Following on his declaration not to leave Iraq "As long as I am president" at a press conference last week, Bush now says that New Orleans may need a decade to rebuild following it's devastation last year by Hurricane Katrina.
"Let some other president fix it. I'm not going to," Bush said at a press conference today."My duties as president extend to making sure the Republicans hold on to their power in Congress, and starting wars to enrich my wealthy campaign contributors. The most I can offer for the people of New Orleans is a tax cut for it's wealthiest residents."
"If I had to fix every problem in this dang country, I'd never have anytime to go fishing with my daddy, or clear the brush from the Western White House, my ranch at Crawford."Bush then when on to state he had other things on his mind. "We're giving birth to a new middle east here, I don't have time for rebuilding America. Like withdrawin' our troops from Iran, I'll just have to leave that up to another president."
When a reporter pointed out that we have no troops in Iran, Bush replied, "Not yet."
(cross posted at The American Insurgency)
Monday, August 28, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
We've All Seen This Before And We Know How It Ends. Not Good
Let's play a game called "Who do you trust"? If you had to choose between a report on Iran, which one would you believe, the one authored by intelligence agents, with people in the region who understand the subtleties of the situation, or a bunch of congressmen, who are receiving deceiving reports from the White House? Intelligence agents, whose job it is to report on what's going on in Iran, or Republicans with a neo-fascist agenda?
Before you answer, remember who it was that told the truth about Iraq. The White House and it's congressional lapdogs told us a load of crap that they later have denied shoveling or (rarely) have admitted they were wrong about. Now these same people are doing the same for Iran. These are the same people who told us Iran was going to start a nuclear war, WWIII on August 22. Never happened. The same people who insist that Iran’s legal nuclear ambitions will be dealt with by the security council. That’s not going to happen, either.
What this means is that once again, the US will go it alone. Or build another “coalition of the willing”, because as neofascist guru Bill Kristol said on Fox the other day :
So now the decider is making decisions for the rest of the world? How much longer will the world be able to tolerate the bullying tactics of the Bush administration? Who will be blamed for faulty intelligence when this war becomes another quagmire? The ones who insisted we go to war to fulfill their neofascist agenda? Or the small minority of people who support them?
Before you answer, remember who it was that told the truth about Iraq. The White House and it's congressional lapdogs told us a load of crap that they later have denied shoveling or (rarely) have admitted they were wrong about. Now these same people are doing the same for Iran. These are the same people who told us Iran was going to start a nuclear war, WWIII on August 22. Never happened. The same people who insist that Iran’s legal nuclear ambitions will be dealt with by the security council. That’s not going to happen, either.
What this means is that once again, the US will go it alone. Or build another “coalition of the willing”, because as neofascist guru Bill Kristol said on Fox the other day :
“I think we could be in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect. I don’t think this is an issue that’s going to wait two and a half years until President Bush leaves the presidency. I think he will decide at some point next year — in 2007 — he’ll have to make some very tough decisions about what the U.S. and the world can tolerate”
So now the decider is making decisions for the rest of the world? How much longer will the world be able to tolerate the bullying tactics of the Bush administration? Who will be blamed for faulty intelligence when this war becomes another quagmire? The ones who insisted we go to war to fulfill their neofascist agenda? Or the small minority of people who support them?
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
DeVos Takes On Bush. Kind Of.
Echoing calls made by Gov. Granholm, Republican gubnatorial candidiate Dick DeVos has called on President Bush to meet with auto makers. Why the sudden change of heart from a man who said automakers should "stop crabbing" about foreign competition? Could it be that DeVos is trailing in the polls?
The number one reason the automakers are hurting is a direct result of outsourcing, something that candidate DeVos has supported through donations to The Mackinac Center,the Acton Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Istitute, all major foundations advocating outsourcing of American jobs.
Look at it this way: If a large corporation lays off 1500 American workers and outsources their jobs, the ripple effect across the economy is detrimental. 1500 people on lay-off aren't going to buy 1500 new cars, houses, furniture, or appliances. That means less orders for those, which means the manufacturers have to lay off people. Not only that, but the community suffers as well. Grocery stores don't sell as many groceries, bar and restaurant business slows, people forgo seeing the doctor because they can no longer afford it, so cuts have to be made in these fields as well. Now, the original company that outsourced the jobs finds it orders down, so it has to lay-off more workers, beginning the whole downward spiral again. Even though we're being told by the idiot President that the economy is booming, the stark reality is the economy is on a downturn, and the outsourcing of jobs is one of the main culprits.
DeVos likes to talk about leadership, and how our state needs a leader, neglecting to mention that he cut 1400 jobs as President of Amway, a company that has invested over $100 million in China over the past five years. So much for some one investing in Michigan's future. The only future DeVos cares about is his own.
DeVos's criticism of Bush is a distancing tool as well. His family contributed more than any other family to the Bush campaign and the Republican party. DeVos says Bush has ignored Michigan too long, but perhaps he's annoyed with DeVos. In 2000, DeVos promised to deliver Michigan to Bush. DeVos also placed his voucher proposal on the same ballot, which brought out more voters than usual to strike it down, causing Bush to lose the state in 2000.
In his ads, DeVos doesn't even say he's a Republican, but he and his family have been closely associated with the Michigan Republican for years. His wife, Betsy, was even National Chairperson of the party. he tries to paint himself as an hoest down to earth guy, a guy who just happens to fly back and forth over the city in his own private helicopter. Since leaving Amway, the only jobs DeVos have created, besides the time Betsy paid some people to protest outside Fountain Street Church while Michael Moore was inside giving a free speech, have been in the field of PAC's.
DeVos's pet project is getting public funding for private schools, either through vouchers or tax cuts. If he was really concerned about Michigan's future, he would put an effort into making our public schools better by putting tax money into, not taking it away from them.
Face it, if DeVos were really honest, he'd mention his connections to Bush and Tom Delay (who held a conference on DeVos's yacht), but he doesn't want voters to know the real Dick. Dick is a Republican, the same people who have been running the legislature for years. Granholm is not a unitary executive, she can only sign bills passed by the legislature. She inherited a budget deficit from John "Fat Boy" Engler, who in turn inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor Jim Blanchard. But the problem is not the politicians, it's the greedy bastards like Dick DeVos who have sacrificed Michigan's labor force so they can attain more wealth, which in turn they would like to use to tell those displaced workers
For Kathy, here's my own Amway story. In 2002 I was working at Amway for the company i am presently employed by. Throughout the facilities, at every break area and cafeteria, there are television monitors giving Amway approved news headlines for the employees. On September 11, 2002, everyone was given plastic American flags that were made in China to attach to their cars. At the time of the first plane impact, everybody was herded to a television set to observe a moment of silence. The monitor focused on the flags in front of world headquarters, flying at half mast. Amway World Headquarters is located on M-21, a busy thouroughfare, and the camera was stationed across the road. But whoever was running the camera forgot to turn off the sound, so at the time we were supposed to be observing a moment of silence, we were instead treated to the sound of traffic rumbling down the highway in front of Amway.
The number one reason the automakers are hurting is a direct result of outsourcing, something that candidate DeVos has supported through donations to The Mackinac Center,the Acton Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Istitute, all major foundations advocating outsourcing of American jobs.
Look at it this way: If a large corporation lays off 1500 American workers and outsources their jobs, the ripple effect across the economy is detrimental. 1500 people on lay-off aren't going to buy 1500 new cars, houses, furniture, or appliances. That means less orders for those, which means the manufacturers have to lay off people. Not only that, but the community suffers as well. Grocery stores don't sell as many groceries, bar and restaurant business slows, people forgo seeing the doctor because they can no longer afford it, so cuts have to be made in these fields as well. Now, the original company that outsourced the jobs finds it orders down, so it has to lay-off more workers, beginning the whole downward spiral again. Even though we're being told by the idiot President that the economy is booming, the stark reality is the economy is on a downturn, and the outsourcing of jobs is one of the main culprits.
DeVos likes to talk about leadership, and how our state needs a leader, neglecting to mention that he cut 1400 jobs as President of Amway, a company that has invested over $100 million in China over the past five years. So much for some one investing in Michigan's future. The only future DeVos cares about is his own.
DeVos's criticism of Bush is a distancing tool as well. His family contributed more than any other family to the Bush campaign and the Republican party. DeVos says Bush has ignored Michigan too long, but perhaps he's annoyed with DeVos. In 2000, DeVos promised to deliver Michigan to Bush. DeVos also placed his voucher proposal on the same ballot, which brought out more voters than usual to strike it down, causing Bush to lose the state in 2000.
In his ads, DeVos doesn't even say he's a Republican, but he and his family have been closely associated with the Michigan Republican for years. His wife, Betsy, was even National Chairperson of the party. he tries to paint himself as an hoest down to earth guy, a guy who just happens to fly back and forth over the city in his own private helicopter. Since leaving Amway, the only jobs DeVos have created, besides the time Betsy paid some people to protest outside Fountain Street Church while Michael Moore was inside giving a free speech, have been in the field of PAC's.
DeVos's pet project is getting public funding for private schools, either through vouchers or tax cuts. If he was really concerned about Michigan's future, he would put an effort into making our public schools better by putting tax money into, not taking it away from them.
Face it, if DeVos were really honest, he'd mention his connections to Bush and Tom Delay (who held a conference on DeVos's yacht), but he doesn't want voters to know the real Dick. Dick is a Republican, the same people who have been running the legislature for years. Granholm is not a unitary executive, she can only sign bills passed by the legislature. She inherited a budget deficit from John "Fat Boy" Engler, who in turn inherited a budget surplus from his predecessor Jim Blanchard. But the problem is not the politicians, it's the greedy bastards like Dick DeVos who have sacrificed Michigan's labor force so they can attain more wealth, which in turn they would like to use to tell those displaced workers
For Kathy, here's my own Amway story. In 2002 I was working at Amway for the company i am presently employed by. Throughout the facilities, at every break area and cafeteria, there are television monitors giving Amway approved news headlines for the employees. On September 11, 2002, everyone was given plastic American flags that were made in China to attach to their cars. At the time of the first plane impact, everybody was herded to a television set to observe a moment of silence. The monitor focused on the flags in front of world headquarters, flying at half mast. Amway World Headquarters is located on M-21, a busy thouroughfare, and the camera was stationed across the road. But whoever was running the camera forgot to turn off the sound, so at the time we were supposed to be observing a moment of silence, we were instead treated to the sound of traffic rumbling down the highway in front of Amway.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Debunking The Imminent Nuclear Attack.
Today on the radio, the propagandists were discussing an op-ed piece in the WSJ by Bernard Lewis that stated that tomorrow there's a likelihood of a nuclear attack by Iran. I haven't even read the article and I know it's bunk, neofascist propaganda setting up Iran as the fall guy for a false flag operation. I don't know what's in there, but I'm sure he puts forth his case well enough that the ill-informed (such as the "deejays" on the radio and much of their listening audience) might believe it to be so, but I don't buy it one bit.
First off, the reason the he speculates that tom orrow this will happen, is because tomorrow is th deadline for an proposal made by the UN for Iran to stop enriching uranium, something it has every right to do as a signee of the NPT. If Iran refuses, the matter will be brought to the Security Council, who will then vote on sanctions. Mr. Lewis proposes that Iran will start WWIII rather than face the sanctions imposed on it. However, what Mr. Lewis probably doesn't inform his readers with is the fact that security council members Russia and China have deals with Iran. Russia is building the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, while China, quickly becoming a large energy consumer, has made a deal with Iran to supply China with the oil it needs to feed it's growing economy. Neither one is likely to vote for sanctions, so in reality, Iran has nothing to worry about in the security council.
Iran also doesn't want to go to war. I know that Mr. Lewis' article probably refers to statements made by Iranian president Ahmednejhad concerning "wiping Israel off the map", an interpretation offered by the Israel paranoia leaning MEMRI. However, other interpretations of Ahmednejhad's statement have been Israel "should be erased form the pages of history". Neither statement reflect the Iranian president's desire to do this himself, it was more a statement of frustration with a country that mistreats it's Muslim population. But Iran offered to suspend it's uranium enrichment in exchange for a guarantee that the US will not attack it. This offer was rejected by the US.
However, Israel would like nothing better than to force regime change in Iran. If not for the statements made by it's president, than surely because Iran is arming Hizb-Ullah with missiles that Hizb-Ullah is firing at Israel. And of course the neofascists who signed the PNAC would like to force regime change in Iran as well. Why? Because Iran has made a deal to sell it's energy to China, meaning that all those oil profits that should be going to big oil in America will instead be going to Iran. And as we speak, people working for Dick Cheney are cherry picking intelligence and forging documents, just like they did for Iraq, to justify starting another war in the middle east. One that will be called the "war on terror", but will have nothing to do with terrorists acts or 9/11 or alQaeda at all.
Dick Cheney was a little disappointed that Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon didn't spread in to Syria, as an Israeli war with Syria would involve Iran and the US. In order to secure the gulf region's resources, according to the PNAC, the US must use it's role as the world's remaining superpower (while it still can) to effect regime change throughout the region. That's why we went to Iraq and why we're staying there until every last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground.None of this I'm sure is mentioned in Mr. Lewis's piece.
Neither does Mr. Lewis probably mention the plan Cheney had STRATCOM draw up last year, calling for a nuclear strike against Iran following the next terorist attack, even if Iran is not involved.
Iran has not the missile capability to strike the US. The most it's most recently tested rockets can go is 15,000 metres. It will be able to strike US soldiers in Iraq, and it will be able to strike at Israel. Unfortunately, IT WILL NOT BE A NUCLEAR ATTACK. Why? Because Iran has NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS!! They lack the 64,000 centrifuges it requires to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear device. Our own National Intelligence estimate from November of last year puts Iran at least ten years away from having the capabilities to build a nuclear device. Since they do not have nukes, how are they going to nuke anyone?
No, the only two armed forces in the region with nuclear capabilities are the US and Israel. If Iran were to strike at Israel with one nuclear weapon, Israel would make sure that it didn't happen again. Look how they responded when two of their soldiers were captured by Hizb-Ullah in Lebanon. Now multiply that by, I don't know, ten million, and you'd have a pretty good idea of what Israel would do. Ahmednejhad would be a fool to do so, and let me tell you, he's no fool. Unlike our idiot president who can't even finish a sentence.
So who are you going to believe? Someone from the media, the same media that said :
1. Saddam has WMD
2. Iraq has ties to alQaeda
3. Iraq was involved in 9/11
4. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror,
all of which are lies. Or are you going to look at the facts.
UPDATE: It turns out Mr. Lewis is a professor of Islamic studies! That explains his lack of knowledge as per the nuclear capabilities of Iran! But it sure has a bunch of ill-informed people scared!
First off, the reason the he speculates that tom orrow this will happen, is because tomorrow is th deadline for an proposal made by the UN for Iran to stop enriching uranium, something it has every right to do as a signee of the NPT. If Iran refuses, the matter will be brought to the Security Council, who will then vote on sanctions. Mr. Lewis proposes that Iran will start WWIII rather than face the sanctions imposed on it. However, what Mr. Lewis probably doesn't inform his readers with is the fact that security council members Russia and China have deals with Iran. Russia is building the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, while China, quickly becoming a large energy consumer, has made a deal with Iran to supply China with the oil it needs to feed it's growing economy. Neither one is likely to vote for sanctions, so in reality, Iran has nothing to worry about in the security council.
Iran also doesn't want to go to war. I know that Mr. Lewis' article probably refers to statements made by Iranian president Ahmednejhad concerning "wiping Israel off the map", an interpretation offered by the Israel paranoia leaning MEMRI. However, other interpretations of Ahmednejhad's statement have been Israel "should be erased form the pages of history". Neither statement reflect the Iranian president's desire to do this himself, it was more a statement of frustration with a country that mistreats it's Muslim population. But Iran offered to suspend it's uranium enrichment in exchange for a guarantee that the US will not attack it. This offer was rejected by the US.
However, Israel would like nothing better than to force regime change in Iran. If not for the statements made by it's president, than surely because Iran is arming Hizb-Ullah with missiles that Hizb-Ullah is firing at Israel. And of course the neofascists who signed the PNAC would like to force regime change in Iran as well. Why? Because Iran has made a deal to sell it's energy to China, meaning that all those oil profits that should be going to big oil in America will instead be going to Iran. And as we speak, people working for Dick Cheney are cherry picking intelligence and forging documents, just like they did for Iraq, to justify starting another war in the middle east. One that will be called the "war on terror", but will have nothing to do with terrorists acts or 9/11 or alQaeda at all.
Dick Cheney was a little disappointed that Israel's recent incursion into Lebanon didn't spread in to Syria, as an Israeli war with Syria would involve Iran and the US. In order to secure the gulf region's resources, according to the PNAC, the US must use it's role as the world's remaining superpower (while it still can) to effect regime change throughout the region. That's why we went to Iraq and why we're staying there until every last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground.None of this I'm sure is mentioned in Mr. Lewis's piece.
Neither does Mr. Lewis probably mention the plan Cheney had STRATCOM draw up last year, calling for a nuclear strike against Iran following the next terorist attack, even if Iran is not involved.
Iran has not the missile capability to strike the US. The most it's most recently tested rockets can go is 15,000 metres. It will be able to strike US soldiers in Iraq, and it will be able to strike at Israel. Unfortunately, IT WILL NOT BE A NUCLEAR ATTACK. Why? Because Iran has NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS!! They lack the 64,000 centrifuges it requires to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear device. Our own National Intelligence estimate from November of last year puts Iran at least ten years away from having the capabilities to build a nuclear device. Since they do not have nukes, how are they going to nuke anyone?
No, the only two armed forces in the region with nuclear capabilities are the US and Israel. If Iran were to strike at Israel with one nuclear weapon, Israel would make sure that it didn't happen again. Look how they responded when two of their soldiers were captured by Hizb-Ullah in Lebanon. Now multiply that by, I don't know, ten million, and you'd have a pretty good idea of what Israel would do. Ahmednejhad would be a fool to do so, and let me tell you, he's no fool. Unlike our idiot president who can't even finish a sentence.
So who are you going to believe? Someone from the media, the same media that said :
1. Saddam has WMD
2. Iraq has ties to alQaeda
3. Iraq was involved in 9/11
4. The war in Iraq is part of the war on terror,
all of which are lies. Or are you going to look at the facts.
UPDATE: It turns out Mr. Lewis is a professor of Islamic studies! That explains his lack of knowledge as per the nuclear capabilities of Iran! But it sure has a bunch of ill-informed people scared!
Sunday, August 20, 2006
An Important Portent
I'm more confused than a Republican in an ethics class. First, Joe Lieberman loses in the primaries. Then the Bush ADDministration backs Joe as an independent, over the Republican candidate for the senate seat in Connecticut. Now today, we have Lieberman Calling for Donald Rumsfeld to step down. More campaign rhetoric from a man trying to distance himself from the Bush regime, or a portent of a shake up already in the works.
Rumsfeld has been the point man for criticism of the way the war has been handled, because he has been handling it very poorly. he bought into Cheney's rhetoric that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet, and claimed he knew where those non-existent WMD were. Then there was Hilary's pillorying of Rumsfeld last week, where it seemed even the propagandists in the corporate media were mocking him. Does Cheney want someone else in the DoD for Iran and Syria?
Lieberman, for his part, criticized the Bush ADDministration, now, after he lost the primary because of it, for poor planning in it's invasion of Iraq, which he still cites as a good thing. (Even though it was a violation of international law)He said the ADDministration must put pressure on the Iraqi government to end sectarian violence in that country. WTF? How do you propose we do that Joe? Take away their running water, their electricity, their oil? We've already done that, thanks to the war, people who had all that 24/7 under Saddam, are now having to do with out under the US puppet regime.
And once again, like all the bought and paid for politicians, Lieberman links the war in Iraq to the war on terror, "we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.
If it was meant to end terrorism, it didn't work.
So, is Lieberman distancing himself from the Bush regime? Is he doing it by calling out the one person who is probably on the way out anyway? Or is Rumsfeld the easiest to criticize? (In this administration, who isn't?)Whatever the reason, Bush has allegedly refused Rumsfeld's resignation before, I doubt he'll listen to Joe, no matter how good a kisser he may be.
Rumsfeld has been the point man for criticism of the way the war has been handled, because he has been handling it very poorly. he bought into Cheney's rhetoric that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our feet, and claimed he knew where those non-existent WMD were. Then there was Hilary's pillorying of Rumsfeld last week, where it seemed even the propagandists in the corporate media were mocking him. Does Cheney want someone else in the DoD for Iran and Syria?
Lieberman, for his part, criticized the Bush ADDministration, now, after he lost the primary because of it, for poor planning in it's invasion of Iraq, which he still cites as a good thing. (Even though it was a violation of international law)He said the ADDministration must put pressure on the Iraqi government to end sectarian violence in that country. WTF? How do you propose we do that Joe? Take away their running water, their electricity, their oil? We've already done that, thanks to the war, people who had all that 24/7 under Saddam, are now having to do with out under the US puppet regime.
And once again, like all the bought and paid for politicians, Lieberman links the war in Iraq to the war on terror, "we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.
If it was meant to end terrorism, it didn't work.
So, is Lieberman distancing himself from the Bush regime? Is he doing it by calling out the one person who is probably on the way out anyway? Or is Rumsfeld the easiest to criticize? (In this administration, who isn't?)Whatever the reason, Bush has allegedly refused Rumsfeld's resignation before, I doubt he'll listen to Joe, no matter how good a kisser he may be.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
CorruptCo Update
Two former executives at DHB Industries were arrested today on charges they manipulated the books to make millions of dollars in inside trading. Faithful readers of this blog (both of you) may remember them from the Corruptco blogfest piece I did on them in February of this year, And Then He Changed Into A Pink Leather Outfit For Aerosmith, which was about DHB Industries CEO, David Brooks and the lavish bat mitzvah he through for his daughter. David Brooks has been placed on indefinite leave by the ASE pending the outcome of investigations.
The two executives, Chief Financial Officer Dawn Shlegel and Chief Operating Officer Sandra Hatfield, inflated DHB earnings and profit margins between 2003 and 2005. They then sold thousands of shares based on inside information, netting a cool $8 million. Which is not as much as the CEO spent on his daughter's party, but enough to get them thrown in the clink for up to twenty five years (as if), while they'll probably go the Ken Lay route and spend all the money they bilked the investing public out of to keep themselves free on appeal until all their money's gone, or they croak from a heart attack at the prospect of actually having to bear punishment for breaking the law.
The two executives, Chief Financial Officer Dawn Shlegel and Chief Operating Officer Sandra Hatfield, inflated DHB earnings and profit margins between 2003 and 2005. They then sold thousands of shares based on inside information, netting a cool $8 million. Which is not as much as the CEO spent on his daughter's party, but enough to get them thrown in the clink for up to twenty five years (as if), while they'll probably go the Ken Lay route and spend all the money they bilked the investing public out of to keep themselves free on appeal until all their money's gone, or they croak from a heart attack at the prospect of actually having to bear punishment for breaking the law.
You Can't Teach An Old Elephant New Tricks
Now that the primaries are behind us and as we head in to the final stretch of the campaign, the Republicans are unleashing their "new" strategy.
Are they trumpeting the booming economy? No, new housing starts fell in July, even after economists lowered their expectations. The once booming housing market has cooled down, as people who are paying more for gas are deciding mortgaging their future for a McMansion isn't within their reach anymore. But hey, the guys at the top are doing well!
Are they touting success in the war on drugs? No, actually opium production is up in Afghanistan, thanks to intervention there by the US military. I guess the war on drugs is off the burner completely and back in the fridge until some future administration needs it to take more of our rights away from us.
Is it the success in Iraq? Well, they can't use that as 67% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, WMD, or terrorists, and even the Iraqis are ungrateful (in Our Supreme Leader's eyes) for the freedoms we have brought them. Along with the lasting effects of depleted uranium.
So what's left in the GOP bag of tricks? Of course, the only thing they poll well on, national security, the good old war on terror. That's why we have Orrin Hatch saying the terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again." Who wants to bet on the terrorists striking the US after a big Democrat win in November?
Then, following a court ruling thatthe NSA wiretapping program is illegal, we have US Attorney General El-Turdo Gonzalez stating terrorists are in our neighborhoods. We call them Republicans. They need to keep the populace paranoid to maintain their power and protect the president's programs aimed at dislodging our constitutional rights from us. And if that isn't terrorism....
It would be nice to have a Congress and president focused on domestic issues instead of obsessing on making the middle east over in some twisted neofascist wet dream. The only domestic issues the Republicans care about (aside from shielding Bush from any responsibility for his actions) are flag burning (when was the last time you saw a flag burned? In this country, I mean) and gay marriages (those horrible, horrible things that cause irreparable harm to no one). I think it's time the voters taught the Republicans a new tune, because I'm sick of the same old song and dance.
Are they trumpeting the booming economy? No, new housing starts fell in July, even after economists lowered their expectations. The once booming housing market has cooled down, as people who are paying more for gas are deciding mortgaging their future for a McMansion isn't within their reach anymore. But hey, the guys at the top are doing well!
Are they touting success in the war on drugs? No, actually opium production is up in Afghanistan, thanks to intervention there by the US military. I guess the war on drugs is off the burner completely and back in the fridge until some future administration needs it to take more of our rights away from us.
Is it the success in Iraq? Well, they can't use that as 67% of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, WMD, or terrorists, and even the Iraqis are ungrateful (in Our Supreme Leader's eyes) for the freedoms we have brought them. Along with the lasting effects of depleted uranium.
So what's left in the GOP bag of tricks? Of course, the only thing they poll well on, national security, the good old war on terror. That's why we have Orrin Hatch saying the terrorists are "waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again." Who wants to bet on the terrorists striking the US after a big Democrat win in November?
Then, following a court ruling thatthe NSA wiretapping program is illegal, we have US Attorney General El-Turdo Gonzalez stating terrorists are in our neighborhoods. We call them Republicans. They need to keep the populace paranoid to maintain their power and protect the president's programs aimed at dislodging our constitutional rights from us. And if that isn't terrorism....
It would be nice to have a Congress and president focused on domestic issues instead of obsessing on making the middle east over in some twisted neofascist wet dream. The only domestic issues the Republicans care about (aside from shielding Bush from any responsibility for his actions) are flag burning (when was the last time you saw a flag burned? In this country, I mean) and gay marriages (those horrible, horrible things that cause irreparable harm to no one). I think it's time the voters taught the Republicans a new tune, because I'm sick of the same old song and dance.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
The Terrorists Must Be Working For The Republicans
Why is it that terrorists only plan to attack in election years? Last year, there were no serious terrorist attacks or plots in the US, and already this year, they've uncovered four, the last one unveiled right after the pro-war crowd declared that voting for the anti-war crowd will lead to more terrorist attacks. And now that public sentiment has turned away from the war in Iraq, all of a sudden there is a rash of foiled terror plots aimed at Americans.
The idiot American, those incapable of rational thought think, they're attacking us because we're soft on the war in Iraq. The rational mind would think a). they're still attacking us in spite of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore the whole purpose of fighting the war to fight terrorism has been a dismal failure that has gained us nothing and lost us plenty, and b). therefore the wars in the Middle East have not deterred those who wish to attack us over here, as opposed to over there.
Every cut in the constitution, every suspension of our rights has been, we've been told, to prevent the terrorists from attacking us. Still the terrorists conspire. Violate the Geneva convention? The terrorists still conspire. Suspend habeas corpus? The terrorists still conspire. Spy on American citizens? The terrorists still conspire. It's as if Bush really believes they hate us because we're free and he's doing everything in his power to insure we don't stay that way too much longer. We are losing everything and gaining nothing, especially if they feel compelled to spring more terrorist conspiracies on us in the months leading to the mid-term elections. They tried banning gay marriages, and protecting the flag, to no avail, now they're back to what works best for them:terrorism.
What America needs is someone who will examine the true causes of their hatred for us, and in case you aren't listening, it's not because we're free. It's not because they want to take over the world and establish world wide theocracy (that's what the fundamentalist Christians want), it's because everywhere Arabs and Muslims are being threatened in their own countries, it's because the people handing weapons over to Israel and vetoing any resolution against Israel in the UN as they take more Palestinian and now Lebanese land away from the indigeonous people is the US. The power propping up oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, is the US. The ones threatening regime changes to puppet governments more attuned to big oil's interests than the people they govern is the US. And the US doesn't give a fuck about whom they kill to do it, civilians or not, it's not as important as making very wealthy white people wealthier. All they want from you is your tax dollars and they'd let the alligators get you given the chance.
In the five years since alQaeda allegedly hijacked four airplanes and flew them with impunity over the most secure airspace on the planet, we've allowed alQaeda to escape into Pakistan and take over Somalia. In the meantime we've invaded one sovereign nation and enabled our ally as it bombed another, because we wish to start more wars with everybody except the people we claimed were responsible for the original attack. Osama Bin Laden, if he's not dead is still running around forgotten by the Bush ADD-mistration and the neocons as they strive to remake the region over like a drunken heterosexual on What Not To Wear. Their plans are not working and we are none the more safer because of them! Just imagine what will occur once they get the opportunity to invade Iran and Syria, which is more certain to happen if the Republicans and pro-war Democrats hold on to Congress, and is why they must be defeated at the polls.
Republicans accuse Democrats of playing politics with the war in Iraq (which, they want the brainwashed brain dead brain damaged beer swilling flag waving chemically imbalanced NASCAR watching American idiots to believe is somehow connected to the war on terror), but the terror conspiracies always are uncovered when it's convenient for Republicans. Coincidence?
The idiot American, those incapable of rational thought think, they're attacking us because we're soft on the war in Iraq. The rational mind would think a). they're still attacking us in spite of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, therefore the whole purpose of fighting the war to fight terrorism has been a dismal failure that has gained us nothing and lost us plenty, and b). therefore the wars in the Middle East have not deterred those who wish to attack us over here, as opposed to over there.
Every cut in the constitution, every suspension of our rights has been, we've been told, to prevent the terrorists from attacking us. Still the terrorists conspire. Violate the Geneva convention? The terrorists still conspire. Suspend habeas corpus? The terrorists still conspire. Spy on American citizens? The terrorists still conspire. It's as if Bush really believes they hate us because we're free and he's doing everything in his power to insure we don't stay that way too much longer. We are losing everything and gaining nothing, especially if they feel compelled to spring more terrorist conspiracies on us in the months leading to the mid-term elections. They tried banning gay marriages, and protecting the flag, to no avail, now they're back to what works best for them:terrorism.
What America needs is someone who will examine the true causes of their hatred for us, and in case you aren't listening, it's not because we're free. It's not because they want to take over the world and establish world wide theocracy (that's what the fundamentalist Christians want), it's because everywhere Arabs and Muslims are being threatened in their own countries, it's because the people handing weapons over to Israel and vetoing any resolution against Israel in the UN as they take more Palestinian and now Lebanese land away from the indigeonous people is the US. The power propping up oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, is the US. The ones threatening regime changes to puppet governments more attuned to big oil's interests than the people they govern is the US. And the US doesn't give a fuck about whom they kill to do it, civilians or not, it's not as important as making very wealthy white people wealthier. All they want from you is your tax dollars and they'd let the alligators get you given the chance.
In the five years since alQaeda allegedly hijacked four airplanes and flew them with impunity over the most secure airspace on the planet, we've allowed alQaeda to escape into Pakistan and take over Somalia. In the meantime we've invaded one sovereign nation and enabled our ally as it bombed another, because we wish to start more wars with everybody except the people we claimed were responsible for the original attack. Osama Bin Laden, if he's not dead is still running around forgotten by the Bush ADD-mistration and the neocons as they strive to remake the region over like a drunken heterosexual on What Not To Wear. Their plans are not working and we are none the more safer because of them! Just imagine what will occur once they get the opportunity to invade Iran and Syria, which is more certain to happen if the Republicans and pro-war Democrats hold on to Congress, and is why they must be defeated at the polls.
Republicans accuse Democrats of playing politics with the war in Iraq (which, they want the brainwashed brain dead brain damaged beer swilling flag waving chemically imbalanced NASCAR watching American idiots to believe is somehow connected to the war on terror), but the terror conspiracies always are uncovered when it's convenient for Republicans. Coincidence?
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Chemical Mixture Causes Media Paranoid Hallucinations On Severity Of Terror Conspiracy
This seems a bit, odd. While Pakistan claims that the recent terror conspiracy (because that's what it was, a conspiracy)has ties to alQaeda, (and not the ISI), Michael "Cryptkeeper" Chertoff says there is no conclusion on alQaeda being involved. Which is a bit of a back pedal from what he said the day before. What's going on here? Why is the media making a foiled conspiracy seem like another 9/11?
As people board planes, they are asked to dump all liquids into bins. Now, I never took chemistry, but I know that certain chemicals can not be mixed. Even simple household chemicals. And what they're doing here is mixing all sorts of bases and compounds together with out regard to any chemical reaction that may occur.
My theory is that all these chemicals mixed together have caused a vapor to be released at the airports, making media types covering the story hallucinate paranoid visions. And Michael Chertoff, who made his most recent speech from the Ronald W. Reagan International Airport, simply succumber to these vapors.
So what's going on here is something similar to mixing the wrong medications. Sometimes it can lead to death (we're lucky a cloud of chlorine gas hasn't formed yet in these airports. And if it did, you can be sure it would be blamed on the terrorists, and not the idiot who came up with this plan), sometimes it can merely cause you to see things that aren't there. Like a 9/11 in a foiled conspiracy.
(For the idiots:conspiracy-the act of conspiring; some secret planning to do something unlawful or wrong)
As people board planes, they are asked to dump all liquids into bins. Now, I never took chemistry, but I know that certain chemicals can not be mixed. Even simple household chemicals. And what they're doing here is mixing all sorts of bases and compounds together with out regard to any chemical reaction that may occur.
My theory is that all these chemicals mixed together have caused a vapor to be released at the airports, making media types covering the story hallucinate paranoid visions. And Michael Chertoff, who made his most recent speech from the Ronald W. Reagan International Airport, simply succumber to these vapors.
So what's going on here is something similar to mixing the wrong medications. Sometimes it can lead to death (we're lucky a cloud of chlorine gas hasn't formed yet in these airports. And if it did, you can be sure it would be blamed on the terrorists, and not the idiot who came up with this plan), sometimes it can merely cause you to see things that aren't there. Like a 9/11 in a foiled conspiracy.
(For the idiots:conspiracy-the act of conspiring; some secret planning to do something unlawful or wrong)
Thursday, August 10, 2006
The Thirty Nine Percent Fascists
The recent hype about the "foiled terror plot" seems oddly timed. Right after Joe Lieberman's loss in the primary was seen as a referendum on 'the war on terror' on cue comes the tightening of security, even though they have been investigating this for the last 18 months. You can always tell when election is near by the "Islamofascist paranoia level" being run by the Republicans.
But who really is the fascists here? 60% of Americans now are opposed to the war in Iraq, which has never had anything to do with the war on terror and everything to do with the Project For A New American Century. Lieberman and the Republicans have labeled them extremists, when in fact, they are the extremists in this case.
Now think about this:39% of Americans advocate that Muslims should have special ID's. You know like the Star of David or Pink Triangles the Nazis made the Jews and the Homosexuals wear. Thirty nine percent is also the highest Bush's approval rating has reached post-Katrina.
I'm sure that these 39% would also support taking action against Iran and Syria for the failed terror plot, even though the 'terrorists' were second generation Pakistanis, because they lack the mental faculties to discern one Islamic state from another. Even Michael Chertoff suggested that alQaeda was behind this, because along with 9/11, al Qaeda is the magic shit-your-pants word for the thirty-nine percenters.
But who really is the fascists here? 60% of Americans now are opposed to the war in Iraq, which has never had anything to do with the war on terror and everything to do with the Project For A New American Century. Lieberman and the Republicans have labeled them extremists, when in fact, they are the extremists in this case.
Now think about this:39% of Americans advocate that Muslims should have special ID's. You know like the Star of David or Pink Triangles the Nazis made the Jews and the Homosexuals wear. Thirty nine percent is also the highest Bush's approval rating has reached post-Katrina.
I'm sure that these 39% would also support taking action against Iran and Syria for the failed terror plot, even though the 'terrorists' were second generation Pakistanis, because they lack the mental faculties to discern one Islamic state from another. Even Michael Chertoff suggested that alQaeda was behind this, because along with 9/11, al Qaeda is the magic shit-your-pants word for the thirty-nine percenters.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Fox Backs Lieberman So I Don't
Just as I was preparing to take a night off, I stumbled across this story concerning the Democratic Senate primary in Conneticut. It seems Joe Lieberman has cancelled scheduled campaign events today in order to spend the day making get out the vote calls. No big deal, I was almost going to say what does it matter who wins the primary as long as the Democrats hold the seat in November.
But then as I read the article, it became clear why Lieberman must be defeated. Fox News is backing him up! A report today on the channel on Ned Lamont featured the headlines "Have Democrats Forgotten The Lessons Of 9/11?" What did we learn from 9/11? Apparently nothing, as we still keep playing the enabler to the Israel war machine as it continues it's offensive measures against the whole country of Lebanon. We still are pushing for regime change throughout the region while mired in two wars with out end already that have yielded nothing but more hatred towards the US. And, ultimately, what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway? Not a fucking thing!
The report also featured the headline "A Lamont Win, Bad News For Democracy In Mid East? Yes folks, if Lamont wins, he'll be sure to vote against any further military actions the Bush regime has planned for the erst of the Mid East, namely Syria and Iran, we'll leave the Saudis and Kuwaitis to their respective monarchies, which shows you what a heap of shit this whole "war on terror" is, I mean most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama himself, were all Saudis, but they get a pass because Bush likes holding hands with Prince Bandar.
Sean Hannity even pledged his support for Lieberman back in February of this year. One wonders who Hannity and Fox will back in November if Lieberman wins. Or decides to run as an independent. Lieberman turned Hannity down, Joe has already received the kiss of death from Bush, he doesn't need any more help digging his political grave from a fuckwad like Hannity.
But then as I read the article, it became clear why Lieberman must be defeated. Fox News is backing him up! A report today on the channel on Ned Lamont featured the headlines "Have Democrats Forgotten The Lessons Of 9/11?" What did we learn from 9/11? Apparently nothing, as we still keep playing the enabler to the Israel war machine as it continues it's offensive measures against the whole country of Lebanon. We still are pushing for regime change throughout the region while mired in two wars with out end already that have yielded nothing but more hatred towards the US. And, ultimately, what does the war in Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway? Not a fucking thing!
The report also featured the headline "A Lamont Win, Bad News For Democracy In Mid East? Yes folks, if Lamont wins, he'll be sure to vote against any further military actions the Bush regime has planned for the erst of the Mid East, namely Syria and Iran, we'll leave the Saudis and Kuwaitis to their respective monarchies, which shows you what a heap of shit this whole "war on terror" is, I mean most of the 9/11 hijackers as well as Osama himself, were all Saudis, but they get a pass because Bush likes holding hands with Prince Bandar.
Sean Hannity even pledged his support for Lieberman back in February of this year. One wonders who Hannity and Fox will back in November if Lieberman wins. Or decides to run as an independent. Lieberman turned Hannity down, Joe has already received the kiss of death from Bush, he doesn't need any more help digging his political grave from a fuckwad like Hannity.
Monday, August 07, 2006
The Pro-Life Drain Comissioner, Who Mailed The Anthrax, and The Finicky American
The Pro-Life Drain Commissioner
Today on the radio, one of the hosts of the morning show was discussing a pamphlet he received from a candidate for county drain commissioner. At the very top of the candidates list for qualifications was the fact that this person was "pro-life". The host then wondered if that should really be considered a qualification, as none of the decisions that person would be making would affect policy in that area. And he was right, the best qualifiaction for that position would be someone who was aware of the issues dealing directly with the duties of drains, preferrably someone who was maybe more environmentalist, as to keep the shit from flowing into the Grand River.
But this got me to thinking: perhaps instead of voting for the candidate who has the same position on the issues you have, it would be better to vote for the candidate more qualified to make an intelligent and informed decision on an issue, rather than one who has already made up their mind. Of course, what this really means is, the person who has made up their mind on the issues has shown us how they would resolve them, regardless of any new or relevant facts that may spring up on any issue.
Who Mailed The Anthrax?
Of course, right after this, the show went onto ridicule the people who don't buy the official story on 9/11. How can it be a government conspiracy?
Well, the first way, would be for the government to arrest the person who excercised the 'put' options on American Airlines and United Airlines whose stock went down in the days following 9/11. Also included were reinsurance companies, and financial service companies.Basically, these people were buying options on the basis that within a time frame, the price of these stocks would fall. What's more, is that call options, that is, people who predicted the price of a stock would rise, also rose on companies such as Raytheon, a weapons manufacturer. Somebody knew something was going on and intended to make money from it. But who? Since put and call options can't be purchased with out ID, they know who, they just haven't released it to the public, and the SEC went as far as to deputize investigators, making it illegal for them to publicly disclose any information they may have uncovered.
But what's more interesting is the anthrax letters sent to members of Congress and media outlets in the days following 9/11. I have always found it interesting that the recepiants of these letters in the Congress were all Democrats. At first, it was blamed on Iraq, until it was found out the anthrax was a weaponized variety made right here in the good old US of A.
The FBI investigated one man who worked at the lab and wrote a book using a similar scenario, but never turned up any evidence against him. There is evidence of one unauthorized person entering the lab after hours, however this person was never investigated. Will we ever find out who these people were, or is someone hoping that we forget that these incidents ever occurred?
The Finicky American
Today at lunch, while preparing some lime ginger chicken stir-fry, a woman asked if she could have hers with out mushrooms.
"I'm probably un-American for asking for it like that, "she joked.
"No, " I replied "Americans always want things their way." the man standing next to her agreed.
I then imagined a group of American tourists coming to an exotic restaurant in a foreign country, where monkey brains are served right from the skull, a la Indiana Jones. One of the finicky Americans raises their hand at the server and says, "Excuse me, but can I get mine with out any cerebral cortex, please?"
Today on the radio, one of the hosts of the morning show was discussing a pamphlet he received from a candidate for county drain commissioner. At the very top of the candidates list for qualifications was the fact that this person was "pro-life". The host then wondered if that should really be considered a qualification, as none of the decisions that person would be making would affect policy in that area. And he was right, the best qualifiaction for that position would be someone who was aware of the issues dealing directly with the duties of drains, preferrably someone who was maybe more environmentalist, as to keep the shit from flowing into the Grand River.
But this got me to thinking: perhaps instead of voting for the candidate who has the same position on the issues you have, it would be better to vote for the candidate more qualified to make an intelligent and informed decision on an issue, rather than one who has already made up their mind. Of course, what this really means is, the person who has made up their mind on the issues has shown us how they would resolve them, regardless of any new or relevant facts that may spring up on any issue.
Who Mailed The Anthrax?
Of course, right after this, the show went onto ridicule the people who don't buy the official story on 9/11. How can it be a government conspiracy?
Well, the first way, would be for the government to arrest the person who excercised the 'put' options on American Airlines and United Airlines whose stock went down in the days following 9/11. Also included were reinsurance companies, and financial service companies.Basically, these people were buying options on the basis that within a time frame, the price of these stocks would fall. What's more, is that call options, that is, people who predicted the price of a stock would rise, also rose on companies such as Raytheon, a weapons manufacturer. Somebody knew something was going on and intended to make money from it. But who? Since put and call options can't be purchased with out ID, they know who, they just haven't released it to the public, and the SEC went as far as to deputize investigators, making it illegal for them to publicly disclose any information they may have uncovered.
But what's more interesting is the anthrax letters sent to members of Congress and media outlets in the days following 9/11. I have always found it interesting that the recepiants of these letters in the Congress were all Democrats. At first, it was blamed on Iraq, until it was found out the anthrax was a weaponized variety made right here in the good old US of A.
The FBI investigated one man who worked at the lab and wrote a book using a similar scenario, but never turned up any evidence against him. There is evidence of one unauthorized person entering the lab after hours, however this person was never investigated. Will we ever find out who these people were, or is someone hoping that we forget that these incidents ever occurred?
The Finicky American
Today at lunch, while preparing some lime ginger chicken stir-fry, a woman asked if she could have hers with out mushrooms.
"I'm probably un-American for asking for it like that, "she joked.
"No, " I replied "Americans always want things their way." the man standing next to her agreed.
I then imagined a group of American tourists coming to an exotic restaurant in a foreign country, where monkey brains are served right from the skull, a la Indiana Jones. One of the finicky Americans raises their hand at the server and says, "Excuse me, but can I get mine with out any cerebral cortex, please?"
Sunday, August 06, 2006
It Doesn't Take A Clairvoyant
It seems the rest of the world is finally catching up to Kunstler. An article in today's Guardian by Paul Harris discusses how rising gas prices may signal the end of the suburbam utopia. The housing bubble is dangerously close to popping. Housing sales have declined for the past nine months in a row. And those are new houses, older houses, refinanced at new housing prices are expected to take a hit if the bubble bursts. If the bubble does burst, it could plunge the economy into a recession.
Which is what the Federal Reserve is seeing in the future. The economy, which the Republicans have told us is booming, has created fewer jobs than expected. The official unemployment rate, that is, people still receiving benefits (as opposed to those whose benefits have run out while still being unsuccessful at finding employment)is at 4.8 percent (here in Michigan, it's at 6.3 percent).But what else has been happening is a widening of the gap between net worth and wage growth. In the period from 1991 to 1996, net worth grew 15.6 percent while wages gained 11.3 percent. From 2001 to 2005, net worth rose 16.6 percent, while wages grew only 2.7 percent.
As I have said here before (or was it at Lose The Noose?), the economy is only booming at the top. The people who are asking for the tax cut the Republicans want to give them aren't feeling the pinch that even Las Vegas is feeling. Trade deficits, budget deficits, just don't ask the upper classes to help their country at all.
I really don't see this country getting out of this. More jobs outsourced leads to more lay-offs, which leads to more outsourcing, which leads to more lay-offs, and until we stop the hemorrhaging of jobs the economy is going to continue to head to a recession. In the meantime, we can expect to see working people mocked by the likes of Paris Hilton on shows like The Simple Life because she knows she's going to get that estate tax cut someday, which the working people will keep working to pay for her (hey, it's not like she could hold down a job anyway)and those like her who feel their entitled to contribute nothing to the betterment of society.
Which is what the Federal Reserve is seeing in the future. The economy, which the Republicans have told us is booming, has created fewer jobs than expected. The official unemployment rate, that is, people still receiving benefits (as opposed to those whose benefits have run out while still being unsuccessful at finding employment)is at 4.8 percent (here in Michigan, it's at 6.3 percent).But what else has been happening is a widening of the gap between net worth and wage growth. In the period from 1991 to 1996, net worth grew 15.6 percent while wages gained 11.3 percent. From 2001 to 2005, net worth rose 16.6 percent, while wages grew only 2.7 percent.
As I have said here before (or was it at Lose The Noose?), the economy is only booming at the top. The people who are asking for the tax cut the Republicans want to give them aren't feeling the pinch that even Las Vegas is feeling. Trade deficits, budget deficits, just don't ask the upper classes to help their country at all.
I really don't see this country getting out of this. More jobs outsourced leads to more lay-offs, which leads to more outsourcing, which leads to more lay-offs, and until we stop the hemorrhaging of jobs the economy is going to continue to head to a recession. In the meantime, we can expect to see working people mocked by the likes of Paris Hilton on shows like The Simple Life because she knows she's going to get that estate tax cut someday, which the working people will keep working to pay for her (hey, it's not like she could hold down a job anyway)and those like her who feel their entitled to contribute nothing to the betterment of society.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Disturbed Singer Really Disturbed
David Draiman recently made a statement advoctaing ethnic cleansing that would make Mel Gibson's recent remarks seem like, well, the rantings of a drunk anti-semite.
Draiman made his staement following the recent crisis in Lebanon, which was provoked when Israel violated the border with Lebanon, something they have done almost daily in the last year, in an effort to start a plan that Israel had in place for the last year. You see, Mr. Draiman, a line was drawn, it was called the Lebanese border and Israel was the one who crossed it. Who's the war mongers here? A country that covets the Litani River water needed for the survival of Israel? Or the people of Lebanon, tired of watching Israel seize more of their land as "buffer zones" from acts of retaliation that Israel provoked?
Does Mr. Draiman include nuking the neocons in the White House? They've already mongered up two wars, and are looking to start even more, by themselves, or using Israel as their proxy. In fact, Bush knew in advance that Israel was planning to bomb southern Lebanon.
Mr. Draiman is angered because he has family members in Haifa, as well having a friend killed and another injured. But once again, it must be pointed out, that the propaganda has got it wrong.
No, sadly this isn't the case.
So, who are you going to believe, the singer for a really lame metal band or professional journalists?
No one should be amazed that this hate speech managed to get by the mainstream media, a). it was directed towards Arabs, which is perfectly acceptable, and b). it was from the singer of a second rate metal band.So I'm sure Mr. Draiman feels perfectly comfortable with the genocide being perpetrated by the powers that be in Washington, and Tel-Aviv. 900 people in three weeks, a third of them under twelve years old, well, that's acceptable. Or a good start. But only the truly brainwashed can't see who's the terrorists and war mongers here.
"I think we should wipe them all out — every terrorist, every war-mongering piece of garbage. We should congregate them all on one island and nuke it. A line must be drawn."
Draiman made his staement following the recent crisis in Lebanon, which was provoked when Israel violated the border with Lebanon, something they have done almost daily in the last year, in an effort to start a plan that Israel had in place for the last year. You see, Mr. Draiman, a line was drawn, it was called the Lebanese border and Israel was the one who crossed it. Who's the war mongers here? A country that covets the Litani River water needed for the survival of Israel? Or the people of Lebanon, tired of watching Israel seize more of their land as "buffer zones" from acts of retaliation that Israel provoked?
Does Mr. Draiman include nuking the neocons in the White House? They've already mongered up two wars, and are looking to start even more, by themselves, or using Israel as their proxy. In fact, Bush knew in advance that Israel was planning to bomb southern Lebanon.
Mr. Draiman is angered because he has family members in Haifa, as well having a friend killed and another injured. But once again, it must be pointed out, that the propaganda has got it wrong.
Ultimately, [Hezbollah] committed an act of war: they crossed the border and kidnapped soldiers.
No, sadly this isn't the case.
It all started on July 12 when Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel.
So, who are you going to believe, the singer for a really lame metal band or professional journalists?
No one should be amazed that this hate speech managed to get by the mainstream media, a). it was directed towards Arabs, which is perfectly acceptable, and b). it was from the singer of a second rate metal band.So I'm sure Mr. Draiman feels perfectly comfortable with the genocide being perpetrated by the powers that be in Washington, and Tel-Aviv. 900 people in three weeks, a third of them under twelve years old, well, that's acceptable. Or a good start. But only the truly brainwashed can't see who's the terrorists and war mongers here.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Is This Really What You Want?
In a speech yesterday in Los Angeles, Tony Blair issued a warning to Iran and Syria:"come into the international community and play by the same rules as us." And what rules would those be, Mr. Blair?
Pre-emptive strikes? The US and the UK have declared the right to use them, does this mean Syria has the right to strike Israel because it landed commandos near the Syrian border. It's obvious that the US and Israel are planning an action against Syria, by the US rules, that gives them the right to strike Israel and us.
Regime change? The US has declared it has the right to effect regime change in countries less friendly to US interests. Does this mean Iran should be trying to effect regime change in the US because of it's hostilities towards Iran as it develops it's peaceful nuclear power agenda?
Political assassinations? Isreal uses these all the time, most recently having attmepted the assassination of two members of the Hamas led government. Does this mean Syria is absolved for it's alleged role in the assassination of Lebanese foreign Minister Hariri?
You see, asshole, when you spout off about how high and fucking mighty you are, you had better make sure that you are all you claim. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.
Pre-emptive strikes? The US and the UK have declared the right to use them, does this mean Syria has the right to strike Israel because it landed commandos near the Syrian border. It's obvious that the US and Israel are planning an action against Syria, by the US rules, that gives them the right to strike Israel and us.
Regime change? The US has declared it has the right to effect regime change in countries less friendly to US interests. Does this mean Iran should be trying to effect regime change in the US because of it's hostilities towards Iran as it develops it's peaceful nuclear power agenda?
Political assassinations? Isreal uses these all the time, most recently having attmepted the assassination of two members of the Hamas led government. Does this mean Syria is absolved for it's alleged role in the assassination of Lebanese foreign Minister Hariri?
You see, asshole, when you spout off about how high and fucking mighty you are, you had better make sure that you are all you claim. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.
This Is Front Page News?
On the front page of last Saturday's NYTimes there was an article dealing iwth a drinking contest between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. In Estonia. Two fucking years ago! What the article was about was how these two bonded and now are facing each other for their respective parties nomination.
But what struck me the most was the NY Times referring to Hillary as the front runner for the Democratic nomination. How did that happen? Online I see Russ Feingold leading in most polls, so how could Hillary be considered the front runner? Than I googled Democratic party front runner 2008 and found out that in Iowa, it's not even Hillary or Feingold in the lead-it's John Edwards!
How can Hillary be the front runner? I can't think of a single Democrat I know who supports the war in Iraq, Hell, half of America doesn't, yet Hillary does! And still she is the front runner. How can that be?
And more importantly, why would any body stick with a party that doesn't offer a real alternative to the war party? Might as well vote for the Republicans, at least they don't pretend to be progressive. Why vote for the Democrats in November? Pelosi has already stated they're not going to impeach Bush, what's the point of voting for the opposition if they're not really an opposition?
Our political system is so fucked. i can't hardly wait for the new season of American Idol so I can vote on some thing that really matters!
But what struck me the most was the NY Times referring to Hillary as the front runner for the Democratic nomination. How did that happen? Online I see Russ Feingold leading in most polls, so how could Hillary be considered the front runner? Than I googled Democratic party front runner 2008 and found out that in Iowa, it's not even Hillary or Feingold in the lead-it's John Edwards!
How can Hillary be the front runner? I can't think of a single Democrat I know who supports the war in Iraq, Hell, half of America doesn't, yet Hillary does! And still she is the front runner. How can that be?
And more importantly, why would any body stick with a party that doesn't offer a real alternative to the war party? Might as well vote for the Republicans, at least they don't pretend to be progressive. Why vote for the Democrats in November? Pelosi has already stated they're not going to impeach Bush, what's the point of voting for the opposition if they're not really an opposition?
Our political system is so fucked. i can't hardly wait for the new season of American Idol so I can vote on some thing that really matters!
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Christianazis-Coming To A Country Near You
Freedom Alliance Leadership members salute founder Ollie North(photo courtesy of Calling All Wingnuts)
To some people freedom means the right to do as one pleases. However, some stuff that one may choose to do is not something that pleases other people. These people feel that freedom means the right to impose their values on those who do not wish to have them imposed upon. For them, we have FEMA concentration camps. For those who choose to be Muslims, or liberals, or hippies, or atheists, or gay.
Oh, so you think it can't happen here. Ol' lew must be wearing his tinfoil hat in the sun again. Well, here are the top ten signs we're headed that way.
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”-Sinclair Lewis
Valueless Based Hypocrisy
Propagandists around the world, in a frenzy to place the blame on the current Mid east crisis (which is really part of an ongoing Mid East crisis), are now strting to pint the finger at Iran, even though the two Israeli soldiers were captured in southern Lebanon. The current story is that Iran did this to remind Israel of what it is capable of and to distract the world from it's rejection of the economic incentives offered in part for shutting down their current nuclear program. Even though Iran asked Hizbullah to curb it's attacks on Israel, they are still receiving blame.
The neocons are salivating right now at the chance to start another war that will "change the shape of the Mid East" (while enriching defense contractors) by installing puppet regimes that are more beholden to the US and Tel-Aviv than they are to their own people, all in some twisted definition of democracy.
The evidence against Iran is all'circumstantial' (more like wishful thinking), but it hasn't stopped the neocons for pushing for a confrontation with them. Which brings me to an interesting point:
Iran, which has not been found in violation of any of the aspects of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is, according to our own National Intelligence Estimate at least ten years away from acquiring enough centrifuges to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon, is being pursued by the US in the UN for, uh, um, obeying a treaty. Meanwhile, Israel, who is actually, you know, killing people gets a pass from their ambassador to the UN, I mean, our ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. To claim israel's actions are in self-defense is either spurious or uninformed, as Israel's plans for this action against Hezbollah have been in place for a year.
Following the massacre in Qana, Israel agrees to halt bombings (for 48 hours) lest the world (well, the US, the UK and Canada) see them as some sort of genocidal monster.Kofi Annan, at an emergency session of the Security Council to condemn the attack.
“We must condemn this action in the strongest possible terms,” Mr. Annan told the Security Council, adding: “I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded.”
My bet is that once again, as usual, the US vetoes any actions. Conservatives whined this summer about how in the new Superman movie he vowed to fight for "truth, justice, and all that", but any impartial unbrainwashed observer will tell you that truth and justice are no longer the American way.
The neocons are salivating right now at the chance to start another war that will "change the shape of the Mid East" (while enriching defense contractors) by installing puppet regimes that are more beholden to the US and Tel-Aviv than they are to their own people, all in some twisted definition of democracy.
The evidence against Iran is all'circumstantial' (more like wishful thinking), but it hasn't stopped the neocons for pushing for a confrontation with them. Which brings me to an interesting point:
Iran, which has not been found in violation of any of the aspects of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and is, according to our own National Intelligence Estimate at least ten years away from acquiring enough centrifuges to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear weapon, is being pursued by the US in the UN for, uh, um, obeying a treaty. Meanwhile, Israel, who is actually, you know, killing people gets a pass from their ambassador to the UN, I mean, our ambassador to the UN, John Bolton. To claim israel's actions are in self-defense is either spurious or uninformed, as Israel's plans for this action against Hezbollah have been in place for a year.
Following the massacre in Qana, Israel agrees to halt bombings (for 48 hours) lest the world (well, the US, the UK and Canada) see them as some sort of genocidal monster.Kofi Annan, at an emergency session of the Security Council to condemn the attack.
“We must condemn this action in the strongest possible terms,” Mr. Annan told the Security Council, adding: “I am deeply dismayed that my earlier calls for an immediate cessation of hostilities were not heeded.”
My bet is that once again, as usual, the US vetoes any actions. Conservatives whined this summer about how in the new Superman movie he vowed to fight for "truth, justice, and all that", but any impartial unbrainwashed observer will tell you that truth and justice are no longer the American way.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Bad Puppet! Bad, Bad Puppet!
Senate Democratic leaders got their panties in a knot (not a pleasant picture, if you know what I mean) when Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki went off script recently and condemned Israel's actions against the people of Lebanon.
"Iraq is urging the international community to take a quick and firm stance to stop this agression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure." How dare he speak out against killing and destruction!
"What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force, something that Israel has, and Lebanon doesn't." Truer words were hardly ever spoken, but apparently Mr. Maliki forgot the first rule of being a puppet: never criticize Israel. Our puppet Congress never does, and look how well dressed and well paid they are!
In a letter to al-Maliki, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer called the Iraqi leaders comments troubling.
"He forgot to recognize Israel's right to defend themselves! " the three seethed. This raised serious questions in their minds whether or not Iraq under his leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis amd bringing stability to the Middle East. Huh?
Mr. Maliki's great crime was to not condemn Hezbollah for killing hundreds of Israeli citizens and completely decimating Israeli infrastructure (because they didn't) as well as condemning Israel. Bad puppet. Bad, bad puppet. Now Senate Democrats are threatening to boycott his speech because he hasn't, which clearly shows that they know who butters their bread.
"Part of the reason that America was sold on Iraq was to have a staunch ally in the region-a democratic ally that would back our policies,"Schumer said. No. You're wrong, asshole. The reason America was sold on Iraq was because of lies perpetuated by the Bush ADD-ministration, the WMD, the al-qaeda thing, the ties to 9/11 (that many adults still believe existed), that's what the war in Iraq was sold on. There was never any mention of installing a puppet regime. "Now if the prime minister can't condemn terrorism, which is ruining his country--then where are we headed?" Well, actually his country was ruined before the terrorism broke out. Now, who was it that ruined his country? Hezbollah? Al-Qaeda? Oh, yeah, it was the US.
In the House, Rahm Emmanuel and two other Democrats are circulating a letter asking Speaker Dennis Hastert to cancel the address. "With evidence that Iraqi leadership's goals are not in the best interest of the United States- nor the Middle East-Prime Minister Maliki's speech is innappropriate. We are unaware of any instance where a world leader who actively worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor." How about the last fucking State of the Union address? How is condemning Israel for it's wanton destruction as inappropriate response to acts they set in motion themselves not in the interest of the Middle East?
The Republicans, remarkably, have shown restraint in reaction to al-Maliki's comments. John McCain said Democrats shouldn't boycott the speech due to al-maliki's remarks and added "I don't like them either, but he's entitled to them." Dennis Hastert called them political moves in an election year. All this does for me is reinforce the validity of the previous post.
"Iraq is urging the international community to take a quick and firm stance to stop this agression against Lebanon, to stop the killing of innocent people and to stop the destruction of infrastructure." How dare he speak out against killing and destruction!
"What is happening is an operation of mass destruction and mass punishment and an operation using great force, something that Israel has, and Lebanon doesn't." Truer words were hardly ever spoken, but apparently Mr. Maliki forgot the first rule of being a puppet: never criticize Israel. Our puppet Congress never does, and look how well dressed and well paid they are!
In a letter to al-Maliki, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer called the Iraqi leaders comments troubling.
"He forgot to recognize Israel's right to defend themselves! " the three seethed. This raised serious questions in their minds whether or not Iraq under his leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis amd bringing stability to the Middle East. Huh?
Mr. Maliki's great crime was to not condemn Hezbollah for killing hundreds of Israeli citizens and completely decimating Israeli infrastructure (because they didn't) as well as condemning Israel. Bad puppet. Bad, bad puppet. Now Senate Democrats are threatening to boycott his speech because he hasn't, which clearly shows that they know who butters their bread.
"Part of the reason that America was sold on Iraq was to have a staunch ally in the region-a democratic ally that would back our policies,"Schumer said. No. You're wrong, asshole. The reason America was sold on Iraq was because of lies perpetuated by the Bush ADD-ministration, the WMD, the al-qaeda thing, the ties to 9/11 (that many adults still believe existed), that's what the war in Iraq was sold on. There was never any mention of installing a puppet regime. "Now if the prime minister can't condemn terrorism, which is ruining his country--then where are we headed?" Well, actually his country was ruined before the terrorism broke out. Now, who was it that ruined his country? Hezbollah? Al-Qaeda? Oh, yeah, it was the US.
In the House, Rahm Emmanuel and two other Democrats are circulating a letter asking Speaker Dennis Hastert to cancel the address. "With evidence that Iraqi leadership's goals are not in the best interest of the United States- nor the Middle East-Prime Minister Maliki's speech is innappropriate. We are unaware of any instance where a world leader who actively worked against the interests of the United States was afforded such an honor." How about the last fucking State of the Union address? How is condemning Israel for it's wanton destruction as inappropriate response to acts they set in motion themselves not in the interest of the Middle East?
The Republicans, remarkably, have shown restraint in reaction to al-Maliki's comments. John McCain said Democrats shouldn't boycott the speech due to al-maliki's remarks and added "I don't like them either, but he's entitled to them." Dennis Hastert called them political moves in an election year. All this does for me is reinforce the validity of the previous post.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Any More Questions?
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
On the 20 of July, 2006, Congress passed a resolution condemning the attacks on Israel 410-8. Even though Israel provoked the attacks by violating the borderwith Lebanon. And even though78% of Americans oppsed this resolution. Why?
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
Last year, when thousands of Americans were in peril from Hurricane Katrina, the government ignored warnings of disaster. As the Superdome filled with refugees and people were going with out food, medicine and were dying, there was no impetus to do anything. However, with Israel running low on munitions to blow the shit out of Lebanon, the US speeds arms deliveries to Isreal.What makes one country more important to our politicians than it's own citizens?
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
On July 16, President Bush rejected Jacques Chirac's call for an immediate ceasefire on the behalf of both parties. Last week, he said he was going to give Israel a week, and now they get another week.We killed any measure in the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire, even as civilians are being killed because our embarassing ambassador saysLebanon civilian deaths are not the same as terror deaths. (A sentiment echoed by Alan Dershowitz) Why does our government stand aside and allow the destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure?
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
Our invasion of Iraq was predicated on the notion that Saddam Hussein had dangerous WMD and wasn't afraid to unleash them. That was the major reason we were told it was time for regime change in Baghdad. Now we have claims coming from Beirut that Israel is using banned weapons against civilians, and yet there is no outcry from our government, who probably provided Israel (like we provided Iraq) with these dangerous weapons in the first place. Why do we provide dangerous WMD to countries that would use them?
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
In America, we have freedom of speech. We can criticize bad movies, our government and even celebrities. We can criticize politicians and parties. Our freedom of religion allows even to criticize Christianity and Islam, however, even though Zionism is contrary to Judaic teachings, to criticize the Zionist state of Israel gets you labeled an anti-semite. In fact, such great Americans such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh are labeled as anti-semites for daring to use their position to speak out against Zionism.
So now, when one speaks out against Zionism, (which is not part of the Judaic tradition), they are immediately labeled as "Jew-Haters", or "anti-Semites". Even though The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, we find the Zionists hiding behind the religious tradition they have rejected.
The US is supposed to be a representative government. We elect people to go to the Capitol and work in our best interests. However, when another foreign government controls who we vote for, and where are tax dollars are spent, we become less free. When said government's policies endanger the lives of Americans, to the point where we must give up some of our freedoms in our own country, something is wrong. When the rest of the world condemns these actions we condone, one has to wonder, is this the right thing? And why are we continuing to allow this?
"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
Oh, yeah. That's why.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Only Sane Man In Washington
While the death toll rises in the newest Mid east crisis, the Republicans go fishing, introduce a resolution banning gay marriages AGAIN, or pack their bags for Bohemian Grove, one congressman is acting exactly how our President (who is busy sexually harrassing the German Chancellor)should be.
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced a resolution calling for the president (if he can pry himself away from Chancellor Merkel)to appeal to all sides in the current crisis for a cessation of violence and to commit US diplomats to multi party negotiations with no conditions.
Bush, however, warned Syria to stay out of Lebanon while giving Israel more time to carry out it's military campaign, which some commentators must have been in the planning stages for weeks, even before the capture of two IDF soldiers.
So while Iran demands Hizbullah curtail attacks on Israel, the idiot President blames them for the trouble. So look for an attack against Iran as part of A Clean Break.
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced a resolution calling for the president (if he can pry himself away from Chancellor Merkel)to appeal to all sides in the current crisis for a cessation of violence and to commit US diplomats to multi party negotiations with no conditions.
Bush, however, warned Syria to stay out of Lebanon while giving Israel more time to carry out it's military campaign, which some commentators must have been in the planning stages for weeks, even before the capture of two IDF soldiers.
So while Iran demands Hizbullah curtail attacks on Israel, the idiot President blames them for the trouble. So look for an attack against Iran as part of A Clean Break.
Monday, July 17, 2006
Israel's Apartheid, The Rapture Is A Farce, and Al Franken Is A Big Fat Zionist Shill
Israel 's Aparthied
Back when I was a teenager, a group of musicians led by Little Steven (Van Zandt, now just Steve VanZandt, of The Sopranos fame) gathered together to protest the policies of South Africa. At that time, as Nelson Mandela languished in prison, South Africa had a policy of apartheid, a separation of the black population from the white population. The song they released "(I Ain't Gonna Play) Sun City" featured many prominent artists of the time, committed activists such as Bruce Springsteen and Joey Ramone. At the time there was a cultural boycott of South Africa as well as Sun City, a Vegas-type entertainment capital where artists would play for large amounts of cash.
A lot of these people felt to play Sun City would be akin to supporting the racist separatist politics of South Africa, something these artists, all predominantly left wing, knew was wrong.
Now on the other hand, Israel employs the same tactics that South Africa used. They have built a wall surrounding "their" country that sometimes runs through Palestinian olive groves, which have been there for hundreds of years. (Although Zionist propaganda would have you believe there have been no Palestines tending them, as they don't exist) There is to be no marriages between Israelis and Palestines, because Palestinians are people who never existed. So if you look at an old map of something called Palestine and see cities, well those were really ghost towns. And no-one has lived in Jerusalem for 2000 years.
But what you don't hear from a lot of people on the left is a sense of outrage at Israel's apartheid policy.
The Rapture Is A Farce
Does Jesus come with an expiration date?
You would think that the Christian right would be upset by the events unfolding now in the Middle east. Jesus won't return until peace is acheived in that region, and recent events have pushed peace a long, long, long way away. You would think that the fundies would be doing everything in their power to work for peace, since they're so eager for the rapture, but instead they continue their unabated support of the Bush regime as it ensures the region stays unstable for a couple more generations. Perhaps they don't wished to be judged and found wanting.
My question is: After the rapture, will the acceptance of Jesus Christ as a personal savior no longer be considered a ticket to Heaven anymore? Because I'll bet you, a lot of sinners will change their ways when they've found they've been left behind. I'm sure that life will still continue on beyond the rapture, just look at all the Chinese who won't be lifted to Heaven. Will it be too late for them to convert?
Or is the rapture just a con? A farce perpetrated by two different passages in a book of the New Testament that should have been left out in the first place?
Al Franken Is A Big Fat Zionist Shill
Reading Al Franken's best seller, Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair And Balanced Look At The Right, I came across a passage unsettling. Franken describes his trip to Afghanistan to entertain soldiers fighting there, and how he had to clear his material with the military. He had proposed a routine he worked out with cheerleaders in the group where they would come out wearing burqas and then throw them off to reveal skimpy cheerleading outfits as an example of how the US is improving the life for women in Afghanistan. (No More Burqas!) the military 86'd the idea, deeming it too insensitive to the beliefs of the indigeonous personnel of the host country. He pleaded and wheedled, but no go. The military lacked a sense of humor.
Or is it Mr. Franken who's not funny. I'll admit, I bought the book, but never found Franken to be anything more than mildly amusing at best. I got rid of it because as an information source, it was futile.
besides the above described incident illustrating Mr. Franken's lack of sensitivity towards other people's religious beliefs, there was another chapter devoted to enrolling one of his interns (the people that did all his research for him, for free) at either Bob Jones or Liberty College, some southern fried Bible thumping place with rules against mixed dating, or something he was looking to challenge. I forget what it was, but once again, insensitivity to another person's religion (unlike myself, who's insensitive to everyone's religion but my own, fortune cookieology)
But waht makes him a Zionist shill is a joke he repeats that is designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. He mentions the story of how all Jews were warned to stay off planes on 9/11. "I'm a Jew", he states, "I never got the call". This bit of disinformation is based on the actual story that Odigo, an Israel owned instant messaging company located in Manhattan sent a message out at 7:00am on 9/11 telling employees not to report to work that day.
Then this weekend, he stated at DemocracyFest (thanks Dusty!):"Israel was provoked". Let me see, they killed a family of ten on the beach a Gaza, lied about it, denied it, never apologized for it, assassinated the Hamas chief of police in Gaza, arrested Hamas officials,buzzed the Syrian president's country home with fighetr jets(this was in June, before Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers), and crossed the border into Lebanon before the two soldier were captured that started this whole mess in the first place. Sounds like some provocation was going on, but it was on the part of Israel itself. I guess being a lying liar is okay, as long as you're a liberal.
Back when I was a teenager, a group of musicians led by Little Steven (Van Zandt, now just Steve VanZandt, of The Sopranos fame) gathered together to protest the policies of South Africa. At that time, as Nelson Mandela languished in prison, South Africa had a policy of apartheid, a separation of the black population from the white population. The song they released "(I Ain't Gonna Play) Sun City" featured many prominent artists of the time, committed activists such as Bruce Springsteen and Joey Ramone. At the time there was a cultural boycott of South Africa as well as Sun City, a Vegas-type entertainment capital where artists would play for large amounts of cash.
A lot of these people felt to play Sun City would be akin to supporting the racist separatist politics of South Africa, something these artists, all predominantly left wing, knew was wrong.
Now on the other hand, Israel employs the same tactics that South Africa used. They have built a wall surrounding "their" country that sometimes runs through Palestinian olive groves, which have been there for hundreds of years. (Although Zionist propaganda would have you believe there have been no Palestines tending them, as they don't exist) There is to be no marriages between Israelis and Palestines, because Palestinians are people who never existed. So if you look at an old map of something called Palestine and see cities, well those were really ghost towns. And no-one has lived in Jerusalem for 2000 years.
But what you don't hear from a lot of people on the left is a sense of outrage at Israel's apartheid policy.
The Rapture Is A Farce
Does Jesus come with an expiration date?
You would think that the Christian right would be upset by the events unfolding now in the Middle east. Jesus won't return until peace is acheived in that region, and recent events have pushed peace a long, long, long way away. You would think that the fundies would be doing everything in their power to work for peace, since they're so eager for the rapture, but instead they continue their unabated support of the Bush regime as it ensures the region stays unstable for a couple more generations. Perhaps they don't wished to be judged and found wanting.
My question is: After the rapture, will the acceptance of Jesus Christ as a personal savior no longer be considered a ticket to Heaven anymore? Because I'll bet you, a lot of sinners will change their ways when they've found they've been left behind. I'm sure that life will still continue on beyond the rapture, just look at all the Chinese who won't be lifted to Heaven. Will it be too late for them to convert?
Or is the rapture just a con? A farce perpetrated by two different passages in a book of the New Testament that should have been left out in the first place?
Al Franken Is A Big Fat Zionist Shill
Reading Al Franken's best seller, Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair And Balanced Look At The Right, I came across a passage unsettling. Franken describes his trip to Afghanistan to entertain soldiers fighting there, and how he had to clear his material with the military. He had proposed a routine he worked out with cheerleaders in the group where they would come out wearing burqas and then throw them off to reveal skimpy cheerleading outfits as an example of how the US is improving the life for women in Afghanistan. (No More Burqas!) the military 86'd the idea, deeming it too insensitive to the beliefs of the indigeonous personnel of the host country. He pleaded and wheedled, but no go. The military lacked a sense of humor.
Or is it Mr. Franken who's not funny. I'll admit, I bought the book, but never found Franken to be anything more than mildly amusing at best. I got rid of it because as an information source, it was futile.
besides the above described incident illustrating Mr. Franken's lack of sensitivity towards other people's religious beliefs, there was another chapter devoted to enrolling one of his interns (the people that did all his research for him, for free) at either Bob Jones or Liberty College, some southern fried Bible thumping place with rules against mixed dating, or something he was looking to challenge. I forget what it was, but once again, insensitivity to another person's religion (unlike myself, who's insensitive to everyone's religion but my own, fortune cookieology)
But waht makes him a Zionist shill is a joke he repeats that is designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. He mentions the story of how all Jews were warned to stay off planes on 9/11. "I'm a Jew", he states, "I never got the call". This bit of disinformation is based on the actual story that Odigo, an Israel owned instant messaging company located in Manhattan sent a message out at 7:00am on 9/11 telling employees not to report to work that day.
Then this weekend, he stated at DemocracyFest (thanks Dusty!):"Israel was provoked". Let me see, they killed a family of ten on the beach a Gaza, lied about it, denied it, never apologized for it, assassinated the Hamas chief of police in Gaza, arrested Hamas officials,buzzed the Syrian president's country home with fighetr jets(this was in June, before Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers), and crossed the border into Lebanon before the two soldier were captured that started this whole mess in the first place. Sounds like some provocation was going on, but it was on the part of Israel itself. I guess being a lying liar is okay, as long as you're a liberal.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Dubya Drinks While the World's On The Brink
Remember the stories from the right of how Bush had single-handedly conquered his substance abuse problem? There was no need to worry he might fall off the wagon because he found Jesus.Remember how as New Orleans was drowning Bush was at a fund raiser, struming a guitar?
Now, as the world heads towards WWIII, here we see Bush, looking soused. And what's that bottle in front of you Mr. President? Looks like a beer to me. And it looks like he's had more than one.
Once one admits to a substance abuse problem, they are admitting that the substance is more powerful than their will. They can never use the substance again, as it will lead them back down that road again.
This picture thereby gives creedence to the rumors that Bush has been drinking again.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Why Don't You Have Another Glass Of Kool-Aid, Mr. Bradbury?
George Bush is not a great leader. Anyone with half a brain and a yardstick sould tell you he's not even a good leader. He doesn't have to be one because he has something else: good followers. Bush says what they want to hear and for that they'll follow him anywhere like a lost puppy starved for attention and hungry for food. They want to believe that exposing criminal government behavior aids the enemy more than it hurts our country. They want to believe that the war on terror can be won by dropping bombs on civilian populations.Take a good look at the gentleman in the picture above. Notice the glazed over brainwashed look in his eye? He is good follower. You need to be in the Bush ADD-ministration because if you offer an opinion different from the one Bush wants to hear, you may as well start packing and sending out resumes. So when Senator Patrick Leahy asked head of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel if Bush's interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan case was right or wrong, what did Steve Bradbury say?
The president is always right.
Yes, he actually said that. Even Bush admitted yesterday that prisoners rights were violated at Guantanamo, after refusing to acknowledge it for five years. So when was he right? The former or the latter? Personally, I think Mr. Bradbury needs to lay off the kool-aid myself, for I can't think of one instance where Bush has ever been right.
"They hate us because we're free"-sorry, they hate us because we show no regard for their sovereignity and no respect for the basic human rights.
"Heckuva job, Brownie."
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
There are many more instances where Bush has been completely wrong, and I could sit here all night typing. And I'm sure you could think of more instances when he's been wrong, such as ignoring the PDB stating Osama determined to strike US, but has there ever been an instance in this ADD-ministration where he's been right? I didn't think so.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
No, No, It Was The Other Muhajir
How does the US Government decide who the number two guy in alQaeda is? Do they stick a bunch of Arabic names in a hat and draw out enough for a sinister sounding name? Do they tack photos of known alQaeda operatives to a wall and then throw a dart?
This isn't the first time the govewrnment has been wrong in the war on terror. In fact, the first time came hours after 9/11, when 7 out of 19 hijackers named by the FBI turned out to still be alive. Even then FBI director Louis Freeh acknowledged "we don't know who these people are", and yet never bothered to remove them from the list nor find out who really was on the plane. There are evn some who suggest Osama is dead, even though he has yet to stop making tapes (no more videotapes though, since the last actor playing him barely resembled him) to be released at convenient times for the Bush administration.
Now comes word that Zarqawi's successor as number two guy in alQaeda has been in jail for the last seven years!According to his lawyer, Abu Hamza-alMujahir sits in a prison in Cairo and hasn't been anywhere near Iraq. Of course, that means little to the Bush ADD-ministration, as long as they have a mean looking man of Arab decsent to shake at the American people, they can keep them terrified long enough to remove more of their civil liberties.
The US media center in Iraq had no comment on this matter, and said they had to clarify this with the Egyptian government, but until that time, all alQaeda activity in Iraq will be blamed on al_Muhajir.
This isn't the first time the govewrnment has been wrong in the war on terror. In fact, the first time came hours after 9/11, when 7 out of 19 hijackers named by the FBI turned out to still be alive. Even then FBI director Louis Freeh acknowledged "we don't know who these people are", and yet never bothered to remove them from the list nor find out who really was on the plane. There are evn some who suggest Osama is dead, even though he has yet to stop making tapes (no more videotapes though, since the last actor playing him barely resembled him) to be released at convenient times for the Bush administration.
Now comes word that Zarqawi's successor as number two guy in alQaeda has been in jail for the last seven years!According to his lawyer, Abu Hamza-alMujahir sits in a prison in Cairo and hasn't been anywhere near Iraq. Of course, that means little to the Bush ADD-ministration, as long as they have a mean looking man of Arab decsent to shake at the American people, they can keep them terrified long enough to remove more of their civil liberties.
The US media center in Iraq had no comment on this matter, and said they had to clarify this with the Egyptian government, but until that time, all alQaeda activity in Iraq will be blamed on al_Muhajir.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Let Me Count The Ways
War supporters say that the only reason that people oppose the war in Iraq is because they hate Bush. While many may hold a certain enmity towards him, there are many reason why we oppose the war. Here are just a few. Pick one, or use them all, either way you slice it up, this is not a 'good war'.
1.Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops: reportWho's the terrorists?
2.Abu Ghraib
3. Depleted UraniumCauses diabetes, as well as cancer and deformities.
4. Cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to top $500 billion
5.Many US Iraq vets return to homelessnessWay to support the troops! Use them up and throw them away, disposable citizens.
6.US didn't find WMD despite claimsNo ties to alQaeda either.
7.Documents obtained from Army relating to Halliburton subsidiary no bid contractsDick Cheney had a hand in their acquisition by his old company.
8.Keeping Iraq's Oil in the GroundSo we can fund hundred million dollar retirement funds for all oil executives!
9.The Lie of the Century
10.Iraq War Started To Protect Israel.Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
11.HadithaEyewitness account.
12.Bush uncle set to earn millions from company that profited from Iraq warKeeping it in the family!
13.Iraq in Civil war As if any war could be considered civil.
14. 8000 troops desert during Iraq warBecause it's not a just war!
14.One third of US Iraqi Vets seek mental health careApparently they found out Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
15.90% of Troops think Saddam had role in 9/11 72% say end war in 2006
16.There is no war on terrorism Something I've always said!
17.NSA spying on UN delegates To gain leverage for a resolution. If they've done that for the UN, what makes you think they haven't done that for Congress?
18.U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press Otherwise they'd never read good news!
19.Use of white phosphorous at Falluja a war crime.
20.50% of Americans approve of the use of torture Would you approve of watching soldiers torture your children?
21.Who gassed the puppy?We know it couldn't have been Iraq!
22.Forged Yellow cake uranium documents
23.Afghan war planned before 9/11.As well as the invasion of Iraq!
24.P2OG Remember the Miami 7?(scroll down)
25.The real reason we invaded Iraq Saddam starts trading oil in euros.
26.CIA agent name leaked in retaliation for her husband's op-ed piece in NYT.
27.2538 dead US soldiersAny of the above reasons justification? I think not.
28.Over 250,00 Iraqi civilians deadBut we did get those WMD, right?
Thanks to the archives at What Really Happened and Information Clearinghouse for allowing me to plunder their links. I could really go at this for a week, but wouldn't have this finished for today!
1.Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops: reportWho's the terrorists?
2.Abu Ghraib
3. Depleted UraniumCauses diabetes, as well as cancer and deformities.
4. Cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to top $500 billion
5.Many US Iraq vets return to homelessnessWay to support the troops! Use them up and throw them away, disposable citizens.
6.US didn't find WMD despite claimsNo ties to alQaeda either.
7.Documents obtained from Army relating to Halliburton subsidiary no bid contractsDick Cheney had a hand in their acquisition by his old company.
8.Keeping Iraq's Oil in the GroundSo we can fund hundred million dollar retirement funds for all oil executives!
9.The Lie of the Century
10.Iraq War Started To Protect Israel.Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
11.HadithaEyewitness account.
12.Bush uncle set to earn millions from company that profited from Iraq warKeeping it in the family!
13.Iraq in Civil war As if any war could be considered civil.
14. 8000 troops desert during Iraq warBecause it's not a just war!
14.One third of US Iraqi Vets seek mental health careApparently they found out Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
15.90% of Troops think Saddam had role in 9/11 72% say end war in 2006
16.There is no war on terrorism Something I've always said!
17.NSA spying on UN delegates To gain leverage for a resolution. If they've done that for the UN, what makes you think they haven't done that for Congress?
18.U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press Otherwise they'd never read good news!
19.Use of white phosphorous at Falluja a war crime.
20.50% of Americans approve of the use of torture Would you approve of watching soldiers torture your children?
21.Who gassed the puppy?We know it couldn't have been Iraq!
22.Forged Yellow cake uranium documents
23.Afghan war planned before 9/11.As well as the invasion of Iraq!
24.P2OG Remember the Miami 7?(scroll down)
25.The real reason we invaded Iraq Saddam starts trading oil in euros.
26.CIA agent name leaked in retaliation for her husband's op-ed piece in NYT.
27.2538 dead US soldiersAny of the above reasons justification? I think not.
28.Over 250,00 Iraqi civilians deadBut we did get those WMD, right?
Thanks to the archives at What Really Happened and Information Clearinghouse for allowing me to plunder their links. I could really go at this for a week, but wouldn't have this finished for today!
Monday, July 03, 2006
God Bless America is Just Some Song Written by an Immigrant
(Continuing on with reposts for the holiday weekend, I thought I'd repost this little gem. The town I grew up in is home to the World's Largest Musical Fountain, colored lights and splashing fountains synchronized to music. Sometimes it's pop music standards from the 30's 40's and 50's, other times it's vintage rock from the late sxities, like Cream and Hendrix. You haven't lived until you've heard Purple Haze played through a sound system so loud it reverberates through the whole town. They even have a special presentation where most of the music from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is set to lights and water. But every July Fourth, they pull out all the stops with a show of nothing but patriotic music, capped off with Kate Smith's stirring rendition of God Bless America, followed by a fireworks display that ineveitably sets the hill behind it on fire. My home town is a very conservative town, they ran Peanuts on the editorial page until the middle of the seventies as it was deemed too controversial. And there is an implicit mistrust of the migrant workers who drive up from Texas every year to harvest the area blueberry crop. So it is in that spirit that I repost this one, which was from last summer, before the Bush ADD-ministration began it's amnesty for illegal immigrants program.)
You see it all over, magnetic ribbons, bumper stickers, church signs, business signs, every where you go. People say "God Bless America" as if it is from the scripture or the Constitution. Ironically, most of these people are anti-immigrant, which if you were native American, would make sense, but if you're not, somewhere down the line someone in your bloodline emigrated to the US. But the song's author, Irving Berlin, was himself a Russian immigrant who moved to the US with his family when he seven years old, to avoid religious persecution. When he wrote the song he was not saying that God prefers America (the United States), he wrote it as a request to God to bless this country, because in1938 when he wrote it, it was a country worthy of blessing from a supreme being.
Now the song has become the mantra for the brainwashed, those people too ignorant of history to understand what had made America so great in the past and how far we have strayed from it today. In 1938, as war was imminent throughout Europe, America was still an isolationist country, leaving Europe's problems to Europe. There were some here that felt we should stem the tide of Fascism that was rising in Germany, there were others here in America supporting the Nazis, well past our entrance into WWII, among others, notably were Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush (Our current President's grandfather and great-grandfather), who were convicted under the trading with the enemies act.
As is typical, most people couldn't sing more than two or three lines of the song, or understand what they mean. Such is the same with George W. Bush, who claims his favorite song is "Fortunate Son", written by John Fogerty and originally recorded by Creedence Clearwater Revival. And I'm sure that Bush has no capacity to understand what that song says, either.
Some folks are born, made to wave the flag
Ooh that red, white and blue
But when the band plays "Hail To The Chief"
They point their cannon at you
What Mr. Fogerty is saying in this verse that those patriots who supported the US's illegal involvement in Viet Nam (Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld?) were people who found ways to avoid serving their country overseas, leaving draftees to fight for them. This is a true sign of cowardice. If one is not willing to fight for wht they believe, but rather send someone else who maybe doesn't want to fight in their stead, they are cowards. Such is the same with the current war. The brainwashed who support it the most are the ones less likely to actually have to go fight in it. So they cower in front of their television sets, waving their flags as the corporate media (or the Bush regime) feeds them lie after lie to keep them so afraid of the "terrorists" that they are willing to not only give up their rights, but to viciously attack any one who doesn't want to lose their rights or feel we need to continue on in one illegal war after another.
The second verse of the song deals with the priviliged, who weren't sending their kids to the war they supported and were profitting from it, and who felt that they shouldn't be required to pay for it. When Mr. Fogerty sang on the chorus, "It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senators/millionaires son," he understood just who was fighting the war and who wasn't. In the final verse, Mr. Fogerty takes a swipe at those who feel a military solution is the only viable answer to our problems.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh they'll send down to war
And when you ask them "How much should we give?"
The only answer's more, more, more
Because as in the sixties, the people who support the war and are profitting from it no that they'll never lose a family member in it. Neither of the Bush twins are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, neither is Chelsea Clinton for that matter. As a matter of fact, recruitment levels keep falling as no one wants to get greased in Iraq, die on the way to a military hospital in Germany, not be included in the official war dead, effectively dying for no reason.
I'm holding out for a magnetic ribbon that says "Fight For Your Right To Party". At least that something I believe in.
You see it all over, magnetic ribbons, bumper stickers, church signs, business signs, every where you go. People say "God Bless America" as if it is from the scripture or the Constitution. Ironically, most of these people are anti-immigrant, which if you were native American, would make sense, but if you're not, somewhere down the line someone in your bloodline emigrated to the US. But the song's author, Irving Berlin, was himself a Russian immigrant who moved to the US with his family when he seven years old, to avoid religious persecution. When he wrote the song he was not saying that God prefers America (the United States), he wrote it as a request to God to bless this country, because in1938 when he wrote it, it was a country worthy of blessing from a supreme being.
Now the song has become the mantra for the brainwashed, those people too ignorant of history to understand what had made America so great in the past and how far we have strayed from it today. In 1938, as war was imminent throughout Europe, America was still an isolationist country, leaving Europe's problems to Europe. There were some here that felt we should stem the tide of Fascism that was rising in Germany, there were others here in America supporting the Nazis, well past our entrance into WWII, among others, notably were Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush (Our current President's grandfather and great-grandfather), who were convicted under the trading with the enemies act.
As is typical, most people couldn't sing more than two or three lines of the song, or understand what they mean. Such is the same with George W. Bush, who claims his favorite song is "Fortunate Son", written by John Fogerty and originally recorded by Creedence Clearwater Revival. And I'm sure that Bush has no capacity to understand what that song says, either.
Some folks are born, made to wave the flag
Ooh that red, white and blue
But when the band plays "Hail To The Chief"
They point their cannon at you
What Mr. Fogerty is saying in this verse that those patriots who supported the US's illegal involvement in Viet Nam (Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld?) were people who found ways to avoid serving their country overseas, leaving draftees to fight for them. This is a true sign of cowardice. If one is not willing to fight for wht they believe, but rather send someone else who maybe doesn't want to fight in their stead, they are cowards. Such is the same with the current war. The brainwashed who support it the most are the ones less likely to actually have to go fight in it. So they cower in front of their television sets, waving their flags as the corporate media (or the Bush regime) feeds them lie after lie to keep them so afraid of the "terrorists" that they are willing to not only give up their rights, but to viciously attack any one who doesn't want to lose their rights or feel we need to continue on in one illegal war after another.
The second verse of the song deals with the priviliged, who weren't sending their kids to the war they supported and were profitting from it, and who felt that they shouldn't be required to pay for it. When Mr. Fogerty sang on the chorus, "It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senators/millionaires son," he understood just who was fighting the war and who wasn't. In the final verse, Mr. Fogerty takes a swipe at those who feel a military solution is the only viable answer to our problems.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh they'll send down to war
And when you ask them "How much should we give?"
The only answer's more, more, more
Because as in the sixties, the people who support the war and are profitting from it no that they'll never lose a family member in it. Neither of the Bush twins are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, neither is Chelsea Clinton for that matter. As a matter of fact, recruitment levels keep falling as no one wants to get greased in Iraq, die on the way to a military hospital in Germany, not be included in the official war dead, effectively dying for no reason.
I'm holding out for a magnetic ribbon that says "Fight For Your Right To Party". At least that something I believe in.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Driving Across America
(This weekend, while most of the country is traveling, most likely stuck in a traffic jam, I thought I'd repost this little gem in honor of, well, driving across America)
We cut down trees and we plow down hills
To increase our motor skills
We're driving across America
Refineries can't match the pace
As we fill the space between each place
We're driving across America
Someday my friend
This all will end
And it will never be here again
We've all been spoiled by the cheap oil
We sucked it dry beneath the soil
We're driving across American
There is no way we will be saved
The whole country has been paved
We're driving across America
Someday my friend
This all will end
And they will never be here again
One thought prevails as we hit the trails
We'd rather move like snails than ride the rails
We're driving across America
(c)2005 KD Murphy
Thanks to James Howard Kunstler for inspiration
We cut down trees and we plow down hills
To increase our motor skills
We're driving across America
Refineries can't match the pace
As we fill the space between each place
We're driving across America
Someday my friend
This all will end
And it will never be here again
We've all been spoiled by the cheap oil
We sucked it dry beneath the soil
We're driving across American
There is no way we will be saved
The whole country has been paved
We're driving across America
Someday my friend
This all will end
And they will never be here again
One thought prevails as we hit the trails
We'd rather move like snails than ride the rails
We're driving across America
(c)2005 KD Murphy
Thanks to James Howard Kunstler for inspiration
Sunday, June 25, 2006
The Centrifuge of War
When is a war really necessary? Or not even a war, but a military action? Right now, we're faced with that question as North Korea is getting ready to test it's new Taepodong-2 missile, with a range of up to 9,300 miles. Walter Mondale, former Vice-President and one time presidential candidate has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's missile program if they refuse to dismantle it. While the tough rhetoric is not surprising, even for a Democrat, one should note it is an election year. And of course, such a strategy doesn't allow for a follow-up, i.e., what to do when North Korea unleashes chemical weapons against Seoul? Well, the war planners haven't thought that far ahead, but they rarely do. Just look at Iraq.
North korea, which has had a moratorium on it's missile program since 1998, has been eager lately to hold talks with the current ADD-ministration. Even though it has been named by the Bush regime as a member of the Axis of Evil, there has been no desire to open talks with them. I'm sure the thinking has been "we'll get around to them", but they got sidetracked threatening every country in the Gulf Region. Like Iran.
Well, as far as Iran goes, back in 2003 Iran offered to hold talks with the US, putting everything from it's nuclear plan to recognition of Israel and end of support for Palestinians on the table, only to nbe rebuffed, by, you guessed it, the Bush ADD-ministration. they were busy planning war with Iraq, well, like our plans for North Korea, the bombing part, not the dealing with the aftermath part, but when you suffer from ADD, you always remember-baby steps. This led to the replacement of a moderate president with a hardliner and voila! Another reason for war! So now we have two potential wars that could have been potentially avoided, if the White House wasn't occupied by neocon war mongers, intent on enriching Republican contractors in the centrifuge of war.
Well, how about Iraq? Certainly that war was necessary, right? Well, not really. You see, Saddam, perhaps reading the writing on the wall, offered to make a deal to avert war as well. This deal would allow US soldiers and weapons inspectors in to search his whole country, hold elections, recognise Israel, and hand over a suspect in the 1993 World trade Center bombing sitting in an Iraqi jail. Of course, the offer went through the self-avowed prince of darkness, Richard Perle, who stepped down from his position on the Pentagon's Citizen Advisory Board rather than give up the oppurtunity to make billions off said war with Iraq.
So, there you have it. Wars started for solely for the necessity of a group of greedy bastards to siphon off more tax payer dollars (while getting a nice tax cut in return). What the fuck, blood money spends the same as hard earned cash, and maybe they'll pull a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and donate large chunks of their billions to charity. But I wouldn't count on that any more than I would count on the US ground based interceptors actually averting a missile attack. And you can rest assured that after $43 billion it doesn't work, neither does the guy who got the defense contract to build it.
North korea, which has had a moratorium on it's missile program since 1998, has been eager lately to hold talks with the current ADD-ministration. Even though it has been named by the Bush regime as a member of the Axis of Evil, there has been no desire to open talks with them. I'm sure the thinking has been "we'll get around to them", but they got sidetracked threatening every country in the Gulf Region. Like Iran.
Well, as far as Iran goes, back in 2003 Iran offered to hold talks with the US, putting everything from it's nuclear plan to recognition of Israel and end of support for Palestinians on the table, only to nbe rebuffed, by, you guessed it, the Bush ADD-ministration. they were busy planning war with Iraq, well, like our plans for North Korea, the bombing part, not the dealing with the aftermath part, but when you suffer from ADD, you always remember-baby steps. This led to the replacement of a moderate president with a hardliner and voila! Another reason for war! So now we have two potential wars that could have been potentially avoided, if the White House wasn't occupied by neocon war mongers, intent on enriching Republican contractors in the centrifuge of war.
Well, how about Iraq? Certainly that war was necessary, right? Well, not really. You see, Saddam, perhaps reading the writing on the wall, offered to make a deal to avert war as well. This deal would allow US soldiers and weapons inspectors in to search his whole country, hold elections, recognise Israel, and hand over a suspect in the 1993 World trade Center bombing sitting in an Iraqi jail. Of course, the offer went through the self-avowed prince of darkness, Richard Perle, who stepped down from his position on the Pentagon's Citizen Advisory Board rather than give up the oppurtunity to make billions off said war with Iraq.
So, there you have it. Wars started for solely for the necessity of a group of greedy bastards to siphon off more tax payer dollars (while getting a nice tax cut in return). What the fuck, blood money spends the same as hard earned cash, and maybe they'll pull a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and donate large chunks of their billions to charity. But I wouldn't count on that any more than I would count on the US ground based interceptors actually averting a missile attack. And you can rest assured that after $43 billion it doesn't work, neither does the guy who got the defense contract to build it.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
"Abducted", Or Captured?
At no other time in American history has the (American) English language taken such a beating. And I don't mean the manglings by Our Supreme Leader in his speeches, either. Prisoners of War become 'enemy combatants' so we don't have to follow the protocols of the Geneva Accords. Threats against Iran become diplomacy. Insurgents become terrorists and permanent bases become an exit strategy.
Now two American soldiers have been 'abducted' by masked gun men. I guess that makes it sound more like a crime has been committed than saying they were captured, thereby making criminals out of the perpetrators. Now, I hope these men get back home safely to their families. It goes without saying that if the current administration didn't have such a hard-on for the Iraqi oil, none of this would have happened. But of all the Iraqis in US custody, not to mention the 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo, how many of them were abducted? All? Some ? None?
Perhaps this is a new strategy of the insurgency, rather than kill Americans, which has no effect on the Bush regime or it's supporters, a dead soldier is just one more veteran whose benefits they don't have to cut five years from now. A prisoner of war, or 'kidnap victim', is more than just a bargaining chip, it is a source of anxiety for a nation already uneasy about a war we were assured would be quick and painless. Now forces must be diverted to a rescue in order to save the chickenhawks from getting egg on their face.
Why? Remember the photos of Iraqis at the hands of American soldiers at Abu Ghraib? How would we react to American servicemen in the same type of poses? Not a pretty picture, but who was the one who opened up that pandora's box in the first place? This is why America shouldn't be condoning torture, or issue signing statements to laws forbidding torture that state we're not going to follow this law. Because there will come a time when our soldiers will be captured by enemy forces. Our complaints won't be taken seriously because we're doing the same things ourselves. And the people responsible for these atrocities in the current administration will fail to take any responsibility at all, because they lacked the foresight to see this happening.
Now two American soldiers have been 'abducted' by masked gun men. I guess that makes it sound more like a crime has been committed than saying they were captured, thereby making criminals out of the perpetrators. Now, I hope these men get back home safely to their families. It goes without saying that if the current administration didn't have such a hard-on for the Iraqi oil, none of this would have happened. But of all the Iraqis in US custody, not to mention the 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo, how many of them were abducted? All? Some ? None?
Perhaps this is a new strategy of the insurgency, rather than kill Americans, which has no effect on the Bush regime or it's supporters, a dead soldier is just one more veteran whose benefits they don't have to cut five years from now. A prisoner of war, or 'kidnap victim', is more than just a bargaining chip, it is a source of anxiety for a nation already uneasy about a war we were assured would be quick and painless. Now forces must be diverted to a rescue in order to save the chickenhawks from getting egg on their face.
Why? Remember the photos of Iraqis at the hands of American soldiers at Abu Ghraib? How would we react to American servicemen in the same type of poses? Not a pretty picture, but who was the one who opened up that pandora's box in the first place? This is why America shouldn't be condoning torture, or issue signing statements to laws forbidding torture that state we're not going to follow this law. Because there will come a time when our soldiers will be captured by enemy forces. Our complaints won't be taken seriously because we're doing the same things ourselves. And the people responsible for these atrocities in the current administration will fail to take any responsibility at all, because they lacked the foresight to see this happening.
What Makes A Father Makes A Son
Does daddy need a day off? In the weeks preceding Father's Day, advertising seemed to think the best way a father could spend his day was on a golf course, or somewhere else, engaged in activities that took him away from his children. Not all family dynamics are the same, but I fail to see where a father benefits from spending even less time with his children.
At the pool yesterday, a grandmother was there with her two grandsons, swimming, when she realized it was Father's Day today."We'll have to buy a present for you to give to him when you see him next week,"she offered to them. That started me to thinking, why weren't they with him this weekend? They weren't with their mother, so why not let him have them on this weekend? I know, custody rights and all, and the divorce agreement probably stipulated that he only see them every other week, or one weekend a month, but to me it seemed spiteful on the part of the mom to keep the children on the one weekend they should be with their dad, especially since she dumped them on her mom. It made me a little more thankful my ex is flexible on the times I get to spend with my kids.
But it also started me to think about my own father, and all the Hell he went through and still managed to raise five kids. My dad loved us, and enjoyed being with us as much as possible. But growing up, that was difficult, as he had to put in long hours at his job to cover medical bills incurred by my mother's bout with cancer.
At times he could be fun, I remember the games of hide and seek in the dark in the whole house we used to play. We lived in a spooky old house, with three floors and a full basement, and nights after dinner, we would turn out all the lights and play hide and seek. It was fun until everybody had been found except dad, who could be lurking anywhere in the shadows, waiting to jump out at any second.
But he also very strict, having spent time in the Marines, rising to the rank of sergeant. He had my mother's old sorority paddle that he would use on us if we misbehaved, until we hid it from him, which made it worse, as he would then resort to his belt, conveniently located around his waist. Back then, corporal punishment was still acceptable, and my father, being raised by two alcoholics, probably didn't know any different. I still cringe when I hear some WT wish they could "still beat their kids", we were paddled as a punishment, not beat out of frustration as these people seem to want to do. Even worse, though, was the yelling. Get his "Irish" up and you'd be wishing he would hit you. His eyebrows would come together, his ears would turn red, and our friends down the block would ask if that was our dad they heard yelling.
Politically, my dad was a reactionary. In the sixties, he belonged to the John Birch Society, which he joined, because he was concerned about protecting the rights of the individual, and left when they became convinced everything was a communist plot. In fact, I remember a tract he had that us kids enjoyed because it reprinted all our favorite top forty song lyrics. Who knew the Monkees were so subversive? But as we grew older, he became less reactionary and more conservative libertarian.
This was following my mother's death, and after her struggle against cancer. Often times, he would have to work all day, come home and take care of five unruly kids and a bedridden wife, and never lost his faith (although we children all did). He even switched careers before she passed, giving up his job in the insurance industry so he could spend more time at home.
I often wonder, what he would be like now? Before he passed, he was a Clinton hater. He may have listened to Rush Limbaugh, so would he be a Bush supporter? The highlight of any Father's day barbecue was the chance to argue politics with him, and we all ganged up on him, be as we were all to the left of him. But there was one thing I remember to this day that leaves me wondering.
When I was a teenager, and his anti-communist stance had settled down some (we were kicking their ass in the Cold War), I asked him, what was wrong with communism?
Well, he said, for one thing they spy on their citizens. You can't trust your neighbor, as they might turn you into the government. You can't sign a treaty with them, as they would never keep it, and break it as soon as possible. They torture people, and don't allow the people to speak out against the government. So I wonder, would my father accept this if it came draped in an American flag?
Probably. He was a Fox News watcher, after all.
At the pool yesterday, a grandmother was there with her two grandsons, swimming, when she realized it was Father's Day today."We'll have to buy a present for you to give to him when you see him next week,"she offered to them. That started me to thinking, why weren't they with him this weekend? They weren't with their mother, so why not let him have them on this weekend? I know, custody rights and all, and the divorce agreement probably stipulated that he only see them every other week, or one weekend a month, but to me it seemed spiteful on the part of the mom to keep the children on the one weekend they should be with their dad, especially since she dumped them on her mom. It made me a little more thankful my ex is flexible on the times I get to spend with my kids.
But it also started me to think about my own father, and all the Hell he went through and still managed to raise five kids. My dad loved us, and enjoyed being with us as much as possible. But growing up, that was difficult, as he had to put in long hours at his job to cover medical bills incurred by my mother's bout with cancer.
At times he could be fun, I remember the games of hide and seek in the dark in the whole house we used to play. We lived in a spooky old house, with three floors and a full basement, and nights after dinner, we would turn out all the lights and play hide and seek. It was fun until everybody had been found except dad, who could be lurking anywhere in the shadows, waiting to jump out at any second.
But he also very strict, having spent time in the Marines, rising to the rank of sergeant. He had my mother's old sorority paddle that he would use on us if we misbehaved, until we hid it from him, which made it worse, as he would then resort to his belt, conveniently located around his waist. Back then, corporal punishment was still acceptable, and my father, being raised by two alcoholics, probably didn't know any different. I still cringe when I hear some WT wish they could "still beat their kids", we were paddled as a punishment, not beat out of frustration as these people seem to want to do. Even worse, though, was the yelling. Get his "Irish" up and you'd be wishing he would hit you. His eyebrows would come together, his ears would turn red, and our friends down the block would ask if that was our dad they heard yelling.
Politically, my dad was a reactionary. In the sixties, he belonged to the John Birch Society, which he joined, because he was concerned about protecting the rights of the individual, and left when they became convinced everything was a communist plot. In fact, I remember a tract he had that us kids enjoyed because it reprinted all our favorite top forty song lyrics. Who knew the Monkees were so subversive? But as we grew older, he became less reactionary and more conservative libertarian.
This was following my mother's death, and after her struggle against cancer. Often times, he would have to work all day, come home and take care of five unruly kids and a bedridden wife, and never lost his faith (although we children all did). He even switched careers before she passed, giving up his job in the insurance industry so he could spend more time at home.
I often wonder, what he would be like now? Before he passed, he was a Clinton hater. He may have listened to Rush Limbaugh, so would he be a Bush supporter? The highlight of any Father's day barbecue was the chance to argue politics with him, and we all ganged up on him, be as we were all to the left of him. But there was one thing I remember to this day that leaves me wondering.
When I was a teenager, and his anti-communist stance had settled down some (we were kicking their ass in the Cold War), I asked him, what was wrong with communism?
Well, he said, for one thing they spy on their citizens. You can't trust your neighbor, as they might turn you into the government. You can't sign a treaty with them, as they would never keep it, and break it as soon as possible. They torture people, and don't allow the people to speak out against the government. So I wonder, would my father accept this if it came draped in an American flag?
Probably. He was a Fox News watcher, after all.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
A New Number Two (But The Same Old Shit)
It didn't take long. In less than a week, a new leader was chosen for al-qaeda, which makes me wonder what kind of campaign process they must have. What, no mudslinging (Abdul gets his IED materials from Zionists!) or outlandish campaign promises (vote for me and I promise twice as many virgins when you die fighting the infidels!)? You'd think they'd be lining up for miles to be the point man for the US propaganda campaign against Islam.
But now the US has a new face and voice of Al Qaeda to put fear into the hearts and minds of the beer swilling flag waving chemically imbalanced brain damaged NASCAR watching monkeys before they had time to think "Well, we got Zarqawi, isn't it time to bring our troops home?" Even though most of the fighting between US troops and Iraqis involve the insurgency, the US makes no distinction between Al qaeda and the insurgency (just as it makes no distinction between combatants and civilians) . As long as they have a boogey man to wag at the people who'll make video and audio tapes to be released right before election time, everything's cool!
What this really points up is the futility of the currents strategy of the war on terrorism. Terrorists are like dandelions, mow one down and ten more pop up in their place. And, like dandelions, to get rid of terrorists, you have to get at the roots. But there is no intention of ending terrorism by the US, only exploiting it and defining every military action in the Middle east as part of "the war on terrorism", such as the impending war with Iran, as an excuse to establish a permanent military prescence in the region.
Which means that the war will go on for generations. Someday, you may be able to tell your grandchildren that you remember when we actually had the rights and freedoms that the troops are dying for overseas. And I'm more than certain there'll be a new number two al Qaeda guy.
But now the US has a new face and voice of Al Qaeda to put fear into the hearts and minds of the beer swilling flag waving chemically imbalanced brain damaged NASCAR watching monkeys before they had time to think "Well, we got Zarqawi, isn't it time to bring our troops home?" Even though most of the fighting between US troops and Iraqis involve the insurgency, the US makes no distinction between Al qaeda and the insurgency (just as it makes no distinction between combatants and civilians) . As long as they have a boogey man to wag at the people who'll make video and audio tapes to be released right before election time, everything's cool!
What this really points up is the futility of the currents strategy of the war on terrorism. Terrorists are like dandelions, mow one down and ten more pop up in their place. And, like dandelions, to get rid of terrorists, you have to get at the roots. But there is no intention of ending terrorism by the US, only exploiting it and defining every military action in the Middle east as part of "the war on terrorism", such as the impending war with Iran, as an excuse to establish a permanent military prescence in the region.
Which means that the war will go on for generations. Someday, you may be able to tell your grandchildren that you remember when we actually had the rights and freedoms that the troops are dying for overseas. And I'm more than certain there'll be a new number two al Qaeda guy.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Is This The End To The Iranian "Crisis"?
Today, the Iran situation took one step closer to resolution, with Iran agreeing to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for some nuclear technology from the US. Does this mean that it's okay to the US for Iran to have nuclear technology, as long as it comes from the US? Perhaps that's what the current administration was so upset about, a chance for major party contributors to make billions being lost to Russia. But in a way, it makes sense for Iran to choose nuclear technology from the US.
Look at it this way, in the last, oh, we'll say, thirty years, the only problem the US has had with nuclear power was Three Mile Island, which, as bad is it was, looks like a skinned knee compared to the Russian's nuclear catastrophe, Chernobyl. I mean, if you are going to get in an accident, which would you rather be driving, a Hummer, or a Yugo?
So, perhaps this is a first, Iran and the US coming together for the first time since the Hostage Crisis of 1979 (if you don't include that whole Iran-Contra arms for hostages thing. We do, but the media and the government don't because they want you to forget it ever happened)to resolve their differences. Iran has stated that they will continue to price their oil in dollars, not euros, which miffed Hugo Chavez, who's looking for a way to end the "dollar's dictatorship". (Don't worry Hugo, Bush has two and a half more years in office)
Perhaps if the whole thing is settled, and the US has no reason to attack Iran (that grinding noise you hear is merely Dick Cheney, gritting his teeth), the price of oil per barrel will go down, as it has risen steadily with the increasing tensions between the two countries. Which means another quarter of record profits for the oil companies and Americans can remove that "For Sale" sign off their boats and SUVs. So Americans can hop in their vehicles, looking forward to another summer of "easy motoring" (Thank you Jim Kunstler!), and crank up their CD players and iPods to drown out those voices who still are there reminding us about peak oil.
Does this suggest a change in diplomatic strategies within the current administration? No longer threatening nations, but actually working with them to successfully resolve issues between them? If so, then we must applaud them for avoiding a catstrophe that would have made Iraq look like the invasion of Grenada. Perhaps this will continue, and all conflicts can be resolved peacefully.
Finally, what are we to think about the pre-war propaganda in the corporate media about the possible war with Iran being part of "The War On Terrorism"? Does it mean that the war in Iran was never actually part of the war on terrorism, but merely used as a convenient excuse to justify a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation, much the same way the war in Iraq was erroneously linked to "The War On Terrorism"? Or will another reason to attack Iran pop up, possibly right before November's elections?
Look at it this way, in the last, oh, we'll say, thirty years, the only problem the US has had with nuclear power was Three Mile Island, which, as bad is it was, looks like a skinned knee compared to the Russian's nuclear catastrophe, Chernobyl. I mean, if you are going to get in an accident, which would you rather be driving, a Hummer, or a Yugo?
So, perhaps this is a first, Iran and the US coming together for the first time since the Hostage Crisis of 1979 (if you don't include that whole Iran-Contra arms for hostages thing. We do, but the media and the government don't because they want you to forget it ever happened)to resolve their differences. Iran has stated that they will continue to price their oil in dollars, not euros, which miffed Hugo Chavez, who's looking for a way to end the "dollar's dictatorship". (Don't worry Hugo, Bush has two and a half more years in office)
Perhaps if the whole thing is settled, and the US has no reason to attack Iran (that grinding noise you hear is merely Dick Cheney, gritting his teeth), the price of oil per barrel will go down, as it has risen steadily with the increasing tensions between the two countries. Which means another quarter of record profits for the oil companies and Americans can remove that "For Sale" sign off their boats and SUVs. So Americans can hop in their vehicles, looking forward to another summer of "easy motoring" (Thank you Jim Kunstler!), and crank up their CD players and iPods to drown out those voices who still are there reminding us about peak oil.
Does this suggest a change in diplomatic strategies within the current administration? No longer threatening nations, but actually working with them to successfully resolve issues between them? If so, then we must applaud them for avoiding a catstrophe that would have made Iraq look like the invasion of Grenada. Perhaps this will continue, and all conflicts can be resolved peacefully.
Finally, what are we to think about the pre-war propaganda in the corporate media about the possible war with Iran being part of "The War On Terrorism"? Does it mean that the war in Iran was never actually part of the war on terrorism, but merely used as a convenient excuse to justify a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation, much the same way the war in Iraq was erroneously linked to "The War On Terrorism"? Or will another reason to attack Iran pop up, possibly right before November's elections?
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Gay Marriages? Again? Must Be An Election Year!
They should just call it the Bush ADD-ministration, they can't seem to stay focused on an issue long enough to bring about a solution to anything. Last month, it was all about illegal immigrants, they can't seem to stay focused on the wars they are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan without wanting to start another one in Iran, leaving problems that as Bush has said himself, another president will have to deal with.
Now they're back to whole gay marriage issue again, with Bush using his weakly radio address to throw his support behind a bill in the Senate that is sure not to pass. And why not? Opposing gay marriages worked so well for them in 2004, well, that and a boatload of vote fraud, why not trot it out again? Nothing gets those red staters madder than "activist judges" who legislate from the bench (as opposed to activist executives who legislate from the signing statements) and Bush needs to get them to the polls to keep up the appearance that, despite falling poll numbers, the people prefer Republicans, so when they retain Congress through continued vote fraud, the corporate media will have an issue to point to as the root cause for their success.
So why not restrict the freedom of homosexuals who wish to take a vow in a civil service pledging their undying love for each other? Everybody else's freedoms are becoming more restricted by this administration, why not pick on the gays too? Plus Bush gets to play up to the thumpies who labor under the misguided belief that God prefers the US over the rest of the world. Yeah, that makes sense. There's a whole fucking planet, but God's only going to favor the greediest and most wasteful nation on it. If you believe that, you'd probably believe you could leg press a ton using a protein shake developed by Pat Robertson.
So while there is a wealth of real problems facing this country, and it's future, let's focus on something that isn't hurting anything. That's what you call compassonate conservatism!
Now they're back to whole gay marriage issue again, with Bush using his weakly radio address to throw his support behind a bill in the Senate that is sure not to pass. And why not? Opposing gay marriages worked so well for them in 2004, well, that and a boatload of vote fraud, why not trot it out again? Nothing gets those red staters madder than "activist judges" who legislate from the bench (as opposed to activist executives who legislate from the signing statements) and Bush needs to get them to the polls to keep up the appearance that, despite falling poll numbers, the people prefer Republicans, so when they retain Congress through continued vote fraud, the corporate media will have an issue to point to as the root cause for their success.
So why not restrict the freedom of homosexuals who wish to take a vow in a civil service pledging their undying love for each other? Everybody else's freedoms are becoming more restricted by this administration, why not pick on the gays too? Plus Bush gets to play up to the thumpies who labor under the misguided belief that God prefers the US over the rest of the world. Yeah, that makes sense. There's a whole fucking planet, but God's only going to favor the greediest and most wasteful nation on it. If you believe that, you'd probably believe you could leg press a ton using a protein shake developed by Pat Robertson.
So while there is a wealth of real problems facing this country, and it's future, let's focus on something that isn't hurting anything. That's what you call compassonate conservatism!
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Straight From The Horse's Ass
Good news! Iran has voluntarily agreed to suspend it's uranium enrichment activities! Of course, all it asks for in return are security assurances from the US that it has no plans to invade or attack. A quick, diplomatic solution to the Iranian "Crisis", right?
Wrong.
The US, specifically, the Bush administration, refuses to give the security assurances Iran has asked for. In fact, it has refused any diplomatic efforts until Iran suspends it's uranium enrichment. Is the US wrong for refusing to negotiate with a sovereign state acting well within it's rights under the NPT to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or is Iran wrong for asking for assurances that the US has no intention of "pre-emptively" striking at Iran?
The next step, following the Iraq model for seriously fucking up the United States, is to take the matter to the UN, where it will ask for sanctions against Iran, even thought IAEA chairman Mohammed el-Baradei says Iran is not an immediate threat. And even though Russian and China, who both have deals with Iran, are sure to veto those sanctions. This is when the US once again acts unilaterally.
Says who?
CAVUTO: That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?
BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.
So there you have it, straight from the horse's ass, the US intends on acting unilaterally against Iran, regardless of the consequences. But at least they put on a nice dog and pony show for the beer swilling brain damaged chemically imbalanced NASCAR watching morons out there. And in the end, isn't that all that matters?
Wrong.
The US, specifically, the Bush administration, refuses to give the security assurances Iran has asked for. In fact, it has refused any diplomatic efforts until Iran suspends it's uranium enrichment. Is the US wrong for refusing to negotiate with a sovereign state acting well within it's rights under the NPT to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or is Iran wrong for asking for assurances that the US has no intention of "pre-emptively" striking at Iran?
The next step, following the Iraq model for seriously fucking up the United States, is to take the matter to the UN, where it will ask for sanctions against Iran, even thought IAEA chairman Mohammed el-Baradei says Iran is not an immediate threat. And even though Russian and China, who both have deals with Iran, are sure to veto those sanctions. This is when the US once again acts unilaterally.
Says who?
CAVUTO: That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?
BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.
So there you have it, straight from the horse's ass, the US intends on acting unilaterally against Iran, regardless of the consequences. But at least they put on a nice dog and pony show for the beer swilling brain damaged chemically imbalanced NASCAR watching morons out there. And in the end, isn't that all that matters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
