Saturday, January 03, 2009
Deja Vu All Over Again...
I know what you're thinking: "Gee whiz, I sure hope they don't run out of bombs!" Don't worry: I'm sure the U.S. will expedite some more shipments of bunker-busters like we did after they started bombing the shit out of Lebanon.
Why turn to Al Jazeera for news about the Middle East, you ask (aside from the obvious)? :
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Russia: THIS AGGRESSION WILL NOT STAND!!
"We strongly oppose the unilateral military invasion of another sovereign nation -- particularly when its motives are not benign, but rather have to do with strategic geopolitical positioning, access to natural resources, and as a means to send a message to other nations. Such aggression will not stand. Such action is only permitted with the authorization of the U.N. Security Council."
Huh. Wonder why the U.S. can't really do that right now. Hmmmm....
Maybe the rule now is: "As long as the sovereign nation the you would like to unilaterally invade has never interfered with your nation, does not border your nation, has never been a part of your nation or under your sphere of influence, does not share a language, religion, or culture with your nation, and is at least 3000 miles away from your nation's borders, it is permissible -- indeed, imperative -- that you invade said nation."
And, of course, since this is a clear violation of international law, no doubt the U.S. will immediately deploy troops to the region to control the situation -- we are, after all, the World Police.
I can't think of any reason we would be unable to do so.
In all seriousness, this is perhaps the best example imaginable to demonstrate why we desperately need to reform the U.N. -- specifically, the U.N. Security Council -- to make it democratic, rather than set up so that the 5 (?) most powerful nations have veto power, thus rendering any decisions regarding said powers immune to criticism and essentially above the Law.
p.s.: at least we have a Secretary of State with a PHd. in Russian studies and who speaks Russian. (That would help a lot -- if she actually, you know, like, went there and stuff.)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say - NYTimes.com
American officials say they believe that the embassy attack was probably carried out by members of a network led by Maulavi Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose alliance with Al Qaeda and its affiliates has allowed the terrorist network to rebuild in the tribal areas.
Pakistan’s new civilian government is wrestling with these very issues, and there is concern in Washington that the civilian leaders will be unable to end a longstanding relationship between members of the ISI and militants associated with Al Qaeda.
Jalaluddin Haqqani, the militia commander, battled Soviet troops during the 1980s and has had a long and complicated relationship with the C.I.A. He was among a group of fighters who received arms and millions of dollars from the C.I.A. during that period, but his allegiance with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda during the following decade led the United States to sever the relationship.
Mr. Haqqani and his sons now run a network that Western intelligence services say they believe is responsible for a campaign of violence throughout Afghanistan, including the Indian Embassy bombing and an attack on the Serena Hotel in Kabul earlier this year.
Pakistanis Aided Attack in Kabul, U.S. Officials Say - NYTimes.com
You mean when all those lunatic fringe crazy leftist conspiracy theorists [who obviously hate America] pointed out the long-standing relationship between the ISI and Al Qaeda coincidant with a similar long-standing relationship between the ISI and the CIA (not to mention direct and often OVERT funding and training to the Mujihideen in Afghanistan in the 80s) they weren't just pulling this out of their arses?
Hmmm... why does the word "blowback" come to mind?........
But, I forgot: this is from the wacky left-wing loons at the New York Times, who ALSO hate America [naturally], so I assume they made it up.
(But, then, I should really just shut my bloody trap. Shouldn't I.)
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
And now? Five hours later?...
I'm so pissed off right now that this post will absolutely be nothing but a rant.
So, without further ado, ... /begin rant/........
"I will be making no decisions tonight"?
"Go to my site and share your thoughts with me"???
What a sick joke.
You go to the fucking site and what it says is "BE ONE OF 18 MILLION: STAND WITH HILLARY. JOIN SUPPORTER XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, FROM XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX."
Ah, a lovely form! : "I'm with you Hillary, and I am proud of everything we are fighting for." Put your name in, put in your comments ( "(optional)" ), and click submit. After which ( naturally ), your name will be added to the dynamically displayed list of names of "supporters."
Here's what I think, Lady McClinton:
What I think is you should be thinking about the future of the country and of the Democratic Party ( not to mention the world ) -- not just about yourself.
What I think is you should not have merely congratulated Obama for "having run a great campaign." What I think is you should have conceded and congratulated Barack for having WON the Democratic nomination, and pledged your fervent support for his candidacy. What possible reason could you have for not doing so?? ( Or, I should say, what possible reason that is not PURELY selfish, self-serving, arrogant and destructive? )
What I think is that when those rabid dogs in your audience were ranting and raving at you and chanting "Denver, Denver, Denver....," rather than basking in their rabid adoration for you, you should have quieted them and said, "No, now, I appreciate that, but we're not going to take this all the way to the convention..." Etc.
What I think is you should have vehemently denounced any and all of your supporters -- and they appear to be legion -- who have vowed to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. And to any of those "white" supporters you're so proud of, you should have announced loudly and in no uncertain terms, "If you're supporting me because you don't want a 'darky' in the White House, I do not want your vote or your support, and I want nothing to do with you."
What I think is that you should have come out and admitted that you and Bill were close with Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and invited him to the White House during your, shall we say, "marital troubles"; and condemned the rabid insanity of the media that made this B.S. into an issue. You should have stood up for Wright and for Obama against the farcical and obscene media onslaught -- but you said nothing, and even encouraged this "story."
What I think is you should have fired Terry McCauliffe for telling FOX News that they were indeed truly "Fair and Balanced" and congratulating them for being the first to call the race for you. (And, of course, for generally being a lunatic who kept insisting that you would win -- no matter what the reality.)
What I think is you should not have lied -- outright lied -- that is when you were not busy merely spinning and twisting the truth beyond all recognition -- over and over and over again -- about being in the lead in this race, and thus brainwashing your supporters into believing this, and believing that somehow this race was being "stolen" from you.
What I think is you should have come out and acknowledged that the rules of the party were rules that YOU FUCKING AGREED UPON before the fact, and that whether or not you cheated by campaigning in Florida, the results had to be thrown out because THOSE WERE THE AGREED-UPON FUCKING RULES.
What I think is that you should have come out and humbly apologized for all the hateful, deceptive, and disgusting attacks against Obama throughout this absurd campaign. For repeatedly implying, and often saying outright, that McCain would be a better president than Obama. For lying about Obama having made secret statements about NAFTA -- a trade agreement that YOUR FUCKING GODDAM HUSBAND pushed through in any case. For dismissing every state that Obama won with utter contempt -- as "latte-drinking liberals," as unimportant because it was just blacks voting for a black guy, etc.....
Rather than uniting the party, she selfishly chose to divide it further.
I really could go on and on and on -- perhaps I should not...
Instead, a couple quotes/comments with which I agree wholeheartedly:
Hillary has gone through this campaign with an air of entitlement. Her divisive
politics have pillaged the Democratic party and divided what should be a united
front against the Republicans in November. She has blown millions of dollars
from both of their war chests only to further fracture what should have been a
sure Democratic win in November for her own selfish, power hungry ends. She
should bow out and never show her face in the Democratic Party again for making
McCain's job far easier. If McCain wins, Hillary is to blame 100%.
"She wasted the moment." -- Arianna Huffington
"What she's saying is, I've got these 18 million people behind me, and you've
gotta bargain with me if you want their support and if you want to win."
She has no right -- ZERO, NONE -- to expect anything from Obama. The fact that -- even now -- she is essentially trying to bully, harass and blackmail him into offering her the VP spot is repugnant.
But HILLARY SUPPORTERS saying they will either NOT VOTE or even VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN if Obama is the Democratic nominee???!!!! Fuck these ass holes. A bunch of goddam petulant children.
If ANYONE has a right to be super pissed off and angry and to even SUGGEST that they will either not vote or will vote for the other party in November, it's OBAMA SUPPORTERS if she somehow manages to get the nomination -- and anyone who can't see that fact is a fucking brainwashed idiot who clearly has the mental capacity of a small child and therefore should not be given the right to vote because your behavior and emotional intelligence is not that of an adult.
Sorry, Hillary, but you fucking blew it.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
ONN: In The Know: How Can We Make The War In Iraq More Eco-Friendly?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Priest Pwns Bill O’Reilly’s Minion On Rev. Wright
All I can say is, "Amen, brother!"
( Did you like the objective, impartial, dare I say "Fair and Balanced" journalist? )
And now, watch the 6 seconds of this interview that Bill O'Reilly chose to use, before launching into a 6-MINUTE discussion of whether or not THIS guy should now be "sanctioned" by the Catholic Church.
( And if Bill O'Reilly is Catholic, I'm the Pope's grandson. )
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Your Privacy Is Very Important To Us....
Unsustainable Wealth Gap
The top 50 hedge fund managers made 29 Billion dollars last year. According to one of my colleagues at the Center For American Progress, that means it would take the typical family about 12,000 years to earn what an average top hedge fun manager earns in a little over an hour. Not sustainable.
ABC's Stephanopoulos interviews John McCain
Monday, April 14, 2008
Poor Torture Tzar...
"Alberto R. Gonzales, like many others recently unemployed, has discovered how difficult it can be to find a new job. Mr. Gonzales, the former attorney general, who was forced to resign last year, has been unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster, Washington lawyers and his associates said in recent interviews.
He has, through friends, put out inquiries, they said, and has not found any takers. What makes Mr. Gonzales’s case extraordinary is that former attorneys general, the government’s chief lawyer, are typically highly sought."
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Onion: Army Holds Annual Bring Your Daughter To War Day
Sunday, October 07, 2007
ANNOUNCEMENT: I'M QUITTING SMOKING
If the Communists in Congress manage to push this bill through despite our Dear Leader's wise and compassionate veto, that's it: I'm quitting. It's one thing to give my hard earned money to Big Tobacco. But giving my hard earned money to sick poor children? -- I'm sorry, THAT is where I DRAW THE LINE. It's just outrageous.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
It's official: I'm done with Hillary
I used to respect Hillary, and I'm not gung ho for Gravel or anything, but honestly this exchange alone pushed me over the edge: I will NOT support Hillary in any way, shape or form. No f*cking way.
(And, yes, the f*cking LAUGH is what really makes me hate her. I wanted to slap her unconscious.)
Crooks and Liars � Sy Hersh on Bush and Iran: Shifting targets: New Propaganda push to attack their Revolutionary Guard
Isn't it interesting how things have changed: a year ago Sy was saying "they want to attack Iran," and everybody called him a nut. Now, he's still saying "they want to attack Iran," and everyone's basically saying, "Yeah, no shit -- tell us something we don't already know, buddy." (Or, if you're FOX Noise, "Yes, and it's imperative that we DO attack Iran! Right now!")
While I appreciate CNN having Sy on, watch this video and see if anything seems ... odd to you.
Is anyone else irate about the fact that — for a full 3 minutes — the caption at the bottom of the screen says “Iranian Threat”??!!
(Why not “Pretext For War”, or, “Another Disasterous War of Aggression Planned”? — o.k., that last one might not fit…)
We seem to have gone completely down the rabbit hole now — where black is white, up is down, lies are truth, everything is completely upside down, and yet no one recognizes it.
Even if Iran IS involved in Iraq: who gives a shit? They’re neighbors, with a long and complex history with one another. The Iranians have INFINITELY more right to be involved with Iraq than the U.S. ever could. How this is not self-evident to everyone on the planet is bewildering to me. It’d be like if Iran had illegally invaded the U.S., overthrown our government and occupied our country for 4 years — and then those of us fighting to drive the occupation out got help from Mexico, so Iran said “We’ve got to invade Mexico now — they’re killing our boys!”
It’s just f*cking insane.
It’s like the term “Foreign Fighters” — it doesn’t even pass the laugh test, yet everyone accepts it as having some meaning. We brought a couple hundred thousand white Christians who don’t speak Arabic and probably don’t even know the difference between Sunni and Shiite 3000 miles across an ocean to take over Iraq — and then have the utter audacity to bitch about “Foreign Fighters” in Iraq!!!
Last point: most of the foreign suicide bombers appear to be Saudis (no big surprise), while the Iranian government is allied with the new Iraqi government and are arch-enemies with groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So AT BEST this saber rattling against Iran is tactical idiocy, a distraction from the real enemy, and alienating a potential ally — but that’s only IF the U.S. government was REALLY concerned with fighting terrorism, which is clearly farcical.
FACT: under the Bush Administration’s own “Preemptive War Doctrine,” Iran is FULLY 100% justified right now in attacking the U.S. (Indeed, they have 10 times more justification than we had for invading Iraq.)
Question: which is worse?: claiming that the holocaust if open for debate (and let me be clear: it’s not, any more than the Native American holocaust is up for debate)? Or spitting on the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Accords, designed to prevent future wars of aggression, and essentially behaving like Nazi Germany? Whatta ya think, AIPAC? Israel? Anyone?
The only way out is impeachment. NOW.
Just a slight historical revision
The entire clip of Rush is here: Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are "phony soldiers"
Ah, Stalin would be proud...
In the span of just a week, Media Matters has forced both Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to scramble into defense mode and desperately try to deny what they said -- even though it's all right there for the world to see/hear/read.
These right-wing bastards are a sick joke.
They've come to realize that there are such things as video tape and audio recording devices -- which makes things really difficult, because then "Left Wing Smear Merchants" like MediaMatters can *gasp* document and play back what they've said! How dare they?! Fortunately, the right wing blow hards like drug-addled gas bag Rush Limbaugh and phone sex enthusiast Bill O'Reilly have figured out a way around this: rather than simply ignore MediaMatters, they accuse MediaMatters of "taking their comments out of context," and then defending their comments by -- you guessed it -- taking them out of context.
It's the typical right wing "Big Lie" tactic -- accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you yourself are guilty of. It really muddies up the waters for people. Really just a page out of Orwell, or (dare I say) Goebbels.
In a way, I LOVE the fact the O'Reilly and Limbaugh are now constantly attacking MediaMatters -- it's free publicity, in any case. Only problem is, the Ditto Heads who listen to these lying fascist bullies will likely never actually go to the Media Matters web site to check it out -- they'll just assume their Dear Leaders are telling them the truth.
If they had a single shred of dignity, integrity, or honesty, they would simply apologize, denounce their statements, and that would be the end of it. But of course if you're a right wing thug, you can never admit a mistake, or admit you are (or have ever been) wrong, or issue a correction, or apologize, let alone change your behavior.
Since that's not an option, listen up, Sirs: here is what you do:
1.) simply play back the recording of your comments in their entirety, and let your listeners judge for themselves. (You know: "We Report, You Decide"?)
2.) post a link to the Media Matters article you are discussing, so that people can quickly and easily go there and see just how right you are, and how viciously this Left Wing Smear Merchant has lied and distorted your statements, misquoted and slandered you. (You can put this URL at the bottom of the screen on your TV segment, too. I'm sure your producers can manage that.)
3.) this is what you REALLY should do -- there will even be MONEY in it for you (and we all know how you love that money): file a lawsuit against Media Matters for libel. Please, PLEASE do this, Good Sirs; I would LOVE to see this case -- how they've "slandered" you by documenting exactly what you said, complete with audio, video, and a full transcript. LOVE it.
Please? Do it for me?
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Video: Rudy skips minority debate to fundraise with Bo Derek
We can imagine how busy Rudy is. Running for president while distorting your record on 9/11, takes a lot of time and energy. So I can't say we were surprised to learn that Rudy (plus Romney, Thompson and McCain -- WTF??) was too busy to attend Thursday night's debate on minority issues hosted by Tavis Smiley.
But where was Rudy going? John Ehrenfeld, a BNF field producer, volunteered to track him down. Turned out he would be right here in Southern California accepting an endorsement from widely discredited Pete Wilson, who's known for exploiting racial division for votes, and pushing the horrible proposition 187. Then off to a $2300-a-plate fundraiser at the Biltmore Four Seasons in Santa Barbara with Bo Derek.
John attended the "open to anyone" endorsement announcement, but was quickly escorted out when they learned he was from Brave New Films! (Read John's blog about the whole event) Quietly though, Phillip snuck through and got the full deal on tape. Always send two people!
You know he's looking out for the Little Guy, because he gets his money at $2300-a-plate fund-raising dinners. It's the Republican way. ("Some call you the elite -- I call you my base.")
Meanwhile Barack has almost 500,000 donations. (Probably not from the elite who have $2300 just lying around...)
Here in Minnesota we've got the schmuck Norm Coleman (hand-picked by Bush to run in the first place, by the way) raising money in the same way as Rudy, but trying to hide it. Bush came here for the thousand-dollar-a-plate dinner bullshit -- and they raised a ton of money; however, they did not announce the event to the public, and in fact the press were not allowed to attend or take any pictures. Hmmm...
Friday, September 28, 2007
Who's The Best Christian To Lead?
This type of garbage REALLY pisses me off.
While I thought all of the answers were good, I wish someone had objected to the question itself. (E.G., "Um, Tim? What the hell is wrong with you?")
Or if someone had answered with: "The passage about stoning to death queers, adulterers and disobedient children -- that's my favorite off the top of my head. I also like the bit about God asking Abraham to kill Isaac -- I get a kick out of that. My kids love it too, at bedtime."
And people wonder why atheists like myself are hostile to religion. Jesus H. Christ.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Send My Kids To Iraq, Please!
I warn you, it's extremely sad and depressing.
"Send my kids to Iraq!" [ .mp3, 6 min., 5.5MB ]
Monday, September 10, 2007
"If I had my way, we'd just develop an impenetrable forcefield bubble and laser eyes for each and every troop, and then we would be able to kill with impunity without losing the lives of a single American Invader -- er, I mean, Soldier. These other Democratic candidates simply aren't willing to PAY for the laser eyes, and the invisibility cloaks, and the bullet-proof bubbles and the forcefields. They want to "bring our troops home," Tim -- as though they'll be safe here! These other Democrats want our troops to be blown up and hurt and killed -- but I have more integrity than that, Tim. I'm EVEN willing to lose an election, if it means our kids can stay over there longer and be blown up repeatedly without dying. THAT'S leadership, Tim."
Sunday, September 09, 2007
"Freddie the Stud," OR, "Thanks, Viagra!"
Saturday, September 08, 2007
The Pinky Show presents: The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal?
Labels: Iraq war illegal war crimes bush
The Surge Is Working! Long Live The Surge!
[ source ]
As you can see from these charts, the heroic sacrifices of our brave troops continue to increase. At first glance, this might give one the impression that the Surge (TM) has lead to more casualties. Indeed, it is misleading charts such as these that give aid and comfort to our enemies. O.K., sure, troop deaths have increased dramatically in every single month compared with last year. But any idiot could have expected that. The Surge involved sending in another 30,000 troops; if even a small percentage of those get killed, it's going to skew the results. I mean, that's just basic math, people.
And look at those numbers for September! Yes! -- (I think we all know what those anti-war types are going to say: "It's only the 8th of the month," and "blah blah blah." These traitors want us to lose -- it's as simple as that; and they wouldn't recognize success if it walked up and shot them in the face.)
But, now, what about the Iraqis?
The answer to that is: it depends on how you do the numbers.
The best news here is that about 4 million Iraqis are safe and sound in other countries. The less people we have to provide security for, the better. So, that's going to help a lot.
Now, as to the violence figures:
First off, most of the violence is good -- e.g., us killing terrorists, the Iraqi police and military killing terrorists, Shia forces killing other more extreme Shia forces, Sunni insurgents (formerly "terrorists") killing Al Qaeda members rather than us, etc.
In addition, if for example a car suddenly explodes, we could classify that as a "traffic incident," or "spontaneous automotive combustion"; even if we were clairvoyant and could definitely assert that this explosion was deliberate, the exact cause, motive, and target is so difficult to determine that it's really a moot point, and not worth classifying -- lest our numbers be thereby rendered unreliable.
Another problem is, as countless news reports have observed, much of the Death-Squad-type violence has been carried out by people "wearing police [or Iraqi Military] uniforms." With these costumes, it's virtually impossible to know who these people are, or who exactly they have tortured and executed and why. If these WERE in fact the Iraqi forces, killing the terrorists, then this would be classified as an increase in security. If, on the other hand, these were rogue elements within the Iraqi forces, loyal to Al Sadr or to one of a number of local tribes, then this could be considered a net increase in violence -- depending on who they kill.
Now, if someone is shot, say, protecting his family from a criminal gang, whatever the motive, we might classify this as an "increase in household security measures," or a "vibrant expression of Second-Amendment Rights" and thus signs of a burgeoning new democracy. (I'm not sure what amendment it would be in Iraq -- probably the First Amendment, actually. Who knows... Of course, pre-invasion each household was already allowed one Kalashnikov -- but that was under a dictatorship, so I'm assuming that now-a-days their freedoms have greatly increased, and each household is allowed three or four AKs, + two rocket launchers and one crate of RPGs. [I sure HOPE so, anyway -- I'd hate to see a REDUCTION in Iraqis' freedoms after all this...])
It's also crucial to note (though the Liberal Media seldom bothers) that the vast majority of terrorists we're fighting in Iraq are from IRAN, the Great Satan -- and it's vital that we kill each and every one of these foreign intruders in Iraq, no matter what it takes. We cannot allow another nation to interfere in the territorial sovereignty of Iraq. Furthermore, if considered in the proper context, we're not really "losing" in Iraq so much as we're getting a head start at winning the war with Iran.
In any event, the common sense view, here, is that all suicide bombing will ultimately result in a net decrease in terrorism; since each terrorist who blows himself up is one less terrorist that we must find, capture, interrogate, torture, detain indefinitely and/or kill. They're really doing our work for us, and they don't even know it. I say we let them.
I don't want to paint too rosy of a picture, here, though. This is certain to be a Long Struggle, regardless of what September brings. Keep in mind that the terrorists attack countries because they hate those countries' freedoms. We are nearing completion of successful mission to liberate Iraq; once Iraq becomes a sovereign and free country, it will surely be the terrorists' next target. Thus, once our mission is over, it will begin again.
But that's pessimistic talk -- akin to the self-serving political rhetoric of the Gloom-And-Doom Cut-And-Run Defeatocrats, such as the Communists at this Unamerican website.
These lying fools will NEVER admit that we're winning -- no matter what happens on the ground.
While it's important to illustrate the difficulties, mainly with book-keeping -- as I have done here -- it's also crucial to remind the American People (who don't have the head for numbers like some of us, nor the patience, nor the will to power -- let's face it, they're all pretty much idiots and cowards who have betrayed our Homeland and our Leader... But I digress...) It's crucial to remind these Flip Floppers that victory IS possible -- indeed, that we SHALL BE victorious. I, for one, am an optimist -- and I believe in this country, unlike some people, who seem to selfishly care about nothing except the lives of their own children.
It's like the President said in many a speech -- to thunderous applause -- prior to the U.S. invasion:
"Once we invade, it's going to be important to Stay The Course, to maintain a large occupying army, for many years, rather than cutting and running. We will need to build 15 or so permanent military bases in Iraq. The costs in lives and treasury -- not to mention to our global reputation -- will be severe. It might very well bankrupt our treasury -- so we're going to have to raise your taxes to pay for it, I'm sorry 'bout that. But it's worth it: for this is the Central Front in the War On Terror; and, if we lose, we're going to leave a power vacuum in the middle of this extremely volatile region -- which will be filled by Al Qaeda and/or Iran. If we go in there, it's gonna be tough; it's gonna be a long struggle; and if we lose, the terrorists are gonna follow us home, and kill your families. The terrorists will have their own country -- a central base of operations from which to plan horrendous attacks against us and our allies, unless we are 100% successful. This invasion is going to put us and the world at risk -- unless we win. And we SHALL win. This is going to be a winnable war -- and we are going to be victorious! (If we're not, well, civilization as we know it will end.)
Thank you, and God Bless Me, and also my country: 'MERICA!"
Some people seem to have short memories, and claim this isn't what happened. I'm sorry, but this isn't the Soviet Union; and you CAN'T JUST REVISE HISTORY.
The folks at "Democracy Arsenal" have a good summary of what does and does not count as "violence" :
So to recap. The violence numbers do not include: 1) Sunni on Sunni violence. 2) Shi'a on Shi'a violence 3) Car bombs 4) Getting shot in the front of the head.
But violence is down. Trust me.
I'm confident that, under the President's Leadership and that of the wise and forthright General Petraeus, and with the additions of just a few more categories to that list, we shall bring violence down to an acceptable level by Christmas. If not Christmas 2007, then DEFINITELY by Christmas 2008.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Keith Olbermann puts the smack down...
If there truly were a "Liberal Media," this is pretty much what every newscaster in the country would be saying on a daily basis :
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Sparring with Snow
Announcing Tony Snow's resignation a few minutes ago, George W. Bush told the White House press corps that it's been "a joy to watch him spar with you."
We'll agree with the president on that one.
June 15, 2006: Asked if the White House has any comment on the 2,500th U.S. fatality in Iraq, Snow says: "It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something."
Sept. 9, 2006: Six days after the president says, "We will stay the course" in Iraq, Snow says, "The idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong."
Feb. 15, 2007: Snow on what went wrong in prewar planning for Iraq: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."
March 1, 2007: Snow responds to reports that two U.S. combat brigades will "surge" into Iraq without undergoing the usual counterinsurgency training in California's Mojave Desert first: "Well, but they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq."
March 19, 2007: Snow tells reporters that the Democrats' plan for Iraq represents a "recipe for defeat." When CNN's Ed Henry asks Snow to describe the White House's "recipe for success," Snow asks Henry what his "recipe for success is." When Henry says that winning the war in Iraq isn't exactly in his job description, Snow tells him to "Zip it."
June 14, 2007: Asked if any member of the Bush family is serving in the war on terrorism, Snow responds: "Yes, the president. The president is in the war every day." Reporter: "On the front lines, wherever?" Snow: "The president."
-- Tim Grieve -- Salon.com
Classic. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of others that could be added to this list -- but why even bother? (It's sort of like compiling all the stupid shit that Bush says, or his "malapropisms" : after a while it's just like, what's the point anymore?
Monday, August 27, 2007
Sweet Jesus I Fucking Hate Sean Hannity, part 2
This dumb bastard keeps repeating the exact same bullshit talking points every single night. He never actually asks questions -- just gives predictable long-winded one-sided nonsensical rants and then at the very end tries to twist said rant into some semblance of a question -- and THEN, if the guest takes more than five words in attempt to answer the blathering mad hatter rant of a question, Sean of course cuts them off and says "clearly you can't answer a simple question"... And then he goes into another rant, disguised as a question, and if the guest tries to answer his previous question he interrupts them and then accuses THEM of interrupting HIM! And so it goes.
Again, if Sean doesn't know that air raids kills civilians, he is literally too stupid to be on TV and should be fired immediately and returned to the eighth grade. Better yet, he should really just sign up for military service right now -- I don't think he's too old, they'd probably take him. If he's too cowardly to do that, then I suggest he go to Afghanistan for just a month or two, follow the bombs and see to what extent they discriminate between militants and civilians.
(Hopefully for all of us, he will not return.
Oh no! Did I offend you, Sean? Maybe instead I should just call you a "piece of shit" and yell at you to suck on my assault rifle? Or joke about raping you with said assault rifle? Is that better?)
Or, if Sean's really not all that committed to the War On Terror -- that Great War For Civilization As We Know It -- then he could just, oh, read a paper, maybe :
"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."
A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan:
"The number of Afghan civilians killed by US bombs has surpassed the death toll of the 11 September attacks, according to a study by an American academic. Nearly 3,800 Afghans died between 7 October and 7 December, University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold said in a research report." -- 3 January, 2002
BBC: Afghanistan's civilian deaths mount
On Saturday, Karzai accused NATO and U.S.-led troops of carelessly killing scores of Afghan civilians and warned that the fight against resurgent Taliban militants could fail unless foreign forces show more restraint.
"Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such," Karzai said angrily.
The mounting toll is sapping the authority of the Western-backed Afghan president, who has pleaded repeatedly with U.S. and NATO commanders to consult Afghan authorities during operations and show more restraint.
Karzai also denounced the Taliban for killing civilians, but directed most of his anger at foreign forces.
In one of the recent incidents lamented by Karzai, police said NATO airstrikes killed 25 civilians along with 20 militants who fired on alliance and Afghan troops from a walled compound in the southern province of Helmand.
USA Today: Afghan civilians reportedly killed more by U.S., NATO than insurgents
Does Sean even give a shit about how many civilians we've killed? He must -- he's a good Christian boy, right? Ha. I spit in his fake Christian face. Just another arrogant lying hypocritic of the Reich. What an absolutely evil rancid sack of bile Hannity is.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The embassy P.R. tour
So members of Congress get to see the "Tactical Momentum" first hand, in highly choreographed Green Zone tours. Not a surprise.
And that some are buying it -- well, perhaps also not a surprise.
But this is almost as surreal as John McCain's "stroll through the marketplace" :
The Pentagon is pleased and a senior White House official called the trips “a net plus.” And at least one Democrat, Representative Brian Baird of Washington, an early opponent of the war, has changed his mind.
Mr. Baird was especially struck by his trip to Yusufiya, a farm town about 15 miles south of Baghdad in an area long dominated by Sunni insurgents. He met the mayor, visited a market and chatted with two sheiks, a Sunni and a Shiite, who “embraced us in front of everybody out on the street,” he said.
“That’s real progress,” Mr. Baird said, though he confessed he did not tell his wife about the region’s nickname, the triangle of death, and said the whole scene was a little surreal. “You have your flak jacket on, and your Kevlar helmet and you’re surrounded by guys with automatic weapons as you’re standing there, talking to the mayor. And you realize there’s a dusty old car next to you and you’re saying, ‘God, I hope that doesn’t blow up.’ ”
The Congressional Iraq tours rarely include chats with ordinary Iraqis. “You don’t have the mobility for that,” Mr. Kingston said. And Iraqis are a tad suspicious of the marketplace scenes. When faced with an American in a business suit and a flak jacket, they tend to react warily, unsure of who the visitor might be, or what role he plays in Iraq policy.
Iraqi officials view the Congressional visits — quick in-and-out trips — with a blend of appreciation and scorn. Most wish the Americans would stay longer.
Now I don't know about you, but I call that Real Progess (TM)!
TruthDig has a good little op-ed on this. And be sure to read that NY Times Op-Ed piece -- it really is excellent.
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Man on the Daily Show
Crooks and Liars � Senator Barack Obama on The Daily Show
What can you say? He's honest. He's self-assured but thoughtful. He doesn't take the bait and attack his opponents.
O.K., sure: Kucinich has a hot wife:
(Who's also extremely brilliant and thoughtful and compassionate, and melts you with her British accent.
Interesting the media doesn't take note of her at all...
I know this is insignificant -- but, come on! Seriously! She could be a super-model! You're telling me that a media obsessed with Brittany Spears, J-Lo, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, Nicole Richie, etc. etc. etc., can't find a hot story here? A media who thinks the fact that Hillary Clinton has breasts is NEWS? Please explain this to me????!!!!
Guess you have to be a fat bald dirty old dog-faced 'Good Ol Boy' like Fred Thompson
before the guys'll start droolin over your manly scent and talking about your multiple and young-enough-to-be-your-daughter wives as an ASSET to your campaign...
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Real reporting from Falluja
I realize, of course, that this is all "ancient history" -- why should we possibly care about something that happened, like, more than a YEAR ago, right?! (Unless, of course, the atrocities are committed by our official "enemies" -- in which case, we must never forget...)
Well, anyway, if you actually give a shit, these are an excellent (if thoroughly depressing and disturbing) read, which I highly recommend.
Professional liars? Or just too lazy to read three sentences?
O.K. Here is what Michelle Obama said:
MICHELLE OBAMA: That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.
I know what you're thinking -- she SOUNDS like she's talking about her own family -- but don't be naive: clearly there's some dark and sinister subtext, here. ... Did you figure it out? No?
Never fear! The Liberal Media is here!
When I heard "is HE somebody that shares our values? Is HE somebody that respects family ..." I couldn't help wondering: just what man is she referring to? Hmm -- is she REALLY talking about her husband? Highly unlikely. ... Must be Rudy Guliani, I'm thinking. That makes sense, I guess -- three wives, estranged from his kids, second wife found out about the divorce from a press conference, etc....
And what's all this "WE" stuff -- "OUR children?" What? Do they even HAVE children? Just what is she trying to subliminally SAY, here??
Thank the Lord for the investigative journalists -- they figured it out! It was a subliminal dig at Hillary! Ooh -- cat fight! Look at the claws on these bitches!
It all makes sense now! Way to go, "journalists"!!
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Blast Off!: Progressivism is not dead! (But it's on life support ...)
Disturbing, but not really surprising.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Sweet Jesus, I fucking hate Sean Hannity
Oooohh!! Apparently it's a "Big Controversy" that air raids kill civilians, and that we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan. Wow! Breaking news! He sure put his foot in his mouth there! EVERYBODY knows that bombs ONLY kill terrorists! That's how we DESIGNED them! These are SMART bombs -- if they see a civilian, they choose NOT TO EXPLODE -- that's just common sense. It's those NASTY MOOSLEMS that are doin all the killin -- EVERYBODY knows THAT! How can this Barak Hussein Osama Mustafa be so NAIVE AND IRRESPONSIBLE??!!
(I guess Obama will just have to have 8 kids and send them on a bus or a Winnebago in support of his campaign [and thereby, naturally, "supporting Our Troops"TM])
Friday, August 10, 2007
Remember 9/11? That was MINE!!
with special research assistance by Alexandra Kahan
I've never quite understood why anyone would want to keep reminding us about the most pathetic intelligence failure in the history of this country. But, apparently, it works.
"September the 11th -- Apply directly to the forehead! September the 11th -- Apply directly to the forehead! September the 11th -- Apply directly to the forehead!"
But I have a feeling that, especially with the NY firefighters as outspoken as they are against Guiliani, it might not fly this time.
Giuliani even went so far, in his 2004 testimony before the 9/11 Commission, to claim that if he'd been told about the presidential daily briefing headlined "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.," which mentioned New York three times, "I can't honestly tell you we would have done anything differently." Pressed about whether the city would have benefited from knowing about a spike in warnings so vivid that the CIA director's "hair was on fire," Giuliani just shrugged.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Obama in context
Unless you watched the debate (I did not), I'm guessing you saw the same tiny little clip taken out of context as I did.
Well, here's the whole segment:
Interesting, isn't it.
(If you listen closely, you can easily hear the audience voicing their shame and disgust with Obama's cowardly flip-flopping mushy-mouthed words, and their love and support for Hillary.)
There is absolutely no way this lousy editing was anything except deliberate -- and as far as I'm concerned, isolating that 5-second clip is exactly the same as lying. (Maybe not libel, but close.)
Ah, the "Liberal Media"...
Here's a suggestion for all you Obama-bashing bastards: Ask this question to all the candidates (of both parties): "If you had actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets holed up in those mountains [between Afghanistan and Pakistan] who murdered 3,000 Americans and who are plotting to strike again, and President Musharraf would not act, would you?"
I would like them all to go on record as saying, "No, absolutely not. That is naive and irresponsible. ... And furthermore, if I DID do anything, I want to assure you that I would be willing to use nuclear weapons, even in a first strike against a nuclear country, regardless of whether that action violates the NPT and could well lead to WWIII if not Armaggedon itself. Now THAT'S what a responsible leader would do."
That is what I would like to see.
And then I would like these media liars (who clearly have learned next to nothing from their complete and utter failure in the lead-up to Iraq) to stop repeating White House propaganda about Iran, and to at least acknowledge what our own military on the group are reporting in Iraq: there is no evidence that the government of Iran is aiding the insurgency in Iraq; Iran is helping to STABILIZE Afghanistan, whose president said as much publicly); the democratic freedom-loving government in Iraq who love so much continues to establish closer relations with Iran; meanwhile the vast majority of the "foreign fighters" in Iraq are from SAUDI ARABIA -- with whom we have just agreed to provide another $20 Billion in armaments.
Does anyone even care that "President" Musharraf is not an elected official, but rather a dictator who took power as a general in a military coup? Guess not. (In order to qualify as a "dictator" in the U.S. media, apparently you have to have the support of around 60% of your population, like Chavez.) Does anyone care that the Pakistani ISI supported the Taliban in the first place and helped bring them to power? Nah -- that's ancient history. And anyway that's WAY back then, when we were on the terrorists' side...
Having said all this, I DO think that destabilizing Pakistan would be a bad idea. But military action there, or in Saudi Arabia, or any number of other countries I could name, at least makes some sense -- the OPPOSITE is true of Iraq or Iran.
(But, you know, that's only if you actually believe this government gives a shit about stopping terrorism.)
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Gore Vidal on TheRealNews
Monday, August 06, 2007
Yay! It's not illegal anymore!
... the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.
“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.
Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.
. . . . . . . .
"The new law gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court. The court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted. It will not scrutinize the cases of the individuals being monitored.
Hats off to Congress for keeping us safe from privacy. Well done, indeed, lads!
I hope that's the way things work from now on: if a court rules something illegal, just change the law. It's so simple -- I wish I'd thought of it!
Most importantly, placing more of our trust in Torture Tzar Alberto Gonzales -- a fine, upstanding, honest and competent young man from the great state of Texas. We love you, Al! *girlish screams*
Sunday, August 05, 2007
the sterile futility of green pork
Reason #12,683 why I hate Republicans.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 — The House passed a wide-ranging energy bill on Saturday that will require most utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power. President Bush has vowed to veto the bill because it does nothing to encourage increased domestic production of oil and gas.
Ummm ... that's the point, dumb-ass. Those are not "renewable" or "clean."
"The bill allots money for the development of alternative fuels and for increased efficiency of appliances and buildings. It is also meant to spur research on methods to capture the carbon dioxide emissions that scientists say are largely responsible for global warming.
The House also passed a bill to repeal roughly $16 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry enacted in 2005. Some of the money would be used to pay for the research grants and renewable-fuel projects in the energy bill.
I just gotta say, here, to all the cynics who hate both parties and won't bother to support the Democrats because "there's no difference between the two parties," etc. blah blah blah: you're full of shit. The Dems have done a lot already, in a very short time, even with a tiny majority and a dick-head president who threatens to veto anything substantial. And this bill illustrates the point perfectly: Republicans = billions in tax cuts for oil companies even as they are exceeding their own profit records; Democrats = repealing said tax breaks and funding alternative energy.
When I recall Nader's remark in 2000 about how there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between Bush and Gore, I think he still needs to publicly apologize for that asinine crap. It's truly hard to imagine how different these past 6 years would have been, had Bush been sent back to Crawford instead of installed by his cronies on the Supreme Court.
The White House expressed its opposition to the Democratic energy bills, saying they did not meet their stated goals of reducing oil imports, strengthening national security, lowering energy prices and beginning to address global warming. The White House also said the tax bill unfairly singled out the oil industry.
Ah! It's that "Compassionate Conservatism!" He really does have a heart -- look how bad he feels for the poor little oil companies, everyone's picking on them, god it makes me want to weep, the depth of his compassion...
How can Bush -- after saying we're "addicted to oil" in his State of the Union speech -- turn around and claim that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and funding alternative energies (which, presumably, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil) is a bad thing and wouldn't help national security or begin to address global warming? ... Oh yeah, I forgot, whatever Bush says is usually the exact opposite of what is true. You're right: I'm looking for reason and logic where there is none. (Anyway, "Global Warming" is a myth invented by Al Gore, isn't it? (In cahoots with thousands of so-called "scientists.") So why should Congress do anything about it?)
Republican opponents of the measure echoed the White House position, saying that the package provided no new supplies of energy, would drive up fuel prices and provide billions in what they called “green pork” to support Democrats’ pet environmental projects.
. . . . . . . .
“This is really an exercise in sterile futility,” Mr. Barton said, referring to the president’s veto threat, “because this bill isn’t going anywhere.”
First of all, all he's saying here is that Bush is a jackass; and if the Republicans got behind the measure, they could override a veto, so maybe he should consider convincing his fellow-Republicans to stop obstructing it, hmmm?? And I don't wanna hear one GODDAM word from any fucking Republican about gas prices. EVER. You know what drives up gas prices? Corporate greed, excess profits, and excess consumption (wars in the Middle East don't help, either); and by their own Free Market Utopian logic, 1.) the oil companies should never get subsidies, and 2.) reduced demand will drive prices DOWN. They seem also to ignore the fact that solar and wind energy captures energy that's now essentially being wasted, and is practically self-sustaining; how in the world can they say that would not "create" new energy??? Furthermore, every time there's a bill that would increase CAFE standards, the bloody Republicans oppose it.
Personally, I think this bill is weak. 2020? Are you kidding me? What's the hold up? If we spent HALF of the time/energy/money as we spent on the mindless slaughter in Iraq, we could do this in three years.
And what ABOUT those CAFE standards? Why was that left out? And what about further incentives for Hybrids and electric cars? Why is there still a bloody waiting list for a Prius?
I don't get it.