Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Larry King and Sicko

The vice president, who'd you think I was talking about?

I watched King's interview, he does ask questions, just doesn't follow up real well, but just listening to Cheney, Dick sounded much more like a sick old man than the LegoExecuto of Death he normally sounds like.

And as for what he was saying, we've heard it all before, the guy is just so full of crap it's amazing to me that it doesn't ooze from his eyeballs. Hillary has no business asking for operational details on any evacuation plans, when that really isn't what she asked, now was it? (my bolds-DGR)

Dear Mr. Secretary:

On May 22, 2007, I wrote to you to request that you provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress - including the Senate Armed Services Committee - with briefings on what current contingency plans exist for the future withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. Alternatively, if no such plans exist, I asked for an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning.

Pretty clear there, isn't it? Tell what kind of plans you have, and if not, why not. But Cheney can only twist words to make them fit his delusioned reality, he must attack and destroy anybody who opposes him, because that's all he has, that's what he is, a sick, dying, terrified old man. Did I mention selfish? And since the world is centered on him, if he's scared, than we all must be scared.

Even Larry King can expose the man what for what he is. Larry wasn't scared of the guy, he seemed pretty skeptical really. Yet the Democrats can't beat this guy?


Sunday, July 22, 2007

Feingolds Censure Violates HIS Oath

Sen. Feingold sent me an e-mail, talking about his latest attempt to censure the President. I will add this argument, then post what I sent him in reply.

If you're going to take the time to do something, you ought to do it right. Censure is meaningless, Impeachment is not. My response follows.

Dear Honorable Senator Feingold,

Your response to the actions of the Bush Administration is deeply disappointing.

How can telling President Bush and Vice President Cheney that what they are doing is wrong, and that they should feel really bad about it, have any impact whatsoever on their actions? How can it be that censure, which has no real consequence, holds them accountable for anything?

We all know who the President and Vice President are, we all know the absolute lack of regard these men hold for the institutions of this government, how could telling them that they've been bad little boys have any impact whatsoever?

The fact is, and I quote, "the blatant disregard President Bush has shown for the rule of law on which our country was founded" tells you exactly what their reaction to censure will be, doesn't it? If they disregard the Constitution, the highest law in the land, what is a meaningless rebuke going to do?

You argue against impeachment, I say you are dead wrong. Is there really any doubt that what they are doing goes far beyond high crimes and misdemeanors; look me in the eye and say otherwise.

I argue three points on impeachment. One, since it is clear that they have violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, that they have usurped the powers enumerated in said Constitution rightly the provence of the House and the Senate, that their lies and cover-ups have led us to this miserable failure in Iraq, YOU, Senator Feingold, would be in violation of YOUR oath of office if you did not impeach the President and Vice President.

You have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, these men are violating it and destroying it on a daily basis, and you think it isn't in our nation’s best interest to UPHOLD YOUR OATH? That there are more important things to do than that?

Two, you say there are more important issues that would be delayed were impeachment to go forward. Like what? Since your friends and respected colleagues, the Republicans, are filibustering most Democratic Legislation, and that anything you do pass is going to get vetoed by the President, and sustained by the Senate, or, even worse, is a priority of the President, the Constitution violating President, I cannot think of any issues that shouldn't be put on the back burner. We can’t pass ours, who wants to pass theirs? And as for Presidential appointments, from a man who violates the laws of this country daily, none should be approved, so, again, what issues are there that cannot be put aside?

Three, while that man remains in office, what guarantees are there that he won't initiate military actions against the State of Iran on some Gulf of Tonkin type incident? Or that he won't pardon every member of his administration prior to any potential indictments or impeachments? Or that he won't use illegal wiretaps and other illegal means to violate the rights of innocent Americans who are working in opposition to the Bush White House, to include Senators like yourself, financial supporters like a George Soros, members of the press like a Dan Rather, so as to maintain their control of Executive Power even after an election?

Who is to say, given their past actions, that such a thing would not pass? And who would allow such a thing? By not taking the proper, right, and Constitutional action, that would be you Senator. Because you and your colleagues did not fulfill the terms of your contract with the American People, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. You wrote: "Some may disagree with that, but at a minimum we can agree that censure resolutions, holding the President and his administration accountable for the actions I've outlined above, are needed." I wholeheartedly disagree. Censure is a total waste of time, means nothing, does nothing. By what mechanism would it hold them accountable? Shame? Embarrassment?

The American People have figured this out, and we're not asking you to lead us in this, we're asking you to do your job, fulfill your oath.

Most Sincerely,

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Young Republicans-Worse Than the Adult Form

Watch this video, think about it, and figure out who might benefit from watching this video of Young Republican Values, and get them to watch it.

Not fellow Democrats, but fellow Americans, Teachers, Professors, Psychologists, Grocery Store Managers, College Recruiters, somebody who can make use of this view of the basic cowardice of those young people, and do something about it.

Somebody is giving those people scholarships to go to college. And that is a tremendous waste of money.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

A Disturbing Game

I just watched the end of a truly disgusting baseball game, and I'll tell you why. To recap, the Padres were winning in Arizona 4-1, All Star Chris Young had just completed another stellar outing, and the vaunted bullpen was taking over. A scratch single, 4 line drive hits and a sac fly, and it was tied. So much for Chris Young and his great effort.

The Pads come up after blowing the lead, and the middle of the lineup meekly gets out 1,2,3. The Diamondbacks come up next and double, single, boom, Snakes take the lead, the Pads do nothing in the ninth (I didn't watch, for obvious reasons), Arizona wins.

The disgusting part? Tomorrow, they'll go out and play like nothing happened, win some lose some, we're professionals going about our business. When what should happen is that somebody gets at least as pissed off as I was watching them lose a game they should never have lost. But they won't. Neither the team Leaders nor players and coaches have shown they have the passion and desire to win it all. They might win the division with their pitching and defense, but they'll never win the World Series, they just don't show the heart or the will.

I've seen the teams that do. The Red Sox, the Yankees under Joe Torre's leadership, the Mets in 1986, all, at some point, refused to lose and broke the other team with their own will to win.

Just like the Democrats. Yes, they'll investigate and issue subpoenas, and, yes, they'll force Republicans to vote for Bush's War, but they've yet to DEMONSTRATE that they have the fire, the desire, the passion, the Will, to do what it takes to save this country from the corporatists, the brainwashed, and the traitors to our Constitution.

Ms. Duckman was saying to me this afternoon, Pelosi needs to remember, her and all of the old men, that they have taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and that making a political football of it to score points for the Democrats isn't a whole lot better than what Bush and Cheney and Rove do.

It isn't their failure to act that bothers people as much as their failure to show they care about the their Oaths of Office. We're all furious with what these criminals and psychopaths are doing, why can't the leadership get a little fired up? We can't make them take action, lord knows we've been trying, we can't impeach Bush ourselves, or load the troops up in the back of the pick-up and bring them home, all we've got is our passion, and trying to get the Leadership to reflect that, to show that they feel as strongly about the Constitution and our Violated Rights as we do.

Playing politics isn't cutting it. Toothless Senators waving meaningless subpoenas in the air isn't doing it either. People will forgive a lot if they think you're trying, we love the less talented guy who makes up for it with hustle and desire and sacrifice.

Nobody thinks you're trying, Democrats. That's why you poll at slightly above Dick Cheney. So what are you going to do about it?

Friday, July 13, 2007

Brooks Reveals a Bit of Truth

On tonights News Hour David Brooks exposed yet another angle on Bush's Presidential unfitness, an unfitness I talked about the other day. Consider what he's saying here:

DAVID BROOKS: That's a good point. And as I was listening to the president today, I was remembering a past interview. And he said, "General Casey is a good man." You know, there have been a series -- and the president, when you hear him talk about world affairs, he looks at other people. And he sees it as, "Do I trust that man? And if I trust that man, he probably has the right views." Well, it could be you could trust somebody and they don't have the right views, so it is a bit of a crapshoot.

I've bolded the critical parts. All Bush's talk about the Generals, and he's run through quite a few trying to find one that tells him what he wants to hear, boils down to his trusting them, as Bobo said, and their judgement.

The problem here is that Bush is totally reliant on that judgement because he has no sense whatsoever, no capacity to judge for himself, no real savvy on what would actually work, or even a rudimentary grasp of the issues involved.

Think back on America's past. FDR led the war effort, he had a pretty good sense for what was right, the strategic imperatives and implications on the ground, the goals and strategies to employ. He knew, for instance, that the focus had to be on Hitler, that Japan, because of the geographical situation and the size of the forces engaged in China, could not threaten the Soviets or the Allies in Egypt and the Middle East and could be held off with the forces at hand, 4 Aircraft Carriers, a Division of Marines and a handful of submarines.

As Brooks has pointed out, Bush, not so much. It's a pity that the Corporate Whore Press is, well, what they are. Perhaps after the Revolution we can fix that. Let me close with this beautiful summation from The Freeway Blogger.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Maybe Another Democratic Senator


If GOP Family Values Vitter has to go spend more time with his real family, will Governor Blanco appoint a Democrat to replace him?

Coz the Gopper thugs will go overboard trying to pressure her to appoint a like minded Gopper to replace Vitter even though if the shoe were on the other foot a Republican Governor wouldn't hesitate to appoint a Gopper to replace a Democrat, why it happened in California with our Democratic Secretary of State who resigned, and we even had Democratic Majorities in both State Houses, and we still got a Gopper replacement.

Does Blanco have enough sense to take advantage of the situation, or will she go all noble and stupid and give a criminal administration yet another handout?

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

A Failed President 5 Years and 9 Months Later

Here in San Diego County we have a Blackwater Problem. The President of the East County Democratic Club, Ray Lutz, is LEADING opposition to Blackwater. Ray sent out a notice about a referral proposal for employment opportunities with Blackwater, here's a link to the Blackwater job posting Ray references. Read this language and see if it sounds like they're training security/police forces.

Dear Friend,
In order to staff a current contract, Blackwater Worldwide is offering a $1,000.00 referral fee for a limited time.



Note -These are hard requirements! Please do not apply if you do not not meet these basic requirements.

· 8 years of Military service with qualifications in one of the following: US Navy SEALS, Army Special Forces or Rangers, Marine Force Recon, Air Force PJ or CCT
· Must have or be eligible for US Government Secret Clearance. Must be a US Citizen!
· Must have a minimum of one year experience in Iraq or Afghanistan
· Must be proficient in small arms and be in excellent physical condition

Air Force PJ's are Pararescuemen, "the only Department of Defense specialty specifically trained and equipped to conduct conventional or unconventional rescue operations." And CCT's are highly trained certified air traffic controllers who are an integral part of the Air Force's ground combat team, that specializes in unconventional missions.

These people are not going to be guarding corporate execs or flatbed trucks, now are they? This sounds like Blackwater is gearing up for military black ops in Iran, recruiting highly trained elite troops fully versed and experienced in military action behind the lines. Maybe Blackwater has won the contract to "capture" bin Laden, maybe they're going to participate in strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, whatever it is, this is not a group of flatfoots patrolling a beat or guarding high value targets.

How does this relate to Bush, you ask? Well, Ray sent a link to a YouTube split screen video showing Bush in action while the Two Towers were being destroyed by those sick Saudi religious fanatics. I watched Bush again, knowing the futility of telling people how this proves he's inadequete for the job. We know that. But I want to put it into a context of what we have today, and why Bush needs to go.

5 Years and 9 months, that's how long it has been painfully obvious that George W Bush is profoundly unsuited to be president. And that's how long Rove and Cheney have been working on creating their unaccountable co-presidency.

Why else do they keep every document they can away from the light of day?

Rove knew he had a crisis on his hands, he used all of his twisted skills and cronies to prop up a lifelong failure; maybe the country really needed the image of a stable presidency after 9/11, maybe not, you have to think we're stronger than that after all, but Rove, lacking basic humanity and empathy, not understanding people's fundamental decency, did what he knew best, deceit and division and cronyism. Hence the priorities and messianic cultism of Bush in the early years of his "presidency." Up until his response to Katrina DEMONSTRATED Bush's true nature.

Cheney, on the other hand, just took advantage of the realization of just how unsuitable Bush was to advance his own corporate neo-con lunatic agenda, all the while succumbing to the corruption of near absolute power. Dick Cheney is a very sick man, dark and twisted, rotted by the power that he felt he had to assume from the incompetent puffed up frat boy creation of Karl Rove.

That's what I saw in that video, even before Card spoke to Bush about the 2nd plane; you can see the barely contained panic in Bush's eyes, and afterwards, that empty stare as he realized he had no idea of what to do, even not having the sense to get up from the classroom and returning to DC poste haste.

That's why we have to deal with a mercenary army trying to gain a foothold in my backcountry. That's what leadership does to us, be it good leadership or bad. That's what all of our battles with the Bush/Cheney regime are rooted in, the fact that Bush is a figurehead who thinks he's in charge, and that we have to deal with two power centers, one an amoral and heartless little schemer who lacks human depth, and the other a deeply bitter man, probably brain damaged from his heart problems, paranoid and corrupted by too much unchecked power.

Rove and Cheney have unleashed the worst of our American impulses, racism, greed, a yellow press, robber barons, Manifest Destiny, you name it, that's what their leadership has wrought.

And that's why people are so mad at the Democrats, not because they're just like the Republicans, tho some may be, but because they won't provide forceful and effective leadership against these fools. We don't want simply incrementalism and investigations, we want bold, broad strokes, an overarching theme, a goal to put a man on the moon (I have seveal fine candidates for a return mission to the moon) as it were. That's the appeal of Al Gore, and not the appeal of the Democratic Field, except for Edwards maybe.

That's what a failed President has given us 5 years and 9 months later.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Hamas and What Could Have Happened

McClatchey has this article about BushCo in action, this time in Palestine. It's like what reporting should do, expose government actions to the scrutiny of somebody in America. As we all know, BushCo isn't about governance, they're about furthering the interests of their sponsors, Corporations. At the same time though, they show us how costly and tragic such a government is for the people they're expected to govern.

I think Athenae touched on it yesterday, others today. The government of Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and Adams et al, has been taken over by a bunch of maniacs of two versions; one, the greed mongering MIC supporters, whose world view consists of quarterly reports and the amoral and immoral and impractical ravings of a movie character, one Gordon Gecko, and; two, the foaming ravings of neo-cons like the much beloved Elliot Abrams, a world dominion of the mighty American Exceptional Empire, and in the process of achieving that goal completely forgetting, nay reversing, the very things that make us exceptional, our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and our freaking principles as embodied by the Declaration of Independence.

McClathcey looks at Palestine after the Hamas electoral victory and BushCo's deft handling of the situation. While they didn't say it, as good reporting doesn't tell you what should have been done, they let you figure it out on your own. And I figured it out at the time, and I'll repeat it here.

Embrace Hamas, congratulate them for their victory, give them the aid they needed to make the lives of the Palestinian people they were representing a little bit more tolerable, and see if we could co-opt or ameliorate, or at the least, engage them in dialog regarding their relations with Israel. Be mature and respectful from the get go, not be forced or shamed into doing the right thing, but do it because it is the right thing, like it or not. Because by all accounts that election was perfectly valid, even more so than our elections of recent memory.

But no, that wouldn't have fit into the needs of the BushCo crew, no, not at all.

Hamas, a violent Islamist movement whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel, had won Palestinian parliamentary elections — elections that were deemed free and fair and a cornerstone to President Bush's initiative to bring more democracy to the Muslim world.

For the next 17 months, White House and State Department officials would undertake an all-out campaign to reverse those results and oust Hamas from power.

Instead of undermining Hamas, though, the strategy helped to exacerbate dangerous political fissures in Palestinian politics that have delivered another setback to the president's vision of a stable, pro-Western Middle East.

At its heart was a plan to organize military support for Abbas for what opponents of the strategy feared could have become a Palestinian civil war, according to officials in Washington and the Middle East, and documents.

What would have happened, do you think, if, instead of immediately ostracizing and blockading the legally elected Hamas Government, the US had accepted the results of the election, and worked to ameliorate Hamas’ more egregious stances, against the State of Israel, and their radical religious underpinings?

You only have that first opportunity, that first impression to establish a foundation for future interactions, what signal does cutting Hamas off at the knees send as opposed to releasing foreign aid after the successful election and starting a real dialog with them on the subject of Israeli recognition?

Imagine your own life. You’re asking your Supervisor for some time off. Your Supervisor wants you to get all of your work done before you go. So you finish your work, let’s say you work in an accounting office in the Payables section. Alas, your Supervisor gets pissed off at you for spending all of the companies money before you go on vacation, and as punishment, denies your vacation request, and what’s more, starts sending negative reports to your manager on your job performance, negatives not necessarily true or on items already addressed in the past.

And then your Supervisor dumps a load of work on you and expects you to do it right away, accurately and correctly.

What are you going to think of your Supervisor? And more importantly, how are you going to work with the asshole?

Real diplomacy could have worked with Hamas, because underlying all of their bullshit, their shelling and suicide bombings, their religious ravings, is the abject poverty of the people of Palestine. Most of those people just want to live in peace, have a decent way to raise a family and live their lives, eat 3 meals a day, get out of the heat, have some social activity, get a decent nights sleep, and dream of a better live for them and theirs. Address that and the anger melts, the fanaticism fades, the death grip of religion weakens.

But there's no profit in that, is there?

Long term, the U.S. effort to oust Hamas has further deepened doubts in the Middle East about the administration's understanding of the complex region.

"America is so far away, they are completely misinformed about what is happening," said Munib Masri, a Palestinian businessman allied with Abbas. "The more they do against Hamas, the more power they (Hamas) get from the people."


But Abbas argued that elections wouldn't be credible without Hamas, and Washington went along, said one of the senior U.S. officials, who agreed to be interviewed only on condition of anonymity due to White House-imposed ground rules.

Was that a mistake?

"Maybe," he said. "The question was debated at the time."

Once Hamas was elected, the White House gave almost no thought to accepting the results and trying to co-opt the hard-line Islamist group, which the U.S. government deems a terrorist organization, current and former U.S. officials said.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, "I don't think it was ever possible emotionally, ideologically ... for this administration to consider reaching out, probing" Hamas, said Aaron David Miller, who advised six secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations.

Instead, Rice orchestrated an international financial boycott of the new Palestinian government, an action that failed to weaken Hamas or force it to moderate its views.

Destroy the village to save it, all over again. It's like when the troops kick down the door of some Iraqi's house, turn over the place, wave guns around, push and shove, break a few things, then give the kids a candy bar. Friends for life, right? G Gordon Liddy's jack booted thugs that the extreme right wing racists hate so much, should they expect any different kind of reaction from the Arabs and Iraqi's and whoever else in the Middle East?

But, then again, there's nothing like a little civil war for stirring up some business for GE and friends, is there?

But we shouldn't impeach Cheney and Bush because that might be too radical for some people, too overarching, too divisive, right?

Monday, July 2, 2007

Media, Bush, Betrayal

Now we know why the Washington Post printed this wretched, pathetic, absurd article about Bush.

To show him as a deep thinker, so that when he commuted Libby's conviction to nothing but tax cut chump change, really so Libby could still plead the fifth, we might feel his anguish as he struggled with the decision of what to do about his loyal aide.

What a pity party Baker's article is, a pity party and a stand-up routine of jokes that strain only our credulity, not our bellies.

Bush has read 3 bio's of George Washington. Bush convenes nightly debates with leading scholars and experts and thinkers on weighty subjects like the nature and meaning of good and evil.

Not generally known for intellectual curiosity, Bush is seeking out those who are, engaging in a philosophical exploration of the currents of history that have swept up his administration.

Not generally known? You could say that. And Bush is comfortable, according to this article explaining what happened, sortof. Note that this time though, the great thinker Bush acted quickly to commute Libby's sentence when the judge ordered him to start serving his time. And nobody knows what Cheney was telling Bush, or Rove, like they hadn't already discussed the possibilities?

Bush the Mighty Thinker, that's going to be his legacy alright.


ACTIONS OR WORDS, what'll it be?

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Another Media Genius

Michael Barone was on C-SPAN today, I was working outside but listening and here's all you need to know about Barone.

He's a blogger.
Well, he's a blogger with an editor, according to Barone.

He cited a blogger as an example of good blogging.
It was Instapundit.

He has an opinion on Dick Cheney.
He thinks the charges and coverage is overdone.

Barone writes for US News and World Report.
And he contributes to Faux News as well.

Barone wrote an article on how we pick vice presidents.
But he managed to not talk about how Dick Cheney yanks Bush around like a cat with one of those catnip balls on a string. And he closes the column with a totally gratuitous slam on John Edwards, coming from that multi-loser Bob Shrum.

Gratuitous? Yes, because he mentioned every other VP choice since 1972 without a signle comment about them, not Eagletons psychiatry, not Quayles stupidity, not Liebermans sanctimony, no, just a slam on Edwards from a self serving source of little trustworthiness.

Broder is shocked that Cheney is running Bush like Harvey Keitel ran Jodi Foster in The Taxi Driver, Barone ignores Cheney altogether except to disparage one of the Demcoratic challengers for President, yes, the DC Pundits really further the principles set out by Jefferson and Madison and Paine and Adams et al, if you think that Corporations and Elitism were what those men were writing and dying about some 231 years ago. Yes, George Washington and Nathanael Greene would be proud of the patriotism and honor that the DC Beltway Pundits shower on our country; as brave soldiers die needlessly in Iraq, for a war sold on a pack of treacherous lies promulgated by said pundits; as an elite class built on accumulated wealth gains greater control of our country thanks to the Orwellian writings of the aforementioned DC Pundits (Death Tax anyone?); yes Barone is a great patriot, isn't he?

C-SPAN runs these turds all of the time, Heritage and AEI hacks, it shows that we have a long ways to go, but putting pressure on these people helps. So write Barone, maybe one of his editors will notice.