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?