Tuesday, February 27, 2007
It is absolutely amazing to me that as absurd as the Bush Administration's foreign policies are there are still people drinking the kool aid. The military has revolted, worldwide surveys show that the US is seen as a threat to world peace, and now the Russians are threatening World War III if we attack Iran. What does it take to convince some people that there are actually other countries with other interests in the world besides the US.
Russians Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently remarked:
"An escalation of the conflict and its spillover into Iraq will inevitably entail catastrophic consequences, not only for the Middle East," he said. "I think Washington understands this."
I think the Pentagon saw this warning, as would any group of sane people, as an inference that the Russians have had enough and intend to either directly or indirectly enter the fray should we attack Iran. They have already began arming Iran and it would be simple and effective for them to provide satellite assistance for missile targeting of US ships and positions. It is certainly possible that the Russians would see an attack on Iran as an effort by the US to monopolize the oil producing countries and control world oil supplies. This may be enough of a threat that they would consider an outright attack on US military bases and hardware in the Region. This would be disastrous for the US military and the losses would be unfathomable. Since the Russians have an equal nuclear arsenal to the United States, we would have no way other than conventional means to fight back against the Russians, Syrians, and Iranians. For anyone who is not familiar with the Russian's military technology, take my word for it, they have surpassed the US in some areas and are more than up to the challenge. Particularly since we would be in their backyard and did I mention surrounded?
Time to listen to the military leaders and not the Psychopathic fascist in the Oval Office.
I guess the only thing left is to hear the right wing Bush crazies accuse the Generals of being anti American traitors.
Friday, February 23, 2007
You have an enemy with whom you seek to settle a score through violent means. Rather than fight the enemy at your house and risk damage to your property or injury and death to your family and neighbors, you invite the enemy meet you at another neighborhood several miles away. You contact the people in the neighborhood of choice and tell them that you are coming to improve their neighborhood, bring jobs, and improve their lives. You then meet the enemy at the other neighborhood where you engage him in a prolonged violent battle. The battle destroys the neighborhood and many of its inhabitants are killed, maimed, or uprooted in the violence. Unemployment rises to near 70% after you turn it into a war torn wasteland. When the people in your home area begin to feel guilty for the horrors you are creating in the other area you tell them "hey guys, wouldn't you rather destroy their property, uproot them from their homes, and kill and maim their families than ours? I lied to them and told them we were coming to make their lives better, however my plan was to could draw the enemy into their neighborhhood and turn it into a violent battleground. Better them than us right?"
Politicians and pundits use this argument, but no one using it ever discusses why we have never used it as an explanation to the Iraqis to explain their dire circumstances. If it is such a reasonable and moral argument, we should share it with the world. We should make the argument with the UN and the European union. But those using it know that it is morally corrupt and that only the ignorant and immoral in America will embrace it.
Meanwhile, Doug Feith, another neocon moron, is being exposed for his part in the international crime that is Iraq.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
It looks to me like the far right's extreme positions are damning their eventual candidate to a painful defeat. In order to appease the far right and win the primaries, the Republican candidates will be forced to embrace the very positions that will alienate them from the mainstream electorate. The Democrats will likely be in the same position they were in during the mid term elections. Simply stand aside and remind the voters that they aren't Republicans. The Republicans will take care of the rest. Furthermore the Iraq war will be much more unpopular by then that it is now. Reminding the public of his hawkish positions will spell doom for McCain. By the time the general election gets here, any one of the Democratic candidates will be able to beat this clown.
Monday, February 19, 2007
"In previous tapes released by the National Archives, Nixon told Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, "Henry, let's leave the niggers to Bill and we'll take care of the rest of the world" while working on his first presidential address to Congress. Nixon repeatedly referred to blacks as "niggers" and "jigaboos" in other conversations with Kissinger. Nixon later complained to Erlichman that Great Society programs were a waste "because blacks were genetically inferior to whites."
"One of the things I remember about Mr. Reagan's 1980 presidential run was that his first major appearance in the general election campaign was in Philadelphia, Miss., which just happened to be the place where three civil rights workers ? Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney ? were murdered in 1964.
During that appearance, Mr. Reagan told his audience, "I believe in states' rights."
How about this for an imaginative use of "codewords" to inflame the racists.
"Cadillac Queens.Over a period of about five years, Reagan told the story of the "Chicago welfare queen" who had 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards, and collected benefits for "four nonexisting deceased husbands," bilking the government out of "over $150,000." The real welfare recipient to whom Reagan referred was actually convicted for using two different aliases to collect $8,000. Reagan continued to use the story after he was told it was false"
It was Inauguration Day, and in the judgment of one later historian, "the atmosphere in the nation's capital bore ominous signs for Negroes." Washington rang with happy Rebel Yells, while bands all over town played 'Dixie.' Indeed, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who swore in the newly elected Southern president, was himself a former member of the Ku Klux Klan. Meanwhile, "an unidentified associate of the new Chief Executive warned that since the South ran the nation, Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race." ------ This is not an alternate world scenario imagining the results of a Strom Thurmond victory in the 1948 election; it is the real March 4, 1913, the day Woodrow Wilson of Virginia moved into the White House.
"Woodrow Wilson was a staunch white supremacist.
While president of Princeton University, Wilson discouraged blacks from even applying for admission.
When a delegation of blacks protested his discriminatory actions, Wilson told them that "segregation is not a humiliation but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." In 1914, he told New York Times that "If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it.
Woodrow Wilson's History of the American People explained the Ku Klux Klan of the late 1860s as the natural outgrowth of Reconstruction, a lawless reaction to a lawless period. Wilson noted that the Klan “began to attempt by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot or by any ordered course of public action.” . In short, Wilson accepted the Southern version of Reconstruction with Southern whites being victimized.
"Not only did Washington have slaves, he did little to free them during his lifetime. As the country's first president, he also did not do anything to abolish the institution of slavery. "
Friday, February 16, 2007
My favorite Republican argument is that we must support the Presidents plan because no one else has any plan at all. Lets try out their argument. If you and I are stranded on a mountain in a blizzard and it seems likely that we will die if not rescued, then you come up with a plan in which we will leap over the side of the mountain to our deaths to avoid freezing to death. I must support that plan if I don't have an immediate plan to offer. Isn't the flaw in this argument pretty obvious here?
The President has come up with numerous plans, all which have proven to be flawed and produced horrific unintended consequences. Furthermore I have heard several plans from Democrats and Republicans alike which call for withdrawal in some form. There was also the Baker Hamilton Group's plan which ended with a phased withdrawal. Of course these facts in no way impede the GOP faithful from repeating the lie that there is no other plan.
Repeating a lie does not make it any more true.
Meanwhile, the stream of refugees from war torn Iraq is starting to overwhelm its neighboring countries.
Monday, February 12, 2007
The Bush Administration then decided to push the story that the only reason he was chosen for the Niger trip was because his wife, who was a CIA operative, pushed his name into the mix. Therefor, he was chosen to go on the trip because of nepotism and his findings should be dismissed. Please read the last two sentences again and explain the logic behind their argument. He went to Niger and his investigative findings were unquestionably correct. In fact, the original documents included with the allegations were found to be forgeries. But by their twisted logic, we should disregard his findings, not because of the information which he used to reach his conclusion, but because his wife sent him. Oh by the way, that was proven to be incorrect also. I guess if a police investigator who is investigating a murder is sent by a relative, who happens to work for the same police department, to look into the crime and he is able to get a signed confession from the perpetrator. We must disregard the confession because his relative sent him to get it. Where is the logical connection between who sent him and whether his investigation resulted in an accurate finding.
Obviously they based their plan on the argument "you can fool some of the people all of the time" and those are the ones we are focusing on.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
So lets review the good news shall we?
It seems that the Russians have had enough of the Neocons quests to rule the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the Bushies foreign policy in front of US and European leaders Saturday. Obviously hey want the Americans to know that they are sick of us starting fights in their back yard.
The Bush administration has revealed that they plan to spend about 12 billion dollars per month for the two current Mideast occupations over the next two years. The Defense Budget has risen to the point of insanity.
The Russians have openly admitted to delivering sophisticated air defense missiles to Iran sending the clear message that these high tech missiles are for destroying US jets should Bush order an attack. President Putin said Saturday the he did want Iran to feel cornered.
Insurgents have had alarming success in downing US choppers of late, often with Russian shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles.
It is getting pretty obvious that Vice President Cheney was the mastermind of the CIA leak scandal and that his impeachment and/or criminal indictment should be near the top of the Congressional "things to do" list.
The Bush administration is still trying to blame everything but global warming on Iran. Everyday a new unsubstantiated allegation arises from this flock of morons. Why don't they dispense with the games, everyone knows they are deep into their plans for the next disastrous war.
Last but not least, in the "firm grasp of the obvious" category, General Patreaus has acknowledged that Iraq is doomed if the Presidents planned crackdown in Baghdad fails as miserably as every other plan he has instituted. The furious blogger once again states in third person, this plan has zero chance of success and Iraq is doomed regardless of the action that the US takes.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Can the so called "meddling" of other countries produce any worse results than our "benevolent intervention. " The Iraqi interior ministry has announced that the violence has led to the deaths of 1000 civilians in the last week, the CIA has admitted that Iraq is spiraling Downward, and the news gets worse everyday.
It's time that Congress seriously consider the necessary actions to insure that no "foreign fighters" start meddling in Iran.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
This thing is filthy and if Congress does not look into this any further they should all resign. Vice President Cheney is being revealed as the central figure behind the lies and distortions that lead up0 to this war and justice should be exacted.
Oh well, at least he didn't lie about extra-marital sex. Then we'd have to impeach him!
Friday, February 02, 2007
"Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes."
It is quite a relief to read in this report that the term "Civil War" doesn't apply because it "doesn't capture the complex situation in Iraq". I imagine that the families of the bullet riddled bodies found daily in and around Baghdad are relieved to know that their loved ones weren't tortured and murdered in a Civil War. They were merely victims of sectarian violence. While hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians perish in this horrific slaughter, we in the civilized world debate the semantics of their plight. Were they tortured by the militias before they were shot or was it just coercive tactics? The think tanks in Washington are losing countless hours of sleep clearing up these important issues.
Yesterday at the car wash I walked over to the guy who had just finished wiping down my car and as I handed him a five spot he shook his head and said "man, that Iraq is one screwed up mess huh"? Personally, I think his assessment of the situation was considerably more accurate than the CIA's National Intelligence Council or the Vice President