Burned Out Paranoid Democrat

How Did He Say This Without His Tongue Bursting Into Flames?

2006-03-27T09:09:00.000-08:00

Bush on the immigration reform debate:

“The immigration debate should be conducted in a civil and dignified way,” the president said as the Senate prepared to tackle the hot-button election issue of what to do with the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants this week.

Translation: you guys have to play nice while we sic our attack dogs on you.

Yeharr

What a Coincidence

2006-03-17T09:34:00.000-08:00

...that a major new offensive in Iraq starts on the third anniversary of our descent into the rabbit hole.

...that a major new offensive in Iraq starts shortly after this president's poll numbers hit an alltime low.

...that a major new offensive in Iraq starts while a Senator introduces a motion to censure this president.

...that only now, at the height of discontent and dissatisfaction with this president, are documents discovered that allegedly show that Saddam: a) had WMD's that he either destroyed or hid; and b) show ties to terrorists planning attacks against the US.

What a coincidence.

It has to be a coincidence, right? After all, a big part of the Bush apoligentsia's playbook is the phrase "This president doesn't care about poll numbers; he cares about security."

And I'm sure that if you look back at the history of this president, you won't find other instances where announcements, proclamations, or offensives were mounted just as his numbers hit low points. Just as you won't find investigations held up until a later point, when the damage they might cause is limited.

Have you heard about the documents? I predict they'll be the next big piss in the right wing blogosphere. A bunch of documents seized when Baghdad was captured by the US reportedly show that the statements made by Bush at the beginning of the war were right, after all.
Give me a break.

Here are my takes on this:

The first place I've seen the allegations is in an online investor's editorial, yet mickey at instapundit is already trimphantly linking to it. Yeah. Great. I always go to an online investment website for definitive answers regarding military invasions. The information has no attribution, and I wasn't able to find any corroboration elsewhere, other than the fact that they're being released. Which to me says either it's an exaggeration, or the ink's not dry on the three year old documents yet.
Lemme get this straight--Hussein was able to hide/destroy/export his WMD's but couldn't get rid of the documentation? I can see that. After all, paper is one of the most durable substances known to man. It's not like it burns or anything.
If Hussein had WMD's, why didn't he use them instead of destroying them? I know, he didn't want to hurt or kill any of his own citizens. After all, he's shown that sort of reluctance in the past.
So we decided to divert our army from finding the guy who demonstrated the ability to attack and kill thousands in terrorist attacks on the US, and who was actively and openly planning future attacks, in order to get a guy who might have the potential to do what the first guy was already doing?
What a tremendous lack of imagination from Wingnuttia: First they said we went to Iraq because there were WMD's and ties to terrorists. When that information was effectively disproven, all of a suddend the reason we went to Iraq was to build a democracy. As that country dissolves into civil war, they need to find another reason to justify our foray into the hellhole. And they can't think of anything else, so they're going back to the first argument!

Hate is a strong word. I try to limit my usage of it. It's a negative emotion, and I try to avoid those.

But God help me, I hate this president. And all his minions. Call your Senators. Call your Representitives. Let then know you don't want these people destroying our country anymore.

Yeharr

Liberal Media, My Ass...

2006-03-16T03:42:00.000-08:00

Cross-posted at The Cranky Yankee Daily Crank

For those of you who are deaf, dumb and ignorant to the fact that the U.S. mainstream media is nothing more than a propaganda piece for the same corporate giants that are running shrubco there are a few bold groups out there like Fairness and Accuracy in Media - FAIR that are willing to stand up to the media and call it what it is. Below are excerpts from a FAIR Media Alert reminding us how badly the U.S. media failed to live up to its responsibility in the run up to the illegal, unwarranted, irresponsible and highly unsuccessful war against Iraq.

In addition to all the evidence below of media failure and malfeasance let us never forget the White House had no less then the "so called" liberal New York Times on its payroll to sell the bogus WMD story through Judith Miller and her yellow journalism based on shrubco lies.

"The Final Word Is Hooray!"
Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits

3/15/06

Weeks after the invasion of Iraq began, Fox News Channel host Brit Hume delivered a scathing speech critiquing the media's supposedly pessimistic assessment of the Iraq War.

"The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, got it wrong," Hume complained in the April 2003 speech (Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/25/04). "They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong."

Hume was perhaps correct--but almost entirely in the opposite sense. Days or weeks into the war, commentators and reporters made premature declarations of victory, offered predictions about lasting political effects and called on the critics of the war to apologize. Three years later, the Iraq War grinds on at the cost of at least tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Around the same time as Hume's speech, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas declared (4/16/03): "All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking."

Gathered here are some of the most notable media comments from the early days of the Iraq War.

Declaring Victory

"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03)

"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

Mission Accomplished?

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific."
(PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)

"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)

Neutralizing the Opposition

"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

Nagging the "Naysayers"

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

"I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)

"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, "The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated." Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.

"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right."
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray."
(Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured out we won the war."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)

Cakewalk?

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer,
3/30/03)

"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

Weapons of Mass Destruction

NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...

Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)

"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it."
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)

"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)"
(New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)

No matter how you wingnuts out there spin it the shrubco cooked the intelligence toward its own end. They spun it to the willing media and they media lapped it up like the corporate puppy dogs they are. There were a few of us out there who knew it was all bullshit but our protests fell on deaf ears. We were accused of treason and all sorts of unpatriotic epitaphs were heaped upon us.

We were right! We love our country so much that we were willing to stand up to the mainstream, speak the truth and absorb the abuse. To all of you still out there beating the drum that the WMD did exist in the threatening manner shrubco sold them I say, "You are they traitors. All the deaths, military and civilian in Iraq are on your heads. Screw you and I was and still am right."

On Things Hanging Out

2006-02-20T19:43:00.000-08:00

My Soon-to-be-Ex-Sister-in-Law sent me this editorial, written by literary theorist and law professor Stanley Fish, and asked me what I thought about it.

I figured I'd share my opinions with the class:

As much as I hate using a man's name to make a point, you can tell Mister Fish is old, because his thinking stinks.

Who the hell am I kidding? I love doing stuff like that!

The first clue is the title. "Letting it all hang out?" Wow. I was so surprised about that that I almost dropped my Hai Karate aftershave, man.

Seriously, though, this guy's setting up liberal straw men, but he's not even doing a good job knocking them down."The first tenet of the liberal religion is that everything (at least in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be permitted, but nothing is to be taken seriously."

Umm. It's not a religion, dude. That you think it so shows not the failure of liberalism, but your failure to grasp basic concepts of freedom in society. Not every expression is to be permitted. Inciting a crowd to riot is not permitted under freedom of expression; nor is yelling 'fire' in a movie theater. And as far as taking things seriously--who is he to decide who does and does not take any particular point of view 'seriously?'

Then he goes on to denigrate the concept of 'respect:' "The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me."

If anyone's doing any condescending, it's you, Mister Fish. Respect, to me, means a deferential regard towards something. If I have a deferential regard towards someone's religious views, it means I accept that this person has a specific viewpoint, and (assuming he or she is not being hypocritical,) has just as much a right to that viewpoint as I do to mine. It does not mean that I have to agree with it, nor will I feel the need to make him or her agree with my differing view. Where is there condescension in that?

If, however, I espouse respect, yet my actions towards you and/or your beliefs show a lack of respect, now that's some condescension. I would contend that this sort of behavior is more in line with the current Neocon way of doing business. Perhaps Fish is doing a bit of transference here, no?

I also find it fascinating that he has the power to read minds. After all, he knows that "the editors who have run the cartoons do not believe that Muslims are evil infidels who must either be converted or vanquished. They do not publish the offending cartoons in an effort to further some religious or political vision; they do it gratuitously, almost accidentally."

Hold on there, Kreskin. You must be losing something in the telepathic transatlantic translation. Jyllands-Posten is one of the most conservative of Danish newspapers--sort of the Manchester Union-Leader of Denmark, not some moonbat bastion of liberal causes. And did you know that the very same Flemming Rose who ran these cartoons had previously rejected a series of cartoons lampooning Jesus and a host of other Christian icons on the grounds of being too offensive? Rose explained that he used the term 'too offensive' because it was more polite than saying the cartoons were just plain bad. In what world is 'too offensive' more polite than 'just plain bad'? And have you seen the cartoons they did run? They make the guy who draws 'Marmaduke' look like the love child of Rembrandt and Mark Twain.

Just for fun though, let's follow through on his way of thinking. Let's assume that he's right when he says: "The belief in the therapeutic and redemptive force of dialogue depends on the assumption (central to liberalism's theology) that, after all, no idea is worth fighting over to the death and that we can always reach a position of accommodation if only we will sit down and talk it out."

I guess that means that there are ideas worth killing over. So, in his view, it's OK for us to kill Muslims because of our differing belief system? That must mean then that, since they believe differently than us, that it's OK for Muslims to kill us.

Or does he espouse to a double standard?

And what is wrong with believing that we should sit down and discuss our differences? In the end, when everyone's tired of killing, isn't that what we do anyhow?

From where I sit, dude is just using this incident as a launching point for another typical Conservative swipe at the First Amendment. Which, of course, is a bit strange, seeing as how none of the players in this story happen to be from the US. Typical.

Yeharr

5

2006-02-16T04:50:00.000-08:00

...the number of days since the Vice President shot anyone.

4

...the number of days since the world was notified that the Vice President shot anyone.

Top Ten reasons Cheney shot that 78 year old guy in the face.

From the home office, Dick Cheney's Top 10 Excuses for Shooting That Guy:

10. Sure, like you've never seen giant game birds wearing day glo orange vests
9. Warrantless domestic spying revealed he was getting phone calls from al Qaeda
8. If the Vice President does it, its not against the law
7. Hoping to put him in a persistent vegetative state so the GOP could pass a law to keep him alive
6. Thought he was hunting Dan Quayle
5. The love between them could not survive back in Washington
4. Birds, Cows, People-- with my eyesight I'm lucky I hit anything
3. Positive the guy's family will welcome him as a liberator
2. Pheasants? I thought we were hunting peasants

and the number one Cheney excuse for shooting that guy:

1. Open season on liberals started early this year

#3 is my favorite. Thanks Dallas Dem at DKos

As I posted over at my crib, Dr. Evil may have been drunk when he shot that guy.

Doesn't Anyone Get it?

2006-02-09T14:38:00.000-08:00

We are treated to a spectacle where a half-assed excuse of an AG sits in front of a half-assed excuse of an Senate investigative panel and gives half-assed answers that are all framed exactly the same way: "We need this wiretapping to keep our country safe."

Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

It is illegal wiretapping, pure and simple. Has anyone asked this schmuck the following question: "Mr. Gonzales: what does the wiretapping without FISA approval get you that a wiretap WITH FISA approval doesn't? And don't say expediency, because we all know that is a lie."

Of course, it doesn't matter if he lies or not, since he couldn't be bothered to be sworn in.

The reason no one asks the question is because Al can't give us the truth, which is: the only thing this wiretapping gives the President is the ability to spy on people and organizations that oppose the President's policy. This is wiretapping for political gain, not any sort of highminded antiterror use.

And then I go to the Newsweek site and discover that the problem isn't that we have Big Brother watching us--it's that Big Brother isn't competent enough.

Micheal Hirsch says the problem isn't that we have an oppressive overlord--it's that our oppressive overlord isn't very good at the job.

Well, that makes me feel better.

How about you?

Yeharr

$500

2006-01-31T04:03:00.000-08:00

My company offers a pre-tax savings account, where we can set aside a certain amount of money per year to help pay for medical expenses.

I did a check of my finances, and that's the amount I can set aside this year.

$500.

Now, here's the thing: To use that $500, I have to first pay the health-care provider, THEN submit the bill for reimbursement.

So that's $1,000 out of my pocket--at least temporarily--to get that money.

Oh--and I can't touch any of it until next year. So if I need to spend five hundred on something THIS year...well, as a friend of mine used to say: TS, eliot.

Nice racket, eh?

I mention this, because The Worst President Ever wishes to take this policy nationwide. In lieu of actually providing affordable health care for all, he wants us to start savings accounts for our healthcare.

Yes, on the heels of his wildly successful (for the drug companies) Medicaid reform, TWPE is expected to say tonight that Americans should take ownership of their health care by putting money aside specifically for future health issues, and then have high-deductable health policies for all. At the same time, he's also expected to call for changes in malpractice lawsuits that would restrict damages to hospitals.

Put in another way, he wants us to save money we don't have to save to pay for health care problems we don't have yet, and if the hospital screws up, we won't be able to do much about it.

And we don't have the money, folks. Not just debt-ridden li'l ol' me. We are all spending more than we make. Which is not surprising since most companies give a 3% COLA to their employees, while the actual Cost Of Living rose something like 3.25%.

So here's what we're going to be asked to accept from TWPE: A plan that will likely increase the number of uninsured and increase health care costs, all while costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Aren't you glad this guy got to choose our Supreme Court?

Yeharr

The Alito 48

2006-01-30T13:34:00.000-08:00

Democrats.com is running an on-line update on the number of Senators willing to support a filibuster of Samuel Alito. If you haven't already called your Senators, why not?

Did you know that the Federalist Society was created 24 years ago specifically to get the Supreme Court to move to a far-right position? New York Times has an article. They posted it today. I wonder how long they sat on it.

We are living in interesting times. We are reaching tipping points in environment, in civil rights, womens rights, and so many other issues. The Wingnuts have been working on this coup for a quarter-century. We may not win any of these fights, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try

Yeharr

Human Shields

2006-01-27T19:46:00.000-08:00

I'm discovering a trend in the Bushie playbook: Use the womenfolk as shields and/or collateral.

The first sign of this was on January 11, when Martha-Ann Alito broke down in tears while her husband was being questioned by the Judiciary Committee, which led to the inevitable characterization of the Democrats on the Committee as being 'vicious.'

Eleven days later, a letter from the father of payola specialist Jack Abramoff appears in a newspaper. He says that George Clooney's remarks about Abramoff made his 12-year-old granddaughter cry.

And now, we find out that the US Army has been arresting the wives of suspected terrorists. They were using them as 'leverage,' in order to get the men to come forth.

This is wrong on so many levels.

Yeharr

Someone Want to Explain What's Happening?

2006-01-22T10:48:00.000-08:00

Paper cuts? Razor burn? Falling down drunk?

Can't remember a commander in chief who looked so often like he should have all the sharp objects in his room removed for safety reasons.

Why doesn't anyone ever ask question about it? Does it mean you're anti-war and therefore pro-anti Bush if you ask why he needs so many band aids?

In a Nutshell

2006-01-13T04:38:00.000-08:00

From Greg Saunders at The Talent Show:

"On the one hand, we're supposed to believe that Alito is a top-notch intellectual giant, but he's so uninformed about the most controversial issues of our time that he can't be bothered to form an opinion. Alito's a neutral "referee" who's willing to listen to both sides before making up his mind, but he's so weak-willed that taking any stand at all would limit his ability to be even-handed in future cases. I don't know which is worse : Republicans insulting our intelligence by playing dumb, or taking them at their word that and accepting the notion that their best pick for the high court is a habitual liar who's too stupid to remember things he did and said 20 years ago."

Yeharr

Not One Democrat Took Abramoff Money

2006-01-12T02:22:00.000-08:00

Let's be clear on that. It's a Republican scandal.

The NRC is freaked out and determined to blow memos down every toilet hole they have into every pundit's talking point box, but the fact is - as Governor Dean pointed out when he blasted Wolf Blitzer:

"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff," Dean answered. "Not one. Not one single Democrat. ... There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we've looked through all those FEC [Federal Election Commission] reports to make sure that's true."

More analysis proves the statement true:

He's right, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which keeps track of such things. Their analysis of election commission records shows that Democrats received about a third of the $4.2 million donated between 1998 and 2005 by tribes that had hired Abramoff to represent them in Washington, but none from Abramoff's own wallet.

Old Saturday Night Lived Sketch?

2006-01-12T02:16:00.000-08:00

No, two anti-abortion activists praying and "anointing the doors" to the Senate hearing room where the Alito confirmation hearings were to take place.

What's alarming, points out BagNewsNotes, is that:

"One should not be fooled, however, that this is a simple or innocent action when the prearranged participation of the press and at least the tacit cooperation of Capitol security was required. (Otherwise, these guys would be out on the sidewalk, fighting for attention just like everybody else.)

The other point here (although not a new one, of course) is the way the religious right shamelessly exploits religious symbolism for political gain.
The play here is a psychological one exploiting a reflexive tendency to associate religious garments, objects, and physical language and gesture with noble, even pious intention. As well, the simple visage of the minister already comes more than pre-packaged with the connotation of authority. "

These dudes weren't priests or ministers, merely impersonating them. Where are the moral values associated with pretending to be a church official for political, emotional gain or media time? The Right still doesn't get that breaking any rule to win is not winning.

Don't You Just Want Nixon Back?

2006-01-11T20:45:00.000-08:00

For those of you who can remember him, or have learned of him since his resignation and saluting in shame as he left the White House lawn, you may have come to despise his abuse of power, hateful list of enemies he retaliated against, spitefull actions and attacks on his perceived detractors, and foul mouth bigoted rantings in the Oval Office as revealed in several books published way after he left office.

He was the poster child for everything wrong with the GOP, power hungry, paranoid, untrusting of Congress, trusting of only a select few and endlessly circling his wagons for most of his White House stay. He decried dissenters as traitors, assualted civil liberties, was a secretive war-monger -

And don't you just want him back?

Nixon also created the EPA, opened trading talks with China, signed federal affirmative action into law. Nixon may have been crooked, had no moral compass, and tried to achieve an usurpassed level of control and authority in the executive branch -

- but I really miss him.

Because Nixon was an amateur when you compare him to Boy George.

George is now taking the TerrorPalooza road show across the country, insisting that his admitted crime of signing an executive order allowing the NSA to issue infinite unwarranted wire-taps domestically, is crucial to the safety of America.

This despite the fact that it is illegal, as in against the law, a constitutional officer taking away anyone's civil liberty at any moment.

This given the fact that the FISA court currently allows instant and immediate taps on anyone deemed a threat, with 72 hours to follow up the paper work and create the warrrant neccessary.

So pundit point (1) that immediate taps were unavailable to intelligence/justice agents is a lie. But it makes it harder for their side to stay in power if it's revealed they're trashing civil liberty.

And George now says any criticism of the war (by Democrats) is anti-american, supports the other side, alerts the enemy to what we're doing, kills troop moral, helps us lose the war, is standard Rove playbook. Whoring the Iraq war is what these guys have done from the third week in - using it as the catre blanche excuse to kill dissent, support increased executive power, try to push through the Alaskan oil pipline for God's sake, whatever legislation they could.

But the war is being run incompetently and has from when it started. Repeated calls for more troops have been ignored (now Bremer admits in his new book he asked for twice as many troops as supplied). Armor available since 2003 is still not shipped overseas. 80% of fatalities could have been prevented with adequate armor, a Pentagon report has recently concluded. Tracking the terrorists has proven impossible for our intelligence community for the last three years, perhaps the bad guys realize they shouldn't use cell phones and talk openly?

So pundit point (2) that dissent hurts the war on terror, or hurts our chances of winning the war is a lie. It just hurts their side's chances of staying in power if dissent happens.

And the backlog of taped recordings by the NSA must be overwhelming. They already didn't have enough translators to begin with, and now they're creating an impossible backlog of material to go through as they listen in on 500, 1000, 10,000 calls a day? They're data-mining, not tracking, they say they're looking for any clues at all that could lead to any terrorists at all, anywhere (because they have not a clue).

Cheney piped in that if this were in place pre-9/11, 9/11 might not have happened.

But Cheney pundit point (3) is a lie too! Because they had a memo delivered to the President that said "Osama Bin Laden planningn to strike at U.S. using airplanes". And that was filed behind a cable bill or something, and it wasn't deemed important. That's how this administration hums along on all pistons.

But 10,000 NSA recorded phone calls on dating, cooking, arabic school carpet cleaning, ad nauseum could all be diciphered and coded and filtered to catch one bad guy? Don't think so. Another lie. To stay in power.

Part of the terror road show.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. That's how they like you. To cook you until you're over done right about election time.

Because that pretty much lets them do anything. Like NSA wiretaps on whomever they so decree, whenever, where ever. Think of all the good they can do!

Like - listening to the political opposition maybe? Like Nixon tried to do by bugging Democratic Headquarters at the Water Gate Hotel? That would be a good way to stay in power, wouldn't it?

Don't you think that's what all this is really about? Watch that come out next. Because that's all Bush and Rove cares about. Power, getting itand keeping it. Not governing. That's an unfortunate inconvenience that comes along with the job.

Or am I being too paranoid?

Fury

2006-01-09T14:47:00.000-08:00

...towards the people responsible for this decision:

American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

That's right. GI Joes went Commando on a sleeping family. Fired three bullets into the room. Fired three bullets into the room where a three year old and a seven-month-old were sleeping. Rolled daddy onto the floor, told him to shut up, tied him up, hooded and hauled him away.

Dr Fadhil (the Iraqi journalist) is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.

A few days ago, the director of the film had informed "US Authorities" about the investigation, and had asked them for an interview.

And this was the response.

I'm sure Cranky will correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that the troops had more than one way to accomplish this mission. I'm assumining that the tools that the US troops had--scopes, heat sensors, night vision goggles, et c.-- could give them a pretty good idea of the threat level inside this room where a three-year-old girl and a seven-month-old boy were sleeping with their parents. I imagine that if they wanted to, this could have been handled in a far more gentle way and still maintain a level of personal security for the troops.

Yet, they decided to go in with guns blazing.

They knew what they were doing. They knew the threat level in this house was far lower than the threat level they would have getting this guy back to whatever black bag room they took him to.

This was shock and awe.

Because this reporter was uncovering painful truths.

They released him a few hours later, but they still have his tapes.

And we will be greeted as liberators.

Yeharr

Biased is as Biased Does

2006-01-04T12:48:00.000-08:00

I didn't see O'Reilly on Letterman, but I've seen the ripple effect it's had on the internet.

What surprised me the most is the spin being placed on it by both sides.

One side claims jubilantly that Letterman kicked O'Reilly's ass. The other side crows about how O'Reilly stuck it to Letterman.

Yeah, I thought Letterman was pretty generous when he left the 'crap' level of O'Reilly's spew at a mere 60%.

But he could have done more research, and actually watched some O'Reilly before having him on.

When I post about comments made by a commentator when commenting about another commentator, it's a sure sign of the end of civilization.

Comments?

Yeharr

Who's in Control at the DoJ?

2006-01-03T14:45:00.000-08:00

The Abramoff plea agreement only talks about "Representitive #1" and "Staffer A." I'm hoping that this means his lawyer managed to have him take the hit on only one of the alleged many fraudulent acts he has committed, and will start naming names forthwith and post-haste.

What I'm hoping this doesn't mean is that the political movers in the Department of Justice have managed to limit the scope of the investigation so as to only corral a relatively small player (Rep. Bob Ney) in the power deals that are going on in DC right now.

I'm also curious to see how much of a deal the wingnut bloggers will make when the first Democrat is implicated in this fiasco.

As for me, I don't care if the pocket-liners are Democratic or Republican. Let's shine a light on them and get them out of there.

Yeharr

Torture

2005-12-29T20:11:00.000-08:00

Craig Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. He complained too loudly about the repeated human rights violations that the Uzbek government was involved in, such as boiling dissidents alive. He protested vociferously about the use of information gathered by torture in the war on terror. He pointed out that the information gathered was of no use anyhow, that the confessions were from 'dupes' who were signing confessions that made it look like the Uzbeks were fighting the same war as the US and UK. I don't know about you, but if I was made to sit and watch as my children were tortured, I would sign just about anything to get them to stop.

That's one of the techniques that was used by Uzbeks. Torturing children in front of parents.

Hell, at least they weren't boiled alive.

Oops, they do that too.

Well, Craig Murray didn't think that was the right way to fight a war on terror. So he protested. He was removed from office. He said he would publish the memos he had made while Ambassador. Citing the Official Secrets Act, the British Government banned him from doing that. He did it anyway.

That link was working when I looked this afternoon. It's not working now. (UPDATE: It appears to be working again. 9:40 am 12/31/05) Luckily, bloggers picked it up, and are posting it around the world. Here in the US, Kos, among others, have published it.

As I read them, what I notice is that no one is really denying that the UK is using evidence gained by torture. There was even a rather nit-picky memo sent by a legal adviser pointing out that, essentially, not illegal to recieve evidence obtained by torture. The answer, essentially is it's legal as long as it doesn't make it to court.

Here's part of one memo:

1. We receive intelligence obtained under torture from the Uzbek intelligence services, via the US. We should stop. It is bad information anyway. Tortured dupes are forced to sign up to confessions showing what the Uzbek government wants the US and UK to believe, that they and we are fighting the same war against terror.

2. I gather a recent London interdepartmental meeting considered the question and decided to continue to receive the material. This is morally, legally and practically wrong. It exposes as hypocritical our post Abu Ghraib pronouncements and fatally undermines our moral standing. It obviates my efforts to get the Uzbek government to stop torture they are fully aware our intelligence community laps up the results.

3. We should cease all co-operation with the Uzbek Security Services they are beyond the pale. We indeed need to establish an SIS presence here, but not as in a friendly state.

So what's the US position on this? Uzbekistan is given a quarter billion dollars in aid annually, three-fifths of which is military.

In an era when so many jobs are being outsourced to other countries, it's nice to know we do the same thing with our torture.

Yeharr

ID and Ego

2005-12-28T00:20:00.000-08:00

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

-Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, p. 26

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Katzmiller, et al, v. Dover Area School District, et al pp136-137

Last Wednesday, the ever-thoughful Polanco blogged about the decision handed down in Pennsylvania regarding Intelligent Design. The very first comment made was from a woman who wrote: "It's amazing how many evolutionists are scared of alternative theories. "

Hoo boy.

That comment pisses me off no end. I have spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out why it pisses me off. And I discovered that it was because it sums up a whole plethora of misconceptions many have about the whole kerfuffle. Let me count the ways:

First off: The use of the term evolutionist. Webster's defines an evolutionist as "a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution." That's fine, but I'm getting the feeling that this term is being bandied about by those who would like to see Intelligent Design incorporated into high-school science classes in much the same way as others are using terms like 'abortionist' and 'liberal'--in other words, with scorn and disdain. As an exercise, I typed 'evolutionist' in the 'search blogs' window at the top of the screen, and sure enough, the majority of bloggers on the top of the list (first three pages) were supporters of ID. This doesn't suggest that the majority of blogger out there support ID. It does, however, suggest that the majority of bloggers who use the term 'evolutionist' aren't supporters of evolution.

I keep telling myself this isn't a valid scientific process, but then I remind myself that the proponents of ID don't seem to be too keen on valid science, so fuck it.

Then, I went to google and searched 'evolutionist theory,' and found a whole bunch of 'talking point' websites, and almost as many sites 'debating' (as polite a word as I can come up with) the issue.

What I didn't find was a whole bunch of actual evolutionists who had anything to say about the issue. Again, I'm not saying they are silent on the subject; just that I couldn't find any using popular web searches.

My conclusion: Evolutionists really aren't debating this topic.

And why should they? They left this topic years ago. Perhaps a century ago.

This goes to the second part of the sentence--that evolutionists are scared of alternative theories.

As far as I can tell, true evolutionists--scientists who have made the study of evolution their life's work--are no more scared of the 'alternative theory' of Intelligent Design than geologists are scared of the the alternative theories of the Flat Earth Society.

In other words: evolutionists aren't really in this debate at all. Shouldn't that tell us something?

They aren't in this debate because, in my opinion--and in the opinion of the Republican, Bush-appointed judge who handed down this ruling--this debate really isn't about evolution, or Intelligent Design, or anything at all scientific.

So what's it about? It's about free thinking.

Look at it this way: The odds of any one of those ninth-graders in the Dover School District growing up to be an elite research scientist in any field is probably comparable to the odds of any of those kids growing up to be a Major League Baseball player. This isn't a slam on their intelligence any more than it's a slam on their physical prowess. Statistically, there's not a lot of either types in the general population. In fact, twenty-five years from now, those kids will probably know more about baseball than evolutionary theory.

That's because, on the whole, the evolution/ID debate doesn't really matter. It will honestly matter less in their lives than the wins and losses of the Phillies.

What matters--what really is to me the heart and soul of this debate--is that, for those ninth graders, many of them for the first time in their lives, will be asked to think. To conjecture. To come up with conclusions that they will have to factually support.

That's the true importance of high-school science for the overwhelming majority of us. It teaches us to weigh facts. It gives us a structure to reach rational conclusions. It give us a tool to use when deciding what to do. That is the great gift of science. The ability to be dispassionate about something.

By introducing ID into the fray at this point, in the venue of science the message becomes muddied. One of my Dad's favorite cartoons showed two researchers in front of a huge blackboard. The left side of the blackboard was filled with this huge mathematical equation, as was the right side. In the middle, were four words: 'Then a miracle occurs.' And one researcher says to the other: 'I think you might have a problem with step number two.'

Intelligent Design wants you to belive there is no problem with step number two.

Perhaps there isn't. But the debate over that should not ever be in ninth-grade science.

Yeharr

Distinguished Leaders of the Right comment on the President's actions

2005-12-21T22:25:00.000-08:00

These are their direct quotes:

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.):

And we all share in the emotional trauma getting back to our subject of this constitutional crisis in which we are ensnared. But this cup cannot pass us by, we can't avoid it, we took an oath of office, Mr. Speaker, to uphold the Constitution under our democratic system of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

And we must fulfill that oath and send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial. Now I say personally, and all of you who know me, and a lot of you do, I've been around a long time; I bear no personal animosity towards the president. But we in the House did not seek this constitutional confrontation.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.):

How can we expect a Boy Scout to honor his oath if elected officials don't honor theirs? How can we expect a business executive to honor a promise when the chief executive abandons his or hers?

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.):

How did this great nation of the 1990s come to be? It all happened Mr. Speaker, because freedom works. . . . But freedom, Mr. Speaker, freedom depends upon something. The rule of law. And that's why this solemn occasion is so important. For today we are here to defend the rule of law. According to the evidence presented by our fine Judiciary Committee, the president of the United States has committed serious transgressions.

Among other things, he took an oath to God, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And then he failed to do so. Not once, but several times. If we ignore this evidence, I believe we undermine the rule of law that is so important that all America is. Mr. Speaker, a nation of laws cannot be ruled by a person who breaks the law. Otherwise, it would be as if we had one set of rules for the leaders and another for the governed. We would have one standard for the powerful, the popular and the wealthy, and another for everyone else.

This would belie our ideal that we have equal justice under the law. That would weaken the rule of law and leave our children and grandchildren with a very poor legacy. I don't know what challenges they will face in their time, but I do know they need to face those challenges with the greatest constitutional security and the soundest rule of fair and equal law available in the history of the world. And I don't want us to risk their losing that....

You knew they were talking about Clinton, right? This and more great nostalgic travels in hypocrisy from Democratic Underground.

Is Fox News our Al Jazeera?

2005-12-21T15:55:00.000-08:00

Just asking. I've quoted this before:

But what really separates Fox from the competition is its unabashed use of religion as a divisive weapon. Common sense -- and common courtesy -- have long dictated that personal religious beliefs be kept out of news reporting unless the story at hand involves religion. But on Fox, it’s not uncommon for an anchor to raise the issue of a guest’s religion, or lack thereof, a’ propos of nothing. (more)

John Moody, of course, at the bottom of it. He was there at the start, Under Roger Ailes, who have such a pro-right, religous oriented agenda.

"There is a formula to Fox's news agenda. "A lot of the people we have hired," Fox executive John Moody explained (Inside Media, 12/11/96) when the network was launched, "have come without the preconceptions of must-do news. There are stories we will sometimes forego in order to do stories we think are more significant. The biggest strength that we have is that Roger Ailes has allowed me to do that; to forego stores that would be 'duty' stories in order to focus on other things."

That's code, of course, for religious oriented, divisive programming, conservative biased programming, etc.

Former CBS producer Don Dahler resigned from Fox after executive John Moody ordered him to change a story to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks. (Moody says the change was journalistically justified--New York, 11/17/97.) According to the Columbia Journalism Review (3-4/98), "several" former Fox employees "complained of 'management sticking their fingers' in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes." Said one: "I've worked at a lot of news organizations and never found that kind of manipulation."

Looks and sounds like a news channel with reporters, interviews and headlines, but has a political and religious agenda. Yeah, I was right. They're our Al Jazeera.

Oh, this is intersting too: FOX NEWS in rating free fall:

TV Newser cited a CNN press release which gave these totals for Fox's primetime audience in the 25 to 54 age bracket: Oct. 04: 1,074,000; Nov. 04: 891,000; Dec. 04: 568,000; Jan. 05: 564,000; Feb. 05: 520,000; March 05: 498,000; April 05: 445,000. That amounts to a decline of 58 percent, with no sign of leveling off.

Other cable stations' ratings were also down since the election, but CNN's, for example, appeared to have stabilized last month while Fox's continued to drop. (more)

So This Is Christmas

2005-12-20T23:14:00.000-08:00

"War is over, if you want it."

John Lennon - 1971

He's still singing to us.

Happy Christmas.

Finally

2005-12-18T23:39:00.000-08:00

The advantage to having a President who didn't pay much attention in school, isn't exactly sure what the right thing to do in any situation is, doesn't trust himself intellectually and because of that holds on to simplistic black and white concepts because he can understand and defend them, is that he is eventually going to drop the ball, one that he's quite good at carrying by the way as he mis-leads down the field, but drop the ball nonetheless. And he finally did that on Friday when he admitted that he broke the law.

It dropped jaws on both sides of the aisle, because as much as his administration has screwed up under his watch, he himself has never been linked directly to a crime. Until now.

The irony of it is, he still doesn't get it.

After The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal.
During an unusual live, on-camera version of his weekly radio address, Bush said such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." (CNN)

Um...no.

"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Other key bipartisan members of Congress also called on the administration to explain and said a congressional investigation may be necessary. (CNN the next day)

There's something called the fourth ammendment:

Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, note that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires a show of probable cause before warrants are issued. Also, the Communications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Criminal Code have provisions limiting or banning the interception of electronic communications. (USA Today)(the next day)

But being a President who has no interest in his own schooling, traveling, history, or historical context, he couldn't imagine why his own idea that seemed good, isn't good enough. Why doesn't it just trump constitutional context, or legal violation? What's the big deal?

Well, when you live in a little bubble I suppose you could decide that torture was okay too, or that dropping the guarantee of a minimum wage to those in a national disaster area desperate for jobs was okay, or that changing social security to a private plan the in NO WAY IMPROVED the senior payment plan and might REDUCE it but would make walls street rich was okay.... and on and on...

Which is not a bad track record for one leader who over and over again proves he is unfit to lead or is unfit for office. But now that he's admitted to breaking the law, there's ground for impeachment.

You know, the oath for the office of President is not particularly long. And except for the extra adjectives and some decorative prepositions basically says: "I promise to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the constitution and the laws of this country."

Period. That's it. You don't even have to take a test and get a license.

So - signing or giving an order that is a violation of the law of this country is grounds for impeachment. It violates the oath of office. That's what Nixon did. Supposedly that's what Clinton did, it's what Starr hung his whole case on "A constitutional officer LIED." (I never slept with that woman). It wasn't the act of sex, it was the LIE.

Well, Bush has that in droves. The great irony here is that his one TRUTH he's proudly splashing across the media and in his TV address is that he broke the law.

And he still doesn't get it.

In 2006, when all the diebold machines are recalled for their security failures, or the company folds because of its SEC violations (two counties already recalled them in Florida), and the votes in this country are really counted, and Democrats win back either the House or the Senate, watch everyone be tired of the Bushit and start the process to Impeach.

A New Low

2005-12-16T15:04:00.000-08:00

A group called the Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License wants to put billboards like this up in North Carolina, Wisconsin and New Mexico, and is shocked--shocked--that anyone might consider this to smack of racism.

[North Carolina] Transportation Department spokesman Ernie Seneca called the premise for the ad “flat-out wrong [and] totally inaccurate” and said the ad itself was offensive.

As a person who has lived in North Carolina, I can honestly say that if the Tar Heel State thinks something is racially offensive, then you've got no wiggle room whatsoever in this area.

Now, I don't know if the goals of this group are worthy ones or not. Perhaps they are. I haven't really read anything about this possible loophole in the War on Violence Committed or Threatened by a Group to Intimidate or Coerce a Population. But the fact that they consider a billboard like this to be appropriate speaks volumes about our current social climate.

I remember driving through Indiana in the early '70's with my family, and seeing signs at the borders of some small towns that read "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you here." This sign doesn't match those for gut-level offensiveness; but they're damn close.

Yeharr

Tide is Turning. Tired of the Bushit

2005-12-16T10:41:00.000-08:00

This is a big deal:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47. (CNN) (From Raw Story)

It's because of support of the 70% of the country who write in, call, email and let these people know they are not happy with this administration. Period. These aren't leaders just suddenly doing the right thing, these are leaders reflecting a pissed off population who want to keep their jobs.