless eavesdropping was flat-out disingenuous. His suggestion that the Sept. 11 attacks might have been averted if authorities had been able to wiretap two al Qaeda plotters who were making overseas calls was a perfect example of activity for which a warrant would be approved -- assuming U.S. authorities were bothering to keep track of terrorists they knew had entered this country. A Presidential Daily Briefing that declared that bin Laden was "determined to strike" in the United States, perhaps with hijackers -- such as the one sent to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001 -- was plenty of evidence for warrants on known al Qaeda operatives.
There's stuff in between those quotes as well.
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Iraq Vet shot by pussy cop
LATimes
The cops say they chased these guys because they were speeding. Let's see - two young guys in a Corvette. If I was a young guy with a Corvette, I'd speed, so OK, I'll buy it, but it could have been two young Mexican guys in a Corvette that touched it off as well. We will see.
The guys fucked up by running, sure. I'm sure the cop thought he had a coupla real desperado car thieves.
Shooting somebody is damn serious business, not to be taken lightly. It's obvious the cop didn't take time to aim or Mr. Carrion would be dead. It's as if he panicked. Something failed him at a crucial moment, whether his character or his training I have no idea. Probably both. I don't want people like that running around with a badge and a gun with the power of life and death over me.
I saw the video. All the cop had to do if he was worried was take a step or two backwards to give him time to re-evaluate the situation. If that cop tries to use the "I was scared for my life" defense against an unarmed man who was following orders and didn't appear to be threatening him, then that cop's a fuckin' pussy who doesn't have the necessary intestinal fortitude or judgment skills to be a cop.
Responding to a dramatic videotape of a police shooting, federal officials opened an investigation Tuesday into the conduct of a San Bernardino County sheriff's deputy who opened fire on a man who appeared to be following the deputy's order to get off the ground.
At one point, a voice on the tape appears to say "Stay on the ground." A moment later, however, the deputy appears to tell Carrion: "Get up, get up."
"I'm going to get up," Carrion replied as he began to rise from a crouch. As he did so, the deputy, who was standing a few feet away, fired multiple rounds.
Carrion, a U.S. Air Force security officer who had recently returned from duty in Iraq, was hit in the chest, shoulder and leg. He was listed in good condition Tuesday at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in Colton.
The cops say they chased these guys because they were speeding. Let's see - two young guys in a Corvette. If I was a young guy with a Corvette, I'd speed, so OK, I'll buy it, but it could have been two young Mexican guys in a Corvette that touched it off as well. We will see.
The guys fucked up by running, sure. I'm sure the cop thought he had a coupla real desperado car thieves.
Shooting somebody is damn serious business, not to be taken lightly. It's obvious the cop didn't take time to aim or Mr. Carrion would be dead. It's as if he panicked. Something failed him at a crucial moment, whether his character or his training I have no idea. Probably both. I don't want people like that running around with a badge and a gun with the power of life and death over me.
I saw the video. All the cop had to do if he was worried was take a step or two backwards to give him time to re-evaluate the situation. If that cop tries to use the "I was scared for my life" defense against an unarmed man who was following orders and didn't appear to be threatening him, then that cop's a fuckin' pussy who doesn't have the necessary intestinal fortitude or judgment skills to be a cop.
A Religion That Grew From a Lot of Brew
You'll like this one. From today's WaPo:
Go read.
On the South Pacific island of Tanna, beneath a volcano that rumbles and smokes, a guy wearing a fake U.S. Army uniform raises an American flag. Then 40 barefoot men march past, carrying fake rifles made of bamboo, their brown chests decorated with red paint spelling out "USA."
Later, a group of men slinging fake chainsaws sing a homemade hymn: "We've come from America to cut down all the trees so we can build factories."
This isn't a protest or a piece of performance art. It's a religious ceremony held every year on Feb. 15 -- John Frum Day, the high holy day of a South Pacific religion that worships a messiah who is, as Paul Raffaele writes in a wonderfully weird story in the February issue of Smithsonian, "an American god no sober man has ever seen."
"John promised you much cargo more than 60 years ago and none has come," Raffaele said to Chief Isaac. "Why do you still believe in him?"
Chief Isaac smiled and uttered an irrefutable answer: "You Christians have been waiting 2,000 years for Jesus to return to earth," he said, "and you haven't given up hope."
Go read.
Dear Dickhead President Bush
John Murtha writes to Preznit Cowardly Liar the day after the Bullshit Festival State of the Union.
...
This March will mark the beginning of the 4th year of the war in Iraq. In contrast, U.S. involvement in WWI came to an end after 19 months. Victory in Europe was declared in WWII after 3 years 5 months. In the Korean War, a cease-fire was signed after 3 years and 1 month. But after more than three and a half years into the war in Iraq, your administration finally produced what is called a "Plan for Victory" in Iraq.
...
Bush's One Hour Argument With Himself
Everything you would ever want to know about the SOTU v. what really happened, at Think Progress.
Dead Man Talking
Josh Holland puts a hopeful spin on the SOTU blatherfest:
Much description of said zombie-speech follows.
He's right. He should just quit being president cuz it's too hard and go home and clear brush.
George Bush is hanging by a thread. As he gamed his way through his fifth State of the Union Speech last night, it was clear that his is a presidency laying in ruin. Except for a reactionary judiciary that will be his continuing legacy -- pushed past the too-little, too-late efforts of a limp Democratic Party -- Bush has no accomplishments he can look forward to in the next three years.
George is dead, spun-out of spin, yet like his zombie followers he just keeps on talking.
Much description of said zombie-speech follows.
That's it. That's all he had. After five years running the country, without a single policy he could point to that hasn't turned out to be a failure George Bush has only one thing left to say: "My presidency is finished."
He's right. He should just quit being president cuz it's too hard and go home and clear brush.
"Eek! A Protester!"
Following up on Fixer's post, here's Cindy Sheehan's own account of what happened.
It's a good thing she's white. Otherwise, she might might have been shot trying to escape.
I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled, "Protester." He then ran over to me, hauled me out of my seat, and roughly (with my hands behind my back) shoved me up the stairs. I said something like "I'm going, do you have to be so rough?" By the way, his name is Mike Weight.
I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there, and I thought every once in awhile they would show me, and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable, that I would be arrested ... maybe I would have, but I didn't.
I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether or not he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let BushCo take anything else away from me ... or you.
It's a good thing she's white. Otherwise, she might might have been shot trying to escape.
Democratic Talking Points
Since you guys so suck at getting a message out, I've compiled 10 points that should get you all on the same page and clear some of the dead wood and DINOs [I just realized I wrote RINOs originally. My bad. - F-man] out of the Party
1. There are no such thing as pro-life Democrats. If you classify yourself as 'pro-life' it means you support a principle of the Republican Party. You support the government legislating what your constituents can do with their own bodies. The Democratic Party does not advocate repealing civil rights.
2. If you are against gay rights (marriage included) you are not a Democrat for the same reasons as stated in 1.
3. If you are a 'war hawk', turn in your membership card. The only reason the United States goes to war is to defend our borders and sovereignty, period.
4. For the foreseeable future, the word 'bipartisan' had better not cross your lips. If you've learned anything, being 'bipartisan' only gets you fucked and made to look like fools.
5. You will not say the word 'misled' when describing the President, the White House, the war in Iraq, the Republican Congress, anything Republican. They lied, period. Even if you're not sure, by now we know if the Republicans' lips are moving, they're lying. Evidence of it will surface soon enough.
6. You will end the 'collegial atmosphere' with Republican memebers of Congress. If you are on a talk show and disagree with the resident Rethug, don't say, 'while Mr. X is a friend of mine, blah blah blah'. No, you will say, 'this lying, enabling prick is trying to snow you and the American public by supporting Plan X and is shoveling in the bullshit like the coming of the high tide', or something to that effect. They are not your friends and don't want to 'work with their Democratic counterparts'. They want to crush you and put a Rethug in your seat. Got me?
7. You will never, ever, say you give the Republicans the 'benefit of the doubt'. They've proven they should never be given that benefit again. Assume everything they do has nefarious motives.
8. You will never say the word 'trust' in the same sentence as 'Republicans' unless you're giving reasons not to trust them.
9. If you vote for any bill that puts the interest of industry over environment, you'll be kicked out, period. We've seen when industry and manufacturing of any form is allowed to shape government policy and the results aren't pretty. Same goes if you say you are unsure about Global Warming. Get out.
10. If you ever, ever let that idiot Kaine speak on a national platform again...
Try and get on some of these before the election season goes into full swing.
1. There are no such thing as pro-life Democrats. If you classify yourself as 'pro-life' it means you support a principle of the Republican Party. You support the government legislating what your constituents can do with their own bodies. The Democratic Party does not advocate repealing civil rights.
2. If you are against gay rights (marriage included) you are not a Democrat for the same reasons as stated in 1.
3. If you are a 'war hawk', turn in your membership card. The only reason the United States goes to war is to defend our borders and sovereignty, period.
4. For the foreseeable future, the word 'bipartisan' had better not cross your lips. If you've learned anything, being 'bipartisan' only gets you fucked and made to look like fools.
5. You will not say the word 'misled' when describing the President, the White House, the war in Iraq, the Republican Congress, anything Republican. They lied, period. Even if you're not sure, by now we know if the Republicans' lips are moving, they're lying. Evidence of it will surface soon enough.
6. You will end the 'collegial atmosphere' with Republican memebers of Congress. If you are on a talk show and disagree with the resident Rethug, don't say, 'while Mr. X is a friend of mine, blah blah blah'. No, you will say, 'this lying, enabling prick is trying to snow you and the American public by supporting Plan X and is shoveling in the bullshit like the coming of the high tide', or something to that effect. They are not your friends and don't want to 'work with their Democratic counterparts'. They want to crush you and put a Rethug in your seat. Got me?
7. You will never, ever, say you give the Republicans the 'benefit of the doubt'. They've proven they should never be given that benefit again. Assume everything they do has nefarious motives.
8. You will never say the word 'trust' in the same sentence as 'Republicans' unless you're giving reasons not to trust them.
9. If you vote for any bill that puts the interest of industry over environment, you'll be kicked out, period. We've seen when industry and manufacturing of any form is allowed to shape government policy and the results aren't pretty. Same goes if you say you are unsure about Global Warming. Get out.
10. If you ever, ever let that idiot Kaine speak on a national platform again...
Try and get on some of these before the election season goes into full swing.
Of, by, and for
I don't think so:
It's amazing how a single mom can get under the Chimp's skin so often. It's says something about the Democratic Party when Bush is more scared of Cindy Sheehan than he is of them.
Apparently, you cannot wear a t-shirt in front of the Chimperor Disgustus unless it says "JesusBush Saves".
Ironic that in the place most specifically addressed in the First Amendment (you know that whole "Congress shall make no law" thing) this will get you arrested:
...
It's amazing how a single mom can get under the Chimp's skin so often. It's says something about the Democratic Party when Bush is more scared of Cindy Sheehan than he is of them.
Congress does something right
Dec. 12, 2005 - Military people take pride in looking out for each other - include dogs in that. Bomb-sniffing dog Rex may soon get an early discharge from the Air Force, thanks to his handler, Tech. Sgt. Jamie Dana, and to members of Congress who couldn't resist a heartwarming story.
...
I'm happy to report both Tsgt. Dana and Rex have been discharged together and Rex is now a part of the family, thanks to an act of Congress. I'm also happy to report Sgt. Dana is beginning a new career as a veterinarian. With the dedication she showed to Rex, I have no doubt she'll be a good one. It does my heart good to see this, on several levels.
"Damn, Leroy! That was the fastest margarita I ever did see!"
I like to stir shit up. For years, I've been the guy who puts the outboard motor in the punch bowl, so to speak, but this one takes the cake. Can a big inch V-Twin be far behind?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)