After Bushes speech yesterday, or which I watched most of, the word "appeasement" has been on the rally call of every wignut out there.
This word... I don not think it means what they think it means.
After watching one such blow hard yesterday call Obama an appeaser in almost every other sentence, the host asked the wingnut to define the word appeasement. Of course, he could not. So, here is a little help for you wingnuts out there.
Appeasement has several definitions according to Webster's Dictionary:
1) to bring a state of peace or quiet.
Not a bad thing to have in the middle east in my opinion. Bush likes war and chaos. Me? I am for lower gas prices.
2) to cause to subside
Subsidence of hostilities in the Middle east... oh the horror!
And the third one, and the one that I think Bush and the wingnuts are referring to.
3) pacify, conciliate; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.
Ok, not as good as the first to. But lets look at this in context. bush and the wingnuts are comparing Obama to Nevil Chamberlain, former Prime Minister of England. In 1938 Chamberlain attempted to "appease" Hitler by giving a third of Czechoslovakia to Hitler hoping that Hitler would then cease his hostilities. Chamberlain was of course very very wrong.
Now, lets look at Obama. There is a big difference in talking to our enemies and appeasing our enemies in the way that Chamberlain did. You don't have to appease our enemies just by talking to them. If Obama was suggesting that we give half of Israel to the Palestinians in order to stop the fighting, then Obama would be an appeaser. Negotiating with them to settle a dispute is not appeasement.
Bush finally talked to North Korea... Is Bush an appeaser?
If we talk to the government in Khartoum to stop the killing in Darfur, are we appeasers.
When Israel sat down and talked with Egypt, their arch enemies at the time, and negotiated peace, was that appeasement?
McCain himself in 2006 said that we had to deal with Hamas. Is he an appeaser? So did Colon Powell, Jim Baker, Bob Gates.
Seriously people, if you never talk to your enemies, how are you ever going to find solutions other than war? The last thing we need is more of Bush/McCain cowboy diplomacy.
And would someone... Anyone... name me one time that Obama said he would talk to Hamas without them first renouncing violence and recognizing Israel?
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Friday, May 16, 2008
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Scott McClellan Point Plame Finger at Bush
Ok, so I haven't blogged in a while... a really long while, but there is nothing like deceit from the Bush administration to spur me back to action.
Scott McClellan, former Bush press secretary is coming out with a new book in April. He has release some parts of it to give us a teaser. He takes the president and his staff to task for knowingly passing along untrue information to him in regards to the Plame national treason matter where the Bush administration released classified information in order to enact revenge against Joe Wilson.
So, not only is the Bush administration a traitor to the national security of this country for nothing more than political vendetta, it also is an out right traitor to the trust of the American people. But that is just par for the course for America's worst president.
Full Story
Scott McClellan, former Bush press secretary is coming out with a new book in April. He has release some parts of it to give us a teaser. He takes the president and his staff to task for knowingly passing along untrue information to him in regards to the Plame national treason matter where the Bush administration released classified information in order to enact revenge against Joe Wilson.
In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.
"There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
So, not only is the Bush administration a traitor to the national security of this country for nothing more than political vendetta, it also is an out right traitor to the trust of the American people. But that is just par for the course for America's worst president.
Full Story
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Doctors Attempt to Locate George Bush's Head
George Bush will undergo a colonoscopy this Saturday at Camp David which will require him to relinquish control of the presidency to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Bush will be undergoing the procedure so doctors can attempt to extract President Bush's head from his ass.
Dr. Mark Wittenberg, White House Physician, will be performing the procedure on the President. "It is a fairly complicated procedure," explained the Dr., "at this point we don't know how far up his ass his head actually is or if we will be able to remove it successfully." Doctors became concerned about the presidents head up his ass due to the length of time it has been inserted. While the president has been known to stick his head up his ass on many occasions, usually it was never for more than a week at a time. But this currently, Bush's head last went up his ass April 21st, 2005 and has not been seen since.
"Sticking your head up your ass is a fairly common occurrence for politicians," further explained the Dr., "but it is only safe in moderation. You can't breath in there and you need to remove your head every once in a while to get a breath of fresh air. At this point, the presidents head has been up his ass so long that, at minimum, he has suffered severe brain damage. He might actually be dead at this point and we wouldn't even know it until we get the camera in there to see. At this point, our only hope is that his head is so far up his ass that he has actually made it up to the trachea and is able to get some air that way. While we have never seen someone with their head so far up their asses as to be able to do this, it would explain a lot about his policy decisions."
Prior attempts to get Bush's head out have been unsuccessful. Laura Bush has attempted to cajole Georges head out numerous times and Dr.s have tried using lubrication and a crow bar, but Bush is either unwilling or unable to get his head out of his ass. Bush was responsive to outside stimuli as late as December of 2006. Doctors could hear President Bush giggle if they placed a stethoscope on his abdomen and than told him a fart joke. Unfortunately, the president has been unresponsive to even 3rd grade underwear jokes during his last two examinations.
This story, unfortunately, is not limited to only the president explained Dr. Wittenberg. "We have seen an epidemic of people with their heads up there ass over the last 5 years." Recent estimates from the CDC place the number of Americans with the heads up there ass anywhere from 27-31% of the American population. While the numbers are high, this is down from approximately 51% of the population with their heads up their ass in November of 2004. "We are making progress," claimed the Dr., "but we still have a long way to go. While most of the American people have woken up to the dangers of leaving their heads up there ass, there is still a huge number of people that have been living with this condition for a very long time. We hope to be able to educate these remaining citizens so they too may once again live an ass free existence.
"Cross your fingers and pray," asked Dr. Wittenberg of the American people in regards to the presidents procedure, "Neither the president or the American people can survive much longer with the presidents head up his ass."
Bush to have colonoscopy at Camp David
Bush Will Temporarily Hand Reins To Cheney
Bush will be undergoing the procedure so doctors can attempt to extract President Bush's head from his ass.
Dr. Mark Wittenberg, White House Physician, will be performing the procedure on the President. "It is a fairly complicated procedure," explained the Dr., "at this point we don't know how far up his ass his head actually is or if we will be able to remove it successfully." Doctors became concerned about the presidents head up his ass due to the length of time it has been inserted. While the president has been known to stick his head up his ass on many occasions, usually it was never for more than a week at a time. But this currently, Bush's head last went up his ass April 21st, 2005 and has not been seen since.
"Sticking your head up your ass is a fairly common occurrence for politicians," further explained the Dr., "but it is only safe in moderation. You can't breath in there and you need to remove your head every once in a while to get a breath of fresh air. At this point, the presidents head has been up his ass so long that, at minimum, he has suffered severe brain damage. He might actually be dead at this point and we wouldn't even know it until we get the camera in there to see. At this point, our only hope is that his head is so far up his ass that he has actually made it up to the trachea and is able to get some air that way. While we have never seen someone with their head so far up their asses as to be able to do this, it would explain a lot about his policy decisions."
Prior attempts to get Bush's head out have been unsuccessful. Laura Bush has attempted to cajole Georges head out numerous times and Dr.s have tried using lubrication and a crow bar, but Bush is either unwilling or unable to get his head out of his ass. Bush was responsive to outside stimuli as late as December of 2006. Doctors could hear President Bush giggle if they placed a stethoscope on his abdomen and than told him a fart joke. Unfortunately, the president has been unresponsive to even 3rd grade underwear jokes during his last two examinations.
This story, unfortunately, is not limited to only the president explained Dr. Wittenberg. "We have seen an epidemic of people with their heads up there ass over the last 5 years." Recent estimates from the CDC place the number of Americans with the heads up there ass anywhere from 27-31% of the American population. While the numbers are high, this is down from approximately 51% of the population with their heads up their ass in November of 2004. "We are making progress," claimed the Dr., "but we still have a long way to go. While most of the American people have woken up to the dangers of leaving their heads up there ass, there is still a huge number of people that have been living with this condition for a very long time. We hope to be able to educate these remaining citizens so they too may once again live an ass free existence.
"Cross your fingers and pray," asked Dr. Wittenberg of the American people in regards to the presidents procedure, "Neither the president or the American people can survive much longer with the presidents head up his ass."
Bush to have colonoscopy at Camp David
Bush Will Temporarily Hand Reins To Cheney
Monday, March 26, 2007
As the Wheels Fall Off...
Not only is the bus the Bush is driving heading straight over a cliff, but it somehow has its wheels falling off at the same time. The question is, do all the wheels come off and the Bush administration become irrelevant prior to it going over the cliff, or is there enough momentum to carry the bus over the cliff regardless.
The U.S. prosecutor scandal continues to unravel in front of our eyes and the web of lies grows by the truck load.
Ironically, one of the aides to Alberto Gonzalez will invoke her civil liberties (the 5th amendment) and choose not to answer questions in front of congress on the grounds that she might incriminate herself, while at the same time, advancing the Bush administrations claim that no other person may seek the benefit of the constitution when it comes to trials, right to privacy, etc, etc, etc... Why not classify her as an enemy combatant. That way the same "interrogation" rules can be used on her to get the answers as they use in Gitmo. I suspect that this aide will crack once the first drop of water from her water boarding session hits her forehead. It amazes me that the people who do there best to discard the constitution are the first to invoke its protections once the heat is on them instead of the Quaker prayer groups that they are eavesdropping on.
Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
At the same time, Gonzalez was caught in more lies over the weekend as the justice department released more documents to the congress. It turns out that despite claiming that he never read anything or attended any meetings in regards to the firing of the 8 U.S. prosecutors, Gonzalez did in fact attend meeting ans read memos on the Rove/Meires scheme to install more lap dogs in the Justice department. If there is one person in the entire Bush administration that needs (and I emphasize needs) to be on the up and up, it is the Attorney General. We expect the president to play partisan games. We expect the congress to play partisan games. But the entire judicial system, from the judges to the prosecutors must be of the highest level of non-partisanship in order for this entire thing we call democracy to work.
The administration flaunting of the legal system, as well as democracy itself has even got a Republican Senator talking about the possibility of impeachment. Chuck Hagel came right out and said that this administration views its self as a monarchy.
Senator: Some see impeachment as option
This administration began its self destructive path a long time ago. The only question is will it destroy itself before it also destroys us.
The U.S. prosecutor scandal continues to unravel in front of our eyes and the web of lies grows by the truck load.
Ironically, one of the aides to Alberto Gonzalez will invoke her civil liberties (the 5th amendment) and choose not to answer questions in front of congress on the grounds that she might incriminate herself, while at the same time, advancing the Bush administrations claim that no other person may seek the benefit of the constitution when it comes to trials, right to privacy, etc, etc, etc... Why not classify her as an enemy combatant. That way the same "interrogation" rules can be used on her to get the answers as they use in Gitmo. I suspect that this aide will crack once the first drop of water from her water boarding session hits her forehead. It amazes me that the people who do there best to discard the constitution are the first to invoke its protections once the heat is on them instead of the Quaker prayer groups that they are eavesdropping on.
Gonzales aide to invoke Fifth Amendment
At the same time, Gonzalez was caught in more lies over the weekend as the justice department released more documents to the congress. It turns out that despite claiming that he never read anything or attended any meetings in regards to the firing of the 8 U.S. prosecutors, Gonzalez did in fact attend meeting ans read memos on the Rove/Meires scheme to install more lap dogs in the Justice department. If there is one person in the entire Bush administration that needs (and I emphasize needs) to be on the up and up, it is the Attorney General. We expect the president to play partisan games. We expect the congress to play partisan games. But the entire judicial system, from the judges to the prosecutors must be of the highest level of non-partisanship in order for this entire thing we call democracy to work.
The administration flaunting of the legal system, as well as democracy itself has even got a Republican Senator talking about the possibility of impeachment. Chuck Hagel came right out and said that this administration views its self as a monarchy.
Senator: Some see impeachment as option
This administration began its self destructive path a long time ago. The only question is will it destroy itself before it also destroys us.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Let the Battle Start
The House just issued subpoenas for white house officials in the U.S. prosecutor flap that has been going on over the past two weeks. This will likely make its way to the courts if the white house officials do not respond to the subpoenas.
Bush has already stated that he will not allow his personnel to testify under oath and in public, stating that it would set a precedent if he allowed his officials to testify under oath. Of course, this is a bunch of crap. Clinton had 31 of his staff testify on capital hill under oath.
Bush is additionally making the claim that executive privilege allows him to assert the right not to allow white house officials to testify. This is related to an executive privilege claim that the president should be able to get advice from his staff in a confidential manner. This claim is also short sighted since none of the information being sought was between the president and his staff, but between staff members.
Why is he so afraid of having this all out in the open? There are no national security issues involved.
Probably, just like every thing else in this administration, pure and unadulterated unethical behavior is involved in the whole affair. The white house claimed that the dismissals of the prosecutors was due to performance, but that has proven to be false. Five of the prosecutors that were fired were involved with corruption investigations. When one of the prosecutors opened up a new investigation into corruption charges against a Republican, an e-mail was sent the very next day to Gonzalez's chief of staff saying that there was a "problem" with that prosecutor.
Win or lose in the court, Bush loses in the long run. People are tired of this administrations secretive policies that hide everything from the American people. This only adds one more log to the fire of disbelief of president Bush.
House panel OKs Rove, Miers subpoenas
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
By voice vote, but with some "no" votes heard, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.
"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.
"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
(Full Story)
Bush has already stated that he will not allow his personnel to testify under oath and in public, stating that it would set a precedent if he allowed his officials to testify under oath. Of course, this is a bunch of crap. Clinton had 31 of his staff testify on capital hill under oath.
Bush is additionally making the claim that executive privilege allows him to assert the right not to allow white house officials to testify. This is related to an executive privilege claim that the president should be able to get advice from his staff in a confidential manner. This claim is also short sighted since none of the information being sought was between the president and his staff, but between staff members.
Why is he so afraid of having this all out in the open? There are no national security issues involved.
Probably, just like every thing else in this administration, pure and unadulterated unethical behavior is involved in the whole affair. The white house claimed that the dismissals of the prosecutors was due to performance, but that has proven to be false. Five of the prosecutors that were fired were involved with corruption investigations. When one of the prosecutors opened up a new investigation into corruption charges against a Republican, an e-mail was sent the very next day to Gonzalez's chief of staff saying that there was a "problem" with that prosecutor.
Win or lose in the court, Bush loses in the long run. People are tired of this administrations secretive policies that hide everything from the American people. This only adds one more log to the fire of disbelief of president Bush.
House panel OKs Rove, Miers subpoenas
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.
By voice vote, but with some "no" votes heard, the House Judiciary subcommittee on commercial and administrative law decided to compel the president's top aides to testify publicly and under oath about their roles in the firings.
The White House has refused to budge in the controversy, standing by embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and insisting that the firings were appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that in offering aides to talk to the committees privately, Bush had sought to avoid the "media spectacle" that would result from public hearings with Rove and others at the witness table.
"The question they've got to ask themselves is, are you more interested in a political spectacle than getting the truth?" Snow said of the overture Tuesday by the White House via its top lawyer, Fred Fielding.
"There must be accountability," countered subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sanchez (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
(Full Story)
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Libby Found Guilty
I haven't had much time for bloggin lately, but this deserves a mention.
Libby has just been found guilty on 4 out of the 5 indictments in the CIA/Valerie Plame leak case. He was acquitted on one count of lying to the FBI.
My prediction, Libby will stay out of jail while this is appealed. Another 6 months to a year later, his conviction will be upheld, just in time for Bush to pardon him after the '08 election.
Libby has just been found guilty on 4 out of the 5 indictments in the CIA/Valerie Plame leak case. He was acquitted on one count of lying to the FBI.
My prediction, Libby will stay out of jail while this is appealed. Another 6 months to a year later, his conviction will be upheld, just in time for Bush to pardon him after the '08 election.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Pre-War Intelligence Manipulated?
Never? I am so surprised! I would never have thunk it possible!
Yeah, that is about as surprising as finding out that Strom Thurman liked the dark meat.
In a report just out by the Defense Department's inspector general, it basically says that the link between Iraq and al-Qaida was fabricated in order to fit the presidents desire to invade Iraq. Go figure...
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON - A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to linkSaddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."
The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal. The report was to be presented to Levin's panel at a hearing Friday.
The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that. Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.
(Full Story)
Yeah, that is about as surprising as finding out that Strom Thurman liked the dark meat.
In a report just out by the Defense Department's inspector general, it basically says that the link between Iraq and al-Qaida was fabricated in order to fit the presidents desire to invade Iraq. Go figure...
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON - A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to linkSaddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."
The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal. The report was to be presented to Levin's panel at a hearing Friday.
The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that. Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.
(Full Story)
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Idiot In Chief
details about this are sketchy at this time, but it appears that the U.S. military has raided the Iranian consulate in Iraq, seized documents and computers, and arrested six Iranian diplomats.
With all the really, really stupid crap this president has pulled off over the years, I didn't think anything he did could surprise me any more... but, leave it to Dubya to pull a Gomer Pile and do something even dumber than before.
At this point, we have no idea how many international laws the Bush Administration has just violated. At the very least, we are in violation of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. If we have violated more, I don't know right now. But, Article 22 expressly states that the embassy or consulates may not be entered under any circumstance without the express permission of the diplomatic mission. Additionally, no papers, materials or communications can be seized at any time.
We all know about diplomatic immunity. The amount of immunity that is granted to a person is dependant on his/her rank. An ambassador is untouchable. A custodian head is arrestable. A consulate staff employee is only arrestable for a felony and pursuant to a warrant. I am assuming that if we stormed the consulate, we are probably not paying to much attention to the diplomatic immunity of the people either.
So, basically, we have just done what Iran did to us 25 years ago. Not only have we given up the high hand in that relationship, we just opened up every U.S. embassy and consulate in the world to being stormed and having our diplomats arrested. But, we all know that Bush can't think past lunch time, so the fact that he is endangering our own citizens probably never even crossed his mind.
Like I said, details are sketchy. I will be looking to see if there was a good explanation to this.
U.S. Forces Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq, Detain 5 (Update2)
By Marc Wolfensberger and Robin Stringer
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.
The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats.
The raid follows a warning yesterday to Iran and Syria from President George W. Bush in his address to the American people on a new strategy for Iraq. Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the movement of ``terrorists and insurgents'' in and out of Iraq and said the U.S. will ``seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.''
Coalition forces arrested six people during ``routine security operations'' in the Arbil area, the U.S. military said in an e-mailed statement. The military didn't confirm that the consulate was raided and didn't say whether any of those detained were Iranians.
The operation was ``part of an ongoing effort by coalition forces targeting individuals involved in activities aimed at the killing of Iraqi citizens and coalition forces,'' the military said.
(Full Story)
With all the really, really stupid crap this president has pulled off over the years, I didn't think anything he did could surprise me any more... but, leave it to Dubya to pull a Gomer Pile and do something even dumber than before.
At this point, we have no idea how many international laws the Bush Administration has just violated. At the very least, we are in violation of Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. If we have violated more, I don't know right now. But, Article 22 expressly states that the embassy or consulates may not be entered under any circumstance without the express permission of the diplomatic mission. Additionally, no papers, materials or communications can be seized at any time.
We all know about diplomatic immunity. The amount of immunity that is granted to a person is dependant on his/her rank. An ambassador is untouchable. A custodian head is arrestable. A consulate staff employee is only arrestable for a felony and pursuant to a warrant. I am assuming that if we stormed the consulate, we are probably not paying to much attention to the diplomatic immunity of the people either.
So, basically, we have just done what Iran did to us 25 years ago. Not only have we given up the high hand in that relationship, we just opened up every U.S. embassy and consulate in the world to being stormed and having our diplomats arrested. But, we all know that Bush can't think past lunch time, so the fact that he is endangering our own citizens probably never even crossed his mind.
Like I said, details are sketchy. I will be looking to see if there was a good explanation to this.
U.S. Forces Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq, Detain 5 (Update2)
By Marc Wolfensberger and Robin Stringer
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.
The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats.
The raid follows a warning yesterday to Iran and Syria from President George W. Bush in his address to the American people on a new strategy for Iraq. Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the movement of ``terrorists and insurgents'' in and out of Iraq and said the U.S. will ``seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.''
Coalition forces arrested six people during ``routine security operations'' in the Arbil area, the U.S. military said in an e-mailed statement. The military didn't confirm that the consulate was raided and didn't say whether any of those detained were Iranians.
The operation was ``part of an ongoing effort by coalition forces targeting individuals involved in activities aimed at the killing of Iraqi citizens and coalition forces,'' the military said.
(Full Story)
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Why Do Today What You Can Put Off Until Tomorrow
Yesterday, President Bush stated that he will put off announcing his plans for changes in his Iraq policy until after the new year. As of right now, we have gone into a "new way forward."
And by a new way forward, he means a new way forward... to a new slogan.
Seriously, if they had put as much time into actually planning and executing the war as they put into coming up with new catchy slogans, we might have been able to win this thing.
First it was "Mission Accomplished" - Well, turns out that the mission wasn't accomplished, so they had to scrap that.
Then they moved to "The Next Phase" - Unfortunately, the next phase was a phase into insurgency.
After that, we had "Stay the Course" - Again, that course was right over a cliff
Then came "Adapt and Change" - This, of course, referred to the Bush administrations slogans and not actually policy. The policy remained stay the course. The only thing adapted or changed was Bush's catch phrase.
Now, it is "A New Way Forward" - Again, this appears only to be a way forward to a new slogan. He just needed enough time for his PR team to come up with a new slogan... Because, you know... a good slogan solves everything.
I am thinking the next one will be "What? Like You've Got a Better Idea" - But then again, I think Mrs. Harding's 3rd grade class could actually come up with a better idea, so that might not be a good one.
"It's A Hard Job Being the President" has already been used, so that is right out the window.
With any luck, then next slogan will be "Whatever Dude! I Quit!"
And by a new way forward, he means a new way forward... to a new slogan.
Seriously, if they had put as much time into actually planning and executing the war as they put into coming up with new catchy slogans, we might have been able to win this thing.
First it was "Mission Accomplished" - Well, turns out that the mission wasn't accomplished, so they had to scrap that.
Then they moved to "The Next Phase" - Unfortunately, the next phase was a phase into insurgency.
After that, we had "Stay the Course" - Again, that course was right over a cliff
Then came "Adapt and Change" - This, of course, referred to the Bush administrations slogans and not actually policy. The policy remained stay the course. The only thing adapted or changed was Bush's catch phrase.
Now, it is "A New Way Forward" - Again, this appears only to be a way forward to a new slogan. He just needed enough time for his PR team to come up with a new slogan... Because, you know... a good slogan solves everything.
I am thinking the next one will be "What? Like You've Got a Better Idea" - But then again, I think Mrs. Harding's 3rd grade class could actually come up with a better idea, so that might not be a good one.
"It's A Hard Job Being the President" has already been used, so that is right out the window.
With any luck, then next slogan will be "Whatever Dude! I Quit!"
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Irony Is Not Just A River In Egypt
On the heels of Bush's cross country campaign against the "Cut and Run" democrats, Bush is now on a three nation tour of the far east.
One of those nation that Bush will be visiting is Vietnam. The irony of this trip could not be greater. Bush spent two solid months of crisscrossing this country, begging and pleading for people to return a Republican majority to the Congress. He bellowed over and over that a Democratically controlled congress will cut and run from Iraq and the world will come to a quick and decisive end, and now he is visiting Vietnam...
Vietnam is the last major conflict in which we cut and run. It was said that the whole of the far east would fall to communism. The American way of life would be jeopardized.
Now, 25 years later, Bush is attending a conference in Hanoi. Americans and Europeans flock as tourist to the same beaches that we "fled" from a generation earlier. The American way of life was preserved despite the pro-war faction's predictions. Post war analysis has pretty much definitively determined that the war in Vietnam would never have been winnable without 50,000 more American lives lost. 25 years since we cut and ran and the world didn't end.
The is because cut and run is not the end of the world. It wasn't then, and it is not now.
If Truman had cut and run in 1950 from the Korean war as soon as the status quo had been regained and the North Koreans had been pushed back to the 38th parallel, it would have saved 10,000 American lives. Instead, he decided to push the North Koreans all the way to China which ended up extending the war by three years. In the end, we ended up with the same result as we would have if we had just ended the war in 1950.
I have never advocated an immediate pullout of American troops. But lets stop the idiotic propaganda war of saying that cut and run is un-patriotic. Sometimes, cut and run is the best and most viable option. If you are down $20,000 at the poker table, is it really manly to keep on betting and lose the house as well? If we stop the name calling and the fake patriotic machismo, maybe we can finally have an honest discussion about how to best conduct the war in Iraq and the war on terror. From a purely global strategic position, cut and run might be the very best thing for the American people, the Iraqi people, and the War on Terror.
One of those nation that Bush will be visiting is Vietnam. The irony of this trip could not be greater. Bush spent two solid months of crisscrossing this country, begging and pleading for people to return a Republican majority to the Congress. He bellowed over and over that a Democratically controlled congress will cut and run from Iraq and the world will come to a quick and decisive end, and now he is visiting Vietnam...
Vietnam is the last major conflict in which we cut and run. It was said that the whole of the far east would fall to communism. The American way of life would be jeopardized.
Now, 25 years later, Bush is attending a conference in Hanoi. Americans and Europeans flock as tourist to the same beaches that we "fled" from a generation earlier. The American way of life was preserved despite the pro-war faction's predictions. Post war analysis has pretty much definitively determined that the war in Vietnam would never have been winnable without 50,000 more American lives lost. 25 years since we cut and ran and the world didn't end.
The is because cut and run is not the end of the world. It wasn't then, and it is not now.
If Truman had cut and run in 1950 from the Korean war as soon as the status quo had been regained and the North Koreans had been pushed back to the 38th parallel, it would have saved 10,000 American lives. Instead, he decided to push the North Koreans all the way to China which ended up extending the war by three years. In the end, we ended up with the same result as we would have if we had just ended the war in 1950.
I have never advocated an immediate pullout of American troops. But lets stop the idiotic propaganda war of saying that cut and run is un-patriotic. Sometimes, cut and run is the best and most viable option. If you are down $20,000 at the poker table, is it really manly to keep on betting and lose the house as well? If we stop the name calling and the fake patriotic machismo, maybe we can finally have an honest discussion about how to best conduct the war in Iraq and the war on terror. From a purely global strategic position, cut and run might be the very best thing for the American people, the Iraqi people, and the War on Terror.
Bush's War On America Continues
Despite being thoroughly rejected in the polls last week, King George's war on America continues. Bush has declared that the recent law that allows him to hold detainees indefinitely in Cuba also applies to all immigrants, legal or illegal residing or visiting the United States. Any person that the Bush Administration declares to be an enemy combatant can be rounded up and detained forever with no right to a trial or to legal counsel of any sort. This means Mexican immigrants who came over the border yesterday, as well as your grandmother who came here from the old country 50 years ago.
The wing nuts out there will be saying, "but it only applies to the bad guys." Well, how the hell do we know it only applies to the bad guys if there is no way for the imprisoned person to ever confront the accusers and present evidence in court of their innocence.
Once a person is rounded up, the government does not have to present a single shred of evidence that the person being detained is or ever was a threat to the United States. If the person is ever tired, they would be tried in front of a military tribunal where the government cannot be forced to ever disclose the evidence against the accused.
What kind of fascist state is he trying to turn this country into? This is obscene in every aspect and is a slap in the face of our founding fathers. This country is based on the rule of law. If was based on principles of order and justice. Bush is throwing that all out the window. How do we say that we are spreading democracy and freedom around the world when we are turning this country into a police state.
US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 6:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.
In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.
That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al-Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration violations or for other crimes.
"It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."
(Full Story)
The wing nuts out there will be saying, "but it only applies to the bad guys." Well, how the hell do we know it only applies to the bad guys if there is no way for the imprisoned person to ever confront the accusers and present evidence in court of their innocence.
Once a person is rounded up, the government does not have to present a single shred of evidence that the person being detained is or ever was a threat to the United States. If the person is ever tired, they would be tried in front of a military tribunal where the government cannot be forced to ever disclose the evidence against the accused.
What kind of fascist state is he trying to turn this country into? This is obscene in every aspect and is a slap in the face of our founding fathers. This country is based on the rule of law. If was based on principles of order and justice. Bush is throwing that all out the window. How do we say that we are spreading democracy and freedom around the world when we are turning this country into a police state.
US: Immigrants may be held indefinitely
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 14, 6:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.
In court documents filed with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., the Justice Department said a new anti-terrorism law being used to hold detainees in Guantanamo Bay also applies to foreigners captured and held in the United States.
Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar, was arrested in 2001 while studying in the United States. He has been labeled an "enemy combatant," a designation that, under a law signed last month, strips foreigners of the right to challenge their detention in federal courts.
That law is being used to argue the Guantanamo Bay cases, but Al-Marri represents the first detainee inside the United States to come under the new law. Aliens normally have the right to contest their imprisonment, such as when they are arrested on immigration violations or for other crimes.
"It's pretty stunning that any alien living in the United States can be denied this right," said Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney for Al-Marri. "It means any non-citizen, and there are millions of them, can be whisked off at night and be put in detention."
(Full Story)
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Rumsfeld Resigns
It is officially a very very good day. The bum is out on his ass. I don't feel bad for him. I am sure that he will land a very lucrative job with Haliburton in about 45 seconds.
I am quite shocked that Rumsfeld is gone. Bush is so damn stubborn that I thought he would hold on to him until the bitter end. Afterall, it was only a week ago that Bush said he would keep Rumsfeld regardless of what people thought of the failing war in Iraq. Is this just another Bush flip-flop? I guess Bush was for Rumsfled before he was against him.
There are two possible reasons for his resignation.
The first is because of the election results. The message sent by the American people was that they have no confidence in the Republican leadership of the country. Bush can be stubborn for only so long. Sooner or later he must wake up and smell the grime. He (or should I say his advisers know) that it will be very difficult for the Bush Administration to deal with the Democratically controlled congress with Rumsfeld in office.
The second, is that it will give the Bush administration some breathing room on the war in Iraq. With a new person coming in, the democrats are almost obliged to let the new person have a shot at it before putting more pressure on the Administration to pull out troops.
It was clear that Rumsfeld was ineffectual as DOD Secretary and the democratic victory made him even more irrelevant. Either way, this is a victory for the American people, and most of all, the troops fighting in Iraq.
GOP says Rumsfeld is stepping down
I am quite shocked that Rumsfeld is gone. Bush is so damn stubborn that I thought he would hold on to him until the bitter end. Afterall, it was only a week ago that Bush said he would keep Rumsfeld regardless of what people thought of the failing war in Iraq. Is this just another Bush flip-flop? I guess Bush was for Rumsfled before he was against him.
There are two possible reasons for his resignation.
The first is because of the election results. The message sent by the American people was that they have no confidence in the Republican leadership of the country. Bush can be stubborn for only so long. Sooner or later he must wake up and smell the grime. He (or should I say his advisers know) that it will be very difficult for the Bush Administration to deal with the Democratically controlled congress with Rumsfeld in office.
The second, is that it will give the Bush administration some breathing room on the war in Iraq. With a new person coming in, the democrats are almost obliged to let the new person have a shot at it before putting more pressure on the Administration to pull out troops.
It was clear that Rumsfeld was ineffectual as DOD Secretary and the democratic victory made him even more irrelevant. Either way, this is a victory for the American people, and most of all, the troops fighting in Iraq.
GOP says Rumsfeld is stepping down
It Sucks To be the King
It has got to be a sad day for King George. For all intensive purposes, he got a vote of no confidence from the American people yesterday during the mid term election. An anti-mandate was issued for his policies on domestic and foreign affairs. In the end, there will be about a 32 seat pick up in the House of Representatives for the Democrats. In the Senate, where no one thought that the Dems would pick up the six needed seats, the Dems took control. There is no other way to describe this than a massive blow out for the Republicans. The GOP pundits are trying to spin this anyway they can, but even the die-hard Freepers know what this was all about.
For me, the birds are chirping... the air is fresher... although, the latter could be due to the Clean Air Act being enforced again.
The American people sent a clear message. They are tired of the corruption, they are tired of the lies, they are tired of right wing extremist trying to impose their will on the rest of us, they are tired of incompetence, and the are really tired of George "stay the course" Bush. The message was so clear and convincing that as I writer this, Rusfled is getting canned (GOP says Rumsfeld is stepping down).
Karl Rove's belief that you could build a permanent majority by running a 51% divide and conquer style campaign has finally come to an end. First of all, no majority is ever permanent. Second, a majority built on 51% tactics is even more fragile.
I am guessing that Bush is ruing the fact that he claimed that a vote for a democrat is a vote for terrorist. He now has to deal with the democrats who control the legislative agenda.
I am also guessing that the Republicans who still have jobs are second guessing the way that they treated democrats over the past 6 years. Republicans who were in the majority blocked democrats from participating in the legislative process in all aspects other than the actual voting on bills.
The three GOP senators that I wanted to see lose the most all lost. That is Santorum of Pennsylvania, Burns of Montana, and Allen of Virginia. I think I wanted to see Allen lose the most out of all three of them. He is such a slimy guy. I feel that I need to take a shower after just watching him on TV.
I hope that the Dems hold up their end of the bargin and deliver on what they promised. I also hope that they treat the republicans with the respect that they failed to treat us. Just because we won does not mean we should play down to their level.
A Voter Rebuke For Bush, the War And the Right
For me, the birds are chirping... the air is fresher... although, the latter could be due to the Clean Air Act being enforced again.
The American people sent a clear message. They are tired of the corruption, they are tired of the lies, they are tired of right wing extremist trying to impose their will on the rest of us, they are tired of incompetence, and the are really tired of George "stay the course" Bush. The message was so clear and convincing that as I writer this, Rusfled is getting canned (GOP says Rumsfeld is stepping down).
Karl Rove's belief that you could build a permanent majority by running a 51% divide and conquer style campaign has finally come to an end. First of all, no majority is ever permanent. Second, a majority built on 51% tactics is even more fragile.
I am guessing that Bush is ruing the fact that he claimed that a vote for a democrat is a vote for terrorist. He now has to deal with the democrats who control the legislative agenda.
I am also guessing that the Republicans who still have jobs are second guessing the way that they treated democrats over the past 6 years. Republicans who were in the majority blocked democrats from participating in the legislative process in all aspects other than the actual voting on bills.
The three GOP senators that I wanted to see lose the most all lost. That is Santorum of Pennsylvania, Burns of Montana, and Allen of Virginia. I think I wanted to see Allen lose the most out of all three of them. He is such a slimy guy. I feel that I need to take a shower after just watching him on TV.
I hope that the Dems hold up their end of the bargin and deliver on what they promised. I also hope that they treat the republicans with the respect that they failed to treat us. Just because we won does not mean we should play down to their level.
A Voter Rebuke For Bush, the War And the Right
Monday, November 06, 2006
Bush Blames Republican Congress
Bush today blamed the Republican congress for posting the Iraqi blueprints for a nuclear weapon on the web. He claims that he was pressured by congress to post the seized documents on the web so conservatives could peruse the documents in hopes that they still might find a smoking gun.
So, Bush is willing to use signing statements to allow torture and numerous other "programs" in the name of national security, regardless of congress laws, but he is willing to post nuclear material because the GOP threatened to propose a bill that would require him to post the documents.
Yeah, that ain't fly'n. Does he have "presidential powers" to protect us or not. I thought congress couldn't "tell him noth'n." I am confused.
U.S. shuts Web site said to reveal nuclear guide: report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has shut down a Web site it set up in March containing documents captured during the Iraq war after experts raised concerns it offered a guide to building an atom bomb, the New York Times reported.
It said the Bush administration started the site under pressure from congressional Republicans who hoped to use the Internet to find new evidence of dangers posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
(Full Story)
So, Bush is willing to use signing statements to allow torture and numerous other "programs" in the name of national security, regardless of congress laws, but he is willing to post nuclear material because the GOP threatened to propose a bill that would require him to post the documents.
Yeah, that ain't fly'n. Does he have "presidential powers" to protect us or not. I thought congress couldn't "tell him noth'n." I am confused.
U.S. shuts Web site said to reveal nuclear guide: report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government has shut down a Web site it set up in March containing documents captured during the Iraq war after experts raised concerns it offered a guide to building an atom bomb, the New York Times reported.
It said the Bush administration started the site under pressure from congressional Republicans who hoped to use the Internet to find new evidence of dangers posed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
(Full Story)
Sunday, November 05, 2006
With the Writing on the Wall... Bush Looks at His Feet
Things are really really bad for the Bush Iraq policy when the most ardent of supporters, the king of the Neo-cons, Richard Pearle, is saying that the presidents policy is failed and he is completely incompetent.
Iraq war proponents decry administration
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Sat Nov 4, 5:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.
Even worse is when the Military Times, et al, the news papers dedicated to the military branches and their issues, are calling for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld. None the less, Dick Cheney was on the Sunday morning Talking Heads saying that the Iraq policy will continue full steam ahead without change.
Time for Rumsfeld to go
“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
Iraq war proponents decry administration
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Sat Nov 4, 5:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.
Even worse is when the Military Times, et al, the news papers dedicated to the military branches and their issues, are calling for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld. None the less, Dick Cheney was on the Sunday morning Talking Heads saying that the Iraq policy will continue full steam ahead without change.
Time for Rumsfeld to go
“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Enough Already
Enough with he righteous indignation coming from the right wing already over Kerry's comments. Yes, what he said was extremely stupid and probably did offend some people.
But enough with the righteous indignation. Anyone who grew up during Viet Nam and either severed solely due to the draft or received a deferment due to being in school knows exactly what he he was talking about and know that he was right on point.
We should all be proud of the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq. And they should all be proud to serve in an all volunteer army. But anyone who tries to make the claim that the bulk of the armed forces in the direct line of fire throughout the history of warfare is not made up primarily of the lesser educated and low to lower-middle class either lying or living in an alternate reality.
For millennia, the armies of the world have been made up of those who have fewer alternatives for a prosperous future than those with an education or wealth. During Viet Nam, the war that Bush opted out of, it was the uneducated that were drafted. The rich who could pull strings and those who were in college were the ones who had a choice. Bush had a choice not to fight... Cheney had a choice not to fight... Limbaugh had a choice not to fight. The average high school grad working in the steel mill had no choice. He had to fight.
Yes, there are plenty of educated men and women who are serving in Iraq right now. But, I read the names of those soldiers who have fallen in Iraq every night. You don't see General and Majors in the titles. You see PFC and Sgt's. Lets face it. Even if you do volunteer for the army. If you have a college degree or higher, the chances of you being killed in Iraq is substantially lower.
This is an all volunteer army, but which high schools do the military recruiters target? The ones where 90% of the grads have been accepted to college or those which the kids are lucky if they go on to one semester at the local community college? There is a reason that the military targets the lesser educated. Because they know that they have fewer options.
When Edwards mentioned that Cheney's daughter was gay, there was the same outrage given by the right. Two days ago, Bush publicly declared gay Americans are less equal and less deserving of equal protection of the law than heterosexual Americans. Where was the outrage over that? Hmmm?
So spare me the sanctimonious crap. Kerry was speaking the truth. And you all know it. You are just looking for any excuse to be able to lay your anger over the botched "American Democracy Experiment" on anyone other that the people who deserve it. Was Kerry's comment stupid? Yes, but what is really insulting to the troops is the way that Bush has waged this war.
Bush Calls Kerry Remarks Insulting to U.S. Troops
Kerry Apologizes, Calls Remarks a 'Botched Joke'
But enough with the righteous indignation. Anyone who grew up during Viet Nam and either severed solely due to the draft or received a deferment due to being in school knows exactly what he he was talking about and know that he was right on point.
We should all be proud of the soldiers who are fighting in Iraq. And they should all be proud to serve in an all volunteer army. But anyone who tries to make the claim that the bulk of the armed forces in the direct line of fire throughout the history of warfare is not made up primarily of the lesser educated and low to lower-middle class either lying or living in an alternate reality.
For millennia, the armies of the world have been made up of those who have fewer alternatives for a prosperous future than those with an education or wealth. During Viet Nam, the war that Bush opted out of, it was the uneducated that were drafted. The rich who could pull strings and those who were in college were the ones who had a choice. Bush had a choice not to fight... Cheney had a choice not to fight... Limbaugh had a choice not to fight. The average high school grad working in the steel mill had no choice. He had to fight.
Yes, there are plenty of educated men and women who are serving in Iraq right now. But, I read the names of those soldiers who have fallen in Iraq every night. You don't see General and Majors in the titles. You see PFC and Sgt's. Lets face it. Even if you do volunteer for the army. If you have a college degree or higher, the chances of you being killed in Iraq is substantially lower.
This is an all volunteer army, but which high schools do the military recruiters target? The ones where 90% of the grads have been accepted to college or those which the kids are lucky if they go on to one semester at the local community college? There is a reason that the military targets the lesser educated. Because they know that they have fewer options.
When Edwards mentioned that Cheney's daughter was gay, there was the same outrage given by the right. Two days ago, Bush publicly declared gay Americans are less equal and less deserving of equal protection of the law than heterosexual Americans. Where was the outrage over that? Hmmm?
So spare me the sanctimonious crap. Kerry was speaking the truth. And you all know it. You are just looking for any excuse to be able to lay your anger over the botched "American Democracy Experiment" on anyone other that the people who deserve it. Was Kerry's comment stupid? Yes, but what is really insulting to the troops is the way that Bush has waged this war.
Bush Calls Kerry Remarks Insulting to U.S. Troops
Kerry Apologizes, Calls Remarks a 'Botched Joke'
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Intellectual Dishonesty
Yesterday, George "Stay the Course" Bush, came out swinging against the recent decision in the New Jersey State Supreme court saying that homosexual couples must be given the same state rights as heterosexual couples.
Right off the bat, Bush decides to leave intellectual honesty at the door.
First, the state of New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that everyone must be treated equally. How does any president who is sworn to uphold the constitution stand behind a podium and claim that it is their political platform to make one class of Americans inferior to others. It is not hard to understand the words "equal protection of the law." It is an easy concept... seriously... it just means if you give certain legal rights to one group of people, you have to afford that same rights to similar other groups. How is this not a fundamental principal that Bush is 100% behind.
Second, the State of New Jersey Supreme Court did not rule that homosexuals must be given the right to marry. The one and only thing they said was that homosexual couples must be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. That means they must be given the same rights to survivorship and state benefits. This can be done as a civil union or marriage. The Court left that decision up to the legislature to decide.
This ruling was anything but an activist decision. The court did exactly what the president wanted. They strictly interpreted the law. In fact, if the court ruled the opposite way, that same-sex couples do not deserve the same rights, that would be an activist court because the court is ignoring the law. You can't expect the court to ignore the law just because the thought of two men sleeping together gives you the willies.
Ironically, the religious people that Bush panders to on this issue are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. For a government to legislate that marriage is between only a man and a women are infringing upon religious freedoms. They are encouraging the state to define religion and how you can practice your personal faith.
Bush can do nothing other than to play to the base fears of conservatives. He is being intellectually dishonest and in in no form or manner a leader upholding the Constitution of the United States.
"For decades, activist judges have tried to redefine America by court order," Bush said Monday. "Just this last week in New Jersey, another activist court issued a ruling that raises doubt about the institution of marriage. We believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and should be defended."
- Bush hits hard at gay marriage
Right off the bat, Bush decides to leave intellectual honesty at the door.
First, the state of New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that everyone must be treated equally. How does any president who is sworn to uphold the constitution stand behind a podium and claim that it is their political platform to make one class of Americans inferior to others. It is not hard to understand the words "equal protection of the law." It is an easy concept... seriously... it just means if you give certain legal rights to one group of people, you have to afford that same rights to similar other groups. How is this not a fundamental principal that Bush is 100% behind.
HELD: Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married
heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. The Court holds
that under the equal protection guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, committed samesex
couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the
civil marriage statutes. The name to be given to the statutory scheme that provides full rights and benefits to samesex
couples, whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process.
Second, the State of New Jersey Supreme Court did not rule that homosexuals must be given the right to marry. The one and only thing they said was that homosexual couples must be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. That means they must be given the same rights to survivorship and state benefits. This can be done as a civil union or marriage. The Court left that decision up to the legislature to decide.
"I believe I should continue to appoint judges who strictly interpret the law and not legislate from the bench," the president said, earning more applause in the sweltering basketball arena at Georgia Southern University.
This ruling was anything but an activist decision. The court did exactly what the president wanted. They strictly interpreted the law. In fact, if the court ruled the opposite way, that same-sex couples do not deserve the same rights, that would be an activist court because the court is ignoring the law. You can't expect the court to ignore the law just because the thought of two men sleeping together gives you the willies.
Ironically, the religious people that Bush panders to on this issue are shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. For a government to legislate that marriage is between only a man and a women are infringing upon religious freedoms. They are encouraging the state to define religion and how you can practice your personal faith.
Bush can do nothing other than to play to the base fears of conservatives. He is being intellectually dishonest and in in no form or manner a leader upholding the Constitution of the United States.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Cutting and Staying... Errr... Running the Course... Errr
So, Bush is cutting and running... from staying the course... kind of.
Bush has decided to no longer use the term "stay the course." But that doesn't mean that we are not staying the course. No, we are in fact staying the course, just no longer using that term. (Bush's New Tack Steers Clear of 'Stay the Course', Bush officials: No big move in Iraq plan).
Since the course we are staying on is going right over a waterfall, the White house has decided to change the terminology used to explain his failed policies. After all, failure is fine as long as there is a nifty new catch phrase to accompany it. I think they are going to use something like "adapt and change." And by "adapt and change" they mean "stay the course." I hear that adapt and change just elbowed out "don't look at me" and "its hard being the president" for Bush's new slogans. Thankfully, Bush's favorite, "slap me in the ass and call me Judy," was nixed outright.
Additionally, the White House still refuses to set a time line for the take over of Iraq security forces and the withdrawal of American troops... except that we are now setting a time line for the withdrawal of American troops and the take over of American troops (Iraq agrees to develop security time line)
So we are no longer staying the course... only that we are not changing course. And we are not setting time lines... except for the time lines now being set... kind of... but not really.
Does he really wonder why no one believes that he has a plan to win in Iraq? They can't even articulate the basics. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who will buy the shiny new box with the same old product inside.
Bush has decided to no longer use the term "stay the course." But that doesn't mean that we are not staying the course. No, we are in fact staying the course, just no longer using that term. (Bush's New Tack Steers Clear of 'Stay the Course', Bush officials: No big move in Iraq plan).
Since the course we are staying on is going right over a waterfall, the White house has decided to change the terminology used to explain his failed policies. After all, failure is fine as long as there is a nifty new catch phrase to accompany it. I think they are going to use something like "adapt and change." And by "adapt and change" they mean "stay the course." I hear that adapt and change just elbowed out "don't look at me" and "its hard being the president" for Bush's new slogans. Thankfully, Bush's favorite, "slap me in the ass and call me Judy," was nixed outright.
Additionally, the White House still refuses to set a time line for the take over of Iraq security forces and the withdrawal of American troops... except that we are now setting a time line for the withdrawal of American troops and the take over of American troops (Iraq agrees to develop security time line)
So we are no longer staying the course... only that we are not changing course. And we are not setting time lines... except for the time lines now being set... kind of... but not really.
Does he really wonder why no one believes that he has a plan to win in Iraq? They can't even articulate the basics. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who will buy the shiny new box with the same old product inside.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
A Call For Darfur
Liberal and conservative evangelicals have put aside their difference in order to call for President Bush to do more to help stop the genocide in Darfur. Christians have been at the call for action, standing side by side with secular humanist.
So far, the congress has been a lot of talk with no action. Four bills written to help the victims in Darfur and to punish the Sudan government have languished in committees. Bush has not only done nothing to stop the genocide, he has actually lifted some sanctions against the government of Sudan placed on them during the Clinton administration. He even made it legal for Sudan to hire lobbyists in Washington.
Enough is enough. The time to act is now.
Evangelicals lobby Bush on Sudan crisis
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer
Wed Oct 18, 5:06 PM ET
Liberal and conservative evangelicals set aside their political differences Wednesday to urge that President Bush do more to end the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan.
The Rev. Jim Wallis, head of the liberal Sojourners/Call to Renewal, an evangelical social justice movement, and the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, are among the leaders of the Evangelicals for Darfur campaign.
"I believe the president does care deeply about this," said Land, a longtime Bush family supporter. "I see this as helping strengthen the president's hand and enable the president to do what's in his heart to do."
The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Religious groups from many faiths have been lobbying world leaders to help the Sudanese since rebel groups rose up against the Khartoum government in early 2003. More than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced since then, escalating the situation into one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
But Wallis said world attention to the region has been sporadic, and evangelical leaders think time is running out to prevent what many consider government-backed genocide. The Sudanese government is accused of letting the Janjaweed militia of Arab nomads commit atrocities against villagers.
"Until we resolve this, we can't stop talking about it," Wallis said.
(Full story)
So far, the congress has been a lot of talk with no action. Four bills written to help the victims in Darfur and to punish the Sudan government have languished in committees. Bush has not only done nothing to stop the genocide, he has actually lifted some sanctions against the government of Sudan placed on them during the Clinton administration. He even made it legal for Sudan to hire lobbyists in Washington.
Enough is enough. The time to act is now.
Evangelicals lobby Bush on Sudan crisis
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer
Wed Oct 18, 5:06 PM ET
Liberal and conservative evangelicals set aside their political differences Wednesday to urge that President Bush do more to end the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan.
The Rev. Jim Wallis, head of the liberal Sojourners/Call to Renewal, an evangelical social justice movement, and the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, are among the leaders of the Evangelicals for Darfur campaign.
"I believe the president does care deeply about this," said Land, a longtime Bush family supporter. "I see this as helping strengthen the president's hand and enable the president to do what's in his heart to do."
The White House press office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Religious groups from many faiths have been lobbying world leaders to help the Sudanese since rebel groups rose up against the Khartoum government in early 2003. More than 200,000 people have died and 2.5 million have been displaced since then, escalating the situation into one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
But Wallis said world attention to the region has been sporadic, and evangelical leaders think time is running out to prevent what many consider government-backed genocide. The Sudanese government is accused of letting the Janjaweed militia of Arab nomads commit atrocities against villagers.
"Until we resolve this, we can't stop talking about it," Wallis said.
(Full story)
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Iraq Is On Double Secret Probation
According to the nutty GOP Senator our of Montana, Conrad Burns, president Bush has a double secret plan to win the war in Iraq... he is just not telling anyone about it. Because... you know... when support for the war is at an all time low and you are risking losing the House of Representatives and the Senate... that is the time to keep the winning plan a secret.
I am so sure that Bush called Burns up a couple of weeks ago and they sat down for a late night warm milk where the two brain children came up with the winning strategy in Iraq. They just are way to humble to announce that they have found the solution to not only the war in Iraq, but the national debt, social security, global warming, and crab grass in addition.
Burns: President keeping war plan quiet
Burns, at a debate Tuesday night with Democratic challenger Jon Tester, said he believes Bush has a plan to win — but added: "we're not going to tell you what our plan is."
I am so sure that Bush called Burns up a couple of weeks ago and they sat down for a late night warm milk where the two brain children came up with the winning strategy in Iraq. They just are way to humble to announce that they have found the solution to not only the war in Iraq, but the national debt, social security, global warming, and crab grass in addition.
Burns: President keeping war plan quiet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
