In other words: A discussion of The Bush Administration
Religious Extremists Advocating Violence Can Be Christian and American and Pals of Bush
US State Department protests televangelist's nuclear threat
"I read your book," Robertson said, according to a transcript of the interview posted on his Christian Broadcasting Network's website (www.cbn.com).
"When you get through, you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer'," he said.
"I mean, you get through this, and you say, 'We've got to blow that thing up.' I mean, is it as bad as you say?" Robertson asked.
Mowbray responded: "It is."
When I was little and I'd go on the metro to the Smithsonian I'd giggle everytime we went past the metro station called "foggy bottom." Tee Hee "Foggy Bottom." Tee Hee lets but a nuclear device inside foggy bottom, slaughtering thousands of innocents. What a great Christian Pat Robertson is.
I'm so glad Bush has the integrity and decency to demand an apology from him.
Oh... Bush has said no such thing. Bush has no problem, no problem at all with religious leaders who espouse violence, as long as they are good raising funds to support his re-election.
Evil.
- rob 4:30 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
"I tell you we are all going to die in a hellish night of flame so stop all this whining and at least let me and my friends make money. Burn gas, drink hardily, spend freely, because we will soon all live in horror, horror, I tell you. Good night. Thank you for supporting Bush & Cheney 2004."
CNN.com - Cheney defends U.S.-led war in Iraq - Oct. 10, 2003
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Friday that terrorists are "doing everything they can" to get weapons of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands of Americans "in a single day of horror."
- rob 4:22 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
As Rush walks free, idiocy reigns supreme
Teen faces expulsion and felony for loaning girlfriend medicine
(10/08/03 - CONROE) — There's controversy over a school's zero tolerance drug policy. Some say it's gone too far. A 15-year-old faces expulsion after giving an inhaler to his girlfriend during an asthma attack that happened at school.
Boyfriend and girlfriend, 15-year-olds Brandon Kizi and Andra Ferguson are both asthma sufferers and both students at Caney Creek High School. At least, they were, until Andra began suffering an asthma attack at school.
"I couldn't breathe, and I was just very short of breath," recalled Andra. "My chest was tightened up and it was hurting."
Brandon described the incident. "Her face was turning a little reddish-pink and she looked pale, as far as I could see. I loaned her my inhaler. I walked her to the nurse's office and loaned her my inhaler."
That's when the trouble started. The school nurse called the school police, who arrested Brandon. They charged him with a felony, namely distributing a dangerous drug for loaning out his prescription inhaler.
- rob 4:16 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
The headline is all caps because it is from the New York Post.
BUSH'S BETRAYAL
New York Post, aren't they conservative? Yes, and the cracks in the neo-con unity is starting to show:
October 9, 2003 -- JUDAS drove a hard bargain compared to President Bush. At least the great betrayer got 30 pieces of silver. All Bush is going to get for delivering the Kurds unto their enemies will be 10,000 Turkish troops - who will act solely in Ankara's interests, not in the interests of Washington or the people of Iraq.
Bush's desire for Turkish forces is craven. Hoping to reduce U.S. troop commitments as an election looms, he verges on throwing away the practical and moral achievements won with our soldiers' blood.
His actions will backfire at home as surely as they will in Iraq. A Turkish presence will make things worse, not better.
- rob 4:00 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Yeeee Haawwww thems there gold in that sand!
Spending On Iraq Sets Off Gold Rush
As the House today takes up President Bush's $87 billion spending request for Iraq and Afghanistan, the debate over the bill is increasingly focused not just on the amount of money but also on who will get it.
...
Among the dozens of projects in the proposal is a State Department plan to spend $800 million to build a large training facility for a new Iraqi police force. Management fees alone would run $26 million a month, while 1,500 police trainers would cost $240,000 each per year, or $20,000 each per month. DynCorp of Reston is likely to get the contract.
"All I can say is it's mind-boggling," James Lyons, a former military subcontractor in Bosnia, said of the opportunities for private contractors. "People must be drooling."
Avant said that as many as 1 in 10 Americans deployed in Iraq and Kuwait -- perhaps 20,000 -- are contractors, a group larger than any of the military forces fielded there by Britain or other U.S. allies. Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Vice President Cheney's former firm, Houston-based Halliburton Corp., has an exclusive contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. is the prime contractor for much of the infrastructure reconstruction.
Oh, my mistake, the only gold there is oil: Black gold! Texas tea!
And isn't DynCorp the name of the company that made Robocop?
- rob 1:05 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
A little perspective on $87 Billion.
- jer 12:30 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Don't worry that the Anthrax killer is still on the loose.
Don't worry that the White House leaker is still at work in the White House.
Don't worry? Don't worry because Ashcroft always gets his man: Like Tommy Chong
Actor Tommy Chong Reports to Prison
Actor-comedian Tommy Chong reported to a privately run federal prison to serve his nine-month sentence for conspiring to sell bongs and other drug paraphernalia over the Internet even as his attorneys prepared to argue for his release pending appeal.
- rob 11:22 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
Lessons in Civility- Thursday, October 09, 2003 -
It's the season of the angry liberal. Books like Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," Joe Conason's "Big Lies" and Molly Ivins's "Bushwhacked" have become best sellers. (Yes, I've got one out there, too.) But conservatives are distressed because those liberals are so angry and rude. O.K., they admit, they themselves were a bit rude during the Clinton years — that seven-year, $70 million investigation of a tiny money-losing land deal, all that fuss about the president's private life — but they're sorry, and now it's time for everyone to be civil.
Indeed, angry liberals can take some lessons in civility from today's right.
Consider, for example, Fox News's genteel response to Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent. Ms. Amanpour recently expressed some regret over CNN's prewar reporting: "Perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News." A Fox spokeswoman replied, "It's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than as a spokeswoman for Al Qaeda."
And liberal pundits who may be tempted to cast personal aspersions can take lessons in courtesy from conservatives like Charles Krauthammer, who last December reminded TV viewers of his previous career as a psychiatrist, then said of Al Gore, "He could use a little help."
What's really important, of course, is that political figures stick to the issues, like the Bush adviser who told The New York Times that the problem with Senator John Kerry is that "he looks French."
Some say that the right, having engaged in name-calling and smear tactics when Bill Clinton was president, now wants to change the rules so such behavior is no longer allowed. In fact, the right is still calling names and smearing; it wants to prohibit rude behavior only by liberals.
- rob 11:10 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
Two Fridays ago, I was driving around and tuned in to my favorite show, "Radio for people who think," hosted by Dan Lynch, to hear me lambasted on his program; his objection was that he was being labelled a conservative (by me) on a left-wing anti-Bush website. I immediately engaged him in the following dialogue. (Mr. Lynch's responses are paraphrased, as this was a private correspondence. I will post only my e-mails, and you can judge for yourselves whether or not the questions were adequately addressed.)
Mr. Lynch,
Glad to know you read my blog at www.thiscenturysucks.com. The reason for the e-mail (rather than calling you up) is that I would like to know what you think about several things relating to the war in Iraq without first being drawn into a corner and automatically given a political litmus test on the air before you get a chance to address my questions. Am I left wing? Yes. Am I a liberal? Yes. Do I have a prescripted ideology? No. Did I live through Vietnam? Yes I did. For someone who spends a lot of time bashing the credibility of politicians, you seem to be giving warmakers the benefit of the doubt with regard to Iraq, which is why I referred to you as a conservative. You have a right-wing position on this, on the rightness of it and the justness of the cause. I'm not going to argue about why we went to war, but rather ask a question: What do you think will be accomplished by the occupation, in reality? What outcome do you foresee? I know your position well (getting rid of a ruthless dictator who posed a threat), but you have yet to make the case that America should, as a matter of foreign policy, go into the business of deposing ruthless dictatorships worldwide that potentially pose a threat to us, by any means necessary, including assassination. I have a story to tell you with regard to this, given to me firsthand by the US ambassador to Chile during the Allende overthrow some years ago. 9/11, as you no doubt know, is also the anniversary of a much less celebrated occasion in American history -- 1973 -- the year we officially got into the business of overthrowing democratically elected governments at the behest of American corporations with ties to an administration that doesn't stop at kidnapping and assassination of foreign leaders. CIA insider Peter Kornbluh (who can be heard on Fresh Air, September 9, 2003 at http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml;jsessionid=BA2HMWIU5YBRLLA5AINSFFA?todayDate=archive) discusses our now infamous covert action in Chile to overthrow Allende and install August Pinochet, a tyrant whom Kissinger defends as key to American interests, even though he murdered thousands of people every two weeks and orchestrated car bombings in Washington. Some of this is covered in The Trials of Henry Kissinger, a movie that features, among other things, an interview with my late friend, Edward Korry.
Korry was the U.S. ambassador to Chile during the Allende overthrow and he was a friend of my family. I remember in 1976 he was having what turned out to be a nervous breakdown, because at the time, he didn't know about Track 2: the nefarious CIA planning against Allende, and Kissinger's and Nixon's involvement in his planned assassination. I remember Ed pacing back and forth in our living room, strands of spittle in the corners of his mouth, as he obsessed (he could talk for hours on end, uninterruptedly) about our government's complicity and his role in it, as a dupe. I became so involved with his story that I ended up taping him for about four and a half hours in 1976 for a high school history project, and sat mesmerized as he recounted all of this. He didn't know anything about the CIA undermining him at the time, that's how covert it was. (Now, of course, the whole thing seems quaint. Disgusting, huh?) Well, what surprised me more than anything was that when I started telling people about what we as a country were doing in Chile, and what was going on in our own State Department (Nixon almost did away with the Constitution, he came that close), nobody listened, and if they did, they yawned. Nobody cared. They looked at me with their eyes glassed over, waiting for me to shut up so they could change the subject. People my own age didn't care. I think that's what truly sent Korry over the deep end -- testifying to Congress (Richard Helms, at the time head of the CIA, pinned the whole sordid affair on Korry and made him the fall guy) and getting nowhere. (I read every page of his long, long testimony, which is no less than an indictment of American international corporations such as ITT and Anaconda Copper, who feel they have a right to every natural resource in South America and continue to kill people for it, at the time with the aid and encouragement of the Nixon administration, and, it turns out, Congress.) Frank Church featured prominently in the hushing up and public tarring of Korry. Church is tainted and complicit, despite his hero status among the American liberal left. After that dead end, Korry brought his story to the New York Times, who refused to publish a word about it. That's when he started having his breakdown. The Times didn't get around to publishing it until seven years later, at which point it was old news. They even admit as much in Korry's obituary (he died earlier this year). That proved to me as early as 1976 how complicit the so-called liberal media is in our illegal foreign exploits. The truth is, the media is a business like any other, and it has to stay in business, and you don't do that by running stories like this, because Americans just don't want to hear about it. So administrations get away with it.
Korry recounted two moments in particular: He insisted on seeing the president after finding out about Track 2, and Kissinger intercepted him, intoning gravely, "Mister Ambassador, do you think your country would lie to you?" Ed responded urgently, "I have to see the president." When finally Korry was admitted to the Oval Office, Nixon sat behind the desk punching his fist into his hand, saying over and over, "We're gonna get the sonofabitch! We're gonna get the sonofabitch!" and Korry thought, Oh no.
That was my introduction to insider politics, at the tender age of 16. OK, we're in Iraq, by ourselves. To Iraqis this is an occupation, with an unelected governing body supervised by the occupying power, at least for now. The United Nations is unenthusiastic about helping out, for various reasons. Your stated position is that the only thing fundamentalist regimes understand is an overwhelming show of power that says essentially, what happened here will certainly happen to you: wherever you are, we're coming after you and we're gonna get you. My confusion about your position is that it doesn't work, and never has. You're basing everything on the assumption that they have everything to lose should they continue to practice terrorism, and that a military invasion will act as a deterrent. Where's your proof? That Saddam is gone? Well, is he? Our troops are dying every day. Somebody's killing them, and these somebodies don't seem deterred, at least not to me, no matter how many of 'em we kill. When was a military presence in the Middle East ever a deterrent to violence? If history is any guide, terrorists are encouraged by such activity; in fact, it is their lifeblood and gives them a cause to rally around.
I'd like to share with you two letters I wrote to different columnists at the New York Times to see what you think (part of it was derived from the blog you read), which forms the other part of my question to you:
"I can't help but notice how every single escalation of violence is reported in the news as part of the 'peace process' -- as if our invasion of Iraq weren't triggering a guerilla war against yet another American occupation. Now we're hearing the opening salvos of an Arab-Israeli war, thanks to the utter abandoning of diplomacy and a relentless militarism. Since Reagan, Republicans have talked to us as if we were collectively three years old, and our foreign policy now is sold to us along the same lines -- that we intervene wherever we want militarily "to teach the governments who sponsor terrorist groups a lesson." The plan, we are told, is that our big stick in Iraq will produce soft talk between Israelis and Palestinians, who are no doubt ready and willing for a two-state solution, all thanks to an American president who, when confronted with dismal past policy failures, always chooses to ignore them.
I have a huge problem with this kind of thinking. First, we're talking about Cain and Abel. This is blood hatred that defies all reason, all fear, and all consequences, going back to before the ink was dry on the Old Testament. For as long as people have known history, one group has dedicated itself to annihilating the other, this is how they define themselves, to themselves. Second, it is utterly irrational and not a little patronizing to try to "solve the problem" of the Middle East. To look at this as a problem that has a solution is the difference between a country only 200 years old and a place that, for all intents and purposes, is the cradle of human existence. There is no solution. There are islands of peace, and episodes of war, and everlasting hatred. The national borders are all fictions, based on the last 100 years of British and American imperialism, and the warlords and heads of state were all set up by their European and Continental masters. So these arguments of statehood are all bogus, to the extent that any one group is indigenous. It's a hypocritical argument any way you look at it, this idea of "we were here first." Nobody was anywhere first, except maybe Africa 160,000 years ago, and take a look at Africa.
Third, why do conservative-minded political thinkers think that violence solves problems? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that violence begets violence. How can we be invading countries and bombing modern cities with the most advanced technology of war making available and talk about peace, to the very people we are bombing and murdering? How is that a "solution"? I keep imagining an Arab radio call-in show discussing in a pseudo-rational way why Americans would be better off dead, "because that's the only thing we understand." And what's with all this morality? The equivocation and moral relativism used in the Middle East arguments are completely disturbing. The Palestinians are evil and cowardly because Hamas hides among women and children, and the Israelis have every right to kill them all in massive bombing raids, but Israeli blood is shed indiscriminately, and thus immorally, because the suicide bombers target public places and don't distinguish between combatants and civilians. Well, what about us? We bomb the daylights out of whomever we please, wherever and whenever we please, for money. What does that make us, in the moral scheme of things? Why is it America's job to "do the right thing" and "solve" the world's problems? We can't even deliver a budget in Albany. The reality is, the Middle East will never, ever, in a hundred million years be free of hatred, war, and blood feuds. Bush has dragged us -- screaming and kicking -- straight into the world's oldest quicksand, where we will be mired for years and years and years, enough to make Vietnam look like a mud puddle. In the meantime, newspapers are splitting hairs about rationales. Tell it to the dead.
What we're doing in Iraq is spreading to all points north, south, east, and west. Anybody can invade anybody, anytime, any place, for any reason. That's what our "trust us, we know better" leadership has brought to the world. The Palestinians and the Israelis are at war, not peace. This is the war process. Why can't the news media call it what it is? By the time the Bush crowd is finished there will be wars everywhere on earth. Isn't this the definition of world war? As for the Pax Americana, I say, Caveat Pre-emptor."
And here's a letter I sent to Thomas Friedman when he gave out his e-mail and asked for people to write to him, that bears on the issue:
"Guilt was the cause of a disagreement, I suppose you could call it, between me and a friend of more than 30 years, that almost ended in a fistfight right before the start of the last Iraq war. I was born and raised a Jew. Guilt is not unknown to me. It is the source of many problems. But guilt isn't always a bad thing; in fact a little of it can go a long way toward preserving lives, of people whose only crime is being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet it's complicated. I think my friend had a point, I'm just trying to understand it. Here's the background: He is Jewish and half his family lives in Israel, he frequently visits them and has dual citizenship. Politically he is right-leaning, and when it comes to Arabs, his eyes cloud over with hate and he begins making his point in a highly agitated manner (not unlike me arguing). Now, this was before we officially invaded Iraq, so I was asking him how he felt about starting an unprovoked war against an Arab country, since I felt that Israel and its existence was implicitly involved in the outcome. Not only did his eyes light up at the prospect of killing, he began to vehemently justify the invasion using all the official administration arguments -- in other words, he swallowed them all hook line and sinker. Everyone's entitled to their viewpoint, especially in my house. So I pointed out that perhaps these arguments were specious, since they ran counter to intelligence reports about Iraq and how much of a threat Hussein was to the U.S. (don't forget, we knew it at the time -- there was some question about WMD, but nothing solid, and zippo evidence or proof positive, but this can be argued). Moreover, I suggested that perhaps the preemptive invasion was a cynical ploy on the part of a White House administration that would stop at nothing -- not even mass murder -- to get their man reelected, using lies and a spirit of national pride and revenge to do it. That someone, somewhere in Arabia, was going to get it, even if they had absolutely nothing to do with the actual perpetrators of 9/11. And how cool were you with that? That noncombatant civilians -- i.e., families -- living in Iraq were going to die in mass numbers for a phony reason, and it hasn't happened yet, and when it does -- as it certainly will (it did) -- won't their blood be on all of us? Especially if we're gung ho? How can you support that action? Don't you remember Vietnam, the pointless killing for the sake of a handful of egos? And that at this point in America, Arab lives have zero value? Well, at that point he thought (maybe rightly) that I was calling him a murderer, and he got in my face, and I thought he was going to start swinging. Luckily it didn't come to blows. We have been arguing for 30 years, this is no different. It was never a question of the friendship.
But here is my question: It is now known that Bush lied about the war and the threat Iraq posed, and he's lying again about another Arab country, Iran, in order to launch another invasion. Thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands or more will certainly die. In my view, we are awash in this blood, which I regard as innocent, and this has been true about America for hundreds of years, but in my lifetime it started with Vietnam and civil rights and then broadened to much elsewhere, places we are never even told about. We are guilty of being murderers, right? And that's immoral, isn't it? This isn't about hawks and doves, it's about killing people who have done absolutely nothing to me. Why did my friend get in my face? My only point to him was that if we admit our guilt and complicity, maybe it won't happen the next time, maybe some people will be spared the useless cruelty and death. Or am I dreaming? His original justifications are proven false, yet he persists in his views. It's all about killing Arabs, isn't it? I hate to put it in those terms, but I can't see it otherwise. Why else is everyone getting so patriotic about organized slaughter and meaningless deaths?
Why can't old friends have a blunt discussion about mass murder without going at each other's throats? It seems we as a country do what we do without calling it
by its name, and when somebody does, they get attacked for it. I was wondering if indeed I was calling it by its name, or if I had somehow got it
wrong -- that we really should go and kill all those people, for some reason that was never quite explained to me truthfully. I'll take the
honest explanation and live with it. But if I'm wrong about my view, I need to know why. I asked another version of this question long ago, about why exactly we were going to invade Iraq, and I got a mixed bag of answers from my friends. A lot of people who didn't do anything to me are dead since that discussion, and it hangs over me, over
all of us. Is this the price of having my American life? I think it is. I just want to hear somebody say so. To stand up for once and say, yeah, that's exactly
what it is. Instead of lies. But I'm trying to have an open mind. A lot of places in the world are a whole lot more terrifying and meaner than we are,
we just happen to be the baddest asses on the block right now. What happens when we aren't, though? Look at history:
power never stays in one place, and the way things look to me right now, we are totally isolated, geopolitically. Why is this a good thing? NEED AN EXPLANATION."
I never got one.
Mr. Lynch wrote back that too many conservatives characterize as anti-American anyone with
doubts about this war, and too many liberals are unwilling to support any
military action for any reason, especially as the president is a
conservative. He points out that between these two extremes, sensible people can have
conversations.
I wrote:
Mr. Lynch:
So I take it that too many conservative viewpoints and too many liberal viewpoints are not sensible, hence a dialogue between the two extremes is
impossible. The only sensible position is a moderate independent one?
By the way, while you may consider me self-deluded about not having a prescripted ideology, you should know that although I frequently post to that website I mentioned, my own belief is that the Left should mobilize its members around something other than hating Bush. For one, it should reclaim common sense and use it to forge a dialogue in a public forum, issue by issue, focused like a laser, to reframe the argument as it were, rather than to demonize and label the opposition. To me, hate is a demon that must be constantly fed, with terrible consequences for everyone. This may or may not strike you as pie in the sky. I despise our culture of fear. It cows the public and allows the powerful elite to be given carte blanche, which I consider dangerous and a domestic threat if allowed to continue unopposed, and here is where we disagree about American policy in Iraq. In this regard I believe I'm the cynic and you're the idealist. I'm all for hunting down terrorists, but I don't see how toppling that particular dictator and occupying his country accomplishes that goal, which is why I asked you the question in the first place. In Afghanistan, most of the terrorists got away, then came back in. A lot of them are in Pakistan. Why then aren't we bombing Pakistan, which is also run by a dictator? To an American soldier in Iraq right now, everyone's a terrorist, and therein lies the tragedy, because the killing continues from that point forward, with no end in sight. A big military occupation exacerbates that situation daily. Have we learned nothing from Vietnam? The only lesson I can see is, keep the media out of the field. As a journalist, how does that sit with you?
I listen to your program because I lament the death of public debate in my lifetime and at least there is a remnant of it on your show, despite your sometimes bullying tactics, which is another staple of the conservative talk show host. I don't much mind if you belittle people or ridicule them, but you shouldn't push them around. I realize that a lot of the time they're trying to push you around and there's a natural inclination to push back, but I guess what I'm referring to is when you manipulate them into your corner, label them, and stick them in a jar as soon as you get a whiff of anything resembling ideology. That's when the wall comes down and the dialogue ends. But it's your show and you can do whatever you want.
Regarding Vietnam and its modern-day parallels to Iraq and the American government's foreign policy, I strongly recommend Daniel Ellsberg's book Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. It is compelling and well worth reading, from someone who was inside the corridors of power at a turning point in American history, which is where I believe we are now.
And in a following e-mail:
The relevance of Chile with regard to Iraq seems pretty clear: in one case, covertly toppling a foreign
government by plotting with generals to stage a coup, by means of kidnapping
and assassination, to prevent nationalization of Chile's natural resources
(as we are now doing in Venezuela -- this is fact, not theory, as a matter
of historical record); and in the case of Iraq, overtly toppling a foreign
governent up to and including assassination in order to "remake the Middle
East" -- which also happens to award no-bid contracts along the way
exclusively to American corporations with ties to the administration that
waged the war (all perfectly legal) -- in each case resulting in hundreds of
billions for said corporations, a pretty good motivation to go to war if you
ask me. Krugman's column today is all about this. To say that one is
entirely irrelevant to the other is like looking up at the stars on a clear
night and saying, Well, I see each one, but none has anything to do with the
other -- and gravity is just a theory (which it is); I only deal in facts.
But don't take my word for it. You still avoided answering two key
questions: What do you think will be accomplished by the occupation, in
reality, and what outcome do you foresee? I am truly interested in listening
to your answer, as someone with a mind open to possibilities and views other
than my own.
Lynch responded that a difference exists -- "perhaps even a moral and ethical difference,
if you live in a democracy" -- between analysis that is rational and the best
truths available and unthinking blind adherence to political dogma.
So in other words, he avoided the question. I put it to him again: Where's your proof that the presence of an occupying army acts as a deterrrent to the escalation of violence in the Middle East? And how is this not triggering wars north, south, east and west?
- Michael 2:44 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Tulare county votes look wrong
Tulare county use Diebold Opti-Scan equipment.
Tulare county gave 'obscure' candidates very high percents of their state wide totals:
Palmieri - 995 out of 3,717 26.77%
Platform was 'don't vote for me or the recall'. Gay Rights activist who lives in LA.
Kunzman - 694 out of 2,133 32.54%
Lives north of Oakland and favored increased social programs. Said he would fire all school custodians tosave money and have the kids empty the trash and clean the carpets.
Sprague - 546 out of 1,576 34.64%
Zero tolerance for discrimination. Lives near Sacramento
McClain - 46 out of 2,463 1.77%
Civil engineer, Berkley grad living in Bay Area
These were not local candidates. The 'local candidate effect' can be seen with Doctor Macaluso from Visalia in Tulare county. He got 7.2% of his state wide total vote from his home county.
Thanks to Bartcop!
- rob 2:04 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Ms. Wilson Update
OLBERMANN: Exposing Ms. Wilson’s identity, explain this in layman’s terms. This is like what, revealing the whereabouts of a special-ops team or James Bond’s home phone number, or what?
LOFTUS: No, it is even worse than that.
Mrs. Wilson is one of those rare women who was a superspy. She risked her own life by going overseas without official protection, no diplomatic immunity. If she got arrested, she would be shot as a spy. And she had a cover company, a secret cover the CIA set up. It looks like a normal business, and, from that business, is able to travel the world and recruit brave people around the world that were willing to help us hunt for weapons of mass destruction.
And a columnist exposed not only her name, but even after knowing that CIA didn’t want her name disclosed, even after being told that she was an operative, even after knowing she is the rarest operative, a NOC, columnist Robert Novak then publishes the name of her cover business. Every intelligence agency in the world is tracing all the mail they’ve ever had with her, all the company connections.
I hope that none of her agents are in countries like North Korea or Iran, because those people are going to be tortured to find out, were you ever an agent for Mrs. Wilson? What was your connection with this company she had? Now, when Novak released both of those items, he may have unwittingly exposed himself to federal criminal prosecution.
Too bad George doesn't think it is possible to catch the traitor because his administration is soooo large. I thought he was for smaller government.
- rob 1:51 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
This one is for Chris, my neighbor and visitor to the site. Enjoy!
For some time now I've been posing questions about California, the answers to which I've never been able to fully grasp, and this is another one: How come Arnold, a candidate with zero governing experience, is now governor of a state that represents one-third of the US economy and faces a $38 billion budget deficit that Arnold addressed only with sound bites canned from his movies?
A) People like Arnold
B) Californians are jealous of Minnesota and want to one-better Jesse "The Body" Ventura to reclaim the title of "World's Craziest State"
C) Californians are so fed up with politicians that they voted for an actor to play one
D) Californians blame all their troubles on the last guy who was governor, so they recalled him and elected Arnold, just to teach him and the rest of us a lesson
E) Californians believe Arnold is the right man for the job
F) Californians believe Arnold
G) Arnold gets what he wants, no matter what
H) Arnold is married to a Kennedy, which makes him heir to the throne
I) Californians are just as easily fooled, lied to, and manipulated by the rich and powerful as everybody else in America
J) Californians admire a guy who admires Hitler and isn't afraid to say so
K) California is saying a collective "Fuck You!" to America
L) Californians believe they control their own fate, so they put a blind man in the crow's nest
M) California believes that one man -- Arnold -- can turn the ship around, even though it's already gone over the deep end
N) California loves the idea of throwing a lit match into a room full of dynamite
O) People who are drowning will grab anything that comes along
P) Californians elected Arnold so they can recall him two months from now
Q) Arnold is butch, and we're living in butch times
R) Anyone who appears on enough magazine covers smoking a big black cigar can be governor
S) Californians, traditionally liberal, have vindicated Clinton by perversely electing as governor a Republican who serially molests women
T) Californians like a guy who says the wrong thing on "Oprah"
U) Californians like a guy who says the wrong thing on the national stage (and isn't afraid to say so)
V) Californians see their new governor as poetic justice
W) Californians like the idea that anybody can be governor, no matter how ill-suited or unfit for the job
X) The biggest narcissist always wins
Y) Some of the above
Z) All of the above
Option X: None of the reasons given here
- Michael 1:40 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
New York City - Hunt for Leaker Lacks Inspiration
They can't find Osama bin Laden.
They can't find Saddam Hussein.
They can't find the weapons of mass destruction that propelled us into war.
And those are prizes the Bush administration would actually like to find.
So what is the chance that the president's in-house gumshoes will ever finger the two "senior administration officials" who leaked an undercover CIA operative's name?
Any good detective will tell you: It helps if you WANT to find the perp.
But relentless is not exactly the word for this internal probe. The hunt for the leakers has barely begun, and already George W. Bush has a tone of resignation in his voice.
"This is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials," the president told reporters after his Cabinet meeting yesterday. "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is."
This is inspiring the troops?
- rob 1:35 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Not all conservatives or idiots.
This could also be titled, "some conservatives won't shed their ideals just to have power."
Bill, Arnold and double standards
When Schwarzenegger insisted that "a lot of these are made-up stories," NBC anchor Tom Brokaw asked him, "So you deny all these stories about grabbing?" Replied Arnold: "No, not all." But he declined to tell which ones were true. Asked by Brokaw to be more specific about his actions, he replied, "As soon as the campaign is over, I will." What's your hurry, Tom?
At best, the evidence indicates that Schwarzenegger has a habit of sexual battery--defined in the California Penal Code as touching "an intimate part of another person, if the touching is against the will of the person touched, and is for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse."
This goes beyond the behavior that unleashed a scandal on Bill Clinton. His encounter with Monica Lewinsky was consensual, and his crude alleged proposition to Paula Jones stopped short of using force.
...
So consider their double standard. When Clinton submitted to oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, conservatives thought it was morally repugnant. They also thought it disqualified him from remaining in office. As a Wall Street Journal editorial declared, "A business executive or college president caught having sex with an intern less than half his age would today be quickly dismissed."
Yet they're happy to have as governor of California someone who, by his own admission, has forced himself on unwilling women. Their new darling is a more aggressive sexual predator than the president they tried to remove from office. Morality? Law? They'll leave it to liberals to fret about such irrelevancies.
But if the charges persist and multiply, I predict conservatives will find a way to address Arnold's behavior: They'll blame it on Clinton.
- rob 1:34 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Blogs looking at Blogs looking at Blogs!
Well the Dems set up a blog a few weeks ago called: Kicking Ass
Well, George being the leader he is followed up with his own! (only after Dean, Clark, the Democratic Party, etc.)
It's got a cool name too: Official Blog
And check out its logo:
Isn't that cute, they let George write on it himself, or something.
Anyway blogs being blogs the democratic blog has some blogging pointers for the Bush Blog:
* No comments. That means there's no feedback and no community. Too bad, really. That's what makes a blog interesting.
* No names of the posters. Every post is signed "GeorgeWBush.com," so the readers get no sense of who is posting.
* Circular conservative logic. Most of the posts link to conservative publications and columnists who have their talking points fed to them by the administration. (Literally in the case of a linked Colin Powell op-ed.) There's little commentary on these links, just, "Hey, check out this story which just happens to repeat what our press releases have been saying. What a coincidence!"
- rob 1:30 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
VCR alert
'Frontline' Explores U.S. Winning War, Losing Peace
As the White House launches its latest PR blitz to convince Americans that all is going well in Iraq -- no matter what the media say -- along comes "Frontline" to spoil things. PBS's eminent investigative series kicks off its new season tonight with a devastating documentary on how the Bush administration sold the war and got rid of Saddam Hussein (well, almost) but seems to have overlooked the need for a plan after declaring victory.
"Truth, War and Consequences" (9 p.m. on Channel 22; 10 p.m. on Channel 26) paints administration officials as dissemblers as well as arrogant conquerors who paid no heed to warnings about the collapse of security after the Iraq war. Whatever your politics and opinions about the war, this documentary is must viewing for those who seek to understand why the early scenes of liberation have given way to nearly daily reports of attacks against occupying troops.
The 90-minute program, reported by Martin Smith, essentially concludes this was a war in search of a reason. The terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, delivered one. In Smith's telling, a secretive unit in the Pentagon slanted the intelligence on Hussein's alleged weapons of destruction, relying on less-than-objective reports from Ahmed Chalabi's exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which has been agitating to overthrow Hussein's government for more than a decade. Emphasis mine.
- rob 1:23 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Bush aides will review leak notes
Because our national security was harmed (how little and how much is a secret of course). Because this was an act of treason. Because Bush cares more about our nation then about politics. Okay the last one was obviously a lie because:
White House lawyers will review phone logs and other records supplied by presidential aides before turning the documents over to the Justice Department officials conducting the investigation into who leaked a CIA undercover operative's identity, officials said Monday.
So a White House lawyers says "oh... that could hurt us" and simply decides not to turn over the information. Nice.
To allow the White House counsel to review records before the prosecutors would see them is just about unheard of in the way cases are always prosecuted," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on NBC's Today show. "And the possibility of mischief, or worse than mischief, is very, very large."
Administration officials said the White House counsel's office may need up to two weeks to organize documents that some 2,000 employees are required to submit by 5 p.m. Tuesday.
- rob 10:24 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
You know, I'm getting tired of seeing Russian bride advertisements over this site, so I'm thinking of removing the banner, which isn't getting us that much traffic anyway.- Wednesday, October 08, 2003 -
Anyone really want it to stay?
Update: No one really wanted the banner to stay, so its gone. Happy day Happy day.
- rob 10:20 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
Alaskans Share the Oil Wealth From Fund
You want to help Iraqi's? You want to send a message to the rest of the middle east? You want to quiet down international outcry?
Then do this:
In what may seem inconceivable to people in the Lower 48, practically every man, woman and child in Alaska receives a check every year just for living here. The money is from the Alaska Permanent Fund, an oil-royalty investment account created in 1976 after crude was discovered on Alaska's North Slope.
Beginning Wednesday, a total of $663.2 million will be handed out to close to 600,000 Alaskans.
...
The amount is calculated according to the fund's five-year average return on its stock, bond and real estate investments.
Do that, or prove to the world that this was never about the Iraqi people and always about the oil. Come on! The world is waiting from proof it wasn't about the oil! It wasn't about oil was it?
I mean it is their oil.
- rob 3:10 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
WorldNetDaily: Yes, Bush lied
WASHINGTON – A year ago, on Oct. 1, one of the most important documents in U.S. history was published and couriered over to the White House.
The 90-page, top-secret report, drafted by the National Intelligence Council at Langley, included an executive summary for President Bush known as the "key judgments." It summed up the findings of the U.S. intelligence community regarding the threat posed by Iraq, findings the president says formed the foundation for his decision to preemptively invade Iraq without provocation. The report "was good, sound intelligence," Bush has remarked.
Most of it deals with alleged weapons of mass destruction.
But page 4 of the report, called the National Intelligence Estimate, deals with terrorism, and draws conclusions that would come as a shock to most Americans, judging from recent polls on Iraq. The CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the other U.S. spy agencies unanimously agreed that Baghdad:
* had not sponsored past terrorist attacks against America,
* was not operating in concert with al-Qaida,
* and was not a terrorist threat to America.
"We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against U.S. territory," the report stated.
However, it added, "Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qaida could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."
Sufficiently desperate? If he "feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime," the report explained.
"In such circumstances," it added, "he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW [chemical and biological weapons] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."
In other words, only if Saddam were provoked by U.S. attack would he even consider taking the "extreme step" of reaching out to al-Qaida, an organization with which he had no natural or preexisting relationship. He wasn't about to strike the U.S. or share his alleged weapons with al-Qaida – unless the U.S. struck him first and threatened the collapse of his regime. Emphasis mine.
Check out the other links at World Net Daily. They are right wing, as right as can be. This can't be good for Bush.
- rob 12:53 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Awww. Look what you've done George! You've gone and hurt Dr. Strangelove's feelings.
Iraq Shake-up Skipped Rumsfeld
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that he was not told in advance about a reorganization of the Iraq reconstruction, which he heads. He said he still does not know the reason for the shake-up.
Rumsfeld said in an interview with the Financial Times and three European news organizations that he did not learn of the new Iraq Stabilization Group until he received a classified memo about it from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Thursday.
Rumsfeld was asked several times why the changes were necessary. "I think you have to ask Condi that question," he said, according to a transcript posted on the Web site of the Financial Times.
Pressed, he said: "I said I don't know. Isn't that clear? You don't understand English? I was not there for the backgrounding." Emphasis mine.
Umm.... Rummy? Maybe that you had no plans on what to do after you won the war, maybe that's why? I'm not sure though, maybe you need to ask Condi that question. She's pretty pissed she hasn't gotten the oil yet.
- rob 12:51 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
What the heck is the governor elect doing in my drink? (quicktime)
- rob 11:55 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
CNN.com - GAO: Pentagon sold biolab gear - Oct. 6, 2003
The Defense Department sold equipment to the public that can be used for making biological warfare agents, according to a draft report by the General Accounting Office.
The Defense Department agency responsible for the sale of excess property to the public, the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, halted the sale of such items September 19 while the practice is reviewed.
"Many items needed to establish a laboratory for making biological warfare agents were being sold on the Internet to the public from DoD's excess property inventory for pennies on the dollar, making them both easy and economical to obtain," the GAO draft report said.
So the pentagon has been selling more materials to make weapons of mass distruction at discount then we've been able to find in all of Iraq?
Irony, thy name is the 21st Century.
Thanks for the link Sy.
- rob 10:07 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
White House Rules Out Three Aides in Leak on CIA- Tuesday, October 07, 2003 -
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday ruled out three top aides as the source of a news leak identifying an undercover CIA officer whose husband was critical of Bush administration Iraq policy.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he had talked to each of the aides ahead of a 5 p.m. deadline on Tuesday for officials to turn over information in a Justice Department probe of the leak.
He left open the possibility the leaker would never be found. ``I think all of us in this room know that it sometimes can be difficult to determine anonymous sources. But let me emphasize ... no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States,'' he said.
Well if the White House says it isn't Rove, Libby, or Abrams that is good enough for me. Because treason is a serious thing, like war, and the White House would never lie about that.
And isn't fasinating how fast the White House excepts defeat. Here is the fact: if the White House can't find the person who committed treason in their midst they will never find Saddam or bin Laden.
Pathetic.
You know if Bush wanted to seriously know the name of the leaker he would call up Novak, note national security is at stake (which it is), and personally ask. But Bush doesn't want to know.
- rob 9:30 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
"This is a serious charge."
Bush hopes probe will plug leaks
"This is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action. But also hopefully we'll help send a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop as well," he [Bush] said. Emphasis mine.
I would like to note that as she has been revealed as a CIA operative, it is not a "charge" but rather a fact. If Bush seems to think that a person has been accused of this act, that would be a "charge" against Mr. Rov... um.. against that person (actually I should give Mr. Rove the benefit of the doubt, it could be someone in Cheney's office).
But I was glad to hear Mr. Bush was taking this seriously, until I ready this bit of Bush zen.
Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out.
I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is... but we'll find out. Mr. Bush can also tell you what the sound of one hand clapping is.
This also makes me think that Bush really has trouble with "large" things. bin Laden is loose because Afganistan is a "large" country. Saddam is loose because Iraq is a "large" country (about the same size as California, so that is why Arnold is his choice for the govenor of that "large" state, he's on the look out for Saddam). He can't find any WMD's because Iraq is a "large" country (again). He can't find the Anthrax murderer because America is a "large" country. So it figures he can't find the person who committed treason in his midst because the White House is a "large" building. Oh, and George's friends should not be expected to pay for the occupation of Iraq, despite them looting the nation, because they can't find their wallets which is hidden behind their "large" asses.
- rob 5:17 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Computer Experts Fear Recall Voter Fraud- Monday, October 06, 2003 -
Activists are demanding that ballot machine vendors include printers that produce paper receipts so citizens can confirm that paper results match their touch-screen choices. Receipts would go into a county lock-box for use in recounts.
"It's horrifying and ridiculous that these machines don't have a voter-verifiable audit trail," said Rebecca Mercuri, a Harvard University research fellow who specializes in computer security and voting systems.
Officials from one affected county, Riverside County, have "total confidence" in the electronic system used by its 650,000 voters, said Mischelle Townsend, registrar of voters. On election day the county tests all 4,250 touch-screens for logic and accuracy, confirming that a "yes" vote is recorded as a "yes," Townsend emphasized.
"The machines have always been adjudicated to be reliable and accurate," said Townsend, who has supervised 19 touch-screen elections and five recounts since November 2000. "There's never been a single incident of what the scientists fear."
After polls close, elections officials make another accuracy check. They get printouts for 1 percent of voters in every precinct and compare the digital record with the printouts.
The machines have no voter verified printouts, but they do, at the end of the day print out 1% of the votes and compare them to whats on the computer. The print out comes from the same computer. I trust people capable of that logic to be in charge of ensuring the integrity of the vote. Oh, most certainly.
- rob 11:57 AM - [PermaLink] -
----
An open letter to Chris Matthews host of Hardball
Dear Mr. Matthews,
I understand that television is an unsubtle medium, and perhaps because of this television news often misses the subtle nuances of many of the stories it covers. However, this weakness cannot be used in defending your inability to recognize the distinction of sexual assault and consensual sex. There is nothing subtle here.
If you want to defend Schwarzenegger with the fact that these allegations are just allegations, that is fair game, but to defend him by stating that what Schwarzenegger allegedly did was akin to Bill Clinton’s consensual sex acts with Monica Lewinsky seeks to bring America’s understanding about violence against women back to the fifties. What’s next? A college tour defending date rape?
Perhaps it is your adoration of Schwarzenegger or your hate of Clinton that is making your thinking unclear. Let me state this more clearly for you:
A female friend has a crush on her boss at work and after some (albeit pretty tasteless) foreplay begins a relationship.
Vs.
A female friend is walking to the xerox machine and her boss grabs her and forces her hand up her blouse and under her bra, squeezes her breast, and walks away laughing.
Is the difference clear now Mr. Matthews, or is the inclusion of female body parts still clouding your immature thinking? Perhaps a clearer example for you would be:
A beggar comes up to you on the street and you give him some money.
Vs.
A mugger comes and pushes you against the wall and removes your wallet.
That is what is you seem to think is the same thing Mr. Matthews, you seem to think a voluntary act is the exact same thing as an involuntary act, and in so doing you are basically equating assault against women with dating.
Please come up with another line of defense for Mr. Schwarzenegger, for the sake of your wife, you sisters, your female friends, and for the sake of your own emotional health.
- rob 2:34 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
It has been 67 days since it was revealed that a senior member of the Bush Administration purposefully damaged our nation's ability to fight a war against terror.
How can we find Osama or Saddam or even the Anthrax mailer if Bush can't find the guy two doors down the hall?
The War Over the Leak
Character assassination isn't a felony, but revealing the name of a CIA officer is. It was the President's father, a former spy chief, who called it treason to leak the name of an undercover officer. And in this case, the officer was one who was working on the most vital security issue of all, the proliferation of WMD. At a time when good intelligence and successful spying has never been more essential to the nation's defense, the deliberate unmasking of a spy sent shudders through the secret web of spooks worldwide. When a U.S. operative is unmasked, foreign spy agencies go back, retrace his steps, review his contacts and try to figure out how the CIA operated in their country. "Anyone who was seen with her overseas is tainted now," warns a former officer who knew Plame. "If she went to the grocery store and talked to the grocer, people will say, 'I wonder if he was working for her?'"
In Plame's case, the damage may go even deeper. Plame was an NOC, meaning she did her job overseas under nonofficial cover and not out of an embassy or government office. Many in her family did not know she worked for the agency. Such unofficial covers are often with private companies to further disguise an operative's real work. Plame had worked with Brewster Jennings & Associates, an obscure energy firm that may have been a CIA front company. Deep covers take time, luck and work to develop; the outing of an noc also blows the cover of the involved business or private entity.
- rob 2:33 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
Fark has an excellent Bush Photoshop contest going on right now.
The example above is from a person called "WalkingCarpet."
- rob 1:34 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
'[General Wesley Clark] participated in the debate with the Democrats. He was the new star. And he had to answer the question 'Why is he suddenly a Democrat?' He said he did not fit in with the Republicans because he is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, and once when he was young and impressionable, he fought in a war.' —Bill Maher
Thanks to The Hamster for the quote.
- rob 1:25 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
It must be Monday:
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots, No. 129
6. The Bush Administration
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002). "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." (George W. Bush, September 12, 2002). "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." (Ari Fleischer, December 2, 2002). "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." (Ari Fleischer, January 9, 2003). "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." (George W. Bush, January 28, 2003). "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." (Colin Powell, February 5, 2003). "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." (George Bush February 8, 2003). "So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not." (Colin Powell, March 8, 2003). "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." (George Bush, March 18, 2003). "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." (Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003). "At this point we have found substantial evidence of an intent of senior level Iraqi officials, including Saddam, to continue production at some future point in time of weapons of mass destruction. We have not found yet, and I'm sure you know this, otherwise you would know it earlier, we have not found at this point, actual weapons." (David Kay, chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, October 3, 2003). Emphasis added to underscore complete and utter uselessness of entire Bush administration.
Donald Rumsfeld
So weapons inspector David Kay has returned from Iraq, and the news is: no weapons of mass destruction. Oh sure, they uncovered one or two programs and discovered that the Iraqis might have wanted to have weapons at some point in the future, but, uh, no actual weapons. Reaction from the Bush administration was downright lethargic - surprising really, considering that they convinced the American people that we had to invade Iraq before Saddam dropped anthrax down our chimneys. But head chickenhawk Donald Rumsfeld, he of the "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad. North and south and east and west a bit. They're under Saddam's bed and in his socks. They're in the breakfast cereal of every Iraqi child. They're in the flowers and the trees. They're blowing in the wind, somewhere over the rainbow," seemed particularly unimpressed. Upon hearing the news of the Kay Report's conclusions, Rumsfeld said that it would be "unfortunate" if U.S. intelligence before the war was "dramatically wrong." Unfortunate? Unfortunate? Pardon me, but it's unfortunate when you're doing the dishes and you accidentally break a mug. It's unfortunate when someone backs into you in a parking lot. I think the situation in Iraq has gone a little past unfortunate, Donald. How about a downright bloody disaster? How about a mismanaged, ill-conceived fiasco? How about a murderous, useless, financially backbreaking fuck-up of epic proportions? Unfortunate indeed.
Oh, and here's a link to last week's Idiots No. 128.
- rob 1:24 PM - [PermaLink] -
----
TCS Now offers a News Reader Feed
Subscribe to the TCS Feed
Having trouble with some of the poor English
on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:
Archive
What is this?
This is a "team" blog. We are a bunch of
Americans, whose rising distress
in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.
As Bush said, he's a "uniter." Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.
Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.
We have a little Store
you can visit.
Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come
see what we have.
We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.
Sites we often like:
Tin Foil Caps
The Free Speech Zone
The office of the independent blogger
Buzzflash
Tom The Dancing Bug
VerifiedVoting.org
Get Your War
On
This Modern World
Eschaton / Atrios
Daily Kos
Contribute to America's Future
It is now more important then ever.
Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee
Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Some More Site Mottos
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt
"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of
its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work
for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering
hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the
Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make
fitting response."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson
"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain
degree."
- James Madison
"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
More Sites we often
like:
more coming...
