Archives, April 2006
Don Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest;
…or, is this what they mean by an “Army of One”?
August 31st, 2006
Military morale has never been lower since the Vietnam War, and that
military morale problem in the 1970's was fueled in large part by
the draft. In our modern volunteer army, that is no longer the issue
of discontent. Currently, the deep-seated morale problem in the U.S.
military stems from a wide variety of systemic problems ranging from
under-equipment to over-deployment and stop loss, from not clearly
defining the mission, to changing the mission, from not enough
troops to do the job, to poorly armored vehicles, not to mention the
bunker mentality which keeps most troops in the Green Zone or
stationed in forward firebases rather than in the towns and cities
where the violence is occurring. All of these tactical and strategic
errors lie squarely at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld. The failure in
Iraq to date is a quintessential Rumsfeld blunder.
secretary of defense Don Rumsfeld gave a speech in which he said
that Democrats and others who want the troops withdrawn from Iraq
suffer from “moral and intellectual confusion”. He again equated
Iraq with Nazi Germany despite the fact that German armies were
overrunning Europe whereas the Iraqi army was doing absolutely
nothing before our invasion. Democrats responded by questioning Mr.
Rumsfeld's mental state.
one step further: is Don nuts? Iraq is like Nazi Germany? Does
anyone, even die-hard Republicans, believe that Iraq was about to
sweep across Europe with a panzer Blitzkrieg? I think it is Mr.
Rumsfeld who needs to re-read his history books. He apparently has
no idea what he is talking about. But his policies are still the
source of great suffering for our overextended troops, who are still
being wounded and killed 4 years after we invaded Iraq according to
Rumsfeld’s wholly inadequate war plans.
plan for “victory in Iraq”? More of the same.
year of this abuse of our troops, with servicemen and woman fleeing
the armed forces in droves, and we may indeed be down to an army of
one… Rumsfeld himself.
One Country, Two Realities
August 27th, 2006
Much like the image above from a Twilight Zone episode staring
William Shatner, the right wing-leaning mainstream media try to
scare the public in order to boost ratings, while liberals try to
pretend that they aren't there. The two are separated into distinct
realities, and are incapable of talking or reasoning with one
As much of the mainstream media
devolves towards Jerry Springer show status in a desperate
effort to maintain ratings, a critical aspect of our free democratic
society has fragmented into at least two warring factions. The vast
majority of mainstream media have opted for siding with
conservatives, and supporting the majority of actions of the Bush
administration, even those actions that are clearly illegal and have
negative consequences for the entire nation. A small fraction of
mainstream media have opted to side with liberals, and have focused
their attention on the illegal activities of the Bush
audiences of these two distinct “journalist” camps are given
diametrically opposed views of the same stories, a situation which requires many
journalists to ignore certain facts, or to misreport facts, or to
omit certain facts while emphasizing others. The end result is that
part of the US population believes one account, and the other part
believes an almost opposite account of the same issue. A perfect
example is how Fox News viewers believe that Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction which were found in Iraq, whereas
believe that no such weapons were found. Obviously, both accounts
can not be true. The same holds true for connections between Saddam
Hussein and the Al Qaeda terrorist network; some believe that there
was a connection, some believe there was not.
a situation should be a mark of shame on the entire profession of
journalism, it is instead a badge of honor for the right wing,
mainstream media such as Fox news who are intent on misinforming as
large a portion of the electorate as possible. Rather than reports
of escalating violence in Iraq, Fox’s audience is given “happy news”
from Iraq, about the “new government making major strides”, or other
such nonsense, even as the violence appears to be moving ever faster
toward all-out civil war.
other news outlets, such as MSNBC and CNN, offer very little in the
way of criticism of the administration’s policies and actions, and
instead focus on “terrorist threats”, and missing or murdered
children. When increasingly timid outlets such as the NY Times do
occasionally report stories of government malfeasance, as in the
case of secret European torture prisons, or illegal spying on
American citizens, they are attacked by right wing outlets (like
Fox) and are threatened with court action by the Bush
propaganda is also coming directly from our government on everything
from the prescription drug plan that is costing the elderly more
money for prescriptions, not less - to bolstering the “no child left
and readership for most mainstream media outlets and newspapers is
down, and continues to decline. Much of the US population is finding
the mainstream news media to be trivial, superficial, and downright
non-informative. It is no wonder that they are going elsewhere to
get their information, especially the Internet. As the New York
Times loses paper subscriptions, they are probably gaining Internet
audience shares. This trend has prompted some to predict the demise
of physical newspapers, which may be superseded by online
newspapers. But many of those who follow the news such as myself
find most New York Times reporting to be hollow; completely lacking
in the depth and intensity it once displayed.
In fact, it appears
that a number of NY Times and Washington Post reporters have nothing
contempt for liberals who don’t find their reporting fair,
accurate or useful. For example, Jonathan Weisman, the ego-crazed
the Washington Post recently lamented that "Cheney's statements
present a quandary for us reporters. Sometimes we write them up and
are accused of being White House stenographers and stooges for
repeating them. Then if we don't write them up, we are accused of
being complicit for covering them up. So, all you folks on the left,
what'll it be? Complicity or stenography?" He insists that this
is not a false dichotomy (which it would be for a real reporter), he
says "Believe me, as the recipient of all your e-mails, it is not
a false choice. It is the choice we face." There you have it, a
reporter at a major mainstream news outlet who hasn't a clue as to
what "reporting" means. Reporting means critical analysis, not
stenography Jonathan. Time for you to go back to journalism 101.
Fortunately for liberals and Democrats, and our democracy in
general, a vast array of new media outlets are forming on the
Internet which provide much more critical analyses of the news of
the day than anything coming from the mainstream news media. Indeed,
the mainstream media are often forced to get many of their stories
from the Internet now, and even have sections devoted exclusively to
perusing several popular right-wing and left-wing websites for the
popular stories of the day. This shows both an acknowledgement of
their plight, and a desperation to get in on the internet game.
will be interested in seeing over the next few years, especially if
Democrats can win back the House, is a spate of new legislation
directed at stiffening penalties for propaganda (purposeful,
partisan misreporting by government agencies), and new laws for protecting journalists and
editors from attacks and prosecution coming from the government.
Democracy depends on a fair and free flow of truthful information,
not a massive government approved propaganda campaign to keep the
public onboard with disastrous policies, like the war in Iraq.
news media stop trying to entertain, frighten, misinform and confuse the US public, the country will remain divided into two
camps, with distinct news stories, distinct arrays of “facts”, and
indeed, distinct realities (Saddam had WMD vs. Saddam didn’t). As
long as we devolve further into one country with two realities, our
will remain a dysfunctional superpower that is likely to
miscalculate severely, and make major blunders like going to war on
August 24th, 2006
As the civil war in Iraq escalates and the
neoconservative dream of a pacified and democratic Middle East
incinerates in the crucible of sectarian hatred, I think it might be
important to try and put the situation in a broader context. First,
Bush & Co. apparently are starting to realize that when you are
wrong in your inception and conduct of war the consequences are
extremely dire. Rather than talking about promoting democracy in
Iraq, Mr. Bush now speaks more of
preventing further disaster by staying the course. That's not
particularly reassuring for our troops on the ground, but it does
indicate that reality may be seeping in between the cobwebs in
been the Republicans big selling point in the last two elections,
the fact that we were supposedly at war, is now becoming a
liability. As the midterm elections approach Republicans are
becoming more and more nervous that four years of war have reaped
only death, destruction, and a massive military credit card bill
that still remains to be paid. That is not a recipe for victory in
November - that is a recipe for sweeping changes in Congress. A
significant proportion of the electorate now feels that it is time
to “throw all the bums out” more than any time since the early
1990s. As such, key Republicans will begin to distance themselves
from the Bush administration's policies in the Middle East and will
try to strike their own balance. This fracturing of the Republican
political machine certainly spells trouble for the GOP in November.
expect the Republicans will try to turn this sows ear into a silk
purse by blaming everything on the Democrats. Republicans will say
that Democratic nay-saying broke the will of the American public and
forced retreat. They will say that Democrats aided and abetted the
enemy by criticizing the war and how it was prosecuted. They will
say the Democrats hate America, hate our troops, and just want to
bash the president. This will work with the core Republican base,
because they live to hate Democrats, but I doubt it will have much
effect on the rest of the electorate. Americans know the Democrats
did not put our troops on the ground, Democrats did not make
decisions on the numbers of troops, their equipment, their
deployment, their redeployment and re-redeployment, nor did they
participate in the war planning. That was entirely a Republican
production. Indeed, many Democrats argued against going to war in
Iraq right from the get-go, including me. We were shouted down and
called cowards and appeasers. Nonetheless, Republicans will try and
place the blame for failure in Iraq squarely on the Democrats.
Republicans will also use the fear card, as well as other means to
try and keep as many voters on board with their plans as possible.
In fact, I believe that the recent scare over sports drinks and
toiletries on airliners had nothing to do with safety. Nobody in
their right mind could possibly think that lipstick or face cream
could be an explosive. However, I do believe that requiring everyone
to “surrender” their toiletries and sports drinks before boarding
planes was a type of psychological operation perpetrated by the
Homeland Security Department. I believe the purpose was to try to
rekindle the feelings of camaraderie and shared purpose by asking
passengers to sacrifice their toiletries for the good of all. It was
meant to bring back feelings of national unity associated with
turning in nail clippers and scissors before boarding planes right
after September 11th.
it is worth thinking of the war in Iraq as the neoconservative’s
version of the war in North Korea. President Eisenhower warned the
nation about the growing power and control that the
military-industrial complex had over the functioning of government.
Calling a truce in Korea and leaving 50,000 troops there for 50
years has been a major boon for many military contractors. The same
would be true if we stayed in Iraq, building and supplying military
bases for another 50 years. Perpetual war means perpetual profit. It
is becoming impossible to view the war in Iraq in isolation from the
massive level of government spending and the burgeoning pile of
contractor profits. All of this is on the American taxpayer’s dollar
- no - actually on the taxpayer’s national credit card, with a
massive balance remaining to be paid. The contractors have the
borrowed cash in their bank accounts - the American taxpayer has
endless tax bills to pay for the rest of their lives.
deteriorate further in Iraq, as they seem hell-bent on doing, I
expect the Republican rhetoric to intensify in lockstep. The attacks
on Democrats will be ruthless and groundless, but they will come
rapid fire, and from all directions. The question is, will these
tactics get the Republicans 51% of the votes again this time? If so,
expect two more years of exactly what you've been getting for the
last six years.
August 23rd, 2006
Republicans love to complain that Democrats like myself are just
“Bush bashers”, which is quite amazing coming from people who spent
the last 14 years denigrating President Bill Clinton in every way
they could. However, the distinction between Clinton bashing and
Bush bashing is quite stark, with the Republicans complaining about
Bill Clinton's sex life far more than they complained about his
policies. In the case of President Bush, Democrats like me tend to
bash Bush's policies, belligerence, and ignorance of how government
and the world work. For example, Democrats have a problem with
Bush's torture policies, tax cuts for the wealthy, spying on
Americans without a warrant, dismantling of FEMA, and his tendency
to over-extend our military in places where it is not needed, while
shortchanging the military in every other possible way.
Bush's bizarre Monday news conference, widely viewed as an
incoherent rant, many pundits and Americans alike are
beginning to wonder about Mr. Bush's mental stability, and his
grasp on reality. One of the strangest comments from Mr. Bush
concerned the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and military actions
directed against Hamas and the Palestinians. Mr. Bush said that
Israel, with our help, was fighting against terrorists (read
Hezbollah and Hamas) and fighting for democracy in those parts of
the Middle East. That begs the question - does President Bush
actually not know that Hamas and Hezbollah were democratically
elected by the majority of people in those places?
certainly possible that Mr. Bush was clueless about the fact that
democratic elections, when held in the Middle East, might elect
governments which are radically Islamic, as happened in Lebanon and
the Palestinian territories. But it is just as likely that President
Bush was cynically speaking only to his base. President Bush long ago
stopped trying to appease Democrats and Independents, he simply
talks right past them, and couldn’t care less about them. He knows
his poll numbers vacillate between 30 and 40% approval, and that he
has pretty much lost all but the hard-core Republican base of the
party. Consequently, he continuously repeats statements that make
little or no sense, for example; “if we pull out of Iraq the
terrorists will follow us home”, in order to keep the Republican
base terrified of bogeymen.
what is becoming more and more difficult to understand is why much
of the mainstream media accept Bush's wild statements at face value
without questioning him publicly. For example, at the press
conference not one reporter challenged Mr. Bush's contention that
pulling out of Iraq would result in swarms of terrorists in rowboats
paddling across the Atlantic towards the US. They could've asked Mr.
Bush how the terrorists were going to get here, or how he knew they
would come in droves if our military pulled out of Iraq. The plain
fact of the matter is that many Iraqis hate the US because we are
occupying their country, and would be pacified greatly by the
absence of US troops in their homeland.
president says things like “I hear the voices”, or “I'm the
decider”, you have to wonder what is going on inside his head.
President Bush made a number of rather bizarre facial gestures
during the Monday news conference, including shaking his head oddly
in disbelief at some of the reporter’s questions. This is the man
with his proverbial finger on the nuclear button, and he is sounding
less and less stable, and less and less rational with each passing
news conference. People are starting to wonder why a person who so
obviously prefers mountain bike riding, playing pranks on people and
cutting brush to governing the country – a person who has no
interest in running the government - why would such a person run for
president in the first place?
question. Maybe a reporter will ask him at the next news conference
from cloud nine.
Republicans Ready to Rejoin the United States of America?
August 20th, 2006
Remember when the Republicans used to be part
of the United States? Where they would actually participate in
honest debates in the Senate, and worked with Democrats to pass
meaningful legislation? Remember when Republicans acted like
statesmen, and didn't spend all day bashing Democrats as being worse
than terrorists on TV? Those were the days. It seemed like we
actually had a functioning country.
have been gone since Newt Gingrich began his tirade, and the
Republican’s took over of Congress in 1994. From that day on it has
been relentless, nonproductive Democrat bashing, with special
emphasis on dehumanizing and ridiculing President Clinton. They
weren't worried about the country, or the office of the President,
or anything other than their blind ambitions.
Republicans had been in lockstep in their hatred and loathing of
Bill Clinton, they have been united in their overt adoration and
protection of their dim bulb president George Bush, no matter how
offensive his policies, and regardless of Bush’s disregard for the
Constitution and the rule of law. Nine trillion dollar national debt
and huge tax cuts for the wealthy? No problem. Three year occupation
of Iraq, with that country now descending into civil war? No biggie.
Breaking the law by spying on American citizens? Great idea.
Insulting and belittling our allies around the world? You betcha!
Dismantling agencies designed to protect Americans like FEMA, while
constantly babbling on about protecting the American people?
Fantastic. Torturing prisoners, and even killing some of them?
been difficult for Democrats to understand how Republicans of all
stripes have pretty much stood behind George Bush and his
anti-American, anti-democratic, amoral and nonproductive policies
for years. It was starting to seem like none of them had a
conscience, and none of them cared about what was good for the
nation. They only seemed concerned with what was good for the
Republican Party. But now that seems to be changing. Perhaps it is
the debacle in Iraq, and the insane happy talk coming from the
administration about it. Perhaps it is the huge expansion of the
power and scope of the federal government; the antithesis of the
Republican’s style of governance. It's difficult to say what is
causing the cracks in the Republican political monolith.
even on ultra-conservative shows like “Scarborough country”, the
question is being raised: “is George Bush an idiot?”. It's
becoming a more and more difficult question to avoid. George Bush
acts like a mentally challenged junior high school teenager with a
severe mean streak. He covers his mean streak with mean-spirited
jokes directed at all the people around him, and I wonder how that
doesn't wear very thin, very quickly. Indeed, George Bush‘s “mental
midget” status is now becoming the focus of some Republicans who
wonder if the mess this country is in may have something to do with
the Idiot in Chief’s abysmal decision-making abilities. So nice of
them to notice… finally.
now that the ice is broken, if more Republicans might start
questioning the highly questionable policies of the Bush
administration? I also wonder if the mainstream news media might
finally decide that some of the Bush administration's policies are
actually bad for the country, and worth criticizing? That would be
another big change. So far the media have helped George Bush beat
the drums of war in Iraq, and facilitated that debacle with copious
quantities of happy talk. Whatever the reasons for this shift in
mindset among the Republicans, and the mainstream news media, it is
wholeheartedly welcomed by Democratic Americans.
now Democrats have wondered what happened to the civility, comity
and sense of shared purpose in America. With Republicans and the
news media in reflexive defense mode of George Bush, much harm could
be done, but little progress was possible. America was
disintegrating into an empire in decline, resembling a high school
cafeteria food fight more than a global superpower. But as the
Republican edifice begins to crumble, and they all notice that the
king has no clothes, or rather that the President has no brains,
they might actually consider rejoining the United States of America.
We Democrats will welcome them back wholeheartedly. It's been lonely
here in America talking about protecting the Constitution, abiding
by the rule of law, and putting no man above the law. It will be
wonderful to have the Republicans back on board with the
Constitution of the United States. Republicans may trickle back
slowly at first, but as they see that the Constitution is good, and
the rule of law is imperative, they will come back in droves.
Welcome back folks, welcome back to the United States of America!
Republicans Cut and Run From The Constitution
August 18th, 2006
George Bush and the Republicans love to squeal publicly about how
Democrats want to cut and run from Iraq. Of course no Democrats have
proposed any such thing, but Republicans are always compelled to
frame every “debate” with a false dichotomy that they themselves
invent out of thin air. Democrats want an exit strategy that is
better than "stay the course", which has failed miserably to date.
and Co. don’t yet control all 3 branches of government, and there
are still a few Independent and Democratic judges left in the
judiciary. So now, after the
slap-down from the Supreme Court in the Hamdan “military
tribunal” case, we have another court rejecting one of Dubya’s pet
projects; illegal spying on the American people in general, (and
Democrats, diplomats and reporters in particular).
District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor
ruled on Thursday that the Bush administration’s warrant-less
wiretapping program (formerly known as Total Information Awareness
run by John Poindexter) was unconstitutional and must be halted. The
Bush administration appealed to the Circuit Court, thus permitting
them to continue with the program unabated. The Sixth Circuit Court
will hear the case next, and is considered to be a more
conservative court. The Bush administration has been working hard
for six years to stack the circuit courts with extremely
conservative Republican judges, just as they have stacked the Supreme
Court with ultra-conservative ideologues like Samuel Alito.
are the Sixth Circuit Court will overturn the District Court ruling,
forcing the plaintiffs including the ACLU to appeal the case to the
Court of Appeals, and eventually the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court
finds the wiretapping program legal or illegal. Their ruling in the Hamdan case means that it will not be a slam-dunk for the Bush
administration. However, the Court leans very rightward now, and
because wiretapping is so different than detaining without
representation, the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the Bush
administration this time around.
of what the Supreme Court rules when they get this case, it is clear
that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are the ones who
are cutting and running. They’re cutting and running from our
Constitution, and from the rule of law in our democracy. They can
squeal all they like about Democrats wanting to cut and run from the
3 year occupation of war-torn Iraq, but Democrats are not the ones
who put the troops on the ground there. The Republicans are. It’s
the troops that unfortunately have to bear the brunt of Bush’s
failed plans and policies.
Foreign-Policy: Who Do We Bomb Next?
August 16th, 2006
writes in the New Yorker that Dick Cheney is urging Dubya to
strike Iran. Indeed, the Bush administration's open support and
cheerleading for the Israeli bombing of southern Lebanon is thought
to be a test run or prelude to bombing runs by Israeli or US jets on
Iranian underground bunkers. Many of the Hezbollah ammo stores in
Lebanon are kept in underground bunkers, and Israel was given some
of our more advanced bunker buster bombs to try out on them.
have access to the bomb damage assessment reports so we don't know
how well those bunker buster bombs worked. But it is clear that
Israel was not able to achieve a clear victory against Hezbollah in
Lebanon. Indeed, Israel took more casualties than they expected, and
lost the PR war against Hezbollah by way of their excessive bombing
of the Lebanese infrastructure (e.g., 60 out of 80 major bridges
destroyed), and the high civilian death toll.
current administration was capable of learning from its mistakes,
the take-home lesson they would have learned from the Israeli
incursion into Lebanon was that strategic bombing of Iran will
almost certainly not achieve the desired results. Rather than
halting the Iranian nuclear program, and threatening the stability
of the Iranian government, any such bombing campaign will instead
incite even more anti-US sentiment in Iran and throughout the Middle
East. This will increase terrorist attacks on US and allied assets,
rather than decreasing them.
news coming from the Middle East it seems more and more unlikely
that Dick Cheney's dream of setting up pro-West puppet governments
throughout the Middle East is anything more than another one of
Cheney's delusions. Instead, the US has not only lost all of its
credibility and prestige in the Middle East, it is also lost all
trust and respect from most of our allies.
cannot pull off some kind of military strike against Iran before the
November elections, he and Karl Rove will have to go to some kind of
plan B in order to strike fear and loathing into the US electorate.
They may force law enforcement agencies to hastily wrap up any
terrorist investigations that are ongoing, or perhaps they will pull
out the anti-illegal immigrant card, or the soft-on-terror card to
bash Democrats with. Who knows... they will probably try all of the
above at once. Something we can be absolutely certain of, the news
cycle will be chock full of Karl Rove orchestrated character
assassinations against Democrats, not to mention plenty of fear
mongering, between now and November.
Republican Orchestrated Voter Suppression in Maryland
August 12th, 2006
A judge in Maryland has just
struck down Maryland's new early voting law. For the first time
in its history, Maryland had passed a law that would allow people to
vote any time during the week before the election at several
designated polling places. But because Democrats outnumber
Republicans 2:1 in Maryland, suppressing voter turnout is key to a
Republican victory in November.
Court Judge Ronald Silkworth struck down the new law on Friday
saying that it violated the Maryland state constitution which
requires voting to occur only on Election Day. This ruling came
despite the fact that 30 other states with similar state
constitutions have permitted early voting in order to increase voter
important to remember that Maryland has its first Republican
governor in decades, Robert Ehrlich, and he has appointed many
Republicans to key positions in order to have influence over the election
process. For the first time that I have lived in Maryland for over
20 years, my polling place has been moved from around the corner to
many miles away, and I have been issued a Maryland voter
identification card, which you can see here.
notice, it is called a “voter notification card” despite the fact
that in small print at the top it says that you need to bring the
card to your polling place in order to vote. This is clearly another
attempt to reduce the number of eligible (Democratic) voters on
Election Day, as is the Ehrlich move to block any attempts to permit
early voting in Maryland.
offered by the Republicans that they are only trying to prevent
voter fraud is insulting and transparent. There have been no reports
of voter fraud in Maryland, and therefore they are attempting to
prevent a problem that does not exist. Republicans in Maryland
will admit that they are at a disadvantage in terms of numbers, so
all you need to do is view their attempts to block early voting in
problem for Republicans is that Democrats are already furious
because of Governor Ehrlich's terrible policies, and they are going
to come out and vote with a vengeance this November. No amount of
voter suppression will save Maryland Republicans from defeat in the
So go ahead Mr. Ehrlich, you still have a couple of
months to direct your minions to try to prevent as many Democrats
from voting as possible. You will be showing your true stripes,
which will send angry Democrats to the polls in droves to vote you out of
office. Then you'll have plenty more spare time to work on that great
tan, as well as practicing your golf swing. But you’re done
messing up our state.
Iraq War or You are a Naïve, Appeasing Idiot
August 11th, 2006
Toiletries and sports drinks can kill…
(including me) have been warning that Karl Rove would be playing the
“terror card” big time before the election. Apparently, Karl decided
to debut the “terror campaign” a little early, to see how well it
would play with his adoring press.
is playing master media manipulator again - and loving it. The
current pro-war tough talk on all the mainstream news outlets is
clearly a Karl Rove production. Just look at any newspaper or turn
on the TV and you will be bombarded with terrorist fear tactics,
pro-war drivel, and incessant attacks on Democrats and liberals as
wimps and appeasers.
“Kill Them All” Krauthammer
screams on the front page of the Washington Post today;
“Democrats as Myopic Doves, Again!! Democratic naïveté that sees Ned
Lamont's victory as an affirmation of a sweeping anti-war movement
is an echo of Vietnam policies that cost them 40 years of
relevance.” Yes, those sniveling Democrats just want to sip tea
and chat with terrorists. It seems quite ironic that Krauthammer
thinks we should still be fighting in Vietnam, and would be if it
weren't for us sniveling dovish Democrats.
headline at the New York Times today was; “The Political
Effects: Arrests Bolster G.O.P. Bid to Claim Security as Issue”.
So it's official, Democrats are wimps and Republicans are kick ass
heroes. All that brouhaha is ignoring the fact that George Bush has
had five years to catch Osama bin Laden and the other Al Qaeda
terrorists who attacked us in 2001. Instead, they sent our Army to
fight in the deserts of Iraq where no terrorists were hiding. Over
three years later we are still there, and Osama bin Laden is still
planning to attack the United States. So who is soft on terrorism?
It sure isn't the Democrats, who have absolutely no control over the
government right now, and no control over how we fight terrorism.
plot a day keeps the Democrats away… I wish I could trust my
government, and know that when they issue terror warnings that there
are good reasons, not just Karl Rove pulling strings behind the
scenes. But as long as this highly partisan administration is
running the country, I have to question virtually everything they
say because they have lied so many times before, always for
political advantage. How many times can you cry Wolf, and still
expect people to come running? Karl thinks he can fool you over and
over and over again, and that you’ll never catch on. So what’s it
going to be? Are you going to play Karl’s game? If so, just vote
Republican this Fall, and get plenty more of the same.
Murder on an Unimaginable Scale!!!
August 10th, 2006
Red Alert! Terrorists are going to kill
to George Bush, we are all safe… for now… unless of course you vote
for Democrats in November. Then you will certainly die.
24/7 coverage from the mainstream propagandists about how the
terrible terror plot to blow up airliners has been thwarted. It's
really excellent for news ratings you know - to have terrorist threat
levels raised - and to get handed a highly profitable story about terrorist
plots to blow up airplanes. The news media are pleased as punch.
I'm getting cynical after all the false alerts and lies pouring
forth from the Bush administration. Remember the terrorist plot
foiled in Florida several weeks ago? Turned out to be kids bragging
on the Internet. Big threat.
yourself this though, if this were really a serious terrorist threat
to blow up that many aircraft, would it be in the best interest of
the intelligence community trying to find these people to announce
it all around the world? The Bush administration keeps just
about everything secret in the name of national security. Why not
this threat? How do they know they captured all of the terrorists? If
there were some still out there, wouldn't it be better to keep quiet
until you were absolutely sure you have gotten all of them? Wouldn't
revealing this information all across the world tip off any
potential terrorists that had not been caught yet?
it would. All we hear is vague stuff about liquids being mixed, and
terrorists threatening to blow up airplanes. If the government has already
spilled the beans and told us about this capture of terrorists,
there isn't much need to keep the details secret anymore is there? I
will be very interested to hear how much more detail comes out over
the next few days. Probably not much.
turns out to be another false alarm like the terrorist arrests in
Florida several weeks ago, my guess is the news media will not want
to talk about it much more. After all, they stopped talking about
that arrest in Florida as soon as it became clear that they were not
really a threat.
media are desperate to help George Bush and the Republicans. They
owe the Republicans a great debt because of the reduced corporate
taxes, and the relaxation of media consolidation rules. Just as an
example, it was painful to watch TV on Tuesday as every major news
outlet slammed Ned Lamont for hacking Joe Lieberman's website,
without any evidence whatsoever that such was the case. Once it
turned out that Joe Lieberman forgot to pay his Internet website
hosting bill, the news media dropped the story like a hot potato. No
follow-ups, no mea culpa, no apologies to Ned Lamont.
terror threats to feed the voracious news machine. Anything to drive
up ratings. From now on, when you hear about terror threats, listen
carefully to the details, and decide if the “news” is likely to
drive up news ratings, while simultaneously helping
the Republicans retain control in November.
Murder on an Unimaginable Scale"?? Somehow that doesn't sound like
they are trying to keep the public calm, wouldn't you say?
August 9th, 2006
Joe Lieberman says he is running as an
independent because he cares about his party. Which party is that?
The Democratic Party - the one he just left? Joe seems a little
Lieberman turned in enough signatures this morning to run for the
Senate as an Independent. It seems pretty clear that a three-way
race will put either the Republican or Lieberman in office, making
it that much more difficult for Democrats to take control of the
Senate in 2006.
really cared about the Democratic Party, and our country, he would not even consider
running for the Senate seat in Connecticut. The Democrats in that
state have spoken and they have said they want a different
Democratic candidate. Joe will have none of it. He said that “this
decision must not stand!” Excuse me? The supposedly Democratic
Senator from Connecticut says that the decision of Connecticut
Democrats must not stand? That shows you how much respect Joe has
for Connecticut Democrats.
it's really all about Joe. Joe doesn't really care too much about
the Democratic Party, or Democratic voters in Connecticut, Joe cares
about Joe. Joe says he's on a mission from God, and therefore it
doesn't really matter what Connecticut Democrats want. It's more
what God wants. God wants Joe.
will frantically attempt to talk sense into Joe, whom they've worked
with for almost 2 decades. And despite the fact that the Clintons
and other prominent Democrats all rallied behind Joe before the
primary, Joe will be more concerned about Joe than about the
Democrats or the upcoming election.
talk about how the country needs him because there's too much
partisan division in the country right now. We need Joe to make sure
that the Democrats vote in favor of Republican legislation, at least
according to Joe. Joe's idea of bipartisanship is voting in favor of
the Iraqi war, in favor of huge tax cuts for the rich and large
corporations, and don't forget, Joe helped lead the charge to
impeach Bill Clinton. He thought it would look really good on his
guess is that Joe is going to run no matter what the Democrats say
to him. After all, Joe is on a mission from God, and no stinking
democrats are going to get in Their way.
Republicans Can't Win a Fair Fight
August 3rd, 2006
Republicans will do everything they can to cheat to win in the 2006
election. They know they have no other hope of retaining control of
both the House and Senate, so it’s time to cheat any way they can.
Remember, if they loose control of either half of Congress, the
investigations into the lies and crimes will begin, and the heads
will begin to roll.
paid attention to the Florida election in 2000 or the Ohio election
in 2004 you will know that Republican secretaries of state control
the election processes there. That is how elections are handled in
every state. However, in Alabama, where the secretary of state is a
Democrat, Republicans have decided that the elections would be much
better handled by the Republican governor. Yesterday, a Bush
Republican judge agreed, and stripped Secretary of State Nancy
Worley of her oversight function for the voter rolls in Alabama. The
judge gave the oversight of the voter rolls to the Republican
governor Bob Riley.
Harris purged the voter rolls of many Democratic voters in Florida
in 2000, and Ken Blackwell purged the voter rolls of many Democratic
voters in Ohio in 2004. It is arguable that those states would have
gone Democratic in 2000 and 2004 had Republicans not inappropriately
purge the rolls of eligible Democratic voters. You can expect the
same purging of voter rolls in Alabama now that the Republican
governor is in charge of overseeing the elections. Republicans claim
they are purging voter rolls in the name of preventing voter fraud,
but in fact this is simply a smokescreen to cover their own
fraudulent tactics of thinning the voter rolls of Democrats.
this to be a nationwide effort by the Republicans this year.
Maryland, where I live, has its first Republican governor in
decades, and for the first time I have lived here for 25 years, I
have now been issued a “voter notification card”. This would not be
troubling except for the fact that it clearly states on the card
that I must bring it to my polling place in order to vote. That is a
voter identification card, not a voter notification card. All of my
requests for information about the new requirement for a voter
identification card from the election board in my county have gone
biggest problem for Republicans this time around is going to be that
there will be much additional scrutiny of their underhanded tactics,
and there will be a much greater Democratic turnout than even in the
2004 election. It will be very difficult for them to declare a
narrow victory when polls show them 15 to 20 points behind the
Democratic candidates. It will be fascinating to watch them try to
pull it off.
a Democrat, please make sure you are registered to vote, don't just
assume you are registered. If you are a Republican, ask yourself if
you want to win by cheating?
Peace and Freedom Throughout the Middle East
August 2nd, 2006
George Bush, the sometimes peace president, oft
times war president, seems to have an odd approach to achieving
lasting peace in the Middle East. His unprovoked attack on Iraq, and
botched war plans there have inflamed Shiite and Sunni hatreds in a
way not seen in my lifetime in that part of the world. One of the
more stable countries in the Middle East over the last several
decades is now in flames and ruin, with one religious group killing
members of the other religious group by the hundreds every week.
Death squads patrol the streets, and the infrastructure is
destroyed. With so much freedom, surely peace must be just around
tanks and troops push further into southern Lebanon, George Bush is
the only leader in the Western world who has not called for a
cease-fire. We wouldn't want too much peace and freedom in the
Middle East now would we? That might jeopardize George's plan to
destabilize the entire region in the hopes that the CIA can
influence political outcomes there. Another brilliant plan from a
administration's constant threatening of Syria and Iran have turned
those countries away from any form of democratization, and have
inflamed anti-western sentiment. Any nascent moves towards more
freedom in those countries have been dashed, and are unlikely to
return until the United States has a change of administration.
out of Afghanistan early, the Bush administration has allowed the
Taliban to regroup and re-arm, and violence across that country
is escalating on a weekly basis. But Bush has no time for small
potatoes like Afghanistan, after all, there isn't much oil there and
Bush has only passing interest in the opium trade.
administration's mishandling of the North Korean situation is
similarly ludicrous. Bush’s saber rattling seems to be the exact
kind of boost that Kim Jong-Il thrives on.
we shouldn't fail to mention that Bush has infuriated both Russia
and China in ways that the United States has not done since the Cold
War. Indeed, Bush and Cheney seem intent on reviving the Cold War at
all costs. And dire costs there be.
notice a pattern developing here. Bush claims that he wants to
spread freedom and democracy across the world when in fact he is
actually spreading war and destruction. If you've paid any attention
to what the Bush administration says as opposed to what the Bush
administration does over the last six years you'll have to admit
this is more of the same… ad nauseum - tell everybody that you want
peace while you are simultaneously dropping bombs on innocent
people. Tell everybody you are fighting for democracy while you are
secretly spying on the public and preventing the public from finding
out what the government is up to. Say you want peace as you engage
in war and angry rhetoric.
next time you hear George Bush talk about peace, freedom, or
democracy, pay attention to what he is doing, not what he is saying.
Copyright 2007, Factinista.org