Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.
They have pissed off the Blacks voters,
They have pissed off the Hispanic voters.
They have pissed off the anti-war independent voters.
And now they are in danger of losing their most loyal base, the evangelical voter.
If this keeps up the Democrats might even be able to nominate Gravel and still win.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
George Bush did not seem to know who Blackwater was accountable to in 2006, I think it is time to ask him the question again in 2007.
What a pathetic response to an important question.
Bush's base is not just crumbling, it is now only crumbs.
Bush's approval rating has fallen fairly steadily among almost every segment of the American public, but the drop in support has been particularly significant among white evangelicals ages 18-29. This group was among Bush's strongest supporters in the beginning of his presidency; in 2002, for example, an overwhelming majority (87%) approved of Bush's job performance. By August 2007, however, Bush's approval rating among this group had plummeted by 42 percentage points, with most of the drop (25 points) coming since 2005.By contrast, Bush's job approval among older generations of white evangelicals (those ages 30 and older) has undergone a much more gradual decline, falling 28 points since 2002 and just 11 points since 2005.
I have asked it before, but it bears repeating, how can ANYBODY still support this failed Presidency.
Damn I would hate to be a Republican candidate in this Presidential race.
Seymour Hersh weighs in on the Iran issue. You may remember that he exposed the atrocities in Abu Ghraib and My Lai, among other important stories.
In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.
I encourage you to read the entire article. Seymour Hersh is not a reporter to be taken lightly, if he says something is about to happen you can safely bet the kids college fund that it will.
I caught an interview on CNN between Wolf Blitzer and Hersh. Hersh is carefully choosing his words but he leaves no doubt that we are going into Iran in the very near future.
This issue needs to be brought up as often as possible. Every Presidential candidate should be asked for their opinion, every White House representative should be hammered on this, and every news program should lead with this every night until George Bush leaves office.
If and and when it happens it will shove everybody's pet issue to the back of the bus. Iraq will join Afghanistan as "forgotten wars" as the Iran conflict takes center stage.
By the way Hillary has made her stand on Iran obvious: But Clinton, earlier that day in the Senate, moved one step even further to the pro-war right by voting for a nonbinding resolution that declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist entity”.
Since this terrorist entity is part of the Iranian state, this was understandably regarded by many as a small but necessary congressional step towards authorising war on Iran. None of her rivals in the presidential campaign voted with her. No wonder neoconservatives are taking a second look at a woman they once demonised.
Clinton is presenting herself to be George Bush in a skirt. Well fuck that, I will never support a candidate that allows themselves to be led by George Bush and his minions. We want a leader who will take us in a new direction, not one who will continue to destroy our country with senseless war.
The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.
The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.
I encourage you to read the entire article. Seymour Hersh is not a reporter to be taken lightly, if he says something is about to happen you can safely bet the kids college fund that it will.
I caught an interview on CNN between Wolf Blitzer and Hersh. Hersh is carefully choosing his words but he leaves no doubt that we are going into Iran in the very near future.
This issue needs to be brought up as often as possible. Every Presidential candidate should be asked for their opinion, every White House representative should be hammered on this, and every news program should lead with this every night until George Bush leaves office.
If and and when it happens it will shove everybody's pet issue to the back of the bus. Iraq will join Afghanistan as "forgotten wars" as the Iran conflict takes center stage.
By the way Hillary has made her stand on Iran obvious: But Clinton, earlier that day in the Senate, moved one step even further to the pro-war right by voting for a nonbinding resolution that declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist entity”.
Since this terrorist entity is part of the Iranian state, this was understandably regarded by many as a small but necessary congressional step towards authorising war on Iran. None of her rivals in the presidential campaign voted with her. No wonder neoconservatives are taking a second look at a woman they once demonised.
Clinton is presenting herself to be George Bush in a skirt. Well fuck that, I will never support a candidate that allows themselves to be led by George Bush and his minions. We want a leader who will take us in a new direction, not one who will continue to destroy our country with senseless war.
Nothing seems able to stop the slow steady march to war with Iran.
The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
An air warfare conference in Washington last week was told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organise combined exercises designed to make it easier to fight together.
Gen Michael Mosley, the US Air Force chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if President George W Bush chooses to bomb Iran.
It seems beyond anybodies ability to believe that we are still going forward with another war, but every indication that we see leaves little doubt that is exactly what we are doing.
I actually saw Dan Abrams last week have his eyes opened by his panel of guests who all agreed that we are going to attack Iran. Dan could not seem to believe it was possible, and after he had it confirmed he said "this is probably the most important story we can cover".
Dan is right, and every news program, and every information blog should be talking about this story every day, and as often as possible. Because the only thing that might keep this nightmare from taking place is the bright light of public attention and condemnation.
An air warfare conference in Washington last week was told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organise combined exercises designed to make it easier to fight together.
Gen Michael Mosley, the US Air Force chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if President George W Bush chooses to bomb Iran.
It seems beyond anybodies ability to believe that we are still going forward with another war, but every indication that we see leaves little doubt that is exactly what we are doing.
I actually saw Dan Abrams last week have his eyes opened by his panel of guests who all agreed that we are going to attack Iran. Dan could not seem to believe it was possible, and after he had it confirmed he said "this is probably the most important story we can cover".
Dan is right, and every news program, and every information blog should be talking about this story every day, and as often as possible. Because the only thing that might keep this nightmare from taking place is the bright light of public attention and condemnation.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Finally! The Boss weighs in on the the crap we are facing in our country.
“This is a song called Livin’ In the Future. But it’s really about what’s happening now. Right now. It’s kind of about how the things we love about America, cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battlin’ Boston… the Bill of Rights [holds up microphone, urging crowd to cheer] … v-twin motorcycles… Tim Russert’s haircut, trans-fats and the Jersey Shore… we love those things the way womenfolk love Matt Lauer.
But over the past six years we’ve had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of our great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our young best men and women in a tragic war.
This is a song about things that shouldn’t happen here—happening here.”
Where the hell have our rock stars been?
We need protest songs!
We need demonstrations led by Joan Baez or Pink!
We need somebody to give us something to sing as the brownshirts are dragging us away from the front of the White House!
Let's get on it people!
But over the past six years we’ve had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of our great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our young best men and women in a tragic war.
This is a song about things that shouldn’t happen here—happening here.”
Where the hell have our rock stars been?
We need protest songs!
We need demonstrations led by Joan Baez or Pink!
We need somebody to give us something to sing as the brownshirts are dragging us away from the front of the White House!
Let's get on it people!
Former CIA Analyst confirms Greenspan's assertion that Iraq war was about oil. I toldja so, I toldja so, I toldja so.
It was, it is about oil-unabashedly and shamefully. Even to those lacking experience with U.S. policy in the Middle East, it should have been obvious early on, when every one of Bush's senior national security officials spoke verbatim from the talking-point sheet, "It's not about oil." Thanks to Greenspan and Kissinger, the truth is now "largely" available to those who do not seek refuge in denial.
Blood for oil, how incredibly selfish and inhumane.
Blood for oil, how incredibly selfish and inhumane.
Nuh uh, we aren't the bad guys! You are!
Iran's parliament on Saturday approved a nonbinding resolution labeling the CIA and the U.S. Army "terrorist organizations," in apparent response to a Senate resolution seeking to give a similar designation to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
All day long I work with small children and I would like to say how refreshing it is to see people solving their differences in an adult manner for a change. I would LIKE to say that but I can't.
To tell the truth the kids I work with are MUCH better at working things out then our government will ever be!
All day long I work with small children and I would like to say how refreshing it is to see people solving their differences in an adult manner for a change. I would LIKE to say that but I can't.
To tell the truth the kids I work with are MUCH better at working things out then our government will ever be!
Sure, NOW college gets fun.
The nixing of Saturday's sex-toy slumber party, which was advertised as being for girls only, takes some of the momentum out of "A Week of Hot Sex," as the five-part (now four) series is billed on signs in the residence hall. It started Monday night in the Harrison lobby with a 30-minute session of massage techniques led by a certified therapist.
Joshua Roth, a freshman who lives in Harrison, attended the massage session along with about 30 other students. He planned to go to other events, including an oral sex workshop today and condom bingo on Sunday.
"I think it's awesome," Roth said. "I think it's a great way to promote safe, fun and consensual sex."
He said he learned "cool" and "safe" techniques at Monday's session. "It's just a very honest educational program."
These kids nowadays are so spoiled, getting to learn about sex in college and all.
In my day we had to figure it out for ourselves by disappointing one girl after another until we found one that was willing to "take us by the hand" so to speak.
All I know is I would not have put off my homework until the last minute if I had been taking THESE classes.
(I just felt the need to post about something fun and not planet endangering for a change.)
Joshua Roth, a freshman who lives in Harrison, attended the massage session along with about 30 other students. He planned to go to other events, including an oral sex workshop today and condom bingo on Sunday.
"I think it's awesome," Roth said. "I think it's a great way to promote safe, fun and consensual sex."
He said he learned "cool" and "safe" techniques at Monday's session. "It's just a very honest educational program."
These kids nowadays are so spoiled, getting to learn about sex in college and all.
In my day we had to figure it out for ourselves by disappointing one girl after another until we found one that was willing to "take us by the hand" so to speak.
All I know is I would not have put off my homework until the last minute if I had been taking THESE classes.
(I just felt the need to post about something fun and not planet endangering for a change.)
I have to give mad props to Kucinich for this.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he is so concerned about what he sees as the Bush administration's push for a war with Iran that he is considering using a parliamentary measure to force the House of Representatives to vote on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.
"We're preparing for another war, and they're going to destroy America," the Ohio Democrat said Thursday on the Ed Schultz show. "We have a government in place right now that has to be challenged. I'm seriously thinking about calling a privileged resolution on impeachment of the vice president and forcing a vote on the floor of the House."
Kucinich is dead right on this issue. Let's face it, neither Cheney or Bush has changed one iota of their plans despite an overwhelming negative response to the Iraq war and domestic spying, among other policy decisions.
I am completely on board with impeachment proceedings going forward. It won't happen, but at least we get a dialogue started in the Senate. Maybe it fails this time, but if the administration continues its suicidal foreign policies it will not fail the next time.
Somebody needs to start throwing rocks at Goliath's forehead.
"We're preparing for another war, and they're going to destroy America," the Ohio Democrat said Thursday on the Ed Schultz show. "We have a government in place right now that has to be challenged. I'm seriously thinking about calling a privileged resolution on impeachment of the vice president and forcing a vote on the floor of the House."
Kucinich is dead right on this issue. Let's face it, neither Cheney or Bush has changed one iota of their plans despite an overwhelming negative response to the Iraq war and domestic spying, among other policy decisions.
I am completely on board with impeachment proceedings going forward. It won't happen, but at least we get a dialogue started in the Senate. Maybe it fails this time, but if the administration continues its suicidal foreign policies it will not fail the next time.
Somebody needs to start throwing rocks at Goliath's forehead.
Blackwater guard turned weapon on comrades in attempt to stop the killing in Baghdad.
A Blackwater guard reportedly yelled at colleagues to “stop shooting” during an afternoon of chaos in Baghdad that left 11 Iraqis dead and called into question the accountability of all Western private security firms operating in Iraq.
The New York Times also quoted an unnamed US official as saying that one or more of the Blackwater guards had called for a ceasefire.
The word ceasefire “was supposedly called out several times ... They had an on-site difference of opinion,” the official said. Ultimately, a Blackwater guard “got on another one about the situation and supposedly pointed a weapon”, the newspaper reported.
This story demonstrates that at least some of the Blackwater guards knew that they were overreacting, but I have to wonder how these units are structured. Is there anybody in charge? Is there a chain of command? And when something like this happens does anybody face consequences?
I cannot help but flash back to a situation that happened in Vietnam that is eerily similar. Perhaps you have heard of it, it was called the My Lai Massacre.
Does this ring a bell? Flying high above the slaughter was helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson. Sickened by what he was witnessing, Thompson set down his aircraft and began to rescue the Vietnamese survivors. he ordered his machine gunner to open fire on any American soldiers who continued to shoot villagers.
Justice was not served in the My Lai investigation, since only one participant was found guilty of murder. I am afraid that there will be even less justice in this Blackwater case.
The New York Times also quoted an unnamed US official as saying that one or more of the Blackwater guards had called for a ceasefire.
The word ceasefire “was supposedly called out several times ... They had an on-site difference of opinion,” the official said. Ultimately, a Blackwater guard “got on another one about the situation and supposedly pointed a weapon”, the newspaper reported.
This story demonstrates that at least some of the Blackwater guards knew that they were overreacting, but I have to wonder how these units are structured. Is there anybody in charge? Is there a chain of command? And when something like this happens does anybody face consequences?
I cannot help but flash back to a situation that happened in Vietnam that is eerily similar. Perhaps you have heard of it, it was called the My Lai Massacre.
Does this ring a bell? Flying high above the slaughter was helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson. Sickened by what he was witnessing, Thompson set down his aircraft and began to rescue the Vietnamese survivors. he ordered his machine gunner to open fire on any American soldiers who continued to shoot villagers.
Justice was not served in the My Lai investigation, since only one participant was found guilty of murder. I am afraid that there will be even less justice in this Blackwater case.
Why Bloggers may be imperative to keeping the Main Stream Media honest.
.....the MSM has become consolidated to the point that just a few transnational conglomerates and capital management companies control network TV, commercial radio, and most of our newspapers.
.....The current owners, he explains, care only about money, and “are sometimes genuinely perplexed to find people in their midst who do not feel beholden, first and foremost, to the shareholder.”
Bloggers are in an entirely different position: They tend to be mavericks who work for free, and operate far from the sources of power. Feeling no need to ingratiate themselves with the movers and shakers of industry and government, they simply tell it like it is from where they sit as concerned, informed citizens with diverse areas of expertise. Though they don’t often have professional training as journalists, many of them exceed professional journalistic standards, because they answer to their consciences alone rather than to corporate honchos and fund managers. We need to hear from such people, and the fact that there are more blogs out there worth reading than anyone has time to read is a hopeful sign.
This is a very timely article at a time when many of those who blog are asking "what is the point". I don't consider myself a new age Edward R. Murrow, but I do think that my small contribution, added to the voice of so many others, is a vital part of taking back control of information from corporations with preconceived agendas that encourage them to censor some stories and pump up others.
.....The current owners, he explains, care only about money, and “are sometimes genuinely perplexed to find people in their midst who do not feel beholden, first and foremost, to the shareholder.”
Bloggers are in an entirely different position: They tend to be mavericks who work for free, and operate far from the sources of power. Feeling no need to ingratiate themselves with the movers and shakers of industry and government, they simply tell it like it is from where they sit as concerned, informed citizens with diverse areas of expertise. Though they don’t often have professional training as journalists, many of them exceed professional journalistic standards, because they answer to their consciences alone rather than to corporate honchos and fund managers. We need to hear from such people, and the fact that there are more blogs out there worth reading than anyone has time to read is a hopeful sign.
This is a very timely article at a time when many of those who blog are asking "what is the point". I don't consider myself a new age Edward R. Murrow, but I do think that my small contribution, added to the voice of so many others, is a vital part of taking back control of information from corporations with preconceived agendas that encourage them to censor some stories and pump up others.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Does this make anybody else nervous?
Vice President Dick Cheney will speak to a super-secret,conservative policy group in Utah on Friday during his second trip to the state this year.
Cheney will address the fall meeting of the Council for National Policy, a group whose self-described mission is to promote "a free-enterprise system, a strong national defense and support for traditional Western values."
The organization -- made up of few hundred powerful conservative activists -- holds confidential meetings and members are advised not to use the name of the group in communications, according to a New York Times profile of the group.
"The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before [or] after a meeting,'' a list of rules obtained by The Times showed. The group did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
The Vice President works for us. He should not be having secret meetings with civilian organizations that the public is not allowed to know about.
I don't like this one little bit.
Cheney will address the fall meeting of the Council for National Policy, a group whose self-described mission is to promote "a free-enterprise system, a strong national defense and support for traditional Western values."
The organization -- made up of few hundred powerful conservative activists -- holds confidential meetings and members are advised not to use the name of the group in communications, according to a New York Times profile of the group.
"The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before [or] after a meeting,'' a list of rules obtained by The Times showed. The group did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
The Vice President works for us. He should not be having secret meetings with civilian organizations that the public is not allowed to know about.
I don't like this one little bit.
Top Republican candidates are keeping their voting base lily white. Just like their sheets.
The lesser-known Republican presidential candidates condemned their top rivals on Thursday for skipping a debate on minority issues and said their absence hurt the party's image and amplified racial divisions.
Four empty podiums highlighted the decisions of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson to skip the debate at historically black Morgan State University in Maryland.
"Frankly, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come, because there's long been a divide in this country and it doesn't get better when we don't show up," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said in the nationally televised debate. (Okay this has been bothering me for a while now. Does anybody really think that the American people will vote for a guy named "Huckabee"? The guy sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon character. And he doesn't even believe in evolution, so we know he is not very bright. I am just saying.)
The missing candidates -- the top four Republicans in the 2008 presidential race -- cited scheduling conflicts in skipping the forum designed to address issues of interest to blacks, traditionally the most loyal Democratic voters.
It almost looks like the Republicans are not even trying to win this thing. I mean even Bush pretended to care about the black and Hispanic vote. Actually the Hispanic vote might have helped him in many areas.
Four empty podiums highlighted the decisions of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson to skip the debate at historically black Morgan State University in Maryland.
"Frankly, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come, because there's long been a divide in this country and it doesn't get better when we don't show up," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said in the nationally televised debate. (Okay this has been bothering me for a while now. Does anybody really think that the American people will vote for a guy named "Huckabee"? The guy sounds like a Saturday morning cartoon character. And he doesn't even believe in evolution, so we know he is not very bright. I am just saying.)
The missing candidates -- the top four Republicans in the 2008 presidential race -- cited scheduling conflicts in skipping the forum designed to address issues of interest to blacks, traditionally the most loyal Democratic voters.
It almost looks like the Republicans are not even trying to win this thing. I mean even Bush pretended to care about the black and Hispanic vote. Actually the Hispanic vote might have helped him in many areas.
Horrific story of snipers being pressed to increase the body count in this court case.
In anguished, eloquent sentences, Sergeant Vela, a member of an elite sniper scout platoon with the First Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, quietly described how his squad leader, Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley, cut off the man’s handcuffs, wrestled him to his feet and ordered Sergeant Vela, standing a few feet away, to fire the 9-millimeter service pistol into the detainee’s head.
“I heard the word ‘Shoot,’” Sergeant Vela recalled. “I don’t remember pulling the trigger,” he said. “I just came through and the guy was dead, and it just took me a second to realize the shot had come from the pistol.”
Then, Sergeant Vela said, as the man, a suspected insurgent, convulsed on the ground, Sergeant Hensley kicked him in the throat and told Sergeant Vela to shoot him again. Sergeant Vela, who is not on trial but faces murder charges in connection with the killing, said he fired a second time.
I want to be proud of my military, but it is getting harder.
I want to be proud of my country, but I find it impossible.
During a separate hearing here in July, Sgt. Anthony G. Murphy said he and other First Battalion snipers felt “an underlying tone” of disappointment from field commanders seeking higher enemy body counts.
“It just kind of felt like, ‘What are you guys doing wrong out there?’” he said at the time.
That attitude among superiors changed earlier this year after Sergeant Hensley, an expert marksman, became a team leader, according to soldiers’ testimony. Though sometimes unorthodox, soldiers said, Sergeant Hensley and other snipers around him began racking up many more kills, pleasing the commanders.
Soldiers also testified that battalion commanders authorized a classified new technique that used fake explosives and detonation wires as “bait” to lure and kill suspected insurgents around Iskandariya, a hostile Sunni Arab region south of Baghdad.
I will be able to find my pride again when we leave Iraq and commit to helping them repair their country, WITHOUT U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT.
“I heard the word ‘Shoot,’” Sergeant Vela recalled. “I don’t remember pulling the trigger,” he said. “I just came through and the guy was dead, and it just took me a second to realize the shot had come from the pistol.”
Then, Sergeant Vela said, as the man, a suspected insurgent, convulsed on the ground, Sergeant Hensley kicked him in the throat and told Sergeant Vela to shoot him again. Sergeant Vela, who is not on trial but faces murder charges in connection with the killing, said he fired a second time.
I want to be proud of my military, but it is getting harder.
I want to be proud of my country, but I find it impossible.
During a separate hearing here in July, Sgt. Anthony G. Murphy said he and other First Battalion snipers felt “an underlying tone” of disappointment from field commanders seeking higher enemy body counts.
“It just kind of felt like, ‘What are you guys doing wrong out there?’” he said at the time.
That attitude among superiors changed earlier this year after Sergeant Hensley, an expert marksman, became a team leader, according to soldiers’ testimony. Though sometimes unorthodox, soldiers said, Sergeant Hensley and other snipers around him began racking up many more kills, pleasing the commanders.
Soldiers also testified that battalion commanders authorized a classified new technique that used fake explosives and detonation wires as “bait” to lure and kill suspected insurgents around Iskandariya, a hostile Sunni Arab region south of Baghdad.
I will be able to find my pride again when we leave Iraq and commit to helping them repair their country, WITHOUT U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Bill Clinton takes on Republicans over hypocrisy over Moveon.org's Petraeus "Betrayus" ad.
Bill is dead right on this issue. Too bad his wife is not this good.
We could have paid Saddam 1 billion dollars to leave Iraq and avoided a war that has cost us 445 billion dollars to date.
Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.
Just think how simple it might have been to go into Iraq after its leader had fled and then suggested to the Iraqis that they might want to give democracy a chance and elect the next leader of their country. No destruction of Iraqi infrastructure to contend with, no anger from thousands of families who had lost loved ones in bombing raids by allied forces, no reason to rebuild the military from scratch since it would not have been disbanded, it would have been a cake walk.
But then I guess warmongers just don't want a peaceful resolution to a conflict. I mean who gets a medal of valor for good negotiating?
Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).
The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.
The White House refused to comment on the report last night.
Just think how simple it might have been to go into Iraq after its leader had fled and then suggested to the Iraqis that they might want to give democracy a chance and elect the next leader of their country. No destruction of Iraqi infrastructure to contend with, no anger from thousands of families who had lost loved ones in bombing raids by allied forces, no reason to rebuild the military from scratch since it would not have been disbanded, it would have been a cake walk.
But then I guess warmongers just don't want a peaceful resolution to a conflict. I mean who gets a medal of valor for good negotiating?
Bush fought the law and the law won.
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
It is about time that Bush learned that not everybody feels the disdain for our constitution that he does.
Gee maybe our country is not completely broken.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, "now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
It is about time that Bush learned that not everybody feels the disdain for our constitution that he does.
Gee maybe our country is not completely broken.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Edwards makes his move!
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, sitting in third place in most national polls and needing a breakthrough performance, led the attack against Clinton, the New York senator enjoying a lead in the polls.
He criticized her for voting earlier in the day in Washington to approve a nonbinding motion calling on the State Department to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as "a foreign terrorist organization," which Edwards said was a potential first step toward war against Iran.
"I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran," Edwards said, pointedly mentioning that two other candidates on stage, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden and Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, voted against the measure.
Edwards was on fire!
He was smart, articulate, and honest, which by the way is the kind of candidate that I want to vote for in November 2008.
And Hillary was evasive, smarmy, and came across completely false to me. She and Bill Richardson were the least believable candidates on that stage.
We are finally starting to see the chinks in Hillary's armor.
He criticized her for voting earlier in the day in Washington to approve a nonbinding motion calling on the State Department to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as "a foreign terrorist organization," which Edwards said was a potential first step toward war against Iran.
"I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran," Edwards said, pointedly mentioning that two other candidates on stage, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden and Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd, voted against the measure.
Edwards was on fire!
He was smart, articulate, and honest, which by the way is the kind of candidate that I want to vote for in November 2008.
And Hillary was evasive, smarmy, and came across completely false to me. She and Bill Richardson were the least believable candidates on that stage.
We are finally starting to see the chinks in Hillary's armor.
This might actually qualify as real resolution to our problems in Iraq.
US lawmakers voted Wednesday to split Iraq into a loose federation of sectarian-based regions and urged President George W Bush to press Iraqi leaders to agree.
More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats to pass the non-binding measure in the Senate, 75-23, showing frustration in both parties about Bush's war policy and lagging national reconciliation in Iraq.
Supporters of Iraqi partition believe it would let Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions settle their differences and make it easier for US troops eventually to return home.
But the measure, attached to the 2008 defence budget, runs against US administration policy to keep Iraq united and would likely face a veto if it reached Bush's desk.
Oh Bush will DEFINITELY veto this.
But I am very heartened to see the Republicans starting to see the Iraq situation for what it is, a stifling quagmire which will drag their political careers to their deaths.
More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats to pass the non-binding measure in the Senate, 75-23, showing frustration in both parties about Bush's war policy and lagging national reconciliation in Iraq.
Supporters of Iraqi partition believe it would let Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions settle their differences and make it easier for US troops eventually to return home.
But the measure, attached to the 2008 defence budget, runs against US administration policy to keep Iraq united and would likely face a veto if it reached Bush's desk.
Oh Bush will DEFINITELY veto this.
But I am very heartened to see the Republicans starting to see the Iraq situation for what it is, a stifling quagmire which will drag their political careers to their deaths.
This should not surprise too many people, but it is interesting that confirmation of our beliefs is finally trickling out.
El Pais, the highest-circulation daily in Spain, today published what it said was the transcript of a private talk between President George W. Bush and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar on February 22, 2003, concerning the coming U.S. invasion of Iraq. It took place at the ranch in Crawford, Texas.
The conversation took place on the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq inf March "if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not....We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."
He said the U.S. takeover would happen without widespread destruction. He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's good cop.
Every reason given for invading Iraq was total bullshit. And that is an important fact to remember as you hear the steady drumbeat for war in Iran.
I truly doubt that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents. I doubt that they are currently trying to start a nuclear weapons program. I doubt that they want to destroy Israel. Essentially I doubt everything that this administration says about them.
I always doubt the word of those who I have caught lying to me repeatedly. I find it to be a good rule of thumb.
The conversation took place on the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas. The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
Bush purportedly said he planned to invade Iraq inf March "if there was a United Nations Security Council resolution or not....We have to get rid of Saddam. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March."
He said the U.S. takeover would happen without widespread destruction. He observed that he was willing to play bad cop to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's good cop.
Every reason given for invading Iraq was total bullshit. And that is an important fact to remember as you hear the steady drumbeat for war in Iran.
I truly doubt that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents. I doubt that they are currently trying to start a nuclear weapons program. I doubt that they want to destroy Israel. Essentially I doubt everything that this administration says about them.
I always doubt the word of those who I have caught lying to me repeatedly. I find it to be a good rule of thumb.
I pointed this out yesterday and today it is proven accurate. I am like Nostradamus or something.
A leaked Democratic poll has suggested that Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner in the race for the party's presidential nomination, could lose the 2008 election because of her "very polarised image".
The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.
All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.
"The images of the two early [Democratic] favourites are part of the problem," the memo said.
The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.
The poll found that Mrs Clinton, in particular, could damage the chances of congressional Democratic candidates on the ballot. The sensitivity of the issue was underlined by the reluctance of Democrats to discuss the survey.
Okay I am obviously joking about being Nostradamus, since anybody who has been paying attention could have reached the same conclusion.
The very first time I remember hearing the theory that Hillary was a lock for the Democratic nomination, it came from Pat Buchanan. Now Buchanan may have been pretty vocal lately in criticising the Iraq war, but he still carries the Republican water when needed.
It has been obvious for some time that the Republicans WANT to run against Hillary. They think that she is their best chance to hang onto the Presidency.
I also still think that they have a backdoor deal with the Republicans that Hillary will not support a criminal investigation against George Bush after he leaves office. For this reason alone i would not support Hillary's nomination.
Come on people! Don't let yourself be manipulated again! Nominate Obama, or Edwards, or Richardson, or anybody but Hillary!
Why are Democtrats so fucking stupid?
The private memo, leaked to The Washington Post, painted what researchers described as a "sobering picture" for Democrats who believe that President George W Bush's disastrous favourability numbers almost guarantee they will capture the White House next year.
All party preference polls show that Democrats are much more popular than Republicans. But when the names of individual candidates are used, the gap narrows considerably.
"The images of the two early [Democratic] favourites are part of the problem," the memo said.
The leaked poll found that Mr Giuliani, a centrist Republican with liberal stances on issues such as abortion and gay rights, leads Mrs Clinton by 49 per cent to 39 per cent in the swing districts.
The poll found that Mrs Clinton, in particular, could damage the chances of congressional Democratic candidates on the ballot. The sensitivity of the issue was underlined by the reluctance of Democrats to discuss the survey.
Okay I am obviously joking about being Nostradamus, since anybody who has been paying attention could have reached the same conclusion.
The very first time I remember hearing the theory that Hillary was a lock for the Democratic nomination, it came from Pat Buchanan. Now Buchanan may have been pretty vocal lately in criticising the Iraq war, but he still carries the Republican water when needed.
It has been obvious for some time that the Republicans WANT to run against Hillary. They think that she is their best chance to hang onto the Presidency.
I also still think that they have a backdoor deal with the Republicans that Hillary will not support a criminal investigation against George Bush after he leaves office. For this reason alone i would not support Hillary's nomination.
Come on people! Don't let yourself be manipulated again! Nominate Obama, or Edwards, or Richardson, or anybody but Hillary!
Why are Democtrats so fucking stupid?
I think that Katie Couric just stopped being the right wings favorite newscaster.
Speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday evening, CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric pulled back the curtain on her personal views of both the war in Iraq and former “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather.
“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.
“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”
Further, Couric said the Bush administration botched the war effort, calling it “accepted truths” that it erred by“disbanding the Iraq military, and leaving 100,000 Sunni men feeling marginalized and angry...[and] whether there were enough boots on the ground, the feeling that we’d be welcomed as liberators and didn’t need to focus as much on security.” She added “I’d feel totally comfortable saying any of that at some point, if required, on television.”
The former “Today” show anchor traced her discomfort with the administration’s march to war back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.”
Well I have to applaud Katie, not only for saying what everybody knows about how badly the Iraq war was handled, but also for honestly saying that our bloodthirst and nationalistic fervor after 9-11 was disturbing.
I would actually like to hear the other news anchors express their honest opinions on this as well. Do you hear that Brian Williams?
“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake.
“I’ve never understood why [invading Iraq] was so high on the administration’s agenda when terrorism was going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and that [Iraq] had no true connection with al Qaeda.”
Further, Couric said the Bush administration botched the war effort, calling it “accepted truths” that it erred by“disbanding the Iraq military, and leaving 100,000 Sunni men feeling marginalized and angry...[and] whether there were enough boots on the ground, the feeling that we’d be welcomed as liberators and didn’t need to focus as much on security.” She added “I’d feel totally comfortable saying any of that at some point, if required, on television.”
The former “Today” show anchor traced her discomfort with the administration’s march to war back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.”
Well I have to applaud Katie, not only for saying what everybody knows about how badly the Iraq war was handled, but also for honestly saying that our bloodthirst and nationalistic fervor after 9-11 was disturbing.
I would actually like to hear the other news anchors express their honest opinions on this as well. Do you hear that Brian Williams?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
We could pay for 41 more days of war in Iraq or pay for health insurance for ten million children.
New Hampshire poll shows Clinton well out in front.
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has significantly increased her lead over rival Barack Obama in the crucial early-voting state of New Hampshire, according to a CNN/WMUR poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire released Tuesday.
The New York Democrat registered 43 percent in the latest poll, 23 points more than Obama, an Illinois senator. In a similar poll conducted in July, only 9 points separated the candidates, with Clinton then at 36 percent and Obama at 27 percent.
This just pisses me off!
All day I have been hearing how Hillary is ahead because people believe she has the best chance of beating the Republicans. No she doesn't! You are being manipulated by the Republicans and the media!
Edwards can beat the Republicans!
Obama can beat the Republicans!
Richardson can beat the Republicans!
Biden can beat the Republicans!
Dodd can beat the Republicans!
Kucinich can beat the Republicans!
Hell, Gravel might even be able to beat the Republicans!
As a matter of fact Hillary might be the one candidate that the Republicans CAN beat! And what makes anybody think she can do the job? Because she has Bill? If she did not have Bill by her side would anybody even consider her for this nomination? Be honest.
Now let me lay this on you. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be bulletproof! There is not a damn thing that the Republicans could throw at that dynamic duo that they could not slap down. Nothing. If that was the Democratic ticket for 2008, they would stroll into he White House without any serious opposition. You could bet your house on it!
So stop listening to the MSM. Hillary is NOT a lock for this nomination. I don't care how much the Republicans want it to be true.
The New York Democrat registered 43 percent in the latest poll, 23 points more than Obama, an Illinois senator. In a similar poll conducted in July, only 9 points separated the candidates, with Clinton then at 36 percent and Obama at 27 percent.
This just pisses me off!
All day I have been hearing how Hillary is ahead because people believe she has the best chance of beating the Republicans. No she doesn't! You are being manipulated by the Republicans and the media!
Edwards can beat the Republicans!
Obama can beat the Republicans!
Richardson can beat the Republicans!
Biden can beat the Republicans!
Dodd can beat the Republicans!
Kucinich can beat the Republicans!
Hell, Gravel might even be able to beat the Republicans!
As a matter of fact Hillary might be the one candidate that the Republicans CAN beat! And what makes anybody think she can do the job? Because she has Bill? If she did not have Bill by her side would anybody even consider her for this nomination? Be honest.
Now let me lay this on you. An Edwards/Obama ticket would be bulletproof! There is not a damn thing that the Republicans could throw at that dynamic duo that they could not slap down. Nothing. If that was the Democratic ticket for 2008, they would stroll into he White House without any serious opposition. You could bet your house on it!
So stop listening to the MSM. Hillary is NOT a lock for this nomination. I don't care how much the Republicans want it to be true.
20 US Generals speak out against the Iraq war policy.
The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.
What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”
These are the credible military voices that our leaders should be listening to, not those who must still toe the policy line in order to ensure that they will still get promotions, citations, and respect from their peers.
No active duty general would dare speak out against the Commander in Chief, no matter how little is their respect for man and his decisions. So to expect that General Petraeus would say anything but what the White House wants him to say is extremely naive.
What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation's history.
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,” said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.”
These are the credible military voices that our leaders should be listening to, not those who must still toe the policy line in order to ensure that they will still get promotions, citations, and respect from their peers.
No active duty general would dare speak out against the Commander in Chief, no matter how little is their respect for man and his decisions. So to expect that General Petraeus would say anything but what the White House wants him to say is extremely naive.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Teacher fired for daring to say that the Bible should not be taken literally.
A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
Well hell this is a community college in Iowa, what did this guy expect?
Everybody knows that in these backwaters they just want to earn a degree in the hopes of getting a better job. They don't want to have to bother with all of that knowledge crap.
Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday. He said he was fired Thursday.
"I'm just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master's degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job," Bitterman said.
Well hell this is a community college in Iowa, what did this guy expect?
Everybody knows that in these backwaters they just want to earn a degree in the hopes of getting a better job. They don't want to have to bother with all of that knowledge crap.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's top hits from his speech at Columbia University.
We don't want nukes, so can you please point those weapons somewhere else?
We don't want to destroy Israel, if we can avoid it.
The Holocaust might have happened, I guess.
Sure we execute people, don't you?
I want to visit ground zero to show my support, not to gloat.
We have no homosexuals, go ahead, ask them.
Yep I think that about sums it up. All in all it seemed like a lot of hoopla for nothing.
US Military snipers are murdering Iraqis!
A Pentagon group has encouraged some U.S. military snipers in Iraq to target suspected insurgents by scattering pieces of “bait,” such as detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition, and then killing Iraqis who pick up the items, according to military court documents.
The classified program was described in investigative documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers who are accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.
“Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy,” Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. “Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces.”
I am sure that the above title will immediately anger many people in this country, but I just don't know what else to call it!
Leaving objects on the ground that could be used to make a bomb, and then assassinating anybody who picks them up is indefensible! There is no way to determine whether or not these people were planning to use them to harm American soldiers or not.
The victims are dead! There is no way to interrogate them, or find out who they are working with. Nor is there any way to know if they were simply curious, or if they had another innocent purpose for taking the item. Essentially the sniper acts as judge, jury, and executioner, and makes that determination in a matter of seconds. This is a despicable display of man's inhumanity to man.
The idea that this administration talks about liberating these people while conducting these murderous policies is sickening.
Somebody please get us the fuck out of there!
The classified program was described in investigative documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers who are accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.
“Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy,” Capt. Matthew P. Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon attached to the 1st Battalion of the 501st Infantry Regiment, said in a sworn statement. “Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it. If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against U.S. Forces.”
I am sure that the above title will immediately anger many people in this country, but I just don't know what else to call it!
Leaving objects on the ground that could be used to make a bomb, and then assassinating anybody who picks them up is indefensible! There is no way to determine whether or not these people were planning to use them to harm American soldiers or not.
The victims are dead! There is no way to interrogate them, or find out who they are working with. Nor is there any way to know if they were simply curious, or if they had another innocent purpose for taking the item. Essentially the sniper acts as judge, jury, and executioner, and makes that determination in a matter of seconds. This is a despicable display of man's inhumanity to man.
The idea that this administration talks about liberating these people while conducting these murderous policies is sickening.
Somebody please get us the fuck out of there!
Very good article about Keith Olbermann, the Immoral Minority's favorite newsman.
Olbermann, who looks more like a high school teacher than a glitzy TV anchor, is the one who cuts and dices the news of the day into five segments, what he and his staff consider the day's top stories, illustrated with news reports from NBC News correspondents, interviews with newsmakers, whom he treats courteously, interspersed with signature witty interjections (calling 9/11 Rudolph "Giuliani's red badge of courage"), further interrupted by new ways to look at the news. Olbermann does news quizzes and a puppet theater. Beginning with the Michael Jackson trial, he created comedic puppet "re-enactments" of news stories, using printed photographs glued to popsicle sticks, hand-held in front of a blue screen. Olbermann did the voiceovers himself. My favorites were the "Karl Rove Puppet Theatre" and the "Anna Nicole Smith Supreme Court Puppet Theatre," although the Mel Gibson and Paris Hilton puppets were not too shabby.
A segment called "Oddball" regularly assays the day's collection of weird videos, goofy stories with goofy clips of people behaving like idiots, announced with the clarion "Let's play Oddball!"
Each night he picks the Worst Person in the World, awarding a bronze medal (worse), a silver (worser) and a gold (worst). Bill O'Reilly has the distinction of winning all three top spots on a single broadcast (the night of November 30, 2005); as of June he had gone gold fifty-seven times.
Most of us on the left think of Keith as our knight in tweedy armor. He wades into battle with his indignation in one hand and his incredible elocution in the other. Keith uses his great speaking voice to slice his targets with precision like strokes of his verbal scalpel, to leave them exposed for the world to see.
In my deepest fantasies I would love to see Bill O'Reilly come on Countdown (much like he did with the Colbert Report) and attempt to control the exchange with KO(I love this nickname), like he tries to do on his show. I would suggest that KO go on the "O'Reilly factor" except we all know that Bill would cut his mike as soon and KO offered him a "falafel of peace".
If MSNBC had any brains at all they would allow KO to produce a number of new programs that would help the cable network to squash FOX like a bug on a windshield.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Gosh my state is open minded.
What can you expect, she lives in Soldotna! That is where we store the idiots.
Serial adulterer David Vitter demonstrates more good judgement by giving perfectly good tax money to anti-science groups.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.
The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education."
So the plan is to "develop a plan to promote better science educaton" by suggesting that science is wrong and promoting the idea of relying on faith to answer the great questions of our time. Well we all remember how well that worked out in the Middle Ages.
Why is it that these morons can demonstrate the worst judgement imaginable and yet people still think they are making good choices with their tax money?
Does Louisiana want to be the new Kansas?
The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education."
So the plan is to "develop a plan to promote better science educaton" by suggesting that science is wrong and promoting the idea of relying on faith to answer the great questions of our time. Well we all remember how well that worked out in the Middle Ages.
Why is it that these morons can demonstrate the worst judgement imaginable and yet people still think they are making good choices with their tax money?
Does Louisiana want to be the new Kansas?
Somebody bought somebody off.
Iraq will not take immediate steps to expel U.S. security firm Blackwater, under investigation over a shooting which killed 11 Iraqis a week ago, a government security official said on Sunday.
The Iraqi government and U.S. officials have agreed to set up a joint inquiry into the work of private security companies like U.S.-based Blackwater, which many Iraqis see as private armies acting with impunity.
In what appeared to be a further softening of Iraq's response to the shooting, a government spokesman for Baghdad security said Blackwater and other private security companies were doing important work guarding foreign diplomats.
So there will be no justice for those murdered Iraqis?
I guess the bottom line is that there is an enormous amount of money flowing into Iraq, and neither the Americans nor the Iraqi "government" want to see it stop.
Is there no problem that American money cannot make go away?
Well we can't seem to buy ourselves a victory now can we?
The Iraqi government and U.S. officials have agreed to set up a joint inquiry into the work of private security companies like U.S.-based Blackwater, which many Iraqis see as private armies acting with impunity.
In what appeared to be a further softening of Iraq's response to the shooting, a government spokesman for Baghdad security said Blackwater and other private security companies were doing important work guarding foreign diplomats.
So there will be no justice for those murdered Iraqis?
I guess the bottom line is that there is an enormous amount of money flowing into Iraq, and neither the Americans nor the Iraqi "government" want to see it stop.
Is there no problem that American money cannot make go away?
Well we can't seem to buy ourselves a victory now can we?
If God is not the source of morality then where does it come from? Evolution of course.
Religious behavior may be the result of natural selection, in his view, shaped at a time when early human groups were competing with one another. “Those who found ways to bind themselves together were more successful,” he said.
Haidt came to recognize the importance of religion by a roundabout route. “I first found divinity in disgust,” he writes in his book “The Happiness Hypothesis.”
The emotion of disgust probably evolved when people became meat eaters and had to learn which foods might be contaminated with bacteria, a problem not presented by plant foods.
Disgust was then extended to many other categories, he argues, to people who were unclean, to unacceptable sexual practices and to a wide class of bodily functions and behaviors that were seen as separating humans from animals.
“Imagine visiting a town,” Haidt writes, “where people wear no clothes, never bathe, have sex 'doggie style' in public, and eat raw meat by biting off pieces directly from the carcass.”
He sees the disgust evoked by such a scene as allied to notions of physical and religious purity. Purity is, in his view, a moral system that promotes the goals of controlling selfish desires and acting in a religiously approved way.
Notions of disgust and purity are widespread outside Western cultures. “Educated liberals are the only group to say, 'I find that disgusting but that doesn't make it wrong,'” Haidt said.
Working with a graduate student, Jesse Graham, Haidt has detected a striking political dimension to morality. He and Graham asked people to identify their position on a liberal-conservative spectrum and then complete a questionnaire that assessed the importance attached to each of the five moral systems. (The test, called the moral foundations questionnaire, can be taken online, at www.YourMorals.org.)
They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity.
Conservatives placed value on all five moral systems but they assigned less weight than liberals to the moralities protective of individuals.
Haidt believes that many political disagreements between liberals and conservatives may reflect the different emphasis each places on the five moral categories.
This is a great article!
Some of you who have visited here before may know that I spend a lot of my time studying and comparing religions. But the thing that confused me as a youngster was what made people surrender logic for belief. It was much later that I started reading scientific explorations into how cultures formed and how religion may have been very useful, or even necessary, in creating stronger ties within different communities. And how those humans who were born genetically prone to accepting religion were more successful in ancient times.
I could literally talk about this subject all day, but I will end my post here with the suggestion that if you are interested you do some research and learn that much of what you believe to be "free will" may in fact simply be an accident of birth. It can be very humbling.
Haidt came to recognize the importance of religion by a roundabout route. “I first found divinity in disgust,” he writes in his book “The Happiness Hypothesis.”
The emotion of disgust probably evolved when people became meat eaters and had to learn which foods might be contaminated with bacteria, a problem not presented by plant foods.
Disgust was then extended to many other categories, he argues, to people who were unclean, to unacceptable sexual practices and to a wide class of bodily functions and behaviors that were seen as separating humans from animals.
“Imagine visiting a town,” Haidt writes, “where people wear no clothes, never bathe, have sex 'doggie style' in public, and eat raw meat by biting off pieces directly from the carcass.”
He sees the disgust evoked by such a scene as allied to notions of physical and religious purity. Purity is, in his view, a moral system that promotes the goals of controlling selfish desires and acting in a religiously approved way.
Notions of disgust and purity are widespread outside Western cultures. “Educated liberals are the only group to say, 'I find that disgusting but that doesn't make it wrong,'” Haidt said.
Working with a graduate student, Jesse Graham, Haidt has detected a striking political dimension to morality. He and Graham asked people to identify their position on a liberal-conservative spectrum and then complete a questionnaire that assessed the importance attached to each of the five moral systems. (The test, called the moral foundations questionnaire, can be taken online, at www.YourMorals.org.)
They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity.
Conservatives placed value on all five moral systems but they assigned less weight than liberals to the moralities protective of individuals.
Haidt believes that many political disagreements between liberals and conservatives may reflect the different emphasis each places on the five moral categories.
This is a great article!
Some of you who have visited here before may know that I spend a lot of my time studying and comparing religions. But the thing that confused me as a youngster was what made people surrender logic for belief. It was much later that I started reading scientific explorations into how cultures formed and how religion may have been very useful, or even necessary, in creating stronger ties within different communities. And how those humans who were born genetically prone to accepting religion were more successful in ancient times.
I could literally talk about this subject all day, but I will end my post here with the suggestion that if you are interested you do some research and learn that much of what you believe to be "free will" may in fact simply be an accident of birth. It can be very humbling.
This is what I think the plan is for Iran.
Newsweek Magazine reported Sunday that Vice President Richard Cheney may have considered a plan for Israeli missile strikes against an Iranian nuclear site in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.
Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz - and perhaps other sites - in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."
According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."
I do not think for an instant that this plan is not going forward. I am absolutely certain that this administration wants to take on Iran before they leave office.
The only question was how, and this gives a workable, though deeply flawed, option.
Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz - and perhaps other sites - in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."
According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."
I do not think for an instant that this plan is not going forward. I am absolutely certain that this administration wants to take on Iran before they leave office.
The only question was how, and this gives a workable, though deeply flawed, option.
Do you have $500,000 to spare? Well that is how much the Iraq war is costing us PER MINUTE!
The Iraq war has certainly been costly in terms of lives lost, with thousands of U.S. military personnel dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed. Also, the economic costs are far greater than most people imagine, with more than $1 trillion tax dollars spent in the first four years of the war.
One trillion dollars equals $720 million spent each day, or $500,000 per minute. The taxpayer money spent on the war is displacing millions of Iraqis and destroying their hospitals and schools instead of supporting health care, education and housing for people in our own communities.
We have so much need in this country to provide universal health care, to fight poverty, to improve education, and to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
But instead we are spending our money to kill people in a country that never did anything to us. And don't give me that shit about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, because they were not there until we invaded and gave them a foothold in a country which had no use for them before.
We are literally sending our soldiers into Iraq just to survive the experience. It is like running an extremely dangerous gauntlet. And there reward for surviving is the opportunity to run it again!
And in the meantime our government is paying private security forces (see Blackwater) ten times what they pay our soldiers, to help American companies rob our treasury of even more of our tax dollars.
The reasons to end this war number in the trillions, trillions of dollars that is. And what were the reasons for staying again?
One trillion dollars equals $720 million spent each day, or $500,000 per minute. The taxpayer money spent on the war is displacing millions of Iraqis and destroying their hospitals and schools instead of supporting health care, education and housing for people in our own communities.
We have so much need in this country to provide universal health care, to fight poverty, to improve education, and to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
But instead we are spending our money to kill people in a country that never did anything to us. And don't give me that shit about Al-Qaeda in Iraq, because they were not there until we invaded and gave them a foothold in a country which had no use for them before.
We are literally sending our soldiers into Iraq just to survive the experience. It is like running an extremely dangerous gauntlet. And there reward for surviving is the opportunity to run it again!
And in the meantime our government is paying private security forces (see Blackwater) ten times what they pay our soldiers, to help American companies rob our treasury of even more of our tax dollars.
The reasons to end this war number in the trillions, trillions of dollars that is. And what were the reasons for staying again?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Time magazine gives us Bush's top ten reasons for bombing Iran. With some editorial comment from yours truly.
1. Bush's destiny is to defeat terrorism. Which involves raising their status nationally by allowing them to defeat us in every theatre in the world and treating their country men like criminals, thereby insuring that we will have terrorists to fight well into the 22nd century.
2. Bush feels an intense obligation to do all he can before he exits office in 2009, using force if necessary, to eliminate threats to American security. In other words we have too many bombs, and defense contractors with more to sell us, so we need to drop them somewhere now don't we?
3. Bush sees the Tehran regime as a threat to global security and American interests, arguably more so than Saddam was. Bitches won't let us have their oil!
4. Bush put--and keeps--the option of attacking Iran on the table. Bush can only get a hard on when he is threatening somebody.
5. Bush has little faith in the diplomatic channels for resolving the Iran problem peacefully and may feel that talking merely allows Tehran to buy time for building weapons. Bush just doesn't like all of that talking. It involves too many words. And some of them are freaking hard to say!
6. Bush isn't confident that sanctions will prevent Iran from getting the bomb. If Bush uses sanctions he will miss the opportunity to start yet another war, and some future President may get the fun of blowing more brown people up.
7. Bush is not too constrained by opposition to a war with Iran. Bush has completely stopped listening to the majority of Americans who do not want another war.
8. Bush is prepared to risk and if necessary endure consequences. What the hell he is out of office in less then 15 months!
9. Bush could discover that a U.S. attack on Iran is not so unpopular with the American public. Bush hopes to win the hearts and minds of the Americans since that went so well for him in Iraq.
10. Bush could conclude that a U.S. attack on Iran will not produce the blowback that military and political experts predict. Bush does not trust any information that does not fit in with his preconceived notions of success.
2. Bush feels an intense obligation to do all he can before he exits office in 2009, using force if necessary, to eliminate threats to American security. In other words we have too many bombs, and defense contractors with more to sell us, so we need to drop them somewhere now don't we?
3. Bush sees the Tehran regime as a threat to global security and American interests, arguably more so than Saddam was. Bitches won't let us have their oil!
4. Bush put--and keeps--the option of attacking Iran on the table. Bush can only get a hard on when he is threatening somebody.
5. Bush has little faith in the diplomatic channels for resolving the Iran problem peacefully and may feel that talking merely allows Tehran to buy time for building weapons. Bush just doesn't like all of that talking. It involves too many words. And some of them are freaking hard to say!
6. Bush isn't confident that sanctions will prevent Iran from getting the bomb. If Bush uses sanctions he will miss the opportunity to start yet another war, and some future President may get the fun of blowing more brown people up.
7. Bush is not too constrained by opposition to a war with Iran. Bush has completely stopped listening to the majority of Americans who do not want another war.
8. Bush is prepared to risk and if necessary endure consequences. What the hell he is out of office in less then 15 months!
9. Bush could discover that a U.S. attack on Iran is not so unpopular with the American public. Bush hopes to win the hearts and minds of the Americans since that went so well for him in Iraq.
10. Bush could conclude that a U.S. attack on Iran will not produce the blowback that military and political experts predict. Bush does not trust any information that does not fit in with his preconceived notions of success.
Evidence against Blackwater now includes video!
Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in a shooting last week that left 11 people dead, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday. He said the case was referred to the Iraqi judiciary.
I feel terrible for the families of these dead Iraqis, but someday they may be respected as the martyrs that finally ended the Iraq war.
Let's face it, without Blackwater providing security for the contractors, and with the United States military used up, this may be the end game for the Bush administration.
The Democrats should be all over this and demanding investigations into how Blackwater operates in Iraq and how they get paid.
I feel terrible for the families of these dead Iraqis, but someday they may be respected as the martyrs that finally ended the Iraq war.
Let's face it, without Blackwater providing security for the contractors, and with the United States military used up, this may be the end game for the Bush administration.
The Democrats should be all over this and demanding investigations into how Blackwater operates in Iraq and how they get paid.
Iran supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents? Doubtful. Blackwater doing the same? You betcha!
Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.
I have no doubt that these guys are more then likely guilty, and I will tell you why.
They are MERCENARIES! They are guns for hire. These guys are not serving their country, they are glorified bodyguards.
So if the opportunity presents itself for them to make even more money, why wouldn't they take it? Because of patriotism? Give me a break!
This is why you don't send paid killers into a war zone!
I have no doubt that these guys are more then likely guilty, and I will tell you why.
They are MERCENARIES! They are guns for hire. These guys are not serving their country, they are glorified bodyguards.
So if the opportunity presents itself for them to make even more money, why wouldn't they take it? Because of patriotism? Give me a break!
This is why you don't send paid killers into a war zone!
Alaska's insanely popular governor wants the soon to be indicted Ted Stevens to start being honest.
Palin said her biggest concern about the ongoing corruption investigation, being run by the FBI and Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, is that it continues to make Alaska look as though it's a place where lawmakers can be bought. That's an impediment to developing the state's resources, Palin said, including the development of a natural gas pipeline."I think people are just kind of asking about the commitment that Alaskans have to change the political climate up here to a climate where (residents) can trust that the decisions the state government is making are based on the best interest of Alaskans, not due to undue influence," she said.
Oooooh she's good!
In Alaska NOBODY challenges Uncle Ted, nobody! But Sarah is in the unique position of being so popular that she can stand up to our political icon without worrying about it affecting her popularity or chance for future election.
But having her take on Ted certainly does not do him any favors. She represents the new ethical open type of government, while Ted represents the evil secretive type of deal making.
In other words, he is screwed!
Friday, September 21, 2007
Bush is trying to get a bill passed to pardon himself from prosecution for war crimes.
He knows what he has done has broken the law and he is desperate to keep from being punished for it.
He has no problem sending our brave soldiers to die for his stubborn lies, but he secretively tries to save his own ass from future harm.
Look up coward in the dictionary, I think you know who you will find.
Here is an article laying out how to sabotage a democracy and establish a fascist dictatorship. Anything seem familiar?
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (terrorists)
2. Create a gulag (Guantanamo Bay)
3. Develop a thug caste (Blackwater)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system (domestic wiretapping)
5. Harass citizens' groups (CIFA)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release (No-fly list)
7. Target key individuals (The eight fired US Attorneys)
8. Control the press (FOX News to name just one)
9. Dissent equals treason (Vilification of Moveon.org calling Democrats "cut and runners")
10. Suspend the rule of law (The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007)
I don't think that leaves much doubt as to how dire our situation in this country has become, does it?
2. Create a gulag (Guantanamo Bay)
3. Develop a thug caste (Blackwater)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system (domestic wiretapping)
5. Harass citizens' groups (CIFA)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release (No-fly list)
7. Target key individuals (The eight fired US Attorneys)
8. Control the press (FOX News to name just one)
9. Dissent equals treason (Vilification of Moveon.org calling Democrats "cut and runners")
10. Suspend the rule of law (The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007)
I don't think that leaves much doubt as to how dire our situation in this country has become, does it?
God responds to lawsuit against him.
A legislator who filed a lawsuit against God has gotten something he might not have expected: a response. One of two court filings from "God" came Wednesday under otherworldly circumstances, according to John Friend, clerk of the Douglas County District Court in Omaha.
"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!" Friend said.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.
Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.
It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.
"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.
There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.
Well I'm convinced.
Good now I can stop being an atheist and start celebrating Chirstmas and Easter again. LOL.
"This one miraculously appeared on the counter. It just all of a sudden was here — poof!" Friend said.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers, a self-proclaimed agnostic who often criticizes Christians, said his filing was triggered by a federal lawsuit he considers frivolous. He said he's trying to makes the point that anybody can sue anybody.
Not so, says "God." His response argues that the defendant is immune from some earthly laws and the court lacks jurisdiction.
It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.
"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.
There was no contact information on the filing, although St. Michael the Archangel is listed as a witness, Friend said.
Well I'm convinced.
Good now I can stop being an atheist and start celebrating Chirstmas and Easter again. LOL.
Jon Stewart seems as surprised as the rest of us at the demise of Nelson Mandela.
I swear the writers on the Daily Show are stealing money while making fun of this President. The jokes practically write themselves!
But it was a great show last night! Though I thought Bill Clinton came off a little stiff. (No pun intended.)
President of Mexico calls Bush a "Windshield cowboy". I have never heard that term before, but already I like it.
President Bush may like to be seen as a swaggering tough guy with a penchant for manly outdoor pursuits, but in a new book one of his closest allies has said he is afraid of horses.
George W Bush saddles up,but where is the horse?
Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, derided his political friend as a "windshield cowboy" – a cowboy who prefers to drive – and "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life".
He recalled a meeting in Mexico shortly after both men had been elected when Mr Fox offered Mr Bush a ride on a "big palomino" horse. Mr Fox, who left office in December, recalled Mr Bush "backing away" from the animal.
''A horse lover can always tell when others don't share our passion," he said, according to the Washington Post.
A wannabe cowboy who is afraid of horses? This is the kiss of death in the cowboy community.
My dad was a real cowboy, and I can tell you that even if he agreed with Bush on every issue he would be totally against him after finding out about this. My dad hated the "urban cowboy" phenomena that took off during the eighties.
So Bush is a pretend Christian who treats the poor and less fortunate with disdain, a pretend conservative who spends like a Beverly Hills trophy wife with a limitless credit card, and now a pretend cowboy who is terrified of his friend Flicka.
Can you believe people actually voted for this buffoon?
George W Bush saddles up,but where is the horse?
Vicente Fox, the former president of Mexico, derided his political friend as a "windshield cowboy" – a cowboy who prefers to drive – and "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life".
He recalled a meeting in Mexico shortly after both men had been elected when Mr Fox offered Mr Bush a ride on a "big palomino" horse. Mr Fox, who left office in December, recalled Mr Bush "backing away" from the animal.
''A horse lover can always tell when others don't share our passion," he said, according to the Washington Post.
A wannabe cowboy who is afraid of horses? This is the kiss of death in the cowboy community.
My dad was a real cowboy, and I can tell you that even if he agreed with Bush on every issue he would be totally against him after finding out about this. My dad hated the "urban cowboy" phenomena that took off during the eighties.
So Bush is a pretend Christian who treats the poor and less fortunate with disdain, a pretend conservative who spends like a Beverly Hills trophy wife with a limitless credit card, and now a pretend cowboy who is terrified of his friend Flicka.
Can you believe people actually voted for this buffoon?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Condoleezza Rice does not appreciate others telling her what the Bush administration is doing wrong about Iran.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice cautioned the U.N. nuclear watchdog group Wednesday not to interfere with international diplomacy over Iran's alleged weapons program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency "is not in the business of diplomacy," Rice told reporters traveling with her to the Middle East.
Really? The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy? Well neither is the Bush administration!
All this bunch of morons wants to do is send threatening comments, refuse to talk about anything, and try to convince Israel to start a fight that they can join in on.
Who can blame ANYBODY for trying to stop our government for starting another war that we are completely un-equipped to fight.
And when somebody from Iran comes here and expresses a desire to pay his respects at the place of our worst national crisis, this is how we respond.
We need as many voices of reason to speak out against this administrations policies in Iran as we can get. In my opinion all are welcome.
The International Atomic Energy Agency "is not in the business of diplomacy," Rice told reporters traveling with her to the Middle East.
Really? The IAEA is not in the business of diplomacy? Well neither is the Bush administration!
All this bunch of morons wants to do is send threatening comments, refuse to talk about anything, and try to convince Israel to start a fight that they can join in on.
Who can blame ANYBODY for trying to stop our government for starting another war that we are completely un-equipped to fight.
And when somebody from Iran comes here and expresses a desire to pay his respects at the place of our worst national crisis, this is how we respond.
We need as many voices of reason to speak out against this administrations policies in Iran as we can get. In my opinion all are welcome.
No wonder Bush misses Rumsfeld. New Secretary of Defense does not know if invading Iraq was a good idea.
The New York times reporter David Brooks asked Robert Gates this question:I asked him whether invading Iraq was a good idea, knowing what we know now. He looked at me for a bit and said, “I don’t know.”
How in the hell did an honest answer slip out of the Bush administration?
Did Robert Gates not get in line for his sip of Kool-aid today?
I have to imagine that this will result in a little trip to the re-education room for Mr. Gates.
Senator Ted Stevens supports domestic wiretapping. Let's see how he likes it.
The FBI, working with an Alaska oil contractor, secretly taped telephone calls with Sen. Ted Stevens as part of a public corruption sting, according to people close to the investigation.
The secret recordings suggest the Justice Department was eyeing Stevens long before June, when the Republican senator first publicly acknowledged he was under scrutiny. At that time, it appeared Stevens was a new focus in a case that had already ensnared several state lawmakers.
The recorded calls between Stevens and businessman Bill Allen were confirmed by two people close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. They declined to say how many calls were recorded or what was said.
I am beginning to think that the so called "bridge to nowhere" is where Uncle Ted's political future is headed.
The secret recordings suggest the Justice Department was eyeing Stevens long before June, when the Republican senator first publicly acknowledged he was under scrutiny. At that time, it appeared Stevens was a new focus in a case that had already ensnared several state lawmakers.
The recorded calls between Stevens and businessman Bill Allen were confirmed by two people close to the case who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way. They declined to say how many calls were recorded or what was said.
I am beginning to think that the so called "bridge to nowhere" is where Uncle Ted's political future is headed.
I don't usually agree with conservatives but this guy may be on to something.
A conservative German politician on Wednesday proposed making marriage contracts expire after seven years, with the option to renew for those not feeling the proverbial itch.
"I propose that marriages lapse after seven years," Gabriele Pauli told reporters in Munich, the capital of the largely Catholic southern state of Bavaria.
"This would mean that one will only commit for a fixed period and will actively have to renew your vows if you still want to continue."
Pauli, 50, has been divorced twice.
That sounds about right. I think that I was more then ready to call it off after seven years into my last marriage, or perhaps earlier.
See if you wanted to go on you just signed up for another seven, but if you didn't you could walk away, no harm no foul.
"I propose that marriages lapse after seven years," Gabriele Pauli told reporters in Munich, the capital of the largely Catholic southern state of Bavaria.
"This would mean that one will only commit for a fixed period and will actively have to renew your vows if you still want to continue."
Pauli, 50, has been divorced twice.
That sounds about right. I think that I was more then ready to call it off after seven years into my last marriage, or perhaps earlier.
See if you wanted to go on you just signed up for another seven, but if you didn't you could walk away, no harm no foul.
I watched the President's press conference on CNN this morning and all I got was a dull throb in my temples.
He was strutting around behind the podium, bullying the reporters, refusing to answer a number of questions, and just being a complete dick!
He kept talking about not raising taxes, and that any Presidential candidate that pledges to not raise taxes is going to be successful. Really? Does this "no taxes" bait and switch still work with voters?
In a country with a crumbling economy, and out of control foreign policy, and the hatred of the world focused on them, do we really base our support on who will keep taxes low? That just seems insane to me.
How long can the Republicans hide the cost of their policies by borrowing from China? I mean how long before those markers get called in and we have to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars? How high do you think your taxes will be then?
Do yourself a favor. Do not allow the Republicans to manipulate your emotions with such phrases as "no taxes", or "war on terror", or "family values", or "no abortions". These politicians do not really care about those issues. They just know that if they rub your tummy the right way they can get you to roll over for them.
You are a human being, with a complex intellect. Use it!
Here is a link to the entire speech. This reminded me very much of the last speech that Bush gave where he talked about America having 36 allies in Iraq and just seemed to be listening to crazed voices in his head. I think we may be watching the President of the Untied States decompensating right before our eyes.
He kept talking about not raising taxes, and that any Presidential candidate that pledges to not raise taxes is going to be successful. Really? Does this "no taxes" bait and switch still work with voters?
In a country with a crumbling economy, and out of control foreign policy, and the hatred of the world focused on them, do we really base our support on who will keep taxes low? That just seems insane to me.
How long can the Republicans hide the cost of their policies by borrowing from China? I mean how long before those markers get called in and we have to pay back hundreds of billions of dollars? How high do you think your taxes will be then?
Do yourself a favor. Do not allow the Republicans to manipulate your emotions with such phrases as "no taxes", or "war on terror", or "family values", or "no abortions". These politicians do not really care about those issues. They just know that if they rub your tummy the right way they can get you to roll over for them.
You are a human being, with a complex intellect. Use it!
Here is a link to the entire speech. This reminded me very much of the last speech that Bush gave where he talked about America having 36 allies in Iraq and just seemed to be listening to crazed voices in his head. I think we may be watching the President of the Untied States decompensating right before our eyes.
There is more and more evidence that Blackwater acted without provocation resulting in many Iraqi deaths.
Hasan Jaber Salman lies in Yarmouk Hospital, bandages covering gunshot wounds in his back.
Salman says he is a lawyer who was headed from a courthouse to the Ministry of Justice when he found his route blocked by four armored Blackwater SUVs.
The roadblock soon caused a traffic snarl, so armed Blackwater guards began waving at the drivers, telling them to turn around and leave the area.
"So we turned back, and as we turned back they opened fire at all cars from behind," Salman said. "All my injuries, the bullets are in my back.
"Within two minutes the security force arrived in planes -- part of the security company Blackwater. They started firing randomly at all citizens."
Blackwater, in a statement issued after the incident, denied that gunfire came from aircraft.
"The helicopters providing aerial support never fired weapons," it said.
The firm also said its employees "acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile attack."
But Salman claims the attack was unprovoked.
"No one fired at them, they were not attacked by gunmen, they were not targeted by an explosion," he said.
The firing continued until Salman's car crashed into a police checkpoint and flipped over, he said, adding that eight bullets struck his car and four struck him.
"My left shoulder is broken ... and my arm is broken. I had a surgery. ... They opened up my stomach," he said. "I swear to God no one did anything to them at all."
In this hellhole it is almost impossible to determine exactly what transpires in these conflicts.
But wounds in the back are a little hard to explain away.
It is certainly not inconceivable that the Blackwater people felt threatened. However there is much evidence that these guys react with armed aggression to almost ALL situations that they encounter while on the job.
The real question is whether having armed civilians in a war zone providing security is a good idea. In my opinion it is not.
By the way even the military has issues with Blackwater. Huge issues.
Here is part of the story of a Blackwater employee who was about to get kicked out of his apartment and called the American military for help.
On June 22, Peters spoke with an Iraqi official who administers housing in the Green Zone and she gave him a week to vacate the apartment, since the Iraqi with whom Peters signed a rental agreement was illegal and was going to be evicted anyway.
Fearing the approaching deadline, Peters said he took his plight to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The advice he got was to go to Casey.
"I'm thinking, well let me call this guy, he's an American. It was recommended I call him for help and when I called him, he was worse than the Iraqi police," Peters said. "He says 'why are you over here?' He's yelling in the phone ... 'You're over here for the money. All you contractors are alike … I'm going to throw you out of the country, if I find you.'
"This is what I'm hearing from an American Army officer when I call him for help."
Salman says he is a lawyer who was headed from a courthouse to the Ministry of Justice when he found his route blocked by four armored Blackwater SUVs.
The roadblock soon caused a traffic snarl, so armed Blackwater guards began waving at the drivers, telling them to turn around and leave the area.
"So we turned back, and as we turned back they opened fire at all cars from behind," Salman said. "All my injuries, the bullets are in my back.
"Within two minutes the security force arrived in planes -- part of the security company Blackwater. They started firing randomly at all citizens."
Blackwater, in a statement issued after the incident, denied that gunfire came from aircraft.
"The helicopters providing aerial support never fired weapons," it said.
The firm also said its employees "acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile attack."
But Salman claims the attack was unprovoked.
"No one fired at them, they were not attacked by gunmen, they were not targeted by an explosion," he said.
The firing continued until Salman's car crashed into a police checkpoint and flipped over, he said, adding that eight bullets struck his car and four struck him.
"My left shoulder is broken ... and my arm is broken. I had a surgery. ... They opened up my stomach," he said. "I swear to God no one did anything to them at all."
In this hellhole it is almost impossible to determine exactly what transpires in these conflicts.
But wounds in the back are a little hard to explain away.
It is certainly not inconceivable that the Blackwater people felt threatened. However there is much evidence that these guys react with armed aggression to almost ALL situations that they encounter while on the job.
The real question is whether having armed civilians in a war zone providing security is a good idea. In my opinion it is not.
By the way even the military has issues with Blackwater. Huge issues.
Here is part of the story of a Blackwater employee who was about to get kicked out of his apartment and called the American military for help.
On June 22, Peters spoke with an Iraqi official who administers housing in the Green Zone and she gave him a week to vacate the apartment, since the Iraqi with whom Peters signed a rental agreement was illegal and was going to be evicted anyway.
Fearing the approaching deadline, Peters said he took his plight to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The advice he got was to go to Casey.
"I'm thinking, well let me call this guy, he's an American. It was recommended I call him for help and when I called him, he was worse than the Iraqi police," Peters said. "He says 'why are you over here?' He's yelling in the phone ... 'You're over here for the money. All you contractors are alike … I'm going to throw you out of the country, if I find you.'
"This is what I'm hearing from an American Army officer when I call him for help."
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Soldier stationed in Iraq sues Pentagon for trying to force Christianity on his pagan ass.
A military watchdog organization filed a lawsuit in federal court Tuesday against the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and a US Army major, on behalf of an Army soldier stationed in Iraq. The suit charges the Pentagon with widespread constitutional violations by allegedly trying to force the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity and then retaliating against him when he refused.
"Immediately after plaintiff made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking ... staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist," says the lawsuit, a copy of which was provided to Truthout. "The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response caused the staff sergeant to tell plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."
Religious freedom is only espoused by Christians when they fear that their own beliefs are under fire.
Nobody should have to be forced to feel uncomfortable due to their beliefs or lack of beliefs in their workplace. Especially while facing danger everyday.
I just had to shoo away some bible thumpers while I was in the middle of posting this. Seriously.
Now I do not know any Atheists who feel it is appropriate to go door to door telling people that they should embrace their lack of beliefs. But these arrogant assholes have no problem interrupting a person in their home in an attempt to shove their primitive superstitions down our throats.
"Immediately after plaintiff made it known he would decline to join hands and pray, he was confronted, in the presence of other military personnel, by the senior ranking ... staff sergeant who asked plaintiff why he did not want to pray, whereupon plaintiff explained because he is an atheist," says the lawsuit, a copy of which was provided to Truthout. "The staff sergeant asked plaintiff what an atheist is and plaintiff responded it meant that he (plaintiff) did not believe in God. This response caused the staff sergeant to tell plaintiff that he would have to sit elsewhere for the Thanksgiving dinner. Nonetheless, plaintiff sat at the table in silence and finished his meal."
Religious freedom is only espoused by Christians when they fear that their own beliefs are under fire.
Nobody should have to be forced to feel uncomfortable due to their beliefs or lack of beliefs in their workplace. Especially while facing danger everyday.
I just had to shoo away some bible thumpers while I was in the middle of posting this. Seriously.
Now I do not know any Atheists who feel it is appropriate to go door to door telling people that they should embrace their lack of beliefs. But these arrogant assholes have no problem interrupting a person in their home in an attempt to shove their primitive superstitions down our throats.
We are not trying to stop the civil war in Iraq, we are profiting from it!
Iraq is becoming one of the United States’ larger foreign military sales customers, committing some 1.6 billion (dollars) to FMS already, with the possibility of up to 1.8 billion (dollars) more being committed before the end of this year.
Not only that we are fomenting multiple civil wars in the Middle East to destabilize the region we are also positioning ourselves to make billions of dollars off of the ensuing bloodbath.
First, the United States is arming up different sides in multiple civil wars that could turn even more vicious in the coming years. Second (and more important to America’s strategic interests) billions of dollars of U.S. military assistance is going to some of the closest allies of America’s greatest rival in the Middle East — Iran. The Shi’a-dominated Iraqi national army and security forces could quite quickly turn their weapons against American troops and allies in the region.
So if we really do end up in a war with Iran our soldiers can look forward to being killed with American weaponry, again.
And we wonder why these people hate us.
Not only that we are fomenting multiple civil wars in the Middle East to destabilize the region we are also positioning ourselves to make billions of dollars off of the ensuing bloodbath.
First, the United States is arming up different sides in multiple civil wars that could turn even more vicious in the coming years. Second (and more important to America’s strategic interests) billions of dollars of U.S. military assistance is going to some of the closest allies of America’s greatest rival in the Middle East — Iran. The Shi’a-dominated Iraqi national army and security forces could quite quickly turn their weapons against American troops and allies in the region.
So if we really do end up in a war with Iran our soldiers can look forward to being killed with American weaponry, again.
And we wonder why these people hate us.
Even with Bush's numbers in the toilet we still cannot get back our basic civil rights.
Today the US Senate fell four votes short of restoring Habeas Corpus, the fundamental constitutional right of individuals to challenge government detention, which the Republican Congress revoked in last year's Military Commissions Act. Fifty-six senators supported a procedural move to tie the Habeas provision to legislation authorizing defense spending--a step that requires sixty votes.
The amendment was sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Senator Arlen Specter, who voted for the legislation that the amendment attempts to reverse, and Senator Chris Dodd, who blasted today's vote. "Each of us in the Senate faced a decision either to cast a vote in favor of helping to restore America's reputation in the world, or to help dig deeper the hole of utter disrespect for the rule of law that the Bush Administration has created. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues chose the latter," he said.
This is beyond belief! How in the hell can we not get our Senate to give its constituents the rights that they have had in this country since it was first formed?
So who do we thank for once again treating our citizens like residents of a police state. I thought you would never ask.
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID) (Nice to see old "wide stance" back sticking it to Americans)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT) (So much for voting with the Democrats traitor.)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK) ( we are about to investigate his ass.)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK) (Him too.)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
So there you have it folks. That is the list of shame! Remember them when the next election rolls around okay?
(I must give a hat tip to Skippy for compiling the above list)
The amendment was sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, Senator Arlen Specter, who voted for the legislation that the amendment attempts to reverse, and Senator Chris Dodd, who blasted today's vote. "Each of us in the Senate faced a decision either to cast a vote in favor of helping to restore America's reputation in the world, or to help dig deeper the hole of utter disrespect for the rule of law that the Bush Administration has created. Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues chose the latter," he said.
This is beyond belief! How in the hell can we not get our Senate to give its constituents the rights that they have had in this country since it was first formed?
So who do we thank for once again treating our citizens like residents of a police state. I thought you would never ask.
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID) (Nice to see old "wide stance" back sticking it to Americans)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT) (So much for voting with the Democrats traitor.)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK) ( we are about to investigate his ass.)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK) (Him too.)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
So there you have it folks. That is the list of shame! Remember them when the next election rolls around okay?
(I must give a hat tip to Skippy for compiling the above list)
Who do you believe?
A preliminary Iraqi report on a shooting involving an American diplomatic motorcade said Tuesday that Blackwater security guards were not ambushed, as the company reported, but instead fired at a car when it did not heed a policeman’s call to stop, killing a couple and their infant.
The report, by the Ministry of Interior, was presented to the Iraqi cabinet and, though unverified, seemed to contradict an account offered by Blackwater USA that the guards were responding to gunfire by militants. The report said Blackwater helicopters had also fired. The Ministry of Defense said 20 Iraqis had been killed, a far higher number than had been reported before.
I do not have all of the facts yet, but if I were forced to choose I would probably side with the Iraqis on this one. Those Blackwater guys are a bunch of goons.
The report, by the Ministry of Interior, was presented to the Iraqi cabinet and, though unverified, seemed to contradict an account offered by Blackwater USA that the guards were responding to gunfire by militants. The report said Blackwater helicopters had also fired. The Ministry of Defense said 20 Iraqis had been killed, a far higher number than had been reported before.
I do not have all of the facts yet, but if I were forced to choose I would probably side with the Iraqis on this one. Those Blackwater guys are a bunch of goons.
O.J. Simpson is not black!
Are you done gasping yet?
Let me explain. I am watching the start of the whole O.J. circus unpacking their tents and getting ready for the big show. Reporters are reminiscing about the 1995 trial and waxing poetically about the "old days". In other words they are chomping at the bit to cover another ridiculous story that distracts us from the Iraq war, the buildup to invading Iran, the corruption in the Bush administration, and many more very important stories.
So I knew what was coming next, it was inevitable. And then there it was. Somebody brought up "racism". And that was suggested as the reason that O.J. was being charged while others who are involved are not.
Now I am very aware that racism exists in this country, and I am perfectly willing to accept that racism is more then likely a factor in the Jena 6 situation. But it is not an issue in the O.J. case. It just isn't!
And it wasn't a factor in 1995. Even though the African American community believed that O.J. was being persecuted because he was a black man who was being accused of killing a white woman, that was just not true.
You know why? Because he is not black.
Before 1995 O.J. was one of the most beloved figures in America. He co-starred in the popular "Naked Gun" movies and many other films, he made the famous Hertz commercials where he ran through the airport, and he was on television commenting on football every Sunday. He was a much loved media superstar. He was the "Juice".
So when he was accused of the brutal killing of his wife, and then he engaged in that slow motion escape attempt in the white Bronco, we were riveted. Not because he was black. Because he was famous.
When his defense team brought up race, it was simply as way to muddy the waters and to get support from the black community that was still incensed over the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial.
But race should never have been raised in that trial or this new trial. And the reason for that is that O.J. was just too damn beloved.
If Oprah went on trial, nobody could use racism as her defense. It just would not make any sense! She is Oprah for goodness sakes! The same is true of Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan, or Will Smith, or Michael Jackson! (Okay that last one is a given.)
It can be argued that O.J. will not receive a fair trial because of prejudice due to his last trial, or a general dislike of him because of his press coverage, but not because of the color of his skin.
That just diminishes the importance of racism in this country.
Now having made that point, I am going to ignore this stupid story. I find it to be a distraction from the important issues of our time. Or maybe you haven't heard? Our country is broken!
Let me explain. I am watching the start of the whole O.J. circus unpacking their tents and getting ready for the big show. Reporters are reminiscing about the 1995 trial and waxing poetically about the "old days". In other words they are chomping at the bit to cover another ridiculous story that distracts us from the Iraq war, the buildup to invading Iran, the corruption in the Bush administration, and many more very important stories.
So I knew what was coming next, it was inevitable. And then there it was. Somebody brought up "racism". And that was suggested as the reason that O.J. was being charged while others who are involved are not.
Now I am very aware that racism exists in this country, and I am perfectly willing to accept that racism is more then likely a factor in the Jena 6 situation. But it is not an issue in the O.J. case. It just isn't!
And it wasn't a factor in 1995. Even though the African American community believed that O.J. was being persecuted because he was a black man who was being accused of killing a white woman, that was just not true.
You know why? Because he is not black.
Before 1995 O.J. was one of the most beloved figures in America. He co-starred in the popular "Naked Gun" movies and many other films, he made the famous Hertz commercials where he ran through the airport, and he was on television commenting on football every Sunday. He was a much loved media superstar. He was the "Juice".
So when he was accused of the brutal killing of his wife, and then he engaged in that slow motion escape attempt in the white Bronco, we were riveted. Not because he was black. Because he was famous.
When his defense team brought up race, it was simply as way to muddy the waters and to get support from the black community that was still incensed over the Rodney King beating and subsequent trial.
But race should never have been raised in that trial or this new trial. And the reason for that is that O.J. was just too damn beloved.
If Oprah went on trial, nobody could use racism as her defense. It just would not make any sense! She is Oprah for goodness sakes! The same is true of Tiger Woods, or Michael Jordan, or Will Smith, or Michael Jackson! (Okay that last one is a given.)
It can be argued that O.J. will not receive a fair trial because of prejudice due to his last trial, or a general dislike of him because of his press coverage, but not because of the color of his skin.
That just diminishes the importance of racism in this country.
Now having made that point, I am going to ignore this stupid story. I find it to be a distraction from the important issues of our time. Or maybe you haven't heard? Our country is broken!
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Talk about taking one for the team.
Older men who shack up with much younger women keep the grim reaper at bay for the human population and extend our species' lifespan, new research claims.
Now as a guy I have no choice but to support these findings. No choice I tell you!
But one has to wonder if the scientist wasn't some dirty old man who just wanted some young stuff.
Now as a guy I have no choice but to support these findings. No choice I tell you!
But one has to wonder if the scientist wasn't some dirty old man who just wanted some young stuff.
So who is Blackwater? And who is paying for their services in Iraq?
The answer to the first part of the question in my headline is answered in the above video. The answer to the second part is, we do.
If anybody is still having trouble understanding why the Bush administration is so against pulling out of Iraq, you could come up with many theories, from the desire to start a war to usher in the return of Jesus Christ to the single minded obsession to control the world's oil.
But one of the other, even more compelling, reason may simply be that it is a goldmine to Bush supporters. Oil companies, arms dealers, and companies like Blackwater, are making money hand over fist.
Of all of the possible reasons not to leave Iraq, this may be the most abhorrent. To keep our soldiers in harms way simply to help your associates to profit from their deaths. The more soldiers that die, the more private security Bush will need in Baghdad and the surrounding areas to protect others that work with our government.
The truly sad thing is that we just have to throw this on the pile of other Bush criminal activities that we have uncovered over the last six years. Just what does it take to get a President impeached around here anyway?
(I must give a hat tip to my friend Enigma over at Watergate Summer who brought this video to my attention.)
Man sues God. This looks like a job for those Liberty University lawyers.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers is suing God. He said on Monday that it is to prove a point about frivolous lawsuits.
In the lawsuit, Chambers said he's tried to contact God numerous times.
"Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon defendant 'Come out, come out, wherever you are,' has been unable to do so,'" Chambers said.
The lawsuit accuses God "of making and continuing to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent." It says God has caused "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like."
The suit also says God has caused "calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction."
Okay clearly this is a publicity stunt but I think this guy makes his point about frivolous lawsuits.
I would like somebody to ask God about child endangerment. I mean he allowed his son to be crucified in an effort to further his agenda. That just does not seem like responsible parenting to me.
In the lawsuit, Chambers said he's tried to contact God numerous times.
"Plaintiff, despite reasonable efforts to effectuate personal service upon defendant 'Come out, come out, wherever you are,' has been unable to do so,'" Chambers said.
The lawsuit accuses God "of making and continuing to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons, including constituents of Plaintiff who Plaintiff has the duty to represent." It says God has caused "fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating droughts, genocidal wars, birth defects and the like."
The suit also says God has caused "calamitous catastrophes resulting in the wide-spread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants including innocent babes, infants, children, the aged and infirm without mercy or distinction."
Okay clearly this is a publicity stunt but I think this guy makes his point about frivolous lawsuits.
I would like somebody to ask God about child endangerment. I mean he allowed his son to be crucified in an effort to further his agenda. That just does not seem like responsible parenting to me.
Retired Army general says a nuclear Iran is not the end of the world.
John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.
"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
Both India and Pakistan have attained nuclear weapons, not to mention North Korea, and no imminent nuclear threat seems to be on the horizon.
This administration keeps acting like Iran is just waiting to blow a hole in the United States with nuclear technology, when there is no evidence to support that contention.
Let's face it the Bush administration just wants a reason to attack Iran and get at their oil and they are using this as an excuse. It is up to us to stop them.
"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."
The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.
Both India and Pakistan have attained nuclear weapons, not to mention North Korea, and no imminent nuclear threat seems to be on the horizon.
This administration keeps acting like Iran is just waiting to blow a hole in the United States with nuclear technology, when there is no evidence to support that contention.
Let's face it the Bush administration just wants a reason to attack Iran and get at their oil and they are using this as an excuse. It is up to us to stop them.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Bush's Iraq speech made Keith Olbermann's appendix explode!
Keith Olbermann is recovering from emergency surgery to remove his appendix. The surgery occured late Friday. Olbermann will miss his appearance on NBC's Football Night in America, as well as at least a few days of Countdown on MSNBC. MSNBC spokesperson Jeremy Gaines tells TVNewser Olbermann "is doing fine" and hopes to be back hosting Countdown at some point next week. Gaines tells us Alison Stewart will be filling in tomorrow and Tuesday on Countdown.
You know I listened to that speech and could not figure out what the chimp was trying to say. It was full of so many lies, half truths, and imaginary information that I believed the President had simply run out of medication.
But now I see the genius behind the speech.
Bush was trying to destroy the liberal media types who were covering the speech. I noticed that Chris Matthews looked bewildered and little nauseous, but he is not liberal enough to get the full effect of the speech.
But Keith simply could not take it! It attacked his internal organs until they started to eat him from the inside out.
In my opinion (which is very intelligent, take my word for it), the entire speech was an attempt to silence Keith Olbermann and keep him from making any more of his Special Comments.
But Keith lived! And soon he will be back to make the President's, and Bill O'Reilly's, life a living hell!
Get well soon Keith! We love you man!
You know I listened to that speech and could not figure out what the chimp was trying to say. It was full of so many lies, half truths, and imaginary information that I believed the President had simply run out of medication.
But now I see the genius behind the speech.
Bush was trying to destroy the liberal media types who were covering the speech. I noticed that Chris Matthews looked bewildered and little nauseous, but he is not liberal enough to get the full effect of the speech.
But Keith simply could not take it! It attacked his internal organs until they started to eat him from the inside out.
In my opinion (which is very intelligent, take my word for it), the entire speech was an attempt to silence Keith Olbermann and keep him from making any more of his Special Comments.
But Keith lived! And soon he will be back to make the President's, and Bill O'Reilly's, life a living hell!
Get well soon Keith! We love you man!
Bush's plans for Iran have earned him some blow back from the Chief UN Nuclear Inspector.
Invoking the war in Iraq, the chief U.N. nuclear inspector criticized talk of attacking Iran as “hype” on Monday, saying the use of force should only be considered as a last resort and only if authorized by the U.N. Security Council.
“I would not talk about any use of force,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an indirect response to French warnings that the world had to be prepared for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons.
Saying only the U.N. Security Council could authorize the use of force, ElBaradei urged the world to remember Iraq before considering any similar action against Iran.
“There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 70,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons,” he told reporters.
He was alluding to a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 without Security Council approval_ that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no such arsenals have been found.
Unlike the Iraq invasion, Bush is going to find no political cover for an attack on Iran. Too many world leaders and Pentagon officials have gone on record saying that attacking Iran is a mistake and will lead to devastating circumstances.
If Bush does this he will earn the acrimony of every other nation in the world , with the possible exception of Israel, and will infuriate the people of his own country.
The world is war weary and will not stand still for another invasion.
But if Bush wants to show us his cajones he can debate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN and maybe earn just a little respect back. Just a little.
“I would not talk about any use of force,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in an indirect response to French warnings that the world had to be prepared for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons.
Saying only the U.N. Security Council could authorize the use of force, ElBaradei urged the world to remember Iraq before considering any similar action against Iran.
“There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 70,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons,” he told reporters.
He was alluding to a key U.S. argument for invading Iraq in 2003 without Security Council approval_ that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms. Four years later, no such arsenals have been found.
Unlike the Iraq invasion, Bush is going to find no political cover for an attack on Iran. Too many world leaders and Pentagon officials have gone on record saying that attacking Iran is a mistake and will lead to devastating circumstances.
If Bush does this he will earn the acrimony of every other nation in the world , with the possible exception of Israel, and will infuriate the people of his own country.
The world is war weary and will not stand still for another invasion.
But if Bush wants to show us his cajones he can debate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the UN and maybe earn just a little respect back. Just a little.
Our President is a pussy.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged U.S. President George W. Bush to a debate on global issues at a U.N. summit in New York, state TV reported on Sunday, repeating a call rejected by Washington last year.
"I had suggested holding a debate. I am saying again that let us discuss global concerns at the (U.N.) General Assembly in front of representatives of other nations," Ahmadinejad told state television.
"I am ready to hold talks with Bush on important global issues at the assembly," he said. "Let us hold talks about Iraq and other issues. Then public opinion will judge ... We will offer our global solutions."
You know in my opinion if you are going to talk shit about somebody, while secretly planning to attack them, all while refusing the opportunity to talk to the man one on one, you are a pansy ass of the highest order.
This man who swaggers around like a reincarnated John Wayne, was elected due to the underhanded techniques of Karl Rove, has had Dick Cheney handle the heavy lifting of his Presidency, who has surrounded himself with people who defer to him on all things, who cannot even manage to give a coherent speech even though it is written by much smarter people, does not even have the balls to talk to a tiny man from a third world country for fear of looking ridiculous by comparison.
Instead he wants to send our mighty military to squash a country that poses no more threat to us then did Iraq. He cowers in the dark while yelling commands through a bullhorn to an army of brave young men and women, each of whose lives are worth far more then the life of this Nancy-boy.
I have to wonder if Laura gets serviced by surrogate as well, since I am sure that George cannot deliver on his promises in the bedroom any more then he can in his political life.
And this insect is who the Republicans choose to stand behind no matter how stupid or dangerous his tactics are to us and our country? In my opinion that negates any rational consideration for a Republican being elected to any political office in 2008.
"I had suggested holding a debate. I am saying again that let us discuss global concerns at the (U.N.) General Assembly in front of representatives of other nations," Ahmadinejad told state television.
"I am ready to hold talks with Bush on important global issues at the assembly," he said. "Let us hold talks about Iraq and other issues. Then public opinion will judge ... We will offer our global solutions."
You know in my opinion if you are going to talk shit about somebody, while secretly planning to attack them, all while refusing the opportunity to talk to the man one on one, you are a pansy ass of the highest order.
This man who swaggers around like a reincarnated John Wayne, was elected due to the underhanded techniques of Karl Rove, has had Dick Cheney handle the heavy lifting of his Presidency, who has surrounded himself with people who defer to him on all things, who cannot even manage to give a coherent speech even though it is written by much smarter people, does not even have the balls to talk to a tiny man from a third world country for fear of looking ridiculous by comparison.
Instead he wants to send our mighty military to squash a country that poses no more threat to us then did Iraq. He cowers in the dark while yelling commands through a bullhorn to an army of brave young men and women, each of whose lives are worth far more then the life of this Nancy-boy.
I have to wonder if Laura gets serviced by surrogate as well, since I am sure that George cannot deliver on his promises in the bedroom any more then he can in his political life.
And this insect is who the Republicans choose to stand behind no matter how stupid or dangerous his tactics are to us and our country? In my opinion that negates any rational consideration for a Republican being elected to any political office in 2008.
Over a million Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 American invasion.
According to a new study, 1.2 million Iraqis have met violent deaths since the 2003 invasion, the highest estimate of war-related fatalities yet. The study was done by the British polling firm ORB, which conducted face-to-face interviews with a sample of over 1,700 Iraqi adults in 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Two provinces -- al-Anbar and Karbala -- were too dangerous to canvas, and officials in a third, Irbil, didn't give the researchers a permit to do their work. The study's margin of error was plus-minus 2.4 percent.
Field workers asked residents how many members of their own household had been killed since the invasion. More than one in five respondents said that at least one person in their home had been murdered since March of 2003. One in three Iraqis also said that at least some neighbors "actually living on [their] street" had fled the carnage, with around half of those having left the country.
In Baghdad, almost half of those interviewed reported at least one violent death in their household.
If you voted for Bush this blood is on your hands.
Remember that Saddam may have killed many of his own people, but those deaths were not as a result of Americans. These deaths are the direct result of a war that should never have happened.
Every one of us should be shamed by this, because it was done in our name.
And the only question remaining is"what are we going to do about it?"
Field workers asked residents how many members of their own household had been killed since the invasion. More than one in five respondents said that at least one person in their home had been murdered since March of 2003. One in three Iraqis also said that at least some neighbors "actually living on [their] street" had fled the carnage, with around half of those having left the country.
In Baghdad, almost half of those interviewed reported at least one violent death in their household.
If you voted for Bush this blood is on your hands.
Remember that Saddam may have killed many of his own people, but those deaths were not as a result of Americans. These deaths are the direct result of a war that should never have happened.
Every one of us should be shamed by this, because it was done in our name.
And the only question remaining is"what are we going to do about it?"
So which word was FOX protecting us from, "Goddamn" or "War"?
Accepting her Emmy on Sunday night for lead actress in a drama series ("Brothers and Sisters"), Field stumbled halfway through, lost her train of thought, screeched at the audience to stop applauding so she could finish talking -- and then was bleeped by Fox censors as she stammered through an anti-war rant.
"And, let's face it, if the mothers ruled the war, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place," Field said, but Fox cut away for much of her comment.
What was bleeped was the phrase "goddamn wars". The above partial quote is inaccurate, as the sound went off and the camera angle was changed after she said "there would be no go..", so no one in the American television audience would have known what she was saying if not for the print media.
Personally I don't think that any of it deserved to be bleeped. Her opinion about war is the one that is shared by the majority of Americans, and as for the "goddamn", well I have heard ministers say that.
"And, let's face it, if the mothers ruled the war, there would be no (expletive) wars in the first place," Field said, but Fox cut away for much of her comment.
What was bleeped was the phrase "goddamn wars". The above partial quote is inaccurate, as the sound went off and the camera angle was changed after she said "there would be no go..", so no one in the American television audience would have known what she was saying if not for the print media.
Personally I don't think that any of it deserved to be bleeped. Her opinion about war is the one that is shared by the majority of Americans, and as for the "goddamn", well I have heard ministers say that.
We are a nation of sick, sick people.
When tourists ask for the bathroom in the Minneapolis airport lately, it's usually not because they have to go.
It's because they want to see the stall made famous by U.S. Sen. Larry Craig's arrest in a sex sting.
''It's become a tourist attraction,'' said Karen Evans of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. ''People are taking pictures.''
I wonder if everybody who goes into the stall attempts their own "wide stance".
It's because they want to see the stall made famous by U.S. Sen. Larry Craig's arrest in a sex sting.
''It's become a tourist attraction,'' said Karen Evans of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. ''People are taking pictures.''
I wonder if everybody who goes into the stall attempts their own "wide stance".
Sunday, September 16, 2007
This is a good question.
So how many of our young soldiers lives are we willing to sacrifice to get to drive our SUV's?The war is for oil, as Alan Greenspan has confirmed for us. And the administration is so screwed up that, instead of bringing the prices down, the war has made them go up.
Great evil plan you had there you neo-con retards.
Screw the Clinton/Guiliani debate. This is the debate that I want to see!
Be honest. How many of you would be sure to Tivo this bad boy?
This may be the most accurate information to come out of Baghdad in years.
Iraqi lawmakers said on Saturday that Washington should take responsibility for the turmoil in Iraq and stop blaming Baghdad, Iran and Syria.
Frustrated by criticism from the United States over their slow progress towards political goals meant to foster national reconciliation, Iraqi leaders said Washington would be better served by examining its own progress in the unpopular war.
"The Americans always try to pretend the responsibility for cleaning up this mess isn't theirs and tend to shift blame onto Iraq, Iran and Syria for everything that goes wrong," said veteran Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.
"But they should stop this nonsense and admit that most of the accountability rests on their shoulders," he told Reuters.
To depose a leader of a country, destroy the country's infrastructure, kill thousands of their citizens, allow a civil war to foment on your watch, and then demand that the country cobble together a political structure completely foreign to them to solve these problems is indefensible.
And when Hillary Clinton parrots these Republican talking points she demonstrates herself to be a follower, not a leader.
Frustrated by criticism from the United States over their slow progress towards political goals meant to foster national reconciliation, Iraqi leaders said Washington would be better served by examining its own progress in the unpopular war.
"The Americans always try to pretend the responsibility for cleaning up this mess isn't theirs and tend to shift blame onto Iraq, Iran and Syria for everything that goes wrong," said veteran Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman.
"But they should stop this nonsense and admit that most of the accountability rests on their shoulders," he told Reuters.
To depose a leader of a country, destroy the country's infrastructure, kill thousands of their citizens, allow a civil war to foment on your watch, and then demand that the country cobble together a political structure completely foreign to them to solve these problems is indefensible.
And when Hillary Clinton parrots these Republican talking points she demonstrates herself to be a follower, not a leader.
Pentagon and CIA officials confirm that Bush is still pushing for war with Iran.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
This is so eerily reminiscent of how we started laying the groundwork for the Iraq invasion that it almost seems like they are using the same exact data and just crossing out "Iraq" and writing in "Iran".
We must constantly shine a light on this policy and refute the strained logic that the administration is using to promote the idea that Iran is really a danger to America or peace in the Middle East.
This is another unnecessary war.
It is being approached without first using real diplomatic measures.
Our military is virtually broken and cannot take the stress of another conflict.
It will more then likely usher in World War Three.
And we need to stop it. Period!
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
This is so eerily reminiscent of how we started laying the groundwork for the Iraq invasion that it almost seems like they are using the same exact data and just crossing out "Iraq" and writing in "Iran".
We must constantly shine a light on this policy and refute the strained logic that the administration is using to promote the idea that Iran is really a danger to America or peace in the Middle East.
This is another unnecessary war.
It is being approached without first using real diplomatic measures.
Our military is virtually broken and cannot take the stress of another conflict.
It will more then likely usher in World War Three.
And we need to stop it. Period!
Protesters stand up for those of us who hate this war, and lie down for those who have died.
Several thousand anti-war demonstrators marched through downtown Washington on Saturday, clashing with police at the foot of the Capitol steps where more than 190 protesters were arrested.
The group marched from the White House to the Capitol to demand an end to the Iraq war.
Their numbers stretched for blocks along Pennsylvania Avenue, and they held banners and signs and chanted, "What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now."
Army veteran Justin Cliburn, 25, of Lawton, Okla., was among a contingent of Iraq veterans in attendance.
"We're occupying a people who do not want us there," Cliburn said of Iraq. "We're here to show that it isn't just a bunch of old hippies from the 60s who are against this war."
Counterprotesters lined the sidewalks behind metal barricades. There were some heated shouting matches between the two sides.
The arrests came after protesters lay down on the Capitol lawn in what they called a "die in" - with signs on top of their bodies to represent soldiers killed in Iraq. When police took no action, some of the protesters started climbing over a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps.
It sounds to me that those arrested were the counter protesters, rather then the anti-war protesters. That sounds about right.
We want peace. We are tired of our government constantly trying to frighten us to justify killing thousands of people who were never going to do us any harm.
The group marched from the White House to the Capitol to demand an end to the Iraq war.
Their numbers stretched for blocks along Pennsylvania Avenue, and they held banners and signs and chanted, "What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now."
Army veteran Justin Cliburn, 25, of Lawton, Okla., was among a contingent of Iraq veterans in attendance.
"We're occupying a people who do not want us there," Cliburn said of Iraq. "We're here to show that it isn't just a bunch of old hippies from the 60s who are against this war."
Counterprotesters lined the sidewalks behind metal barricades. There were some heated shouting matches between the two sides.
The arrests came after protesters lay down on the Capitol lawn in what they called a "die in" - with signs on top of their bodies to represent soldiers killed in Iraq. When police took no action, some of the protesters started climbing over a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps.
It sounds to me that those arrested were the counter protesters, rather then the anti-war protesters. That sounds about right.
We want peace. We are tired of our government constantly trying to frighten us to justify killing thousands of people who were never going to do us any harm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)