Thursday, November 22, 2007
Regardless of the reason Hillary has had so much right wing cooperation with her inevitability strategy, the voters have thrown a major monkey wrench in her strategy. The latest polls show that Barack Obama is running four points ahead of Hillary, John Edwards is four points behind Her, and most importantly all candidates are within the margin of error. It is increasingly difficult for the Hillary people to argue that she has the Iowa race won when the polls show a three way tie. The pundits present the poll numbers to give the appearance that she has a significant lead in New Hampshire, but the reality is that approximately 50% of the voters are undecided. Hillary's 12 to 14 point lead seems much less impressive when we take into account that half the voters have yet to commit.
It has been obvious during the debates that Hillary has played to the pundits while Obama and Edwards have directed their remarks to the voters. Unfortunately for Hillary, her hawkish right wing foreign policy has been extremely successful in both endearing her to the conservative media and alienating her from the progressive democratic base.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
- The Republicans instituted impeachment procedures against President Clinton in 1998 and suffered a significant political backlash, the Democratic Leadership is wary of facing a similar backlash today should they impeach Bush and /or Chaney.
A CNN poll taken on September 25, 1998 revealed the following data:
Which of the following possible outcomes of the investigation of Bill Clinton would you most like to see happen?
No action 34%
Still not convinced by the numbers? Time/CNN provides the clearest contextual comparison:
* 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.
* 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.
* Average support for impeachment and removal (10 polls): 26%
Aug-Sept 1998 (Before Clinton Impeachment)
* Average support for hearings (6 polls): 36%
Meanwhile President Bush's approval rating hovers around 30% and has for better part of the last year.
The polling numbers reveal no contextual basis for any legitimate argument that the political climate during the Clinton impeachment hearing procedures compares in any manner to the political climate today. In fact, the numbers reveal that the position of the American people towards both the President and the impeachment procedures are statistically the exact opposite.
Furthermore, the so called political backlash that the Democrats currently fear never happened. Two years after an extremely unpopular impeachment, the Republicans lost only one seat in the Senate and won the White House.
The Democrats are playing what they believe is a safe hand of inaction. Their logic is that the Republicans are so inept and out of touch with mainstream America that any controversial, or bold, action in Congress risks losses which otherwise will not happen. They have not taken into account that they may be held accountable by an angry public for a crime of omission, just as Bush and Chaney should be held liable for a crime of commission. In many legal instances, failing to act or report a crime creates complicity to the crime.
President Clinton's action's were clearly wrong, but it was the position of the American electorate that impeachment and removal from office was not warranted. This is clearly not the case with the Bush White house.
The issue of impeachment should be determined by the whether the evidence exists of a crime and whether the crime in question fits the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors.
If you still have any doubt whether the President and Vice President deliberately mislead Congress and the American people into war, watch this video.
Sadly, it appears that the Democratic Leadership prefers what they perceive to be the safety of inaction to the inherent risks of performing their constitutionally mandated duties to the American people.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Congress must act quickly and decisively to prevent the Bush Administration from implementing this act of foreign policy insanity. In my opinion, the best defense in this case is clearly a good offense. Congress needs to utilize their legal authority to launch a shock and awe campaign against the Bush Administration sufficient to divert their energy from anything other than saving their collective hides. Impeachment procedures should be instituted against Vice President Cheney and indictments should be handed down against Karl Rove for Hatch Act violations as soon as Congress reconvenes. Special Prosecutors should be named to investigate Vice President Cheney and his neocon staff for their involvement in the Niger Forgeries, and deliberately misleading Congress during the lead up to the Iraq invasion.The Contempt of Congress citations should be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.
My basic point in this article is that Congress must be merciless in their legal pursuit of the Bush Administration. The violations of law validate such action by their own merit, but I also believe that the only thing the neocons understand is force. They must be politically taken apart through strong and decisive legal methods immediately. Failure to act will result in calamity.
The question of whether the U.S. Military Commanders in the Pentagon would refuse an order from the President to launch a military strike against Iran is a question that we don't want to face. Congress needs to immediately pull the political rug out from under the Administration and leave them struggling to survive.
Monday, August 20, 2007
It is not a coincidence that this issue has risen to the surface during Congress's summer recess. The neocons know that the political window, if there is one, for military action against Iran will be slammed shut as soon Congress reconvenes and the indictments start dropping into various Bush Administration Official's laps. To complicate matters more, the highly anticipated report from General Petraeus will likely fan the flames of the troop withdrawal movement and drastically weaken the Presidents support amongst Republican Congressmen. The neocons obviously feel that if they can't convince the President to launch a unilateral attack on Iran now, they may not have the opportunity again.
The gravity of the consequences of a military action against Iran raises an extremely sensitive question. Would the military leaders refuse the order to launch the attack? It may seem ridiculous to think that the Commander in Chief's military orders could be refused but consider this:
Admiral William J. Fallon assumed duties as the commander, U.S. Central Command on March 16, 2007.
The Inter Press news Service Reported on May 15, 2007:
Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch". Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
The fact that a number of retired Generals have publicly denounced the Administrations handling of Iraq is a clear indication that there are deep divisions between the White House and the Pentagon. The Iranians are in a position to launch devastating counter attacks resulting in high numbers of American military casualties through both conventional and asymmetrical methods. I do not believe that our military leaders are willing to sacrifice our troops lives in great numbers for an ideology that has been proven counter productive and morally bankrupt.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Q In that regard, The New York Times -- which, as you said, is not your favorite -- reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President's intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.
Q That would be something you would recall.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.
Q So you didn't send them to get permission.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.
If we analyze the Vice President's response I believe that the answer to Mr. King's question becomes quite clear.
Cheney's first answer:
I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.
Whether he read the story has nothing to do with either his memory or whether the story is truthful. It is evident that he was stalling for time so he could get his answer straight.
The second part of his answer is extremely restrictive. Ecessively restrictive or excessively broad answers are designed to give the liar wiggle room if the truth is eventually uncovered. He can later backtrack by saying that while he sent them to the hospital room, he didn't give specific instructions as to what they were to say upon arrival. It's commonly referred to as a "liar's back door." No matter what is ultimately revealed, he leaves himself a way out.
His Second answer:
Mr. King assertively pointed out the absurdity of his claim that he didn't remember by saying "That would be something you would recall".
Cheney answered by acknowledging that it is not reasonable to believe that anyone would forget something so critical when he replied "I would think so. But certainly I was involved". This is, in effect, an admission that he is lying and an attempt to salvage whatever is left of his credibility by acknowledging that he will at least admit that he was involved. Mr. King asserted his belief that anyone would remember this incident clearly, then tellingly, Vice President Cheney concurs with King's assertion. In acknowledging his concurrence with King's assertion, he unwittingly confesses to lying.
The rest of his response is interesting in that he defends the hospital trip by saying "By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it." While refusing to openly acknowledge that he was the person who sent Gonzales to Ashcroft's room, he conspicuously defends the person who did by inferring that the program had already been approved many times over and Ashcroft's approval was irrelevant.
His last answer:
"I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital"
I suggest that Mr. Cheney's subconscious mind is confessing for him. No innocent party would word a denial in that manner. A normal denial consists of addressing innocence. This denial clearly contains the words necessary for a complete confession.
It is increasingly clear why the President can not allow any of his subordinates to testify before Congress.
Monday, July 30, 2007
READ THE TEXT
OLBERMANN: Would you reach out immediately to the Syrians and the Iranians, even with the tensions between this country and Iran?
SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. I don't see it as a sign of weakness. I see it as a sign of strength. You know, our president will not talk to people he considers bad. Well, there are a lot of bad actors in the world, and you don't make peace with your friends. You've got to deal with your enemies, your opponents, people whose interests diverge from yours.
Right now we're flying blind when it comes to Iran. We don't have good intelligence about Iran, about what their real motivations are, who's calling the shots; the same with Syria. And I would immediately open a diplomatic track. And I don't think we would lose. In fact, I think we would gain insight.
I mean, if we have to take a firm stand against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, let's get more information before we do that. Let's figure out, you know, what levers of power in their society we might be able to pull and push.
I WONDER IF THE NEOCONS WILL STOP LOVING HILLARY NOW?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
It is a mistake to guess George Bush's next move based on any information relevant to reality. If there is one thing we should all know about our President by now, its that his decisions are based on his personal concept of reality, not ours. He believes that he has been chosen by God and fate to lead this nation to victory over the forces of evil. In that reality, there is no room for compromise.
There is no chance that President Bush will agree to draw down the troops or take any other action that could be viewed as conceding defeat. A report that the "surge" is a complete failure would only mean that more troops are needed. When a fool finds that his strategy is not working, his reaction is to do more of it. Therefore, I am predicting that President Bush will order an increase in troop strength after General Petraeus's report regardless of the contents. George Bush will never alter his positions on Iraq. Carefully read and interpret his speeches the last few years and all the codes are there to be interpreted.
Have we forgotten the words of Bob Woodward:
Late last year, he had key Republicans up to the White House to talk about the war, and said 'I Will Not Withdraw Even If Laura And Barney Are The Only Ones Supporting Me.' Barney is his dog."
Congress will eventually be forced to remove him from office if any changes in the war plan are ever to be instituted.
George Bush is a very sick man. I believe that before he leaves office his actions will shock the conscience of the American People. Unfortunately for the Republicans in Congress, they have taken far to long to recognize the problem and their fates are sealed. They are inexorably tied to his massive blunders and there is not enough time before the next election for them to recover. Within a few months the question of the President's sanity will be a subject of National debate. The Republicans in Congress will be forced to swallow their pride and vote for the impeachment of both George Bush and Dick Cheney. The 2008 election will mark the political annihilation of the Republican party for many years to come.
If you still haven't figured out what the President's strategy will be after general Petraeus's September report, ask Laura and Barney.
Friday, July 06, 2007
“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
Scooter violated the law and he was certainly "TAKEN CARE OF" in the end.
PICTURE ABOVE (The President peers through binoculars with the lens covers still on)
(TAKE THE LENS COVERS OFF , YOU IDIOT!)
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man. I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America."
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
His first advertisement:
Hi I'm Fred Thompson,
I don't really want to be President, but I would like to fly around in Air Force one, sleep in the White house, and fun Presidential stuff like that. Vote for me, so I can have fun.
His platform, vote for me so I can do stuff I like, supports his long held reputation as the laziest man in politics.
I would assert that this argument is so absurd as to invalidate itself. Arguing that the Vice President's office cannot be classified as a part of any Branch of Government because it has duties related to the both the Executive and legislative Branches is the equivalent of arguing that a duck is not a bird or a fish because it spends half of its time in the water swimming and the other half flying. Classifying his office as a part of both branches would be more logical. However, this argument is not about logic. When anyone uses an argument this devoid of reason it makes a very clear and blunt statement. I'll spare the relevant expletive but it is the equivalent of holding up a middle finger to anyone daring to question their actions. Congress should certainly seize upon this opportunity and demand documents and information from the Vice President which would force him to claim Executive Privilege in his refusal to hand them over and immediately invalidating his own legal claim. There is little doubt that he would try to have it both ways by arguing that since he is in fact attached to the Executive Branch he can still make that claim. The true Cheney plan is is to take this argument to court and fight it until after the 2008 election. Then after a few nights of working overtime with the White house Shredder, walk away smiling.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY, DECEMBER 2005
"On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission," "
JOSEPH GOEBBELS NEW YEARS EVE 1943, ADDRESSING THE GERMAN PEOPLE
“A nation must fight courageously and intelligently for its existence..the main thing is that the leadership and people keep their nerve, stubbornly and persistently overcoming dangers and difficulties, letting nothing distract them from the continuation of the course that they once saw as correct…”
Thursday, June 14, 2007
“My vote against going ahead with more debate on this no confidence resolution is not an expression of confidence in Attorney General Gonzales,” Lieberman said on Monday. “It is an expression of opposition to spending any more time on a resolution that will accomplish nothing, instead of going ahead with the next item of business, which is energy legislation.”
The issue I have with his remarks has little to do with Alberto Gonzalez and everything to do with his position during the Republican push for the impeachment of President Clinton in 1999. Take a moment to review Senator Lieberman's positions at that time as reported by CNN;
Lieberman said if the findings didn't claim to convict the president of a crime but instead said that he had been misleading and acted to cover up his misconduct, "then I for one would be hard pressed to vote against it."
In a appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Lieberman also said that adjournment without a vote on the articles of impeachment "would prevent the president from claiming acquittal or an exoneration because there would be no final vote on conviction. And then we just state, without calling him a criminal ... (that) he has committed obstruction of justice ... that he has lied under oath."
I find it interesting that Senator Lieberman felt that he would be hard pressed to vote against a Republican political maneuver that would waste time and do little more than embarrass the President and his party. The issue at hand, the Presidents veracity, is exactly the issue in question regarding Attorney General Gonzales. He was in favor of wasting time to attack and embarrass a Democratic President, yet his attitude towards a Republican Attorney General who has unapologetically lied to Congress is the exact opposite.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Most political strategist would agree that the most powerful politician is one who can plant spies amongst his enemies and control what appears to be the opposition. Carville is in the mainstream media almost daily crowing about the GOP and their shortcomings. He has made a very lucrative career out of framing himself as an aggressive pro-left pundit. It is now obvious that what we really have is a fox in the hen house. Carville strongly criticized the Bush administration for attacking Joe Wilson and revealing the identity of Valerie Plame. Now he requests leniency for the man designated by Dick Cheney to carry out that attack.
The obvious conclusion here is that James Carville is a GOP mole. The Democrats should act as they would with any other spy and completely severe ties with this man immediately. If this does not happen, the Party Leaders should be brought to task and their allegiance should also be questioned.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
A Picture of yours truly with Susan Goehring, Maryland ACLU Executive Director.
Tonight, the furious blogger had a rare respite from the daily frustration of discovering yet another Bush administration felony. I had the great pleasure of attending the Maryland Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union's 75th Anniversary at M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore (Home of the Ravens).
ACLU National President Anthony Romero delivered his usual masterpiece with his trademark style of injecting paradoxical humor to make a deadly serious point. He used an anecdote which invoked the writings of a staunch opponent of the ACLU to point out the organization's value to our Democracy. He then smoothly transitioned into a speech which both invigorated the faithful and educated audience members with lesser knowledge of the ACLU's history and purpose.
Unfortunately, there are those who don't fully comprehend the value of the ACLU. Humor me while I drift off into one of my angry rants to make a necessary point:
Shortly after the Bush Administration seized power, Vice President Cheney had a meeting with a group of people to devise an energy policy for the United States. It was widely believed that the group included persons who stood to make significant financial gains if the policy were to steer this country towards a greater dependence on fossil fuels, particularly oil. When a request was made to make the documents and participants from the meeting public, Vice President Cheney argued that the American people did not have a right to know who was at the energy policy meeting or what was discussed. Several government watchdog groups fought a long legal battle and ended up losing when the Supreme Court ruled that, we the people, have no right to know what our leaders are doing, allegedly on our behalf. It was eventually discovered that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex and developed the national energy policy, parts of which became law.
Fast forward a few years and we have the Patriot Act, government electronic eavesdropping, and the warrantless opening of citizen's mail.
There is but one conclusion that can be reached. The Government now has an exclusive right to Privacy and the People have none. In a country where the exact opposite intention was spelled out plainly in the constitution, our rights have been turned inside out. We are now more dependent on fossil fuel and paying the highest price for it in this nations history. Yet we have no right to know who was involved or what was discussed at the meeting that got us here?
The Government has a right to privacy, we have none!
Regardless of what you think of the ACLU, take your chances with organizations that fight Government excesses, not the other way around.
Friday, May 18, 2007
The current Iraqi Parliament members would be in grave danger should they even leave the Green Zone without a major security contingent. Can any sane person have faith that a Government of people who can't even set foot on the land of their own country without being assassinated have the political will or authority to effect the course of their society? This is clearly a show for those still gullible enough to believe that the Iraqi debacle was not lost long ago. Earth to the GOP faithful, this game is over. Whatever losing in Iraq means, we have been successful at it. Benchmarks are irrelevant if they involve political or security related progress. There will be none of that in the foreseeable future.
Likely, the endgame will involve some form of interpreting the current situation in a way that demonstrates progress, then precipitously withdrawing as quickly as possible. An indication of that was when the President recently stated:
“Success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives.”
As absurd as that definition of success may seem, it clearly shows that the plan for creating a secular democracy in Iraq has been abandoned. The only hope for an exit is to redefine victory to mean whatever we need it to, and be gone before the 2008 election.
Benchmarks for success in a country that has done nothing but deteriorate in every way over the last four years should be interpreted as justifications for an exit. We destroyed a country and now its time to blame the pitifully impotent Iraqi Government and leave them to oversee a failed state. The truth is, it wasn't the Iraqi Parliament who destroyed the societal structure which maintained order in Iraq, it was the Bush Administration. How can we reasonably expect them to repair the infrastructure and defeat the Insurgents when we can do neither?
We are in the unique position of facing catastrophe regardless of whether we stay or leave. We've opened Pandora's box and there is no way to close it. Years from now we will look back in horror at the recklessness in which we exercised this military and political campaign.
As we talk about benchmarks, the Insurgents build more car bombs. I think their strategy will prove infinitely more effective in the long run.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
The time is rapidly approaching when the lapdogs will decide to either fall with their master, or turn and eat him. The GOP Congressmen recently met with President Bush and advised him of their displeasure with the occupation. Now they have began speaking of a so called "plan b" for Iraq, when the failure of this so-called plan A "surge" comes crashing down to earth. They are saying that come September, barring a sudden upturn in events, they will need a new plan or they will jump ship and possibly join the Democrats in rejecting the occupation. The problem with plan b is pretty simple, there is no plan b. The Administration has no backup plan for failure of the already doomed surge strategy. Pretty clearly the Iraqi Government is falling apart and when this latest strategy goes by the wayside, there won't be room for another one.
So where are we in this process anyway? The Republicans are about to face complete and final destruction at the polls in 2008, Iraq has fallen into the inevitable deadly chaos that was widely predicted before the first shot was fired, and of course the Bush Administration's only concern is starting another war before they leave office. The question is becoming whether they will leave in handcuffs and shackles or by the normal political process. At any rate, the country is in an uproar as we have not seen in many decades and there can be no good end to this madness. Sadly, my guess is that plan b will involve a white flag and emergency extrication's reminiscent of the fall of Saigon.
I'll leave you with a some quotes and information of interest:
David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, issued a warning to readers of the conservative magazine National Review: “Have Republicans absorbed how much trouble their party is in? To the (limited) extent that we do, we tend to attribute everything to Iraq - as if Katrina, the Schiavo affair, corruption in Congress and the intensifying irrelevance of our domestic-policy agenda did not exist. And so we demand from our candidates ever more fervent declarations of fealty to an ideology that interests an ever dwindling proportion of the public.”
In a column last week, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, a favorite of conservatives, said the Iraq war alone was causing the ”virtual collapse of the Republican brand appeal.”
David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, wrote recently: ”The Republicans suffered one unpleasant event in November 2006, and they are headed toward an even nastier one in 2008. They are like people quietly marching to their doom.”
A CBS News poll last month found 65 percent of independents favor decreasing the number or removing all troops, while 61 percent favor a timetable for withdrawal. Unaffiliated voters’ distaste for the Republican Party revealed itself in 2006, as 57 percent broke for Democrats, after the two parties split those voters in 2004, according to exit polling.
And yet the Republican presidential candidates are running campaigns at odds with this fundamental shift in public attitudes.
”This is what Bush and the other Republicans don’t get,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “There is a social revolution occurring, and they are completely out of the mainstream.”
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Iraqi Accord Front holds 44 Seats in Parliament and the Sunnis as a group hold a total of 58 seats. Moqtada Al Sadre has already pulled his 32 MPs and the Islamic Virtue Party has pulled their 15. Is this picture becoming clearer? The Government is falling apart and if the remaining Sunni MPs pull out it is over. The only way to address that would be a new election, then starting a Government and Constitution from scratch. What are the odds that either the American or Iraqi people will embrace that idea?
Make no mistake about it, the Maliki Governments rule should be measured in days or weeks. All the benchmarks and surges in the world will have little effect on a country in complete anarchy after the Government falls. If the GOP'ers in Congress are smart, they'll jump off this ship before it sinks. The way things are shaping up, when Iraq goes down the Republican party will be in the ballroom playing their instruments and singing praises to Bush all the way to the bottom. The penalty for blind obedience is high, but its fair.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
All that is wordy way of decribing the current GOP members of Congress. They followed the hapless bungler in chief right out of power in the last midterm elections and those who survived appear to headed, lemming style, for a similar fate in 2008. I watched a loyal GOP Congressman this morning on C-Span tell viewers about the importance of the Iraq debacle and stick to the worn out talking points about 9/11, AL Qaeda, and fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them here. Earth to the GOP, America does not want to hear that anymore.
Apparently the midterm elections did nothing to convince these fools that a change in course was necessary. All the current polls show that the American people side with the Democrats plan for withdrawal. However, the loyal Bushies are so smart that they know whats really good for America, regardless of what those pesky voters think.
Meanwhile the problem grows. Iraq is unravelling at such a rate that in a matter of weeks or at most a few months the current Government is going to fall and the wheels will visibly come off the cart. What plan for these last few loyal war supporters then? Might I suggest the Japanese ritual of Seppuku, also known as hara-kiri (腹切り It's pretty easy, you just perform a few rituals, then plunge a sword into your own abdomen and croak. That way, you won't have to face the humiliation of yielding a super-majority to Democrats and the Presidency in one fell swoop.
Eight years of following Bush and the Republican Party is toast, turn them over and stick a fork in their collective breasts because they are done. But look at the bright side, Saddam Hussein will never attack new York City again.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
We are sending 21,000 additional troops into a country of 26 million engulfed in a civil war and HOPE for some, as yet undefined, success. While we're doing that HOPE for world peace and an end to hunger. The odds of seeing the fulfillment of this HOPE is probably about the same as peace and democracy in Iraq.
The Iraq debacle is merely proving to be what it was destined to be. The worst strategic military error in US History by a wide margin. There was never a chance it would succeed and I would argue that there was never a clear definition of success from day one. More Iraqis and Americans will be maimed and die while we HOPE that a miracle happens. It is a sad truth that our President will never accept the reality of what he has created in Iraq.
Eventually, our troops will leave and the gates of hell will be completely opened in Iraq. When that will happen is in question but it is a certainty at some point. Then, rather than accept out responsibility as a nation, the guilty parties will begin the search for scapegoats.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Tenet tells Scott Pelley in a 60 Minutes interview that, before the September 11 attacks, he told Rice in a White House meeting the U.S. should take preemptive action inside Afghanistan.
"We need – we need to – we need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now," Tenet remembers telling Rice, who was then National Security Advisor. "We need to – we need to move to the offensive."
RICE'S ANSWER AND MY EVALUATION"
Rice, however, said Tenet's claim was a "new fact" and she would "have to look."
If it is a fact, how can it be new when he said it happened prior to September 11, 2001? She refers to Tenet's claim as a "fact" which is a clear acknowledgment that it is true. Further, what does she have to look into about a fact? Possibly come up with an answer to hide the truth?
She told Bob Schieffer, "It's very interesting because that's not what George told the 9/11 Commission at the time. He said that he felt that we had gotten it."
She refers to his testimony and attempts to point out that he withheld that information from the 9/11 Commission. However, even if he did it in no way proves that it is false.
Asked why Tenet would make the claim if it wasn't true, Rice said she didn't know. "I don't know what we were supposed to preemptively strike in Afghanistan," she said. "Perhaps somebody can ask that."
Her claim appears to be that he didn't provide specific targets,which he never claims to have done. Notice that she still does not deny his assertion, then takes an offensive stance saying that he should be questioned about specific targets that should have been picked. That is totally irrelevant as to whether or not he recommended preemptive action in a general manner. It would be up to the Military and intelligence Agencies combined to select specific targets.
A careful examination of her statements reveal that while Secretary Rice makes weak attempts to defend herself, she is unable to come up with even a weak rebuttal and clearly confirms that his assertion is a fact.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Anyone who hasn't figured out that the Bushies were planning to invade Iraq from day one probably also still believes that Saddam had WMD's and a connection to AL Qaeda. After "Fiasco", "State of Denial", and Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies" I think its pretty clear that any reasonable person with a brain who had in depth contact with the Bush Whitehouse and a smidgen of ethics has to scream out loud that these people are really bad news.
The problem I have with Tenet is the same one I have with Colin Powell. These men should have known better and either spoke up, walked away, or both when the Neocons were leading us down the path to destruction. Dick Cheney is a psychopathic killer and George Bush has the IQ of a head of lettuce, they have an excuse. However, both Powell and Tenet knew better and waited until we drove off a cliff to pipe up and tell us that there was a sign saying "bridge out ahead". Gee thanks guys, its nice to know NOW!! that we are dealing with liars and thieves! Maybe you coulda got that info to us a tad bit earlier. I don't know, maybe prior to the biggest strategic blunder in US history would have been good?
Oh well, better late than never I guess. Now its time for Congress to call these guys in to testify and get some orange jump suits prepared for President Cheney and his faculty. If these guys don't end up in jail then there is no justice in the United States.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Don Imus was hated by the right because as quiet as it was kept, he harboured some progressive attitudes and the right wing knew it. He hated Dick Cheney and constantly referred to him as a "fat pork chop eatin bastard". He was an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war. He referred to the President and his war party as war criminals that should be in jail. He was recently criticized for saying that Dick Cheney should be shot. His on air cohorts were right wing racist pigs but to be honest, Imus was an often times left leaning Republican critic who rarely, if ever, agreed with them. I am not defending His comments, just stating a reality here that many people have missed. I felt that his racist cohort Bernard McGuirk made such outrageously racist statements that the show should have been trashed years ago. It has been overlooked that immediately after Imus's statement about the Rutgers players, McGuirk referred to the Spike Lee movie' Do the right thing" by saying " The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes — that movie that he had." McGuirk made racist statements almost daily and I am shocked that he was allowed to get away with it as long as he did.
At any rate, this is a long winded way of saying that MSNBC was thrilled to get the opportunity to replace an outspoken Bush and War critic with right wing host Michael Smerconish. Who would have guessed that the man who stands in for Bill O'reilly and donated personally to George W. Bush's campaign would be hired as the Defense Contractor's newest mouthpiece. Though the MSNBC show with the fastest climbing ratings is the left leaning "Countdown, with Keith Olbermann" the station ignores the money making potential of more centrist and left leaning hosts and goes for the far right again. Obviously, they understand that a few million from a successful talk show is nothing compared with Billions for G.E. from an unsuccessful war.
Here's some information you may find interesting about General Electric/MSNBC:
"General Electric, one of the largest and most diversified manufacturers in the world, is the Pentagon's top supplier of aircraft engines. The company also provides financial services and owns the NBC television network.
"General Electric's Defense Contracts went up a whopping 1.2 billion dollars after the the start of the Iraq War"
"60% of G.E.'s political donations between 1998 and 2003 went to Republican candidates. During that period the top recipient of campaign money was George W. Bush"
The Imus firing was great for America in that it finally forces the African American community to acknowledge the drug selling gun toting lyrics of modern day rappers. This tragedy has been ignored though it causes irreparable harm to our youth. But it is a bittersweet victory as it gives the giant defense contractor another Republican apologist to sing the corporate song.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Being a man of order, Godly principles, and conservative values I can imagine a Muslim Country where all men and women are free. A land where peace is the way of life and there are no Jihadis or martyrs. In this great peaceful country, all people regardless of gender, race, or religion will be free to worship and live as they see fit with no fear of government or religious persecution. The wealth of natural resources will be bring great prosperity which will be used for peaceful purposes. There will be no need for a military or nuclear weapons because this Muslim country will harbour no ill will towards anyone on the planet and will only seek to project love and promote peace on this great planet. The government won't even need bodyguards or any form of physical protection measures because they will be loved and respected by the citizens rather than feared.
Can't you just imagine the possibilities this great society presents to the overall interests of the United States? The way I see it, we could overrun those bastards in less than 48 hours with just the 82nd airborne, the 1st infantry division, and maybe the 101st airborne division for backup and re-supply. Hell a couple of squadrons of f-18's would knock out all command and control communications the first night because they'de have no anti-aircraft weapons systems and those tea sipping, spotted owl hugging, peace bunnies would never see it coming. They'd have all the infrastructure for oil production so as long as we didn't accidentally hit the oil fields with our pinpoint tomohawk strikes we could have them back up pumping at full capacity in a matter of days. Early in the Campaign, we could offer to meet with their parliament to hammer out a peace deal. Then once we got 'em all gathered in one place, wipe 'em all out with one B61-11 Nuclear Bunker Buster Bomb. OH GOD I LOVE THIS JOB!!!!
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Can we take this to mean that the insurgents are instituting a "surge" strategy of their own? Maybe the Iraqi Parliament should start meeting at the Baghdad market where John McCain prclaimed it was safe because the green zone seems to be getting more red by the minute. I would suggest to Senator McCain that he return to that Baghdad market and look for his credibility, I think he lost it there.
Incidentally, did you know that the green zone is called that because it is safe and the rest of the country is considered the red zone. This is not a joke, it was the original reason it was called the green Zone. I think they better downgrade it to the yellow zone after this.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
- They are currently building an embassy six times larger than the United Nations with its own defense force, power and water production facilities, and the population of a small town
- The Military is Building 14 "Enduring Bases" in Iraq and upgrading airfields as we speak
- On 23 March 2004, Christine Spolar said in The Chicago Tribune that there was a “long term military presence planned” in Iraq. “U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," long-term encampments for the thousands of American troops expected to serve in Iraq for at least two years. The bases also would be key outposts for Bush administration policy advisers.” Major Kimmitt said, “This is a blueprint for how we could operate in the Middle East." The US was making plans for Iraqi bases in Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk and in areas near Nasiriyah, near Tikrit, near Fallujah and between Irbil and Kirkuk. There were also plans “to renovate and enhance airfields in Baghdad and Mosul, and rebuild 70 miles of road on the main route for U.S. troops headed north.”
Isn't it pretty obvious that we are not going to build the largest embassy in the world and fourteen huge military bases just to walk away and leave them for the Iraqis who have no legitimate military and no air force whatsoever?
The plan was to invade Iraq, then build forward bases for further military operations against other Middle Eastern Countries and ultimately Russia and China. This would allow us to dominate the region's oil and ultimately subjugate all persons on earth to the Neocons. In plain language "TO RULE THE WORLD..Meeeehahahahaha (or whatever word represents the maniacal laugh of a madman). Don't fool yourself for one second and think that these people are discouraged by the immensity of their failure. Reality and Neocon strategies are polar opposites. They move forward with little consideration of the wishes of the American or Iraqi people. This is truly a fascist elitist Regime that believes that they know far better what is good for us than we do. We ordinary citizens are insignificant in their grand scheme other than the ones who are willing to join the military and catch a bullet.
The Iraqis are fed up and are now making it quite clear that they wish us out. These quotes from Lauren Frayer's April 10th story tell it all:
"Tens of thousands draped themselves in Iraqi flags and marched peacefully through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall. Demonstrators were flanked by two cordons of police as they called for US forces to leave, shouting: "Get out, get out occupier!"
"Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd, which was led by at least a dozen turbaned clerics - including one Sunni."
"The enemy that is occupying our country is now targeting the dignity of the Iraqi people," said lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, head of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament. "After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded." A senior official in al-Sadr's organization in Najaf, Salah al-Obaydi, called the rally a "call for liberation."
"We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty," he said"
The only thing that will make a difference is if the American people get so tired of the current subversion of Democracy that they force the issue by pressuring the Congress to impeach both the President and Vice President before they can attack Iran and screw this thing up beyond repair. Will that happen? if the last few years is any indication, the gullible and politically ignorant masses will just sit by and complain while a small band of fascist psychos lead us all down the road to destruction.
Now for the daily double:
Rome, Greece, and the United States
Who are, powerful empires that fell..for five hundred dollars Alex.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
"it is premature, to say the least, for armchair generals (ourselves included) to enter a verdict on General David Petraeus' plans to secure Baghdad and enable a political settlement in Iraq"
It seems fairly obvious they recognize that the American people have finally figured out how incompetent and ineffective our current political leaders are at devising military policies. They realize that if the plan is presented as the President's plan, it will be universally viewed as just another foolish plan by a hapless bungler. Which, I might add, is precisely what it is. The other bonus of laying this on the General's lap is that when it fails, as of course it undoubtedly will, the Hapless Bungler in Chief will have a convenient fall guy.
What makes me sick in this case is watching the media lapdogs run after the ball they've been thrown and happily return it to their master time and again. Will no one in the mainstream media ask the questions; whose plan is this anyway? Just how much input did General Petraeus have? Is it General Petraeus's plan because he created it or because it has now been handed to him.
The good General should also look around and observe what this Administration does with people when they no are no longer needed. He best have a plan for six or seven months from now when this thing has completely blown up (no pun intended). Because guess whose plan it will be then?...correct, General Petraeus's plan. Any guesses who the White House will blame for the failure?
Thursday, April 05, 2007
John McCain recently pointed me to my summer vacation destination when he said:
“There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today. The U.S. is beginning to succeed in Iraq.”
Then of course as he has done so many times before, John McCain defended the absurd claim with an even more ludicrous explanation of the statement which millions watched on CNN.
“Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”
So I guess he's saying that you and I could walk through certain neighborhoods in Baghdad, provided we had the protection of the first armoured division and few dozen attack helicopters surrounding us. I can hardly wait to find a nice shady spot to pull over and break out the potato salad and sandwiches.
John McCain, the kind of Republican leadership America has come to expect.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Now to one Mr. Karl Rove, he was anointed genius by the right wing pundits that masquerade themselves as the mainstream media shortly after the stupidest man on earth became President. I was watching a political show on one of the mainstream networks the other day and the Conservative pundits looked at the so-called left wing pundit and said that even with all of his problems, wouldn't the Democrats like to have a genius like Karl Rove on their side, to which this clown replied "yes".
Clearly their idea of what defines a genius is drastically different than mine. This idiot has executed a master plan which has handed Congress over to the Democrats, created the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country, and alienated both himself and his feckless boss from the citizens of the world, the American People, and members of Congress in their own party. Only an unlikely miracle will prevent the Democrats from picking up more seats in Congress and the presidency in 2008. The latest trends show that the American people are trending away from the Republicans in nearly every category. So please tell me what the Democrats would want this Schmuck for? If you evaluate his strategy over the entire 8 years of the Bush Presidency it is quite obvious that his plans were shortsighted and naive. He thought he could create a one party State, as most fascists would certainly desire, then make political moves with reckless abandon. That lasted exactly four years and now the Democratic Congress is quickly closing in on the "reckless abandon" part of his strategy with hearings and subpoenas. I suspect that by January of 2009 when the new President is sworn in, Mr. Rove will be holding up a sign not so unlike that of Wile E Coyote's final statement.
My advice to the Democrats is, with geniuses like Karl Rove, who needs dummies.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The President is fighting with Congress to protect Karl Rove and Harriet Miers from being held accountable for doing what everyone in the world knows they have to do, LIE! Why do we play these games pretending that they would tell the truth if put under oath before Congress. There is certainly no chance of that. Obviously telling the truth about anything they have done since 2000 would land every one of them in jail.
Right Wingnuts will defend these liars to their last breath so there is no chance of convincing loyal Bushies that lying under oath is wrong. In Scooter Libby's case right wingnuts are still defending him despite a conviction and a mountain of evidence that he deliberately lied. Observe the absurd defense Lorie Byrd makes when arguing why Rove should not have to testify:
"Scooter Libby was questioned under oath, as were various other administration officials and reporters, until his recollection of events in the Plame matter were found to be inconsistent with others. With a Libby perjury conviction the only Bush administration scalp Democrats have to wave, it makes sense they would want to go back to the well by questioning as many Bush administration officials under oath as possible, about anything"
Sadly, it seems clear that even their strongest defenders have accepted that putting a member of the Bush Administration under oath is a recipe for disaster. It has become a tragic comedy. Congress has to go through the process necessary to force these pathological liars into a corner, but the Whitehouse's ridiculous arguments shouldn't be treated as though they are credible.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
It is quite clear now that the Whitehouse staff lied about their involvement in the firings. Alberto Gonzales blatantly lied to Senator Mark Prior in this instance:
"In an interview Tuesday on a news network program, Pryor said that, when he asked Gonzales to send Griffin through the confirmation process, Gonzales said he would, and that was the intent of Justice Department officials.
But Pryor said e-mails between Justice Department officials that were recently released by the agency show that the department never had any intention of nominating Griffin and going through the confirmation process."
It should be obvious by now that this Administration has no respect for Congress, the American People, or the rule of law. It is a hopeless task to try and straighten this group of conniving thieves out between now and January of 2009. We can only hope Congress will stop them from destroying this country by attacking Iran.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Just before the invasion I wrote that the best case scenario after invading Iraq would be catastrophic. Well here we are, holding a tiger by the tail. The best analogy I've heard is that of having driven off a cliff. This is appropriate because when you are in the air travelling at 32 feet per second downward, there aren't whole lot of effective solutions. If you have a gun handy, you can always shoot yourself in the head before you hit, short of that you are about to die on impact.
The truth is, contrary to what you hear in the mainstream media, we aren't in a war. Media outlets outside the United States correctly refer to the "occupation" rather than the "war". We are in an occupation and you can't WIN an occupation. You just occupy a country and at some point you are no longer occupying it. The Presidents call for victory is misleading hogwash.
I would argue that if this is considered a win or lose scenario, we have already lost. To win a military campaign you must achieve the political goals which you believe created the need for military intervention. Our goal was to seek and destroy WMD's and then somehow morphed into creating a stable democracy. The WMD's never existed, and any hope of a Western style democracy evaporated with the Samara bombing in February of 2006. So by the standards of achieving political and military goals, we have no chance of either. It's hard to argue that a country who sets forth military and political goals, launches an invasion to achieve those goals, and fails to achieve any of them hasn't lost the military campaign. Now we just stay and watch the horrific slaughter, then eventually leave and watch more horrific slaughter.
If this is freedom, I suspect that most Iraqis would rather be alive than free.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Now I must ask the question, since obviously the mainstream media won't. If you were tortured for a significant period of time, wouldn't you admit to all 29 of those terror plots? I must be honest here, I am no tough guy and I would admit to every one of those and many more after about five minutes of torture. Heck, even the threat of torture is enough to get me to admit to just about any crime in world history.
If you review this list carefully you will find that the only crime he did not confess to was the killings of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. But if they had asked he likely would have admitted to those too and told investigators that he's been running from golf course to golf course in South Florida hiding from OJ. Incidentally, George Bush may as well join OJ is his quest to find the real killers by inspecting Miami's golf course circuit. Maybe OJ can help him find his WMD's on the 12th Hole at Killian Greens. They're right in between the unicorn and the tooth fairy.
Seriously, is there anyone besides me that suspects that maybe a few of those confessions could have been influenced by the repeated blows to the head while being hung upside down and urinated on? Regardless of how you feel about torturing Al Queda suspects, isn't it pretty logical that confessions made as a result of torture are extremely unreliable at best. Who amongst us would not confess to stop the torturers ruthless beatings?
Tortured confessions are only valuable to Governments who wish to fool ignorant people into believing that they are accomplishing things which they clearly aren't. If this guy was so cooperative, why didn't he give up the location of Osama Bin laden? He was, according to the Bush Administration, Al Queda's number two guy. Which in itself raises the question, how the heck many number two guys does Al Queda have? Every month we capture the number two guy in Iraq. Why can't we find the number one guy for crying out loud.
I'd trade the 27 number two guys that we have captured in the last 27 months for the number one guy any day. We'll just do it like draft picks. We'll give 'em a number two, 2 number threes, and a terrorist to be named later in return for Osama and a backup terrorist. A role player will be fine. Not necessarily a planner but maybe just a bombmaker or the guy who edits the film for their monthly videos.
I'll just end this by congratulating the CIA for their confessions. I am sure they can get Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to confess to killing JFK and being the man behind global warming within the next few weeks.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said passage of the withdrawal measure "would be absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq". No Mitch, our mission in Iraq is absolutely fatal to our mission in Iraq. This thing went flatline right about the time the first American soldier drove across the Iraqi border in the original invasion. There was never any possibility that this horrendous mistake could have succeeded in anything other than icnreasing the ranks of Al Queda. Unlike you, the American people have figured out that the patient is dead. Time to figure out how to dispose of the body. Some want to walk away and leave it to rot in the sun and others want to chop it up and hope noone can connect the parts and finger the US as the killers. But regardless of the metaphor, Iraq is destined to suffer far greater disaster than we have witnessed thus far. I am fairly certain the voters will be happy to express their feelings on the matter at the polls in the 2008 elections.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
While Representatives from neighboring countries met in Iraq over ways to address the violence, insurgents demonstrated their ability to carry out attacks almost at will.
Here's a great article about people like me. It's about time someone said:
"What we should also do is celebrate the people who opposed the war from the beginning. In the face of severe opprobrium and intimidation, a sizable number of Americans saw the charade for what it was and rued the oncoming disaster. They should be cheered, time and again"
Those who claim there was an intelligence failure seem to conveniently forget that Scott Ritter said:
"There simply is no evidence of a factual nature that sustains the allegation by the Bush administration or British government that Iraq today possesses weapons of mass destruction," Ritter told The Chronicle in late March 2003."
How could one guy be right and the Bush Administration claim that with all of the intelligence available to them, they were completely in the dark. The truth is that many of us are sitting around saying I told you so while the right wing pundits seem befuddled as to how they could have been so wrong.
Clearly the Surge is failing just as every other strategy put forth by the neoclowns. How shocked they'll seem in six or seven months when they ponder how another plan failed so miserably.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Lets start with the first argument that if everyone believed Saddam had WMD's then the invasion was justified. The problem with that argument is obvious. Though these other countries and people believed that Saddam possessed these weapons, they clearly disagreed that the solution was an unprovoked invasion. So the fact that most agreed that the WMD's were there in itself raises the question why they all so strongly disagreed with The Bush Administration's solution. Rather than a valid defense for the invasion, this fact demonstrates that the Bush Administration was out of step with world views on the solution to a mutually agreed problem.
What we had here were facts and theories. The facts were that there was no clear evidence that the WMD's existed and that the inspectors received access to Iraq to Search for them. There was no rush and Saddam was cooperating with the UN and posed no threat to anyone. The theory was that he had WMD's particularly a Nuclear Weapons program. When confronted with the decison of what action t take. Most of the world wanted to act based on the facts. The Bush Administration ignored the facts and acted on the theory. Of course this argument rests on whether you believe that the WMD's issue was the impetus for war in the first place or merely a convenient ruse.
The second part of the argument infers that if Saddam had WMD's then an invasion was justified. This argument would justify invading 30 or more nations around the world. Are we to believe that Saddam would attack Israel or the United States with Mustard Gas and face nuclear retaliation? Further, are we to believe that the massive facilities necessary to enrich uranium could be hidden in Iraq? Either of these arguments are too preposterous to even consider. Saddam like Israel, Libya, Iran, Syria, and the United States would not use his weapons because the retaliation would be much too costly.
Before the invasion I felt the same as Bill Clinton, France, Ted Kennedy, and the rest of the world. Even if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an invasion would make the world more dangerous rather than safer.