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.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Fuck it: I'm with Barack all the way
(And, yes, Hillary's been pissing me off, and I do think she would end up being "Bush Light.")
What about Kucinich? What about Gravel? What about Edwards?
Oh, you mean aside from their baggage and the media's conspiracy against them?
I'm too cynical at this point. The system is rigged, and the underdog is fucked. We need to just be glad that someone who would usually be the underdog is actually one of the two front-runners, and put all our weight behind that person.
I realize it's an underwhelming, mundane and conventional decision: be that as it may: I say "Obama '08!" (both as an endorsement, and a prediction).
Lastly (on the 'Obama vs. Hillary' bit): Robert Scheer (as always) brings things back to reality on 'Left, Right & Center' :
Tony Blankley: "Hillary has no experience..." (mp3, 1.1MB)