Impolitic Politics

2004-10-01T01:45:00.000-04:00

More lies from Fubya.

Orange Chimpy (if you watched him on the CSPAN split-screen) again says how he's had to 'comfort parents, husbands and wives' of our soldiers who have died over in Iraq.

Gee, must really be difficult to do that considering you have never, ever, attended even ONE Funeral!

NOT ONE.

GO KERRY!!

2004-04-24T17:27:00.000-04:00

Scathing food for thought, printed in its entirety.

AMERICAN SHADOW:

George W. Bush and the Presidency of lies

by Gus diZerega, Ph.D

During his debate with Al Gore, George W. Bush took credit for a patient's bill of rights law passed in Texas during his governorship. To be sure, in 1995 Texas passed such a law. But Governor Bush vetoed it. In 1997 the Texas legislature passed an even stronger bill by a veto-proof margin. Bush couldn't veto it without its being overridden. So he attacked the bill, saying "I am concerned that this legislation has the potential to drive up health care costs and increase the number of lawsuits" and refused to sign it. The bill automatically became law without his signature.

At no point did George Bush support any patients' bill of rights law that passed the legislature. Bush lied.

Bush was not reading from a prepared speech. He did not rely on research done by others. There was no compelling reason for him to bring the matter up. Further, he knew he had opposed the bill, and yet wanted American voters to believe he had supported it.

He must have been proud of his lie. During his campaign for President, Bush's website claimed "Under Governor Bush, Texas enacted some of the most comprehensive patient protection laws in the nation." And "While Washington was deadlocked, he passed a patients' bill of rights" (Conason, Big Lies, p. 44, NYT 3/20/00, p. A.16) No he didn't. He committed deliberate fraud on the American people.

It was one of many frauds. In August, 2003, when the Northeast and parts of Canada had a major power black out. Bush took the opportunity to say: "We'll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized. I happen to think it does, and have said so all along." (8/14/03) Another lie. In 2001 Bush opposed legislation providing loans of $350 million to modernize our power grid. Bush's Republicans voted three times on the measure, and each time they defeated it on a party line vote. Sitting in the White House, with unparalleled access to the media, Bush could have spoken in its favor, but did not. That the vote defeating this legislation was along party lines indicates where his real views lay. Bush did nothing to urge passage, nor did he disagree when Tom DeLay termed the measure "pure demagoguery."

The trained gibbons masquerading as news reporters in this country missed this lie as well.

Claiming to be the "education president," while debating Gore Bush declared "Every single child in American must be educated, I mean every child. . . . There's nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child." During 2001 his "No Child Left Behind Act" was passed, creating a powerful federal presence in education throughout the country. Once the media departed, Bush started leaving children behind big time.

Today states teetering on bankruptcy are held responsible for federally mandated testing and administration, without receiving federal money to cover those mandates. In New Hampshire, a conservative state, the School Administrator's Association claims federal programs added a cost of about $575 per student, while adding funding of $77 per student. Democrats like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George Miller of California say they supported the president on his assurances that the government would give states enough money to comply with it. Bush then asked for $12 billion to continue that financing in 2004, $6 billion less than the legislation authorizes.

The New York Times reports Rep. Miller said: "We raised this in the Oval Office, we raised this in our meetings with the president," Miller added "He assured us that the funds would be there if the reforms were there. This is calculated conservatism, and they calculate just as much as they can get away with. You can dress it all up, but at the end of the day he broke his promise. It's not much more complicated than that." Bush lied about his concern for educating children. There would be more money available for actually educating children if Bush's law had never been passed.

After the US toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, he promised the new leaders that Afghanistan would receive a "Marshall Plan" to rebuild that forlorn country. The original Marshall Plan was devised by President Truman, General George Marshall, and a bipartisan congress to rebuild Western Europe, saving it from communism. It was very successful.

Bush's 2004 budget allocated Afghanistan zero dollars for rebuilding. An embarrassed congress added some $300 million. A relative pittance for a place like Afghanistan. Meanwhile the US continues to support Afghan warlords, undermining any chance Afghanistan has for creating unity and peace. Bush's promise to Afghanistan was worth less than the time it took him to make it. Now, as conditions markedly deteriorate, Congress is moving towards substantially increasing our aid to Afghanistan, lest it once again sink into anti-American chaos. But when asked by the media, Bush and his courtiers repeat that everything is going according to plan. Another lie.

We have all heard a great deal about Bush's 2003 State of the Union message, and his false statements about Iraq's supposed attempts to buy yellowcake uranium from Nigeria. The media first discussed this issue in isolation from his other lies. Mostly they still do, although at least they are now beginning to notice his many other lies regarding Iraq.

For example, on September 7, 2002, Bush told reporters "I would remind you that when the inspectors went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied, access, a report came out of the Atomic - IAEA - that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."( Wash. Post., 10/22/2002, p. A01) This report never existed. The IAEA did once report that Iraq was between six and twenty-four months away from a bomb before the Gulf War. The war and subsequent inspections, of course, utterly destroyed these facilities.

Bush also referred to an agency report revealing satellite photos exposing new construction at several nuclear related sites. A few weeks later the IAEA said there was no such report on that issue, either.

One month later, on October 7, Bush warned us "we have discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft able to target the United States. Within a month the CIA reported what should have been obvious: Hussein's aircraft were potentially a "serious threat to Iraq's neighbors and to international military forces in the region." There was no way they could reach the US. The White House then suggested they could be launched from ships or trucks against us. But Iraq had no navy and there is no highway access to the US, as a quick look at any world map would show.

THERE IS NO END to Bush's dishonesty on this matter. Until recently, the White House web site headlined the speech Bush gave on May 1 on the USS Abraham Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, as "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." Now it says "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." A small thing, perhaps, but symbolic of the utter lack of integrity in the man.

See:
Report on spinsanity.org

Perhaps Bush's biggest lie of all regarding Iraq was his repeated claim that we needed to attack to prevent an Iraqi based or inspired attack on ourselves. In October of 2002, Bush told us Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. . . We know the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX gas." Many Americans were convinced that our country was in danger and ignorantly attacked any fellow citizens who disagreed as disloyal. The man who campaigned as a "uniter not a divider" divided the country deeply on the basis of his lies, as he still does.

(For now the definitive discussion of Bush's falsehoods over Iraq is this report by the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39500-2003Aug9.html For a good and careful listing of many [hardly all] of the lies Bush has told the American people, see http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#GWBush)

After 9/11, we were almost unanimous as a people. We overwhelmingly supported ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan. The civilized world stood united behind us, a moment almost unknown in world history. The breakdown of our cohesion was not due to lack of patriotism by Democrats but the misuse of calls for patriotism by George Bush. The same is true for the breakdown in international trust.

As a click on our George Bush Card site, and investigation of the links there reveals, George Bush has accumulated a record of lying to the American people that probably surpasses the combined lies of any two or three earlier Presidents. Maybe all of them combined. The basic reason is simple, and goes beyond Bush's own personal psychopathology.

Usually Presidents try and sell their programs to the people. Bush knows his real programs would be unpopular if they were understood. He therefore tries to slip them by under false pretenses, and often succeeds. Proof of my claim is that the proposals stray the same while the reasons shift all over the place. Such was the case with drilling in the Alaska national Wildlife refuge, the tax cut, and attacking Iraq. After 9-11 Bush added the rhetoric of "national security" to his reasons why we should do what he demanded. National security is a real enough problem, one he handled incompetently even before 9-11. After that atrocity, Bush appropriated our anger and grief to stampede us into pursuing the narrowest partisan purposes.

We Americans take great pride in our being cynical about politicians. Believing in our own worldly wisdom, we fall victim to a politician who lies differently from others. Clinton lied about his sexual life. Most politicians exaggerate the promises they make and their opponent's failings. They also speak vaguely, trying to make everyone happy. These are the kinds of lies and evasions that are typical of democratic politics. They won't go away.

George Bush's major lies are different. He lies to give us the impression he is doing the opposite of what he is in fact doing, or to get us to support him for false reasons because he could not think of a truthful reason convincing to us. This lying is new, and corrosive to public trust. A politics of perpetual lies makes it impossible for us to think clearly about issues. Up is down and black is red. As a people, we are unprepared for manipulative cynicism on this scale.

Manipulation
Fun is often made of Bush's famous inability to speak English coherently. His lies are often explained away as only his inability to make himself clear. But Bush's prepared remarks are written in advance, and often carefully designed to give the American people one impression while never actually saying it. He then has cover. Bush's speech writers have perfected the tactic of deceptive terminology far beyond Clinton's wondering what "is" means.

Quickly read the following excerpt from a speech Bush gave to some American veterans, as if you were hearing it only once, in the context of longer remarks:

"Having fought under the American flag and seen it folded and given to families of your friends, you are committed, as am I, to protecting the dignity of the flag and the Constitution of the United States."

It SOUNDS like Bush is saying he fought under the flag rather than going AWOL from his safe National Guard position. But that is not what he literally says: that he shares the same patriotic sentiments as those who "fought under the American flag." So he is covered - except that no one speaks that way. The odd terminology in the context of a speech gives his audience a different, and false, message.

On domestic issues Bush is as deceptive. For example, after attention was called to his lying about a non-existent report by respected economists that he cited in defense of his tax cuts, rather than back down, he continued to repeat his assertion in a slightly less specific way that nonetheless implies to the casual listener that the Blue Chip is basing its analysis on the passage of a bill similar to his. (http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_03_02_archive.html#90397728)

Another example was Bush's reference to the British Government's report as backing up his claims about Iraq and Saddam's alleged attempts to build atomic weapons. When it became clear that the evidence did not exist, Condoleeza Rice said in defense: "The statement that (Bush) made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that." Bush was only telling us what the British said, he never intended to suggest that was what he said. Subsequent events destroyed this contemptible attempt to justify lying to us through tricky wording. (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe232-20030803-02.html)

Bush misleads in this fashion over and over again. For example, regarding Hussein's supposed relationship with bin Laden, the "liberal" New York Times wrote on August 26, 2003, "Mr. Bush has never accused Iraq under Saddam Hussein of a direct role in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. " Yet somehow the majority of Americans ended up thinking exactly that.

A quick look at some of Bush's statements demonstrate the subtle deceptions in his words, and explain why the majority of Americans were misled.

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." 9/25/2002
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." 10/7/2002
"We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind," 10/14/02
"This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks." 10/31/02
"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda." 11/1/02
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." 1/28/03
For these and more see: http://www.lunaville.org/WMD/ALQ_uggab.aspx

As "underwhelm" observed in a blog discussion of Bush's dishonesty:

"It's an almost reckless act to listen first hand to the man speak because so many of his lies are packed between the words and you may come away thinking exactly what he intends for you to think without him ever having to say those things explicitly." (underwhelm; 08.26.03 - 10:54 pm; on http://atrios.blogspot.com)

Many patriotic Americans believe we must trust Bush because he is our President. They do not want to listen to the man in the Oval Office with the same skepticism they would when listening to a used car salesman. It is these trusting American men and women whom George Bush has most deeply betrayed. Also betraying them are the over-paid bozos and bimbos pulling in millions while telling us, as did Sean Hannity's after 9-11: "Thank God, we have an honest man in the White House!"

A viable democracy requires informed citizens. Most citizens have neither time nor interest to stay on top of the news, but enough do so that broad popular values tend to be represented in government policies, at least on the most visible issues. (That is why visibility and publicity is so important.) But when discovering what is happening becomes difficult even for citizens interested in politics, this process breaks down. Perpetual lying by those in office strikes at the heart of American democracy.

But perpetual lying is not George Bush's only blow against political freedom.

Secrecy and Intrusion
At the same time Bush is lying to us, he is leading an unprecedented effort to increase government secrecy while opening up the private actions of every citizen to the prying eyes of federal officials.

With his support, Dick Cheney has stonewalled a Government Accounting Office investigation into the devising of his energy plan. The GAO cannot even learn how much tax money was spent in Cheney's operation. That's our money. Cheney's secrecy only makes sense if he has something to hide. If he was meeting primarily with Enron and other companies to craft a plan to their benefit. The content of his energy plan suggests this was exactly what he was doing.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/26/politics/main570137.shtml)

After he took office, Bush appointee John Ashcroft instructed federal agencies that the Justice Department would look favorably on efforts to withhold information by federal agencies. Bush himself sealed Ronald Reagan's presidential records even though federal law allowed for their being made available. This safeguarded Cheney and Bush, sr.'s records during the Contra Scandals from any oversight by historians. He did the same for his records as governor of Texas, unlike earlier Texas governors.

Bush has continued with a number of increases in secrecy, each small, but when taken as a whole, substantial. Mark Tapscott of the Conservative Heritage Foundation wrote "Why does the White House sometimes seem so determined to close the door on the people's right to know what their government is doing?"

In a report on the growing secrecy in the Bush administration, George Washington University's National Security Archive observed "The practice of implementing small changes all tending towards secrecy, instead of taking dramatic steps to restrain access, makes it much harder to evaluate the impact and, indeed, to fight the changes. It is, undoubtedly, more difficult to garner public support for opposition to minor changes when more pressing issues, like an impending war, are competing for public attention.
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB84/)

Secrecy comes in many small steps, leaving us increasingly ignorant of what our supposed officials are doing. Our place is to be quiet, ignorant, and obedient - patriotism, Bush style.

For Bush, secrecy is a one way street. Citizens have no such rights. The so-called "Patriot" act, the proposed "Victory" act, and the "Total Information Awareness" project all promised to give Bush and his officials almost complete knowledge over the activities of any citizen that comes to their attention. And to have it secretly. All this snooping is supposedly to fight terrorism, but as has been demonstrated, the government already had the information they needed to prevent 9-11. What they did not have was the competence. There is no need for such an intrusion into our affairs.

And who should Bush put in charge of the government's efforts to know everything about us but Admiral John Poindexter, a man who lied under oath and in uniform. He avoided prison on a technicality. Interestingly, among Poindexter's crimes was destroying government records. Poindexter likes secrecy too, so long as it is in his favor.

In a nation of 280 million citizens and tens of thousands of loyal officers, Bush could find no one more in keeping with his values to oversee the government's ability to investigate every American's private life than a man who dishonored himself, his country and his uniform. Quite a message to send the American people. Rather the opposite from the lie he told us during his campaign: "I'll bring in a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house." (1/15/00)

By encouraging perpetual fear among us, Bush creates an environment where we are afraid to question him because he claims to be all that stands between us and destruction. By demonizing everyone who disagrees with him as disloyal, his henchmen imply again that the safety of the nation depends on our agreeing with George Bush.

Why The Lies? Crony Capitalists
Part of the explanation for this unprecedented dishonesty rests on George Bush's character, or rather lack of it. But this is not all of the explanation, nor is it the most important part of it.

Underneath George Bush's earnest visage lies a blind allegiance to two powerful forces, both deeply aware they are not supported by most Americans. One of these groups we and others call the "crony capitalists." Pretend businessmen who speak the language of free enterprise while never turning down an opportunity to profit at the expense of taxpayers, share holders, or employees. American capitalism is not supposed to be a zero sum game, but where crony capitalists dominate, it has become one. They are parasites on our creative spirit, and like all successful parasites, they have taken on the coloration of their host, even as they drain its vitality.

The most egregious example is Halliburton, which continues to pay Cheney while he holds office, even though his contract did not require it. Once this would have been called conflict of interest, but that was before Bush brought "decency" into the White House. Halliburton has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion out of Operation Iraqi Freedom and stands to make hundreds of millions more dollars under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, according to newly available documents. Other companies were not allowed to bid. These contracts were "cost plus" meaning Halliburton cannot lose money. Free enterprise, Bush style.

Due to unfavorable publicity when this favoritism first came to light, the Army Corps of Engineers explained that the sole award to Halliburton subsidiary Brown and Root would be replaced by a competitively bid contract. But the Washington Post reported "the deadline for announcing the results of the competition has slipped from August to October, causing rival companies to complain that little work will be left for anybody else. Bechtel, one of Halliburton's main competitors, announced this month that it would not bid for the corps contract and would instead focus on securing work from the Iraqi oil ministry."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56429-2003Aug27.html)

Bechtel also has benefited from crony capitalism, but doesn't have a recent CEO still on the pay roll sitting in the Vice President's office. American big business is less and less a matter of success in the market place, and more and more a matter of corruption and favoritism.

How bad is this? A recent blog out of Iraq helps us see how capitalism Bush style puts the lie to all the "free market" types who still say he's on their side:

"Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we'll call the company H. This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures to anyone who'll listen.

"As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone from the CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] wanted the company to estimate the building costs of replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage, decided it wasn't too extensive, but it would be costly. They did the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor, contractors, travel expenses, etc. . . .

"A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an American company. This particular company estimated the cost of rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!"
(riverbendblog.blogspot.com; 1 August 2003)

No wonder Bremer is running out of money and asking for more funding by American taxpayers. But getting rich off taxpayers is nothing new to George Bush, who relied on eminent domain to force people to sell their homes so he could build a tax subsidized baseball stadium. This was the first time in Texas history that a city used eminent domain to enrich one group of private citizens at the expense of another.

Bush's personal business practices set the moral tone that is followed by so many in his administration, and among his crony capitalist allies. For example, the corporate scandals of 2000 where CEO's and crooked accountants were ripping off shareholders were in perfect harmony with Bush's actions while on Harken's board of directors. The SEC has refused to release its reports on Bush's insider trading, saying it needs his permission, which it will never get. ( See for example, Joe Conason, Big Lies, pp. 146-170) Cheney's work at Halliburton seems to have sunk to a similar ethical depth, with the same slick accounting practices that deceived Enron's employees and share holders. With rot like this at the top, we should not be surprised it has spread so far through our society.

Why the Lies? The Religious Right
The other key element in this un-American Coalition of the Corrupt is the so-called Christian Right. Most Americans have religious faith. So does this author. But for most of us our faith is personal, and we do not seek to impose it on others. We do not seek to seize political power to further our religious views.

To the extent they are sincere and not just cynical manipulators, the radicals in the Christian Right have forgotten the long history of suffering and violence that inevitably comes when church and state come together. America consistently ranks as the most religious modern nation. It also has the longest history of separation of church and state. These two traits are connected. Nothing breeds disillusion over religion faster than corrupt preachers enjoying the privileges of power and wealth.

Because the Christian Right is aware that most of us share neither their values nor their goals, they operate through stealth. Because they regard their opponents as Satanic, any attack, any slander, is permitted so long as it furthers their cause. For Pat Robertson the Satanic forces he battles include even "Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists." Small wonder that Ralph Reed, one of the politically most astute Christian Rightists, compares his methods to guerilla war, praising deception and deceit: "I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag." (http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~dionisio/queer/Origins/reed.html)

This paragon of Christian virtue argues "The first strategy and in many ways the most important strategy for evangelicals is secrecy. Sun Tzu says that's what you have to do to be effective at war and that's essentially what we're involved in, we're involved in a war. It's not a war fought with bullets, it's a war fought with ballots."(Joseph L. Conn, "Judgment Day," Church and State, September, 1996)

And in war, unlike politics, the target is the destruction of your opponent. There is no loyal opposition."

The man most responsible for the rise of genuine conservatism in the Republican Party, Barry Goldwater, put it about right: "I don't have any respect for the Religious Right. There is no place in this country for practicing religion in politics. That goes for Falwell, Robertson, and all the rest of the political preachers. They are a detriment to the country." (Barry Goldwater, The Advocate)

Goldwater, unlike Robertson, Falwell, DeLay or Bush, spoke in the finest tradition of American Constitutionalism. We would do well to remember James Madison's wise words on the subject, for they are as true today as they were when he wrote them:

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

And:

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821)

These two groups, the crony capitalists and the Religious Right, are now the dominant factions in the Republican Party. They control positions of leadership through stealth, manipulation, discipline, and money. True conservatives and adherents to limited government and fiscal responsibility are silenced, bullied into submission by the claims that they need to support these liars and thieves to defeat the "liberals". Under the leadership, partly symbolic and partly real, of George W. Bush, they have hijacked the Republican Party's institutions, creating a unique blend of great wealth, great ferocity and smug self-righteousness. Using the trust many Americans had in the Republican Party, they rode it to power. Never has an American government spoken so much of compassion and morality and practiced it so little.

And Neo-Cons Make Three
The Radical Right's Coalition of the Corrupt is allied with a third group, now called "neo-conservatives."

Like the others, there is nothing particularly conservative about them. They also repudiate the basic principles of the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers, and, infatuated by our military power, would replace the timeless principles of the Declaration of Independence with the dream of American hegemony over all the peoples of the earth. Bill Kristol and others fantasize about all the good that can come from a "benign hegemony" of the Americans over everyone else. In the name of freedom they take our country along a road that undermines freedom here while failing to establish it abroad.

We have had a taste of this already, for opposition to American hegemony is described as lack of patriotism, even though the principles our country was founded on denied the right of hegemony to anyone. There is little that can be more alien to our founding principles and constitution that equating the country with the government, and the government with a leader. That fallacy is what we fought a revolution over in 1776.

Among the men who lust after the ring of power are Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Perle. Because they want us to rule over others, they have made a convenient alliance with the crony capitalists, who wish to rule over our pocket books, and the religious Right, which wishes to rule over our souls. Together, they have divvied us up as a people, ready to be plucked, basted, and roasted.

Assault on democracy
Polls and focus groups continually tell these people that most Americans disagree with their real aims. Because democracy thrives on robust public debate which explores competing ideas and values, and exposes crooked and corrupt leaders, this presents a problam. Their solution is of unusual cynicism: to deliberately destroy reasonable political discussion in this country, turning every issue into a battle of "good" versus "evil" and then claim the mantle of "good".

For example, Republican strategist Newt Gingrich's campaign committee, GOPAC, published a handbook for Republican candidates. One section was titled "Language, a Key Mechanism of Control." Please note his use of the term "control." Gingrich recommended that Democrats always be described in words such as anti-flag, anti-family, anti-child, bizarre, cheat, coercion, corrupt, decay, destructive, devour, hypocrisy, intolerant, liberal, lie, pathetic, selfish, sick, they and them, and even traitors. Such people are not to be reasoned with, they are to be crushed. When there was a loud protest, Gingrich later withdrew the "traitors" term. It is a sign of the continuing degeneration of political debate that DeLay and other Radical Right draft dodgers have shown no such hesitations.

For Republicans, Gingrich urged continual association with words such as care(ing), children, choice/choose, citizen, commitment, common sense, courage, crusade, dream, family, freedom, liberty, moral, peace, pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform, strength, success, tough, truth, vision, we/us/our. Dichotomize, then seize the good words, and people find it difficult to think clearly about what you are saying.

See:
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~breslin/texts/gingrich_GOPAC.html

In a guideline written for Republican members of Congress, Frank Lutz, Republican pollster and tactician, writes "Women consistently respond to the phrase 'for the children' regardless of the context.

From balancing the budget to welfare reform, 'for the children' scores highest of all arguments offered. Therefore, rather than creating a 'Compassion Agenda,' Republicans need to create a communication framework that involves children . . . ." (Deborah Tannen, Let Them Eat Words, American Prospect, Sept. 2003) It is no accident that Bush referred to children 11 times in a speech on tax cuts and in a speech on "faith based initiatives" -- the count was up to 35. (http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=11134)

People who fall for this ruse are easily manipulated into thinking Bush and the radical Rights share values similar to theirs. For example, Bush says "I am a fiscal conservative and a family conservative. And I am a compassionate conservative, because I know my philosophy is optimistic and full of hope for every American."

Bush's fiscal conservatism has led to lop sided tax cuts for the wealthy and incredible deficits that our children will be paying off for decades to come. Under Clinton our average deficit was 4.4%. Under Bush it is 21% and rising with each new estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

Bush's family oriented conservatism has certainly been demonstrated for wealthy families. But for many of the rest of us, Bush has undermined family leave, overtime, the 40 hour week, and family protection pay for soldiers - the kinds of measures that matter for most families, but are irrelevant for the wealthy.

Compassionate conservative? Give us a break. The rate of poverty is rising for the first time in a decade, Bush raised the number of hours mothers on public assistance need to work a week, without increasing payments for child care, tightened the earned income tax credit for the working poor - a measure initiated by Reagan and supported by Clinton, and I have already described what Bush did for his "No Child Left Behind" ruse.

As governor of Texas Bush deprived 200,000 children from poor working families subsidized health insurance, while simultaneously giving $2 billion in tax cuts to the Texas rich and another $45 million in tax breaks to oil interests. Texas was left with the highest number of uninsured low income children in the United States.

For more on the utter meaninglessness of Bush's talk about "compassion" see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/26/politics/26MEMO.html?hp

Radical Right sympathizers in the media have picked up this vocabulary of deceit, continually assaulting those they oppose as moral degenerates, cowards, traitors, and the like. Avoiding ever dealing with competing ideas and arguments, they wrap themselves in claims of virtue and patriotism, claims that evaporate in the light of clear thinking. Check out the manipulators and hypocrites in our Hearts suit to see how.

But all this falls on deaf ears if you accept the Radical right demonizing of those with whom they disagree. The key to understanding the dishonesty and ruthlessness of the Radical Right is freeing ourselves from seeing every issue and struggle in either/or terms. Bush's "with us or against us" approach to politics is the ethic of the bully, concerned with no one but himself. One either uncritically loves America and equates it with George Bush, or one hates it. Either one is moral or immoral. Either one is responsible, or irresponsible. As soon as we accept these dichotomies, our capacity to think for ourselves is undermined. As soon as we accept this extremist thinking, manipulative people can wrap themselves in the language of the good side, and attack their opponents as allied with the bad. People who fall for this approach are reduced to thinking in slogans.

Conclusion
Bit by bit, the Radical Right is destroying the possibilities for political discussion among well meaning citizens. They lie, manipulate, and debase the meanings of words, and attack, attack, attack all who question them. "Liberals" are now described by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay and other radicals in terms close to how Nazis described Jews. Other times liberals are equated with communists, even though it was liberals who created NATO laying the foundations for winning the Cold War without a major conflict and the millions of lives it would have cost. You are probably alive today because of a foreign policy based on containment, designed by Democrats and accepted by Republicans for decades. Far more major Democratic leaders in the government have served in the military than is true for the Radical Right. They walk their talk at least some of the time, the Radical Right just talks and talks, and seeks power.

Radical Rightists are systematically undermining the most important principle that makes democracy workable: that opposition can be loyal and legitimate. Mainstream TV now broadcasts threats and slander from the likes of Coulter, Horowitz, and O'Reilly that would never have been heard 20 years ago. Once people believe their neighbors are disloyal and illegitimate, it is easy to approve, or at least not oppose, violence against them. At the rate the Radical Right is escalating its rhetoric and tactics, that point is not far away. The leaders will have clean hands, but their tactics will have pushed their most extreme supporters to violence against other Americans. Their hands will be clean, but their souls will be filthy.

The message of this site and these cards is that the Radical Right's assault on America is rooted in lies, hypocrisy, and greed. It attacks all who disagree as morally reprehensible, to avoid having to deal with their ideas. But just as Ann Coulter's Slander is more self-description than analysis of her opponents, in moral degeneration and hypocrisy, the leaders of the radical Right are far worse offenders than most they attack. Our site prove it.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism, but it is those they attack who far more often wore their country's uniform in time of war. The Radical right gives patriotism a dirty name. They besmirch the heritage of all of us.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders preach democracy abroad, and kill in its name, while undermining it at home.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders piously proclaim their "Christianity," but their hypocrisy and dishonesty stink to the heavens. They preach the virtues of private charity, but in practice mostly enrich themselves, usually at the expense of others.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders claim devotion to the "free market," while using government and legal privilege to stuff their pockets at taxpayer and share holder expense.

Radical Right political, moral, and media leaders use ideas not to seek truth or the common good, but as weapons of deceit and division, tools to win power and wealth.

Let's let one of the most prominent spokespeople for the Radical Right have the last word, though we think he will not enjoy it in this new context. Bill Bennett wrote in The Wall Street Journal on October 11, 2000: "If the Clinton years have taught us anything, it is that character matters in a president. . . . As the public considers for whom it will vote on Nov. 7, it should recall the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

Deal-With-It.org

2004-04-19T13:53:00.000-04:00

Death of my baby.

This blog will be on indefinite hiatus.

2004-04-16T09:19:00.000-04:00

"Spurned Blair in plea to Bush"

Prime Minister Tony Blair, in this Guardian article, "urges US president to restore 'even-handed' approach over Middle East peace "

Blair STILL doesn't realize you can't tell Bush anything?!
Geez
guess thick skulls are prerequisties for Head-of-State politics!

The Guardian also goes on to state in a "Comment" Sharon's triumph is Blair's defeat, By backing Israel's land grab, Bush has humiliated the prime minister It goes on to say:

It is a mark of his achievement that Sharon has persuaded the United States to bless this move. By packaging it as a withdrawal and a painful concession, he has won what few thought possible: US backing for the long-held dream of Sharon and the Zionist right - a permanent Israeli grip on crucial segments of the West Bank.

That's why Sharon looked fit to burst with pride at the White House podium on Wednesday. From his point of view, he had just shaken hands on a great deal. Gaza is a burden rather than an asset, a wretched place seething with poverty and violence, and of scant historic resonance for Jews. Giving it up is painful only to the most zealous of Israeli nationalists.

In return he has won a reversal of decades of US policy: no longer does Washington regard settlements as illegal and "obstacles to peace" but instead sees them as "new realities on the ground" to be recognised. By keeping them under Israeli rule, what's left of the West Bank will be sliced into a Swiss cheese that can never be the "viable" Palestinian state Bush still promises, thereby preventing the two-state solution which is surely the best hope for both peoples. As if that was not enough, Bush threw in a bonus, explicitly echoing the Israeli position that any return of Palestinian refugees will have to be to the future Palestinian state, not Israel.

It's well worth the time to read this article.
To finish this entry, I can't think of anything better than this quote (ibid):

one side, backed by the world's sole superpower, deciding the final dispensation without so much as talking to the other party.

This is ENGLAND talking about US?! OMG we're in really deep shite!

2004-04-15T12:50:00.000-04:00

Richard Clarke Redux

I've been staying out of the past couple days news, mainly because my head is going to explode if I read anymore trash of what's going on in Iraq
or Afghanistan

Or Palestine

Or Israel and the latest, very public, verbal 69 between Bush and Sharon.
I'm sure more will issue from that (heh heh) onto these pages in the near future, but until I can calmly cope with all that I've been catching up on some books and, in an effort of spring cleaning, going through a pile of old magazines with a view to keep or recycle.

From about the Oct. 2003 issue of Vanity Fair
(I have to estimate as this one is missing its cover and most of it's binding; the dragging of these magazines to the back yard, the boat, the beach and back --and lets not even TALK about that very bad pup whose mission it appears is to rip apart then chew on every known item in the universe!-- keeps them far from library-fresh!)
there's a 'keeper' article on the only planes flying in the days directly after 9-11-2001 were the private jets scarfing up the Bin Laden's and the Saud's to deliver them safely out of the country.

In the midst of the article is this (bold and all italics beyond book title {NOT Clarke's!-- note the DATE!} mine):

"...the White House terrorism czar, Richard Clarke, the head of the Counterterrorism Security Group of the National Security Council, chaired an ongoing crisis group making hundreds of decisions related to the attacks. A true Washington rarity, Clarke was a civil servant who had ascended to the highest levels of policymaking. As characterized in The Age of Sacred Terror, by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, Clarke was a man who broke all the rules. Beholden to neither Republicans nor Democrats, he refused to attend regular National Security staff meetings, sent insulting e-mails to this colleagues, and regularly worked outside normal bureaucratic channels. One of only two senior directors from the adminstration of the elder George Bush who were kept by Bill Clinton, Clarke, abrasive as he was, had continued to rise because of his genius for knowing when and how to push the levers of power."

Oh, so this is the guy who, so 'Chevron Condi' Rice says, the Bush the 2nd crew so altruistically kept on, to their now current dismay?!
SUCH a bunch of soft-hearted peeps that they are!! They're SO nice to people and those people just bone them in return! *gagging*

Yeah. Right.

Yes yes, we all know that Richard Clarke worked for a number of presidents, but this gives just a little more perspective on this their "bleeding-heart" decision does it not? But it was Clinton who kept on Bush the 1st's Richard Clarke!

LOL well I guess that in this one instance ...
when the Neo-CON's Whine and Cry that "It's ALL CLINTON'S FAULT"
...just this once they may be right!

God Bless Bill Clinton! God Bless Richard Clarke! ;^D

Oh man, I sure needed that little laugh! :D

2004-04-14T16:52:00.000-04:00

THIS is Spreading FREEDOM?!

The New York Times today in this article writes (italics mine):

And it is easy to find members of the administration who question whether L. Paul Bremer III, the administrator in Iraq, should have disbanded the army, or taken on Moktada al-Sadr, the fiery, anti-American Shiite cleric, without a clear plan to arrest or kill him.

KILLING an Iraqi cleric, who obviously is not alone in his protestations, is spreading Freedom?

Is "Freedom" served or in any way bestowed by KILLING DISSENTERS??!

Really now, is that what a Free Country does?

Oh. My. God.

This is not a defense of al-Sadr, he is serving absolutely NO good purpose with his shenanigans,
but I am aghast at the hypocritical bullshit that issues out of Washington's mouth in MY --OUR-- NAMES!
Is it any wonder why many Iraqi people do not seem to wholeheartedly subscribe to our version of "Democracy"? And, I assure you, the Iraqi people are not the only people who view our country's motives with deep suspicion.

The U.S. advice seems to consistently say 'Do as I say, not as I do.
There is one type of Democracy for US, and another type (separate but equal?) for YOU. '

Have the Washington Post and The New York Times been somehow switched?

Did they undergo cross-transplant of their brains?
Or courage?

Why does this Washington Post piece, Kerry Was Right even see the light of day at such a conservative paper, while the NY Times stays with lips firmly sewn to Bush's buttocks?

The New York Times, quite simply, has turned into a sham.
It's new motto may be: If you can't print any Pro-Bush propaganda, then don't print anything at all!

The paper that used to rank among the very strongest members of a truly Free Press has sunk so low it may well never recover.

And good riddance. Take Judith Miller and shove her... well, you know where. ;>

2004-04-13T16:44:00.000-04:00

Clubbing Baby Seals AGAIN?!

From The Humane Society of the United States, this paragraph stands out:

To focus on whitecoat vs. ragged coat or "beater," particularly when the difference between the two may be no more than a day, is to avoid the main point: that the vast majority of the animals killed in this hunt are very young. Moreover, to suggest, as many have, that seals who are ten or 11 days old are babies, while those who are 15 or 20 days old no longer are, seems trivial and misleading by any standard.

But please read the entire article -- it's a magnificent, powerful piece.

*Update* 4/14/04

Hey! I didn't know there were Holier-Than-Thou,
Know-It-All
& above all "COMPASSIONATE Conservatives" (Republicans, duh! :) in CANADA too!

On Saturday, Montreal's Gazette mockingly noted that "limousine liberals from Manhattan to Knightsbridge are fretting and signing petitions about the fate of the cute little seals off Canada's east coast"

The newspaper then offered a recipe for seal-flipper pie, a traditional Newfoundland dish.

2004-04-13T13:58:00.000-04:00

9/11 staff statement critical of FBI, Ashcroft

As for John Ashcroft, the report stated that the day before the Sept. 11 attacks, he rejected an FBI appeal for an extra infusion of money for counterterrorism, according to a Sept. 11 commission staff statement released Tuesday.

A second report quoted former Acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard as saying Ashcroft told him in the summer of 2001 that "he did not want to hear" additional information about possible attacks.
Ashcroft denies making the statement

Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh
although contending "We had a very effective program with respect to counterterrorism prior to Sept. 11 given the resources that we had," former Attorney General Janet Reno said that "Director Freeh seemed unwilling to shift resources to terrorism from other areas such as violent crime."

*chuckle* So here we go again, I can already hear the strains of Clinton-Did-It!

Darn you Clinton!!! *shaking fist*

2004-04-13T13:40:00.000-04:00

'Mommy, why are they whipping the bunny?'

--Little 4-year-old J.T. crying, asked his mother.

Easter Bunny Whipped At Church Show
Crying children and shocked parents are still reeling over the Easter Show put on by members of the Glassport Assembly of God church in Glassport, Pennsylvania.

The show continued with breaking the eggs meant for an Easter hunt, followed by the portrayal of a drunken man.
A 'self-mutilating woman' appeared to ring down the final curtain.

The youth minister "tried to act with a tone of irreverence."
No, I kid you not -- that was her word!

Why is Hate supplanting the compassionate Love of Jesus Christ?

And why is it so common, in this day and time?

My Lord, my Lord, Christians art giving Thou a bad name!

2004-04-12T23:22:00.000-04:00

WOOO HOOOOO

As of below time, the poll on MSNBC shows results of Question: If the presidential election was held this week, who would you vote for?
GW BOOsh 31%
John Kerry 66%
Ralph Nader 3%

RALPH 3%?! WTF
I mean, speaking of intellectual poverty! Who TF would throw away their vote for him?

BTW, above link is a great little article on Kerry & engaging students by helping tuition AND country -- but whatever happened to Clinton's AmeriCorps program?

2004-04-12T12:12:00.000-04:00

You Gotta Love the Reporters Down Under :D

Ran across this older article: Proof of WMD is Bush trailer trash

2004-04-12T10:33:00.000-04:00

What Should be Chanted outside of Bush's Office:

IT'S A SIN TO LIE!

2004-04-12T10:19:00.000-04:00

Chevron Condi

Italics mine:

BEN-VENISTE. ... Did you tell the president, at any time prior to Aug. 6, of the existence of al Qaeda cells in the United States?
RICE. First let me just make certain -
BEN-VENISTE. If you could just answer that question. Because I only have a very limited -
RICE. Well, first - I understand, Commissioner.
BEN-VENISTE. Did you tell the president?
RICE. But it's important that I also address - It's also important, Commissioner, that I address the other issues that you've raised. So I will do it quickly. But if you'll just give me moment.
BEN-VENISTE. Well, my only question to you is whether you told the president -
RICE. I understand, Commissioner, but I will, if you'll just give me a moment, I will address fully the questions that you've asked.
First of all, yes, the Aug. 6 P.D.B. was in response to questions of the president. In that sense, he asked that this be done. It was not a particular threat report. And there was historical information in there about - about various aspects of al Qaeda's operations. Dick Clarke had told me, I think in a memorandum - I remember it as being only a line or two - that there were al Qaeda cells in the United States. Now, the question is: What did we need to do about that? And I also understood that that was what the F.B.I. was doing, that the F.B.I. was pursuing these al Qaeda cells. I believe in the Aug. 6 memorandum it says that there were 70 full field investigations underway of these cells. And so there was no recommendation that we do something about this - the F.B.I. was pursuing it.
I really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president.
BEN-VENISTE. Thank you.
RICE. I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He'd talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.
BEN-VENISTE. Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 P.D.B. warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that P.D.B.
RICE. I believe the title was Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States. Now, the P.D.B. -
BEN-VENISTE. Thank you.
RICE. No, Mr. Ben-Veniste -
BEN-VENISTE. I will get into the -
RICE. I would like to finish my point here.
BEN-VENISTE. I didn't know there was a point.
RICE. Given that - you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks.
BEN-VENISTE. I asked you what the title was.
RICE. You said did it not warn of attacks. It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

What the FUCK?!

It was entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States" AND IT DID ***NOT*** WARN OF ATTACKS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES"??!!!
OMG
OMF'ING GAWD
OMG OMG OMG OMGF'ing GAWD HOW DO I GET A LARGER FONT HERE?! LOL
Cause this has GOT TO BE SCREAMED!

SURELY even the Neo-con's can understand that, can't they? Or are they so INTELLECTUALLY ALONG WITH MORALLY BANKRUPT, what with wishing death on most Iraqi's and Democrats, that they are unable to COMPREHEND?!

So this is the official GOP rhetoric:

--Terrorists Hate Freedom!
--The title (of the PDB) " Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States"
--It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did NOT, in fact, warn of any coming attacks INSIDEthe United States! ?? ROFLMAO
--We Invaded Them to Save Them!
--Wage war for peace!
--We know exactly where the WMD's in Iraq are!
--The end justifies whatever means!
--Lies are truth; truth, lies!
--It's not about oil!
--Con-Di Rice was on Board of Directors of Chevron just by CHANCE

Well, here's mine:

--(The) Right is Wrong!

2004-04-10T14:45:00.000-04:00

Has Big Brother Finally Gone Too Far?

I didn't realize masturbation was still termed self abuse.
And an arrestable offense?

Victims of Another War

How many unwinnable wars are we in now?

2004-04-10T12:47:00.000-04:00

Outed From the Garden

Oh lookie lookie here!
Randall Terry (the rabid anti-abortionist and anti-homosexual activist) told his own son that he was no longer welcome to visit his immediate family.

Why? Because --OMG!-- the son is GAY!

Ruined his NAME don'tcha know! (Randall Terry's, not the son's ...although I can see the other way around)

Yet another example of Professional Christians "Turning the other cheek", seems the overlord of Operation Rescue can't or won't let his son back in the house even though his little article is entitled MY PRODIGAL SON

Funny, I seem to remember the biblical father welcomed the prodigal son back.... with great joy!
Huh, better rewrite the Bible so it falls in line with the Fundies belief!

On the other hand -- seems God (Praise Him or Her!) has quite a sense irongy if not downright sense of humor on occasion!

2004-04-09T16:14:00.000-04:00

The Microcosm is the Macrocosm
(aka: If You Don't Like the "True Facts", Lie!)

I recall the title line from some old actuarial studies. I don't even remember if it was from a textbook or if any of my old professors happened to say it, but it has always stuck with me. It means something like: it's surprising how often a very small random sample or subset of a system mirrors its larger, total population (I believe even beyond the Student's T-Test). An apt metaphor today perhaps would be a very small thumbnail and of course the large parent picture.

The microcosm is the macrocosm.

Indeed.

And so is Yawning Boy and the White House reaction:
To Lie.

It wasn't too long ago that a very vocal section of our country loudly proclaimed its opinion of having enough of 'liars' in the White House; and elected (?) a candidate who, as a purported Born Again, didn't lie.

Skip forward a couple years. Years filled with banners spouting Mission Accomplished and flight suits for a guy who nobody actually remembers flying with in the National Guard. With Georgie Jr. in the barn on the ranch, sitting on hay bales signing bills. With little Georgie posed in front of Mt. Rushmore as if HIS head belonged up there next to the truly important statesmen in the history of our nation!
With every single set detail polished to a sometimes awkward, obviously unreal technicolored falsity. Everything tightly controlled.

Enter Tyler Crotty.
(no -- that IS his real name!)

We all know just such a child, possibly a bit spoiled and coddled, a good kid who perhaps isn't too awfully bright; or maybe a bit too bright, but he's acting stupid & yawning.
Again and again.
Tyler is still in that glorious age where he doesn't yet consider his external affect; how he looks to an audience -- he just is....
Take him or leave him.
The Bush group didn't like him, wanted most definitely to leave him.
At least initially.
Seems he didn't make good enough 'wallpaper' for a normal Bush piece of propaganda; call it a photo-op or a sound byte. Or a video byte.

Since he didn't show wide-eyed awe and wonder at the majesty and marvellousness of George Walker Bush speaking a mere few feet directly in front of him, as those who control the presidents environment think everything --animal vegetable or mineral-- should feel in Bush's presence; the first thing out of their mouths was
'It's a lie'.

Daryn Kagan, who first reported on CNN that the White House was calling the tape a fake

Quite simply they lied about it being a lie...

Until they were called liars.

CNN retracted that report Tuesday night, but only after Letterman had shown the clip of Kagan telling viewers that the White House said the tape was doctored, and only after Letterman had called the White House a bunch of liars. Twice.

What's surprising is the television station took the fall for the White House spin machine, although maybe not that surprising.

It's their Bread and Butter, baby...

Now, as lies go, on the surface this appears to be a benign lie, not too important, easily laughed about.

But if you look deeper, the more unsettling it becomes. One wonders why the lie machine, a very deft and glib one in this Bush the 2nd's White House, was for this reason cranked up at all? One wonders at the control freaks at the helm who, 'a la Big Brother, feel they have to streamline, dominate and propagandize every single image.
Whatever happened to just being a human being?

But Georgie Bush isn't just a human being! He's infallible, and his cabinet are infallible too!

So, they lie on the head of young Tyler Crotty, who will unfortunately grow up very soon now.

'It's a fake videotape... Probably from those damn Liberals, curse them!'

For God's sake it's just a kid!
Have these people no idea of what they've become?
And, if they'll lie about something so minor as this... well, there's no doubt that the lies on truly important issues come flying out thick and fast.

A friend laughingly observed to me 'they've marketed Bush 'like a little plastic doll'
and I can't help but think that it may be truer than even she had imagined.

The microcosm is the macrocosm.

The medium is the message.

Indeed.

2004-04-08T22:39:00.000-04:00

Condoleezza Talks & Talks & Talks...

and says ...oh..... about... hmmm...

Nothing.

Well, if you listened hard enough she did indeed say something -- but other than one instance (detailed above) what she tried to say is "I didn't do it. Bush didn't do it"... if it wasn't Clinton's fault, it was Richard Clarke's. Damn both their eyes! ;>

Her president didn't like to 'swat flies', although he had never swatted a single one.

Heck, Bush spent 42% of his time, from his swearing in until Sept. 11, on vacation!

Lets get our priorities straight, people!

Bothersome those flies... but hey, Bush NEEDED his R & R!
He was working FIFTY EIGHT PERCENT of the time!
What UnGodly hours -- and he should know, being on a first-name basis with God the Father!
*playing Volga Boatmen on fiddle*

"Chevron Condi" testified many times before the panel that GW Bush had a much better "plan" than mere fly-swatting for dealing with bin Laden and his nefarious terrorist activities!

Good. He had a plan!

The man of action had a plan!

So what was this marvellous Bush-whacked plan?
Oh, um...
gee she must have forgotten to mention it.
We heard an awful lot ABOUT Bush's "Plan", about the fact that he had one
but absolutely nothing OF it!

I'm sure it was just an oversight.
Right.

OK, so even if we buy this 'swatting flies' analogy; exactly how did Bush the Jr. plan to hit al Qaeda hard, given that it was not centralized nor based in any country nor even in any one physical place?
--other than Saudi Arabia of course. But the Saud's are close personal of the Bushes so can't touch them!

What were Bush's plans, to hit them big, without little 'swats'? I'm dying --and oh about 3000 others died one summer morning-- to find out.

"Oh, but HOW could we know where???"
*burble burble structure burble Clinton burble Clarke burble It's not MY fault burble burble burble *

Hrm, let's see...

Bin Laden had already attacked the World Trade Towers in 1993. And as much as he liked his little attack, he was still disappointed. He wanted to bring them crashing down. 'If at first you don't succeed..."

Intelligence had made more than clear and way more than once, that 'New York skyscrapers' and Washington and its governmental buildings were going to be attacked.
That hijacking airliners was very very VERY probably going to happen. Soon!
Very probably by the use of said big airplanes as missiles, with Saudi's taking pilot lessons and not concerned at all about knowing how to LAND said large airplanes.

*whine* But we didn't know! HOW could we KNOW??! */whine*

*whine* But I'M ON VACATION! AGAIN!!*/whine*

Even a MORON would recognize the upcoming targets: World Trade Towers, Washington! Subtlety is not a Bin Laden strong point!

So, was the White House Lazy or Stupid?

Or both?

2004-04-08T16:30:00.000-04:00

I Laughed, I Cried

Jesus' General (such a manly man!) is the funniest thing I've read all year!
*wiping away joyful tears*

Praise the Lord!

2004-04-08T16:01:00.000-04:00

Another Right-Wing Porcine Thought-Policeman Heard From!

It's time we made OUR voices also heard!

Unbelievable, but this little piggy has taken it upon himself to go on an Anti-Free Speech crusade against the WebLog Daily Kos

Well now.... I went to his page of email links & sent my own letters. (How kind of him to supply all the email addresses all on one page for my use! :)

Dear Sir/Madam,

You are advertising your candidacy on a web site, Daily Kos (http://www.dailykos.com) operated by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. Mr. Zuniga, who identifies himself on his web site as "Kos" recently wrote the following short article about the recent outrage in Fallujah, Iraq, in which four American contractors were murdered and their burned bodies were abused, mutilated, and hung from a bridge:

Every death should be on the front page

Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

by kos on Thu Apr 1st, 2004 at 15:08:56 GMT

See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/1/144156/3224 or http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/4/1/144156/3224/16#16.

Your ad is published on the same web page as the article I quoted above. Needless to say, you are known by the company you keep. I hope you are as pleased by Mr. Zuniga's being able to exercise his Right for freedom of speech as much as I am and would like to counsel you not to bow to an anti-freedom vocal minority by withdrawing advertising on his page.

If you believe in and support the Bill of Rights, that is.

Call us crazy pro-rights people, but we also are watching.

I await your response.

2004-04-08T14:50:00.000-04:00

Where are Mimes when you need them?

General Wayne Downing, on MSNBC just now, proclaimed that in all the pre 9-11 meetings:

"All they passed on were a bunch of words"

Still, I think Georgie can understand some words -- were they more than one syllable maybe?

2004-04-08T14:30:00.000-04:00

OMG Moore's GW Bush Photo Mosaic

Michael Moore published a photo mosaic of the faces of those who have died in Iraq
Its title: "The War President"
It's an astounding image.

2004-04-08T13:49:00.000-04:00

Is this a trick question or does the NY Times actually PAY him for this $hite?

PLEASE tell me, oh little Tommy Bobblehead, that you were drunk!
It sounds SO much better than Billmon's diagnosis of Psychotic Break!
You're losing it dude...

2004-04-07T23:17:00.000-04:00

Who DIDN'T See Sharia Coming?

The White House, that's who.

Oh yes... and the entire Republican Party.
Well, maybe McCain caught it -- but that's about it.

In case you've been in a cave these past couple years, Sharia (or Shariah)

"is the body of religious law governing the cultural life of Islam, both in its Sunni and Shia branches. Islam draws no distinction between religious and secular life, and hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals and the administration of the faith, but every aspect of day-to-day life. There are no modern parallels to this concept..."

Based completely on the Qu'ran, Sharia follows non-secular Islamic dogma and traditions to a Tee. Fairness, equality and justice mean nothing beyond the narrow view of Islamic doctrine.
Included among the sentences: if a man is guilty of adultery and is (outwardly at least) repentant, 'he is forgiven and may go upon his way'.
However a woman's sentence, once found guilty of adultery, is to be stoned to death.

One can't help but wonder with what parity are the two genders are defended?

Why do I bring this up now?

Because in Iraq the Sharia Shit has finally hit the overhead, Casablancan-style fan.

Many Islamic states in Africa use Sharia as the basis for their judicial and penal system. Such "Justice" is meted out based strictly on a semi-ancient, non-secular, and misogynist two-class system -- the Upper Class being of course Male.
You have one guess who the Lower Class is...

In other words if you're a guy, you're golden.
If you're a woman -- well to put it bluntly you're Shit Out Of Luck honey, better make your will.
That's if you have any personal property to bequeath. You probably don't, you'll be buried and completely forgotten, as if you never walked the earth.
Gee, that crazy Sharia!

When the new Iraqi Constitution was ratified it appeared, to me at least, that it gave short shrift to Iraqi women in that it guaranteed them only 25% of the political seats.

Hm. Population comprised of over half the populace, and they get 25% of the seats.
Yup, now that's fair.

Yet, believe it or not, compared to the alternatives the Iraqi's are now entertaining that was a great deal.

This questioned Constitution was largely hailed by the Islamic fundies (and in Iraq who isn't nowadays?) as also being highly unfair and downright foreign to their way of life.
It's not completely certain if this was the opinion of all Iraqi men, but seems apparent it is the lion's share.

Quite simply, the Constitution gives Iraqi women way too much respect, reward and opportunity than the men are willing to mete out.

Under Husseins rule, women enjoyed benefits close to that of men. Very progressive among Arab states, women were encouraged to attend not just primary school but to enroll in and excel in college and have a career. Their cultural status and employability prognosis was extremely positive.
This stands in stark contrast to Sharia, with the broad disparity between genders and the repression of a woman's affect including but not limited to women being unworthy of even basic schooling, extreme 'modesty', no cosmetics (the use of which being 'sluttish' or 'sinful', hence punishable under Sharia), completely enveloping the body in excessive, heavy, shapeless cloth (note the climate!), hiding all hair via the veil... right down to the full Burka.

Somehow Saddam doesn't sound quite as bad as he used to... at least wherea touch over half the population is concerned. :^/

So, according to these alleged Iraqi 'gentlemen', a Democratic Constitution does not represent what they want their system of government to be, based upon their beliefs; religious, secular or wherever the two intersect.
In the West it's difficult to believe, but instead of a 'one-man one-vote' system
(which, come to think of it, the U.S., with all it's technology, still doesn't have -- at least in the most important election: The Presidential Election)
they pretty much desire to be ruled by 'superior' regional or semi-regional "holy men", those whose propaganda or invective happen to strike the majority's fancy at this moment in time. I'm sure even Saddam sounded like a pretty good thing in the beginning...
Yet, as Regional surely does not translate into National, Dog-only-Nose who (or what) will become the national figurehead!
Note "Become", not "Elected".

Bear in mind the above examples so far are all within the different sects -- the Sunni-Shia split and their respective, multiple, favorite "Majority" leaders are not even taken into account yet!

Debatably, there remains a possibilty that one cannot impose Western-style democracy on a people who culturally do not yet desire it, nor who are independantly and developmentally ready for it.

As Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr said a year ago:

"You can read history," he said. "They will reject any government brought by America, any leader, any state. They have rebellion in their hearts."

It very well could turn into a recipe for civil war -- once they get rid of the Infidels (Us) of course.

Or disaster.

Or genocide. Something not unknown in modern Iraq.

And all for the "majority" desire for Islamic (that religion of Peace!) Sharia "law".

2004-04-07T13:23:00.000-04:00

New Ditty on Firing Rockets Into Mosques

:::to the tune of 'Coming 'Round the Mountain"::::

Oh we'll shoot at Mosques with rockets 'cause we can
Well we'll shoot at Mosques with rockets 'cause we can!
Weeee'lllll shoot at Mosques with rockets,
We'll shoot at Mosques with rockets...
Yes we'll shoot at Mosques with rockets 'cause we can!

We'll kill at least 16 non-combatants at one time
We'll kill 16 non-combatants at one time!
We'll kill 16 women & children,
We'll kill 16 women & children...
Oh, we'll kill 16 non-combatants at one time!"

We'll be winning Iraqi Hearts & Minds says Bush,
We'll be winning Iraqi Hearts & Minds says Bush!
We'll be winning hearts and mindses,
We'll be winning hearts and mindses
Yes we'll be winning Iraqi hearts and minds says Buuuusssshhhhh....."

Wish I could laugh, but it's really not funny.... it's heartbreaking.

2004-04-07T09:20:00.000-04:00

The Bush Lie Machine in Full Spin, As Usual

Daily Kos points out an interesting article in USA Today, which states, in regard to Condoleezza Rice's private testimony before the 9-11 Panel, the White House contends

"only 5 members (bothered to) show up, (implying) that commissioners were uninterested in attending these meetings"; as commission spokesman Al Felzenberg put it.

USA Today THEN goes on to point out that the White House had limited
(With what precedent? one may legitimately ask)
the panel's access to Ms. Rice:

(White House counsel's office had) sent the commission a letter saying no more than three commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's rank (italics mine).

Guess these White House fundies aren't concerned about the Commandment saying it's a SIN to LIE, either!

2004-04-06T19:20:00.000-04:00

Winning More Hearts and Minds?

Lcpl Boudreaux should be court-martialed.
At the very least.

Thanks to Democratic Veteran for the heads-up.

Democratic Veteran Points Out Yet More Dirty Secrets

Oh, so this is Supporting the Minorities?

Well, shouldn't be so surprising considering they also call themselves Compassionate.

I bet they get tons of chuckles out of their little propagandist title
...I hate to say it, it's trite but true: They're laughing all the way to the bank!

2004-04-06T14:56:00.000-04:00

The Clinton (Ew!) Cooties

It's hardly surprising that the Bush the Jr.'s White House didn't want to accept the nonpartisan Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security report regarding future terrorism. Instead, he delegated a new task force to V.Pres Cheney way back in early May, 2001. Although during those long months leading up to 9-11, while Bush vacationed more than any President before in all of U.S. history, and while Cheney had time to meet with his Enron cronies; he was unable or unwilling to meet, even create, this new, improved (?) task force.

Not once.

Why hardly surprising, you may ask?

Well... as anybody knows... the Hart-Rudman Task Force was heavily contaminated with

...brace yourselves...

Clinton (Ew!) Cooties!

Not just regular Cooties -- I'm talking about
Clinton
(Ew!)
Cooties!

That's right -- Former President Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton ordered a non-or-bipartisan (your choice) panel to study the future dangers of Terrorism. Even his not-so-friendly 'friend' Newt Gingrich was on the panel!

God! Clinton is such a JERK!

You must remember Clinton (Ew!) right?
That guy who.... arrgh, it's so unspeakable, but

::Whisper:::
He got a blow job in the White House!

Ewww!
Now that is so sinful it's downright unforgivable! Well, unforgivable for any Conservative Born-Again! I don't care what the Bible says -- it must be wrong! That devilish Pope John-Paul II would forgive Bush, but that just shows you how un-American that pinko Pope is!!

AND there were some (Red, I betcha!) "Liberal Democrats" (if they're Democrats they MUST be Liberal!) on the panel, too!
I'm sure THEY get blowjobs all the time!
EWWWWWW......

Thank GOD we have this President Bush; whom, others who are on a first-name basis with God have assured me, even the apolitical Jesus Christ would have voted for!

Oh no, President Bush doesn't get blowjobs from some vaguely pretty, chubby little floozy in a navy blue dress!
Nuh-uh No he Don't! *talk to the hand*

That G.W. Bush has waged a preemptive, unilateral war against a sovereign nation...

(I don't care WHAT Saddam did -- we owe way more effort in our own country against injustice and poverty before we become the Moral Police of the world! If our intentions are so honorable then why didn't he clean up the last bastion of Slavery (Sudan) in the World before Iraq at the very least?! Oops, went out of character. My bad ;)

... based upon lies, even when he knew they were patently untrue?
That's just fine!

Bush & his Vice President Cheney whom I like to call, respectively, Dummie (*Doh!*) & (*Clutch-his-chest*) Deadie; gave out plum war contracts worth billions to their cronies!
Well why not?!

He raped our environment and our National Parks? Again and again and again?
No problem!

He gave his rich friends & CEO's tax cuts while a swath of poor and middle-income Americans got nothing?
OK!

He bankrupted Social Security and Medicare --our future & our childrens future-- , while vastly increasing our National Debt yet at the same time "cutting taxes"?
Great!

He sent hundreds of U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqi's to death. Over lies.
Nobody's perfect!

But Oh My God just DON'T get a BLOW JOB in the White House!

Not like.... Like.... Like...

EW!
you know who!

2004-04-06T14:32:00.000-04:00

Who is learning from whom?

It was laughable to hear Bush Jr. spout "Stay the course" like a little Daddy-Dearest Wind Up Toy, but when I saw his line: "I will defend America every time." I turned quickly over to an article I had reread that very day -- it just sounded too familiar!

Sure enough, here's Ariel Sharon: "There is a cruel mimicry that some Israeli journalists perform when their Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, stands up to speak. As he begins each sentence, they finish it for him with an unerring accuracy. So he will intone 'I am prepared to make painful concessions' and his mockers will murmur their reply like the responses at a Mass: 'But I will never sacrifice Israel's security.

Links in top line. Thanks to! Democratic Veteran where I saw the blurb and article link.

Yet more lessons for America & its "Statesmen" from a person --a terrorist-- such as Ariel Sharon?

OMG This isn't the U.S. of A., this is Bizarro-World!

2004-04-05T17:46:00.000-04:00

Becoming an Apocalypitic Kook ...or Believing It a Real Possibility?

Well now, it's a sad state of affaires when I become truly afraid to turn on the TV or Radio. Lately I've come to grudgingly admit becoming enamored of the lovely Sound of Silence --a sure sign of old age & uncoolness-- still, when it gets right down to hearing if World War III {herein hence known with a snappy Bushism abbreve: WW3, pronounced "Wuh-Wuh-Tree" -- it rhymes with WMD ;} has started; strange as it may seem, somehow I just don't wanna know!

And I'm talking Armageddon here.

No. Really. I'm serious.

Armageddon is surely what will happen if that madman in power
--no I don't mean our domestic one, but the Israeli one--
goes out and bravely assassinates yet another old man, with 'fat' in his name: Yassir Arafat.

They seem to have a penchant for attacking old guys in wheelchairs, albeit this one not yet completely blind -- is Israel slipping?
Fifty-seven-year-old Kamal Zghair, a wheelchair-bound man who was shot and then run over by IDF tanks on April 10 as he was moving in his wheelchair equipped with a white flag down a major road in Jenin.
Take a gander at some of the other war crimes, check out pranks such as ringing a doorbell & blowing up the woman who answers... yep, funny funny stuff.
Those crazy IDF soldiers.

Why are we connected by an umbilical cord to Israel? Something John Sheehan, S.J. said keeps running through my mind:
"Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can't help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East."

Think what you will about Mr. Arafat. I'm fairly sure I'm not going to change your mind.
Still, one thing is plain -- Sharon will never win the Nobel Peace Prize as Mr. Arafat has. And when a head of state, especially one as opportunistic and care-free about what gets Americans into deathly serious trouble as FatMan #1 is, can easily manipulate our country into fighting its wars for them...
...well, we're in deeper $hite than we've ever
Ever
been.

I'm just waiting for South Park to come out with
"Dude. You can't assassinate a guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize. I don't care what he's done lately.
Dude."

*sigh*

I've never subscribed to all that Late Great Planet Earth crapola. I'm surprised Hal Lindsey still makes a dime considering his entire series of 80's books were completely wrong, and forget about the 2nd Millenium crap of 5 years ago. But study the last chapter of the Bible, give yourself extra points for figuring out what country Babylon is. In the present we fit every condition for the Apocalypse, except for one.

When it happens be very afraid:

The Rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem.

It's difficult to comprehend, but some even KNOW this will be the Endtime! In fact, as of July 18, 2002; 53% of Israeli's voted in favor of rebuilding the temple.

Only one problem: The 3rd holiest site of Islam, The Dome of the Rock, is in the way.
Now, what more needs to happen other than an all-out war between, on one side Israel & the U.S., against the Islamic states which would surely solve Israel's "Palestinian Problem" and leave them, Israel, completely free to build?

Nothing more, that's what.

I want to note here that in no way shape or form am I Anti-Semitic. What I am is very troubled by the blind, unquestioning American protection of one of the biggest violators of Human and Civil Rights (perhaps even genocidal) state in the world: Israel.

What IS it with America and Israel anyhow?
Our politicians, in the past half-century but especially the neo-con's PNAC (look the link up yourself, I've no wish to view it again), have had unabashed "Plans" for Israel and the Middle East WAY prior to September 11, 2001.
Israel, in turn, struts around like the ruder, crueler, smarter little brother of the big schoolyard bully doing exactly what they want, their rhetoric preplanned & timely supplied to a cowardly White House. Look up how many Human Rights violations, or Laws of War violations, and how many UN resolutions (this link only to 1992!) Israel has ignored &/or violated.
You'll be amazed.

I reaffirm: There is a HUGE difference between the state of Israel's actions and decrying the entire Jewish people.

Make NO mistake about that!

But lets look at the strange synchronicity of so many more religious (dare I say most?) and cultural predictions that seem to all proclaim that, around the same time (soon), the World will end:

White Buffalo Calf Woman of the Lakota (Sioux) returns to "Purify the World

With a little help from The Eqyptian Book of the Dead

Mayan calendar "ends" in 2012

Hopi End of Time Prophecy

Mother Shipton

St. Malachy's Papal Prophecies

In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. Finis.

Finis?

My puppy bounded out of bed today all slobbering and tail-wagging and above all happy. Ecstatic. SHE doesn't care! Her moment, this moment, is wonderful! 'Don't fret over what we have no control of', she seems to imply. But she doesn't understand that this is America -- we, the populace, are supposed to have control of our destiny!
And over what our country does in our names!
Our government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around!
I'm going to try to take a line from her youthful book, but still it's not easy. I may know some troubling things, this possible if improbable End Of The World, yet sadly I'll understand all of it about as much she will...

Indulge me as I wax prescient, (Dear Sweet Jesus may this not happen!)
but IF Israel assassinates Yassir Arafat:

1) Ariel Sharon (aka Na na na na na na na na FatMan!), as head of state for Israel, murders/assassinates/kills/whatever Yassir Arafat

2) Then crows about it to the world, with plenty of pre-recorded sound-bytes of Shrub support (although, belatedly, from the White House would come such pointless, useless reciprocally-free faux emotions as "we're very disturbed" -- Yeah. You. Disturbed. No kidding.)

3) And the Arab/Islamic world goes wild. No country boundaries separating them this time. Their common religion is enough.
There's plenty of armaments out there... if not old Soviet issue then I'm sure that North Korea will come through in a pinch. Or Pakistan. Even worse, China, who has shown a decided predisposition in the past few years to true appreciation of Profit$ and who have been snapping up the notes to our ever-growing National Debt like a 'FatMan' on Lox, Bagels & Latke's (Mmmmmm, Latke's ;). Hey, as the older white businessmen in the White House surely know; it's just business, supplying these arms, nothing personal ole buddy ole pal!

Heck, that may be an even quicker route to own America than the Notes!

4) Since we're already spread too thin, military-wise, out comes The Draft

(IF YOU LOVE YOUR KIDS GET THEM IN COLLEGE!)

(IN CANADA!)

...Ahem, sorry. To continue:

5) Our children get drafted and killed in a true Holy War. I'm pretty sure we're not on the Very-Holy side for coddling The Lunatic FatMan of Israel and that other opportunistic, maniacal madman (et cronies): Shrub.

6) Guess who wins. The first major rounds, at least. But, as the very wise Archbishop Desmond Tutu said "This IS a moral universe" and our morals in defending Israel are, to put it kindly, terribly misplaced.
The Temple gets built.

7) A lot of very bad stuff that leads up to: Apocalypse.

8) The End

No, I meant it - nothing more.
That's it.

THE END

2004-04-02T14:40:00.000-05:00

O'Reilly's "Final Solution"

O'REILLY:".you know it, the colonel knows it. The colonel and I are disagreeing on the tactics, but we know what the final solution should be. Why hasn't the U.S. command done this? And why do they continue to absorb the level of terror that is coming out of -- this isn't a big town. We're not talking about Cincinnati here. Right? It's not a big town?"

Italics mine.

Couple this with professing "Christians" comments:

one begging "can we start killing them all" murder as "a fun experiment" "kill them all", "concentration camps" "...like to smash his face in and dance on his head so I could FEEL better and relieve this horrible boredom" (because of Boredom?!)

are espousing EVERYTHING contrary to Freedom and Democracy.

These are your fellow citizens coo'ing with gusto about putting half the population into concentration camps.
And killing them.

Unconscionable -- pure and simple, but it tells loads about where their heads are at, and how low we have sunk in this country.

2004-04-02T11:43:00.000-05:00

OMG

Buried in this CNN report regarding Condoleezza Rice is the interesting tidbit that both Bush and Cheney would testify before the 9-11 investigative panel. In private. Behind closed doors.

Oh yes -- and in a little paragraph further down "they will not be under oath".

!

For me to comment further on this is superfluous.
It is astounding in itself.

2004-04-01T08:51:00.000-05:00

We TOLD You Not To Go There!

Billmon, my #1 fave blog of late, in Strange Fruit posted an interesting essay regarding the murder, mutilations and dragging through the streets of 4 civilian American contractors by a cheering Iraqi throng. He rightly points out that the contractors were simply lynched, Iraqi-style, something not uncommon in the American history or psyche. (It's worth visiting for the perfect Billie Holiday quote alone.) Another apt metaphor, if you want to be truly politically correct about it, would be the many inner-city riots, or the racially motivated dragging death where the mans body was ripped apart in oh... where was that???
Hmmm...in TEXAS?!

The point being, the almost-unforgiveable actions of the Iraqi mob are neither strange nor foreign.

The invective directed at not only those who committed the lynchings but the entire Iraqi people is --yet at the same time is not-- surprising.
A smattering of the literally thousands of revengeful advice: "Use flamethrowers" "firing squad" with tons of references to "machine gun them, mow them down" "destroy the entire town" (& country!). There are those with old-fashioned or semi-creative ideas of Napalm; even one enterprising soul conceived of a "large lawnmower descending". (Methinks the U.S. Patent Office will be hearing from him soon ;)

And, of course, "Nuke them all!"

These are the words of the very same (mostly professing Christians) Americans who not too long ago used every bit of their rhetoric to defend a pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign country to protect Saddam Hussein's poor, downtrodden people? The same Americans who wanted, nay needed, to win every Iraqi citizens "hearts and minds"?

And these then are the Iraqi people that were supposed to dance in the streets, showering us with rose petals and praise, upon our invasion?

Maybe they were just short of rose petals and used the next nearest thing... oil.
And a match.

We TOLD you then that this wasn't going to work. That an invasion, even one so interestingly named Shock and Awe, was not going to produce any rampant, spontaneous jigs. Not even one little Do-si-do.

We TOLD you that Iraq had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden or the attacks on the World Trade Towers.

We TOLD you that you should let the Weapons Inspectors do their jobs.

We TOLD you that the chance of Iraq posing an "immediate threat" to America was untrue.

We TOLD you to listen to and work with the United Nations.

We TOLD you that this would not be a short, nor inexpensive war.

We TOLD you that a preemptive invasion would set a very dangerous (if not downright illegal) precedent and would only endanger American citizens all over the world.

So just quit the bitching!

You, who flapped your gums about *other* people accepting their personal responsibility, must now accept your own.
Only now it's OUR own, each & every Americans... even though we were against the war, we are still endangered because of your rhetoric and lies. You were quite aware of the hate the U.S. would engender by invading a soverign Middle Eastern country, yet you pushed and bullied and manipulated and propagandized until you got your way!

Your own actions reaped our responsibility.
And now things aren't going right, well surprise surprise!
Just cut the WHINING and HYPOCRISY and DEAL WITH IT!

These are still the SAME people who you just HAD to protect from evil Saddam Hussein. First priority, right?
What he was doing was even worse than, according to neo-con's, other world problems -- not limited to Slavery still in the world, in Sudan!

Yet a Sudanese invasion was never even thought of... why?

Because they had no resource of something you craved?
Something you made money, tons of money, on?

Nevertheless, if these same people were so important that you had to invade Iraq "to save them", what has changed? Were you not doing it for the Idea -- for what is Right?

Has the concept of *saving* them changed?

Has the basic moral rightness of *rescuing* them been somehow mitigated?

Why call for their deaths now? If you rescue a wild animal from certain destruction, and through your own carelessness, lack of planning and lack of forethought it bites you -- well hell then, would it be right then to shoot the animal?

It's going to be a long, expensive, and perhaps non-winnable war. The million dollar question is how can you impose Democracy to a nonsecular people who neither desire it nor who are ready for it -- people who appear to desire to be ruled by a local religious figure?

What I really want to know is who's going to fight this war?
We're running very short of voluntary soldiers and we're in an awful lot of places... Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Phillipines to name a few. With normal and "abnormal attrition" in Iraq, pretty soon it will be An Army Of One!

At the current rate of job loss, our factories shipped overseas, and importation of immigrants the average American may not be able to afford even McDonald's, its drive-through staffed with Mexicans manning the microphone, broiler and cash registers.

Indeed only the wealthy would be able to afford McD's...

...would you like the Draft with your Tax Cuts senor?

--ME Spiegel 3-26-2004

***Edited on the fly - subject to revision in terminology and grammar. Thank you.

2004-03-31T13:45:00.000-05:00

Impolitic Politics

The hard-liners in the Republican Party are, no big surprise here, ridiculing the protestations against the White House refusal to let Condoleezza Rice testify under oath. They however, and Ms. Rice herself, are using at best specious arguments and at the worst are being (you guessed it but it's the truth ;) disingenuous. As some have claimed that she should be excused from swearing that her testimony will be absolute truth because we should 'just believe her' and 'what reason has she to lie?" (the latter is one deliciously luscious chestnut ;) are preposterous; especially when all the other testimony has been given freely and under oath.

What makes her so special?

Absolutely nothing.

I hate to bring up the now-by-rote Clinton finger pointing, but on the 'good-for-the-gander' side, should not the arguments for truthful testimony under oath be proffered equally to any public official? All too often the GOP has given the appearance of being hypocritical since the neo-con's took power. It needs to seriously reaffirm its wilted image.
(And should not the statements given in a State of the Nation address be held as a supreme oath?
But that's an older essay I've argued, and I will try to post it here in the near future.)

Is it not MORE important, especially with the troubling and questionable "facts" slowly seeping from this White House, to try to assure us that the people at the highest political level in our country are being completely forthright?

I am neither riled nor hysteric, nor am I a lefty -- yet. I'm not even involved in a vast right-wing conspiracy. What I AM is an honest citizen who holds my elected officials responsible for their actions irregardless of party... and recently I have had cause for DEEP alarm.

--and if you will forgive me a little concerned, well-meaning advice:
So also should you be; no matter your party allegiance. Our status and safety on the world stage, the blood being shed, and the lives being lost are all are far too important to require anything less!

Since when is it impolitic or unpatriotic to ask for clarification, and to expect --and hold-- our elected officials responsible for their actions?
Since when is it heresy in any political party to honestly question (and expect forthright answers) as to exactly how we can at the same time cut taxes while waging a temporally long, unilateral and costly war -- but at the same time bankrupting both our and our children's Social Security and Medicare, among other national treasures?

Simply outrageous!

BTW, what the heck happened to all the other 'old' (pre neo-con) Republicans from the Grand Old Party who believed in low taxes and a small government?
To further qualify: responsible lowering of taxation -- not borrowing from Peter, Pablo and Patricia to pay Paul.

Where did you all go? Where is your voice in the Republican Party?

Be forewarned: If Ms. Rice does NOT testify under oath, just as the other witnesses have, these certain Republicans will not win the upcoming election.

Which, regrettably, I am coming more and more to believe may not be such a bad thing after all.

2004-03-19T01:07:00.000-05:00

Blogged Again

A foreword: I had let my blog lapse as it seemed pointless -- all that righteous hurt and anger, the rants against the craziness in this country and indeed the entire world felt meaningless... just more empty rhetoric out there in cyberspace next to such squealing as 'Oh I just love Legolas (Mr. O. Bloom) his pics are all over my bedroom wall - where can I meet him?';

alongside of some hilarious advertisements exhorting me to
"Attract men with bigger breasts"
(God I love that one ;^)

And let's not forget hearts & flowers doggerel poetry.
The moon, in June...

*Shudder*

However, the number of emails asking for my latest 'essays' (Or as I fondly call them, colloquial rants ;) came as a complete surprise to me.

Do you really, really like me?? :>

To be serious, if anybody is truly listening (and it appears there are at least a few) then I'll admit I was wrong... these are far from meaningless words strung out in a semi-random order < --- not-too-great grammar sometimes ;> but, never mind if they are agreed with or not, as long as they are actually considered and inspire some dialogue whether positive or no, they may have some influence in this world that needs both goodness and critical thought in the same meaningful sentence.

Along with questionable grammar, did I mention run-on sentences? :D

Moreover, if you in future write me, please do so on the ideas, not to complain about my syntax and such things as changes of point-of-view or too, many, commas,
(Gosh-Darn-Dang I use a lot of them -- it's the natural breaks in cadence of speaking but highly ungrammatical!)
(Comma ;) ,
I edit this on the fly and it's not that I'm grooming it for submission... it's the thought and emotion I'd like to convey here, not Mrs. Smett's (bless her futile little teachers heart!) English Class.

You all know the adages about a butterfly fanning its wings in South America affecting say, arctic weather, and one lone not-necessarily-important person actually being able to make a difference, and a variation on the Six Degree's of Separation, so I won't further belabor upon that beyond recognizing some intelligent Web Logs are eminently worthwhile.
And I don't mean mine! Since I've been back I've happily run into many many great blogs! As soon as I get a skin up & working correctly I'll list what I've been reading and what is truly inspiring lately.

One last thing before I continue -- I just want to remind gentle reader that this blog is not near so much anger as grief and bewilderment,
coupled with outrage and, confession time here, the only thing I hate is:
people who hate.

(Yah yah I'm quite aware of the paradox but I can't help it, that's the strange way this soul goes; but I'd like to state here that I hate myself for it.)

Oh wait - then there are TWO things I hate....
( NO-ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition! )

Lastly, (hee hee hee -- get it? Hay hay eltbus sa a kcor*) if you so wish please feel free to cut & paste or quote this to any newsgroup, bulletin board, email, whatever -- the only thing I ask is the essay be preferably entire {yeah I know better, but had to try! ;} but not to be changed or modified in any way from its original, verbatim as it were, content; and please provide a link back to this address.
If not to this exact page, this link is the cover page of said blog

Um.... lastly,
(THREE Reasons.... NO-ONE Expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapons are.... :)
There are no two ways about it -- I'm a real bitch.
Don't like it? Too bad. Fug you too. LOL
I recognize that the requests received have been for my 'Thought pieces', and most of the entries here I can tell you right now will be of the smart-azz variety; and with good reason:
Reason doesn't work in American society anymore!!

BUT -- when those few do pop out, I will put them up in a separate blog. Address TBA
I'm quite aware that I alienate many readers by la bonne mot's c'est moi (isfi**), and if I can actually hold back my sharp tongue and appeal to real, caring and concerned Americans well then... they deserve a quite different venue than this page!

Whew! That's all over with!

So... OK now, here we go:

Grief

Anniversaries are always depressing, least-a-ways in my house, and this one hits me about as hard as my wedding anniversary

*ducking*

Looking back over the past year in not only the changes in Iraq, but in our own country, no word encompasses the emotion as much as Grief.

Grief for the unrest in the world.
For the thousands of Middle Easterners who have been wounded; whether physically, emotionally or fiscally.
Grief for those who have lost their lives through violence - both American and Iraqi, Palestinian and Israeli.

But most of all grief for the majority of truly good American people, who have been hoodwinked into a false war, constantly and continually lied to. Some still cannot admit they were duped and argue on behalf of the propagator of these lies.

The neo-con's remind me of Marshall Applewhite and his woman, Bonnie Lu Nettles. Those two shopped around for years trying to find minions for their very own little cult. They tried, with nicknames such as Bo and Peep, later Ti and Do, to convince people that they were in contact with space aliens from a heavenly kingdom, and they were all supposed to meet aboard the alien's spaceship. The first couple times it all failed because, to put it bluntly, the aliens didn't come when Bo and Peep said they would.

But they learned from these unfortunate mistakes, and finally had their little group of gullible cult members and their foolproof (that word used ironically) plan to board this spaceship -- well out of their bodies of course! A little overdose, a flag draped over your body and the right after-life space-ship-approved sneakers (go figure) et voila' you're on board!

In 1998 Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld went out on a sales call, but President Clinton wasn't buying.
Blowjobs notwithstanding, President Clinton was too smart to fall for it.

So on went Ti, Do, and Ro to the next possible buyer -- one this time without too many smards.

No matter that the entire idea was based on Lies.
No matter that they reduced the Federal Government to the use of rampant mind control.
NO MATTER that they were blanketing every single nasty plan with blatant propaganda!
Propaganda and manipulation which they DENIED when caught. (oh heck, what's another lie at this point?) their VERY OWN WORK!
They tried to "explain away" ( i.e. LIED about) many of their exploitative staged settings, among them one especially remarkable and ridiculous:
Bush at his "ranch", in the barn, signing a bill surrounded by clearly uncomfortable "neighbors" posed proto-pastorally on bales of hay!
Oh - did they have a ho-down then??
Nah, that was Clintons speciality :>

But nothing, and I mean NOTHING can trump the spectacle aboard the USS Lincoln!
From the bizarre, premature Mission Accomplished sign to the surreal strutting "pilot" in his pseudo (padded) virile flight suit, the production that day was nothing short of incredible.
The reason the public was told why Bush had to "pilot" a Harrier to the ship is that it was soo far out to sea!
In reality they had to turn the ship around so San Diego wasn't visible in the background!

Un-befugging-lievable!

One wonders exactly why they felt they had to deny things that they obviously put much work into, given that apparently this group was composed of at least in part, of Fundamentals who obviously didn't recognize at least one of the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride.

Yes. Grief is definitely the word... above all for the hate America has engendered. We are now pariahs in our own global village, unable to safely travel anywhere off our continent.
Yet this continent and even our very own country is becoming extremely unsafe.

Thanks you lying Pseudo-President. I believe there is a special place in Hell all your cronies, but especially for you.

*(Yah yah, subtle as a rock. Bass-ackwards.)

** ("ISFI" = Incorrect Spelling Fully Intended)

--ME Spiegel 3-19-2004

***Edited on the fly - subject to revision in terminology and grammar. Thank you.