News Links

Stephen Colbert Roast

Full Google Video Link


2015 ©

Factinista Archive

Conyers Report


Bush in 30 sec


  Factinista 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.

Yesterday secretary of defense Don Rumsfeld gave a speech in which he said that Democrats and others who want the troops withdrawn from Iraq suffer from “moral and intellectual confusion”.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.

I'll go 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.

Rumsfeld’s plan for “victory in Iraq”? More of the same.

Another 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 another.

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 administration.

The 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 liberals 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.

While such 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.

All along, 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 administration. 

The 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 behind” act.

Viewership 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 but contempt for liberals who don’t find their reporting fair, accurate or useful. For example, Jonathan Weisman, the ego-crazed "reporter" from 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.

What I 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.

Until the 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 nation will remain a dysfunctional superpower that is likely to miscalculate severely, and make major blunders like going to war on false pretences.



Debacle Iraq
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 Bush's brain.

What had 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.

You can 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.

Finally, 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.

As things 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.



I Hear the Voices!
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.

But after 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?

It is 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.

However, 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.

When the 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?

Good question. Maybe a reporter will ask him at the next news conference from cloud nine.



Are the 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.

Those days 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.

Just as 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? Stupendous.

It has 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.

But now, 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.

I wonder, 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.

For years 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.

Bush 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).

U.S. 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.

Chances 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.

Regardless 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.



Bush's Foreign-Policy: Who Do We Bomb Next?
August 16th, 2006

Seymour Hersh 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.

We don't 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.

If the 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.

Based on 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.

If Cheney 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.

Circuit 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 turnout.

It is 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.


If you 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.

The canard 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 that light.

The 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 next election.

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.



Love The Iraq War or You are a Naïve, Appeasing Idiot
August 11th, 2006

Toiletries and sports drinks can kill…

Liberals (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.

Karl Rove 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.

Charles “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.

The 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.

A terror 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.



Mass Murder on an Unimaginable Scale!!!
August 10th, 2006

Red Alert! Terrorists are going to kill us all.

But thanks to George Bush, we are all safe… for now… unless of course you vote for Democrats in November. Then you will certainly die.

Expect 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.

Perhaps 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.

Ask 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?

Of course 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.

If this 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.

The news 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.

Just new 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.

"Mass Murder on an Unimaginable Scale"?? Somehow that doesn't sound like they are trying to keep the public calm, wouldn't you say?



It's All About Joe
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 confused.

Joe 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.

If Joe 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.

Obviously, 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.

Democrats 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.

Joe will 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 bipartisanship resume.

So my 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.

If you 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 appointed 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.

Katherine 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.

I expect 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 unanswered.

The 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.

If you're 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?



Spreading 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 the corner.

As Israeli 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 brilliant strategist.

The Bush 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.

By pulling 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.

The Bush 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.

Finally, 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.

You may 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.

So the next time you hear George Bush talk about peace, freedom, or democracy, pay attention to what he is doing, not what he is saying.

Dr John


Copyright 2007,