Haven't we heard this somewhere before?

I haven't slept as well as I usually do since out Great and Fearless Leader gave an address this last Tuesday that wasn't so much about securing Iraq as it was about dragging Iran and Syria into this whole ugly mess. Now, I'm not normally an anxiety ridden person. You can't be in my profession, that of registered nurse, and lead a normal life.

But I just woke up with this leaden feeling in my belly (No, it wasn't the Taco Bell and egg-salad I had last night), and the words of Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, echoing in my ears as he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday.

"Oh gosh, you sillies. Of course President Bush doesn't have any plans to attack Iran. Except...you know...as a LAST RESORT.

Now whereinthehell have we heard that before.

"...the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort." - Scott McClellan, 11/12 /02 White House Press Briefing

This coming long after Chimpy McPresident and his merry band had decided to Iraq was to be plucked like an over-ripe fruit.

Given this Presidents past history, I could only wonder why someone in Congress didn't fall all over themselves trying to introduce a Resolution of Inquiry in the House to get the ball rolling on impeaching these crazy bastards before they do something we all will regret more than we already regret invading Iraq. How could they not see the rocks this President, and his administration, are steering this ship of state towards.

This administration reminds of nothing so much as a bunch of monkeys playing with a box of matches in a fuel refinery. One spark, at any moment, and the whole thing will explode in a conflagration that will engulf, not just the region, but quite possibly the entire world as well. One that will make the last world war look like a Sunday school outing in comparison, and one from which the United states will not emerge unscathed or victorious.

When Seymour Hersch wrote his article about US forces moving into Iran back in April of 2006, he and anyone who agreed with his analysis, were dismissed as being alarmists and in need of some psychotherapy. But the reality is staring us in the face...Here...Now. This President is locked into some sick, messianic vision, and he is determined to see that vision through to the end regardless of the cost in blood and treasure...Regardless of the consequences to this nation or the world. That Congress is not dropping their partisan squabbling in order to check this President and his administration is a mystery. Better we have a constitutional crisis than an expanded war in the Middle East and likely beyond.

Consequences...The truth, apparently, doesn't seem to matter

In the aftermath of Chimpy McPresident's address little is being said about the deeper implications of his "strategy" or its consequences.

It is readily apparent that this president is recklessly and callously launching upon a course which will goad Iran into some action which, in turn, will justify the use of America military force against that nation. It is equally apparent that such a use of force will include air-strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities...Long a goal of the Administration, but thwarted by the international community in the form of refusal to sanction Iran for its nuclear program.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” - The New Yorker, 04/08/06

Bush's actions seem to give truth to this assessment...That he will do what ever he feels he needs to do, regardless of the cost or the consequences. Regardless of the cost in human lives, let alone the cost of the lives of our own troops. Regardless of the consequences, which include a larger war in the region that could lead to a general world-wide conflict.

Given these reckless, feckless actions and the utter disregard for any consequences of those actions, it is clear that this administration is unfit for command and Congress should put aside partisan differences and immediately file articles of impeachment against this president and his administration before they strike a spark to a conflagration that could engulf, not only the Persian Gulf, but the world.

Attacking Iran...the consequences

With all this talk coming from the neocon camp about attacking Iran, little is being said about the actual consequences of such an endeavor. And they would be grave.

The first direct consequences to the US would be a loss of oil from the Persian Gulf as a whole. What few allies we have in that region would feel compelled to act in support of Iran, a fellow Muslim state. And any US shipping in the Gulf would be at risk, if not outright forfeit. Fuel prices in the US would immediately spike, killing whatever economic growth may projected prior to such an attack. And, just for shits and giggles, China might call in its loans. America would be dead as a world economic power.

Israel would be faced with attacks from Syria, on its Western border, as well as ballistic missiles from Iran. They would also face attack from Hammas and Hezbollah, both creatures of Iran, as well as concerted attacks from Palestinian forces. Egypt might be dragged into the fray as well, given their large population of radical mullahs and their followers. The lines between Sunni and Shi'a would be erased in a tide of bloody rage against the US and its allies in the region and around the world.

On the world stage we simply could not count on any support, from any of our allies including Britain, especially given the lie given to the Bush administration's claims of a threat of WMD's from Iraq. America would stand isolated and alone in the world. A potential world war could be triggered, with America as its target.

But such consequences seem to be of little import to the Bush Administration, especially in the office of Dick Cheney. The only glimmer of light here is that Rummy has been given the boot. But Bob Gates is no real improvement, as he was a vocal supporter of military action against Nicaragua in the 1980's. He is also said to have little appetite for diplomacy and is an advocate of no-holds barred diplomacy, including military action.

While an attack on Iran may not come to pass, it is hoped, we should bear in mind some of the possible consequences of such an attack. The Bush administration's unilateralism may yet bear bitter fruit for America and the world.

We can't win, but you're staying anyways.

"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," - Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06

Hmmmm...Let me think now...Wasn't that the reason Poppy Bush didn't march into Baghdad in 1991?

I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would it be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all. - Dick Cheney, 4/7/91

We knew in 1991 what would happen if US forces toppled Saddam Hussein. The wargaming of an invasion of Iraq in 1999 showed that what we see in Iraq now was the likely outcome even with far larger numbers of troops than what we went into Iraq with in 2003.

Hank went on to further state that, "...he would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy until later. "If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed,". But isn't that what was in place prior to Chimpy and Co's invasion of Iraq? Why don't we just dust off Saddam and re-install him as the leader of Iraq? It wouldn't be the first time a US administration has propped him up.

But think, what a horrible thing to say to our soldiers in Iraq. "There's no way to win militarily, but we're going to leave you in harm's way anyways." What a horrible betrayal of the trust our troops have that their sacrifices won't be in vain.

And, while there are few similarites to Viet Nam militarily, it is in the political arena that the similarities are most striking. Just as Lyndon Johnson advocated a "stay the course" policy, I won't dignify it with the term "strategy", so too does this President advocate staying the course, with no real strategy apparent. Just as in Viet Nam, it is the politicians who are driving the policy, not the generals on the ground. Just as in Viet Nam, our troops will be left in harm's way until the politicians have decided that they have saved enough face. How can Bush, Cheney, or anyone else in this failed administration, ask any of our soldiers to be the last one to die for a mistake?

As more and more neo-con's jump ship on the policy in Iraq, which they pushed for...Despite the repudiation of the Administration policy in Iraq on November 7th, Chimpy and Co seem to have little interest in making any changes to policy in Iraq. Their grip on the reality of the situation in Iraq is tenuous at best, and their policy is still "Stay the course...". So the profligate spending of American blood and treasure will continue unabated until this Administration leaves office. Then, the real work will begin...Cleaning up the mess they have left behind.

I can just hear it now...

With Robert Gates coming on board as the new Secretary of Defense, James Baker and his Iraq Study Group, as well as Lawrence Eagleberger and Alan Simpson at Jr.'s side, it seems that Poppy and his friends are coming to bail Jr. out...again.

Like ion 1966 when he was arrested while at Yale on disorderly conduct charges. Or perhaps when he was arrested for a DUI in Maine on Labor Day weekend in 1976. And then there was the purchase of a failing Arbusto Energy by Reagan/Bush I supporters (Poppy was VEEP at the time), William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds. Not only did they buy Arbusto, they made Jr. President of the new company, Spectrum 7. They also sold him a chunk of the Texas Rangers for a pittance, which he later sold at a profit. Needless to say, he didn't have much input into the Ranger's business decisions. But guess what? Two years after Arbusto was sold to Spectrum 7, that company was going belly up. And, you got it, Spectrum 7 was bought by Harken Energy in 1986. And, Harken had friends of the Bush family on its board.

It should also be noted that Khalid Bin Mahfouz was on Harkens board, as well as the board of BCCI, which was used by the CIA to launder money before BCCI collapsed. This is important because at a time when Harken was hemorrhaging cash, a $25 million dollar Harken stock offering was underwritten by Stephen's Inc headed by Jackson Stephens, a big-time contributor to Poppy Bush's campaign war chest. This offering was placed with the Union Bank of Switzerland, a joint venture partner with BCCI. Amazing what being the son of a VPOTUS can get done for you.

And, of course there were the sales of Jr.'s Harken stock that he conveniently forgot to notify the SEC about. And golly, the stock tanked just a few short weeks later. The SEC investigated with no further charges. But guess what? The SEC chariman at the time was Richard C. Breeden, a friend of the Bush family and one time employee of Bush family consiglieri, James Baker.

And now, after a mid-term election which was a repudiation og Jr.'s war in Iraq and his failure as a President, I can just hear it now. The plaintive call of a spoiled rich-kid in over his head..."Daaaaaaaady!"

Unconstitutional...? Let me count the ways...

Today, George W. Bush, a.k.a. Chimpy McPresident, signed the Military Commissions Act...20 DAYS after it was passed by Congress, and 18 DAYS after Congress was adjourned.

Why the emphasis on the timeline here? It's a matter of how the Constitution provides for the handling of bills once they are passed by Congress and sent to the President's desk.

Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Only two days passed between the passage of the Bill for signing and the adjournment of Congress. Eighteen days passed between the time Congress adjourned and Bush's signing of the Bill. Under the provisions outlined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, this Bill was effectively vetoed, and cannot become law. Whether this was a deliberate calculation on the part of the Administration, or just another screw-up is moot. The law was null and void before Bush ever signed it.

Had this bill actually become law, it has the additional difficulty as outlined in Article 1, Section 9, Para 2:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

To my knowledge, no rebellion or invasion has been demonstrated as grounds for suspending habeas corpus, which is the foundation for many other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. Congress passed a bill which was unconstitutional from its inception, and exceeded its authority in this matter.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, this Bill is dead, and Bush, again, exceeded his authority by signing it into law today. If it is allowed to stand, despite these grossly unconstitutional provisions and circumstances regarding its signing, we can safely put the republic to rest, for it will be well and truly dead.

The banality of evil...

I was reminded of the banality of evil this morning as I watched Senator Bill Frist on "This Week: with George Stephanopoulos". As he sat there, grinning and twitching his way through the interview, he repeatedly defended President Bush's policy regarding the torture of detainees thought to be members of extremist groups, I could only wonder at his utter disdain for the rule of law.

But the rule of law doesn't seem to be an issue for this president or those who support him. Given the recent "compromise" on torture and the Geneva Conventions between the White House and the so-called "rebels" in the GOP, led by John McCain, the rule of law in this nation is on its way to becoming little more than a vague memory.

This "compromise" would allow the president to establish his own interpretations of the Geneva Conventions with no more than an executive order. It will also render immune from prosecution members of the CIA and the military for past violation of the Conventions. Another provision of this "compromise" will eliminate any possibility of detainees to challenge their imprisonment through the use of habeas corpus. The net result of this would be that innocent detainees could be locked away and tortured...er...subjected to "alternative" interrogation practices, indefinitely and never have a chance for their case to be independently reviewed.

The "compromise" would also prevent the use of the Geneva Conventions in any suit brought against the US government. This would mean that those individuals tried by the military commissions established by this "compromise" would not be able to challenge the legality of those commissions by claiming they don't meet the "fair trial" standards of the Geneva Conventions Common Article III.

If this "compromise" becomes law, for the first time in US history, testimony obtained throught torture...er..."alternative" interrogation practices, will be allowed into evidence. Thus, a defendant could be convicted and executed on the basis of coerced testimony...A violation of one of the foundations of American jurisprudence since this nations inception.

And last, but not least, this "compromise" will allow the Administration to hide its “sources, methods or activities by which the United States acquired evidence”, should those practices be deemed "classified". But guess what boys and girls...All of the "alternative" interrogation practices sanctioned for use by the Administration are classified. In short, no defendant brought before a military commission will be able to challenge the torture or abuse they were subject to.

This is what Senator Frist was defending, seeming to almost relish the thought of torture. Grinning blandly while parroting the unsubstantiated Administration assertion that intelligence obtained through the use of "alternative" interrogation practices has prevented further terrorist attacks and saved countless American lives. I challenge Chimpy McPresident and his Administration to submit public evidence of this assertion. But I know they never will.

It should also be remembered that fourteen of the detainees at GITMO were transfered there from secret prisons the Administration, until recently, denied ever existed. This alone merits prosecution of members of the Bush administration, including the president himself, as war criminals.

U.S.: Senate Leaders Reject Explicit Redefinition of Geneva Conventions

COMPROMISE BILL ON MILITARY COMMISSIONS WOULD STILL AUTHORIZE INDEFINITE DETENTION WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF LEGAL CHALLENGE

Voting...A crap shoot?

Unless things have changed drastically since the June 13, 2004 NYT editorial "Gambling on Voting" was published, and all indications are that they haven't, I'll be voting by absentee ballot.

There needs to be a national regulatory standard for all electronic voting systems that is at least as robust as Nevada's regulatory standards for electronic gaming systems.

The Nevada State Gaming Commission has access to all gambling software, and this software is being contiuously spot-checked against copies of the software kept by the Commission. Incidentally, it is illegal for casinos to use any software not on file with the Commission. Gambling machines must be resistant to electrostatic shocks as high as 20,000 volts, and they must be physically tamper resistant. Any attempt to physically tamper with the machines locks the machine which must be manually reset after it has been shown to be operating properly. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that current electronic voting systems can be physically hacked, with no trace of the hack ever being made apparent.

The Nevada state facility which certifies gaming machines is taxpayer funded with fees charged by the facility going into the atates general fund. It also keeps manufacturers of electronic gaming equipmetn at arms length and is open to public inquiry. Contrast this with federal labs which certify voting machines. These facilities are profit making operations which get chosen by and paid for by the manufacturers of electronic voting systems. Can you say "Conflict of interest...", I knew you could. Neither we nor our elected officials have any way of knowing just what the proceedures for testing these voting machines are and the labs which do the testing are not open to inquiries into them.

In the event of a probelem with an electronic gambling machine, Nevada casinos must immediately contact the Gaming Control Board, which has investigators available 7/24. THe machine is than opened and inspected. A voter has a problem with their vote, they can call their local board of elections, which may, or may not, investigate the matter.

Despite their protestations that their equipment is the best available, the claims of the manufacturers of electronic voting systems fall far short of those claims. The sad fact is that someone placing a bet at the sleaziest ganbling hell in Vegas has far greater protections and regulatory mechanisms in place than any voter in America. Don't we deserve better?

Iraq and Al Qaeda...Conflation and Fabrication

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. - George W. Bush, 9/11/2001

Such were Chimpy's words on 9/11, 5 years ago. This doctrine led us to the invasion of Iraq which, given information contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II Report, did not qualify for inclusion under this doctrine.

The report indicates that Chimpy and Co attacked Iraq, a nation haveing no operational ties to Al Qaeda, but was ulimately hostile towards Al Qaeda.

Detainee informationfrom high-ranking al-Qa'ida officials and associates suggests there was intense debate within the al Qa'ida leadership in Afghanistan over the risks and benefits of working with Baghdad, and that bin Laden was generally opposed to collaboration. - Phase II Report, pg 65 (emphasis mine)

According to Tariq Aziz, "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden." Aziz told the FBI that "when the Taliban was in power, the Iraq governemnt deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul." Aziz underscored Saddam's distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Laden, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "The Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." - Phase II Report, pg 67

Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa’ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa’ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa’ida in particular… Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. - Phase II Report, pg 105

As for the Administration claims, lately reinforced by Condi Rice and Dick Cheney, regarding ties between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they have been shown to be equally false.

Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. - Phase II Report, pg 109

Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, al-Zarqawi was not member of Al Qaeda, but rather, he and his organization, Ansar al Islam, were part of a loose affiliation with Al Qaeda. And at the time of his death he was becoming a thorn in the side of al Qaeda because of his maverick actions which often interfered with the goals of Al Qaeda leadership.

Conflation and fabrication have been the hallmark of the Bush administration since before the invasion of Iraq. Now that the tide of public sentiment has turned against Bush administration policy in Iraq, they are employing these tools with greater ferocity than ever. They see their grip on power, and the fear they have used to maintain it, slipping and their desperation is obvious. Their speeches over the last week, including including Chimpy's last night, is merely the same old turd they've been trying to polish since the invasion of Iraq. Conflate...Fabricate...Belittle their critics as unAmerican or unpatriotic. Some things never chage, even when they need to.

A step back...

In the 1960's, riots rocked American cities as African-Americans sought the civil rights they had long been denied. As Watts, Detroit, Newark, and after Martin Luther King's assassination, more than 60 other US cities burned as a result of race riots, we stopped and asked a very important question. "Why are they so angry?"

Now this may be seen as justifying actions which were completely out of line and resulted in further suffering and anguish for all involved. The fact is that the participants in these riots did go beyond the pale, but we stopped and asked "Why?" so it wouldn't happen again. As a result, America began to come to grips with its past of slavery and oppression of the descendants of those slaves freed after the Civil War. Landmark civil rights legislation was passed, and much progress has been made. We have had the occaisional setback showing that more has yet to be made. All because we never stopped asking "Why are they so angry?"

Now, let us look to the aftermath of 9/11. In the days of shock following the horror of that tragic day, we asked "Why are they so angry? Why do they hate us so much?" But the voices asking that question fell silent in a few short weeks. We no longer ask these questions to find a way to prevent such a tragedy as 9/11 from occurring again, and it will happen unless we find meaningful answers to them and act upon those answers. Instead, these questions have become nothing more than the rhetorical devices of demagogues to instill fear into our hearts and serve the ends of those same demagogic figures who utter them. They fear to seek the real answers as it will reveal 60 or more years of US and Western policies designed to keep the oil flowing from Middle-Eastern oil fields, regardless of the means used to do so...Regardless of the human toll. From propping up corrupt and repressive regimes to overthrowing legitimately elected regimes and replacing them with corrupt and oppressive puppets. It is only coincidental that these nations are Islamic.

Unwilling to truthfully and honestly find and face the answers to "Why are they so angry?", and "Why do they hate us so?", the Bush administration has only fanned the flames of hatred towards America and the West with its policies. They have helped radicalize a whole new generation of Islamic extremists, still chafing from the yoke of 19th and 20th century colonialism. With its reckless, feckless behavior in the aftermath of 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administration has squandered the goodwill of the rest of the world towards America on that grim day and given the radicals hiding behind the cloak of their religion all the more reason to hate us. All becaus they were unwilling to seek the answers to two supremely important questions..."Why are they so angry?"..."Why do they hate us so much?".

I shudder to think of the America we would be living in today if we had stopped asking those questions in the 1960's.

ABC's 9/11 "docu-drama"...More drama than documentary

With members of th 9/11 Commission faulting ABC's 9/11 "docu-drama" for its factual errors, ommissions and fabrications, it should be apparent that the production has some serious flaws that need to be corrected.

What is most amusing though, is the eagerness of right-wingers to jump on the "It's Clintons Fault" bandwagon. After all, its the right wingers that have had a total lock on power for the last four years. Not Bill "Goatboy" Clinton or liberals. We are living in a world made by the right-wingers under rules they chose. So why are they so bitter and angry?

Without enemies, real or imagined, the right-wing cannot successfully replace reason with fear. And fear can make people do irrational things, even act against their own best interests. And that is the goal of the right-wing in America. Without enemies, their movement would collapse upon itself and they would begin eating their own. And I think we are beginning to see just that, as more and more people are coming to understand how they have been manipulated by a callous and cynical administration since 9/11. A majority of Americans are no longer accepting at face value the blandishment of Chimpy and Co as they try to conflate Iraq with 9/11.

Yes, there are many who still support Chimpy and Co. But this seems more a result of their initial enthusiam for Bush giving way to the reality of a morally and intellectually bankrupt administration. Rather than face the cognitive dissonance such a reality would cause, they deflect the reality and attempt to ignore it with their continued blind support of Chimpy and Co and increasingly rabid attacks against those who oppose the administration. I almost feel sorry for them...Almost.

Reality Break

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld...Stuff 'em all in a barrel and roll it down a hill, there'll always be a son-of-a-bitch on top. But I digress.

Earlier this week, the Admninstration rolled out its new fall line of bullshit to try and convince voters that Republicans are the only ones fit to govern. It was difficult to decide which speech was more delusional and divorced from reality though.

Rummy was first at bat, claiming that any who oppose the Administration's policy or, more appropriately...lack thereof...in Iraq were morally and intellectually confused. The implication being that the Bush administration can do no wrong in Iraq or in the effort to contain and cotrol terrorism. Such hubris is a sign of a profound isolation from the reality onm the ground in Iraq and utter denial of the misjudgements, missteps, prevarication and arrogance that led to the invasion of Iraq to begin with.

Darth Cheney was next in the hole, and he did little better. Those 50 million people we supposedly liberated are facing a resurgence of the Taliban and Sharia law in Afghanistan. And Iraqi citizens now have Shi'ite theocrats, with ties to Iran heading up their government. Cheney's claims that Iraq is "...The central front in this war (on terrorism)..." is specious at best. He conveniently left out the fact that the terrorists weren't operating in Iraq until we deposed Saddam, disbanded the Iraqi army and failed to send in enough troops to secure Iraq and its borders.

Last up was Chimpy McPresident, George W. Bush, himself. His "...Bold new agenda..." to undercut terrorism by "...Supporting the forces of freedom in the Middle East..." has hit a little snag called R-E-A-L-I-T-Y. The reality of the matter is that the invasion of Iraq has destabilised the Middle East. We did Iran a HUGE favor by removing the thorn of Saddam from their side. With our troops tied down in the internecine struggle between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq, Iran has a free hand to exercise its foreign policy strategies. Hezbollah felt emboldened and drew Israel into a short, vicious war which resulted in large numbers of Lebanese civilian casualties. Far from being cowed or defeated, Hezbollah and its leadership are the rock-stars of the region, with America and Israel coming out with black-eyes and further eroded, if that's possible, credibility in the region. And Chimpy had the gall to say that, "Victory in Iraq...Will require more sacrifice.", begging the question of just who will make that sacrifice. Certainly not GOP contributors or those benefitting from his tax cuts.

All three went out of their way to equate the rise of Islamic fundamentalist inspired terrorism with the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Weimar Germany. Unfortunately, however, it is Chimpy and Co., the Bush administration, which has adopted tactics striaght from Herman Goering's playbook. They are attempting to marginalize and and isolate those who oppose their policies...They brand any who oppose them as unpatriotic and cowardly...They attempt to instill fear of attack into the American populace in order to justify both the war in Iraq and the undermining of the Constitution at home.

None of these men has truly been confronted with the consequnces of their policies. None have seen the killing fields in Iraq first-hand. To my knowledge, none of them have been to a field hospital in the aftermath of an IED attack. Chimpy has paid but the briefest of visits to Walter Reed Army Hospital to see the men and women sacrificed on the altar of his dirty little war. They continue to spout their mindless optimistic slogans about how well the war in Iraq is going.

The sad truth is that the more isolated from the carnage they cause a country's leadership is, the more unfounded optimism replaces reality. And this reality is almost non-existent at the very highest levels of decision making. This break from reality can be seen in the speeches offered up this week by Chimpy and Co. Thus they, and their supporters/apologist/synchophants pose a greater threat to the Republic than any terrorists could ever dream of.

Who'd a thunk it...?

Apparently, Chimpy McPresident and the GOP were eager to make political hay from Joe Leiberman's defeat in the New Hampshire primaries. An MSNBC story reports disagreements over the timing of the arrests, both in Pakistan and in Britain. US officials apparently even went so far as to threaten to render the ringleader, Rashid Rauf and/or pressure Pakistan into arresting him. British authorities wanted him taken into custody "in circumstances where thaere was due process".

Even before the story broke, GOP hacks were spewing the same old, baseless bile about the democrats being soft on terror. After Leiberman's defeat and the arrests, the GOP noise machine went into high gear, making it seem as though Chimpy single-handedly rounded up all the bad guys. And, of course, regurgitating the same wet, steaming piles of BS about the democrats being weak on terrorism.

How many more times, and in how many different ways, does it have to be demonstrated that Chimpy and Co. will do whatever it takes to consolidate their power and undermine the Constitution, even if it compromises American security and puts American lives needlessly at risk? If there is any threat to the Republic it is these unprincipled, amoral bastards, and it is time for them to be shown the door and impeached.

Here is a link to the story:

U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests

George W. Bush, the G-8 and the Middle East

President Bush's performance at the G-8 Summit in St. Petersburg was embarassing, to say the least, if not down right disturbing. From his verbal gaffs to his wholly inappropriate physical contact with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he confirmed (to the rest of the world at any rate) just what a fool and poltroon he truly is. Why the Republican National Committee and the Republican controlled Congress, not to mention his grassroots supporters continue to tolerate the utter incompetence of both he and his administration is beyond me.

It also revealed a President and administration dangerously out of its depth with regards to the spiraling cycle of violence and chaos between Israel, Hezbollah and Lebanon. Whether this violence is, in part sponsored by Iran in an effort to distract American and world attention from its nuclear program...Hezbollah taking advantage of a US government weakened and distracted by its involvement in Iraq, or some combination thereof is a toss-up. It is certain, however, that it is the broader consequences of the failure of Bush administration foreign policy in general, and US entanglement in Iraq in particular, coming home to roost.

The emperor's new clothes are faded, careworn and motheaten. His bungling, arrogance and ineptitude have become a greater threat to the Republic than any outside influence. The real question is, "When is Congress going to take up its responsibility to hold the President accountable for his actions?"

Bush investigated...

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) stated, on Lou Dobbs this evening, that Chimpy McPresident has exceeded his constitutional authority with his use of signing statements.

Chimpy has used signing statements to basically invalidate portions of legislation that come to his desk, after passing both Houses of Congress, which he disagrees with or differs from his interretation of just what constitutes the limits of presidential and executive power.

Senator Specter also went on to say that Chimpy exceeded his authority with these signing statements. The proper course would have been for Chimpy to send the bill back to Congress with an explanation of what would be needed to gain his signature on the bill. Instead, he signed the bill into law with a signing statement outlining what provisions he and his administration would, and would not, abide by. In essence, setting himself and his administration above the law. His use of signing statements directly contravenes Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution:

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. - emphasis mine

If you will notice, nowhere does it state that Chimpy can:

"...Declare any portion of legislation he signs invalid if it differs from his interpretation of presidential and executive powers under Article II of the US constitution..." - Jurist, 6/16/06

So much for the rule of law. So much for the Constitution. But as far as Chimpy is concerned the Constitution is "...Nothing but a goddamned piece of paper..." anyways.

G.O.P. Now Embraces War as Issue

A few weeks ago, skittish Republicans were distancing themselves from using the war in Iraq as a political issue. Now, apparently, they are embracing the war with open arms.

I say, "Let them."

Let them embrace the failure to find WMD's, the reason for going to war with Iraq to begin with.

Let them embrace the $320 billion dollar price tag to American tax-payers. After all, Paul Wolfowitz did say that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the costs of the war and reconstruction and former OMB DIrector Mitch Daniels estimated the cost to be in the neighborhood of $50 - $60 billion.

Let them embrace the fact that Iraqi oil production is far below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the no bid contracts to Haliburton, which was operating at a loss prior to Dick Cheney ascending to Vice-President of the US.

Let them embrace the BILLIONS of tax dollars that disappeared in Iraq under the oversight of Proconsul J. Paul Bremmer.

Let them embrace the attrocities at Abu Ghraib.

Let them embrace the failure to rebuild the infrastructure, which continues to provide water and electricity at below pre-war levels.

Let them embrace the more than 2500 US soldiers who have died in Iraq and the nearly 20000 who have been wounded and maimed.

Let them embrace the continued sectarian violence claiming Iraqi lives on a daily basis.

Gosh, I could just go on and on!

What were they waiting for!?!?

Calling the decision to authorize the raid "profoundly disturbing," Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be among the lawmakers backing off their criticism of the Bush administration. - CNN.com

Firstly, the warrant to search Rep. WIlliam Jefferson's (D-LA) was, by all accounts legitimate...and had been ignored by the Louisiana representative and his office for some 9 months. Secondly, a search of Rep. Jefferson's home turned up some $90,000 in bribe money he had been videotaped from an FBI informant was found in his freezer. Now, I do believe in presumed innocence, but he's got an awful lot of 'splainin' to do to a jury.

But, that's not what I'm talking about here. What I'm talking about here is Rep. James Sensenbrenner's title for the hearing on the raid on Jefferson's office, that being...

Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?

Why the kerfuffle over this matter, given the Bush Administration's utter disdain for the Constitution since the day after 9/11?

Why didn't Rep. Sensenbrenner voice his outrage over the illegal domsestic spying operations conducted by the Bush White House? Where was the indignation over Bush's use of signing statements to essentialy declare that he is a law unto himself? WHy was he not up in arms when Bush suspended habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial and so confront one's accusers, all in the name of th "war on terror"? Oddly, he supported these actions. So, what is so special about this incident that has House members, on both sides of the aisle, up in arms over the usupation of the Constitutional separation of powers, about which they have so long remained silent in the face of far greater insults?

Why should Congress, which has turned a blind eye towards the usurpation of the average citizens right by the White House, feel that it is above the law? Does their power and status bring them such priviledge? America is, supposedly, a nation of laws, and no man or woman is above those laws. Perhaps they are merely folowing the lead of President Bush and his Cabinet, who seem to think the law of the land is not for such as they and they may act as they will...when they will, with none to gainsay them.

Such rank hypocrisy cannot go unanswered, and our elected officials should bear in mind that elections are coming up in November. They should not underestimate the power of an angry electorate.

More Half-Baked BS From the Bush White House

It's called "Flip-Flop". In February of 2005, Dubbyuh's budget cut funding for some 9700 Border Patrol officers. In December of 2005, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. But guess what...? There was funding in the 2006 budget for only 210 new officers.

Face it, Dubbyuh has never taken homeland security seriously. First he fought tooth and nail to prevent the formation of a Department of Homeland Security, and when it was formed, he appointed a bunch of incompetents to run it. He has failed to force the nuclead and petrochem industry to tighten security at nuclear and chemical plants around the country. And US ports are about as secure as a box of Fruit-Loops.

After decades of turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants the only reason they have become and issue at all is that the Republicans are desperate for a wedge issue...You know, like gay marriage, flag burning, abortions...Things of little real import, but are sure to push the buttons of Dubbyuh's right wing-nut supporters. Any concern for the matter will disappear after the election in November.

The effort though seems to have backfired, with the Deliverance wing of the Republican party demanding illegals be treated as felons, and nearly 11 million people deported back to Mexico. Now, they can't even manage to get everyone out of New Orleans, so just how are they going to get every illegal out of the country? I know..! Instead of sending the National Guard to the border, have them do sweeps of every city in the country, and round up the illegals. And while they're at it, have them round up the malcontents and ship them somewhere they won't be heard from again. Yeah...That's the ticket...Good old tried and true police state tactics, that should rally the Dubbyuh's base!

The Scum Also Rises...

Holy shit...! We're at war! Who knew!?!

At least that's the imppression one gets when the emergency appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan comes comes up every quarter. This so Dubbyuh doesn't really appear to be blowing any holes in the budget, and we don't really get to see what's in the spending bill. Instead of just providing funding for Dubbyuh's "war on terruh", which it does, the bill has become a hiding place for significant pork. One instance occurred earlier this week. Trent Lott, (R-MS) and Thad Cochran, (R-MS) added a $700 million item to the bill to move a brand new rail line and replace it with a highway in their home state. They say it's to save the rail line from the next hurricane, but the reality is that it is simply a gimme for the real estate and casino developers trying to get their fingers into the thin Hurricane Katrina relief pie.

Even worse, the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans was revealed this week as well. On a party line vote an amendment, introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, (D-MA), to screen all cargo containers entering the US for radiological threats within 5 years was defeated, citing "faulty technology" and "unrealistic deadlines". But hey, guess what...? Hong Kong screens 100% of the cargo entering its port with scanners made by Science Application International of San Diego...HELLO...a US company. The technology exists, and is apparently reliable enough to be put into service in one of the busiest ports in the world. There might be production bottle-necks which would delay implementation at all US ports, but nothing that would be unralistic.

What is unrealistic is the refusal, on the part of Republicans to even debate the issue on the floor as a full bill, but it's difficult to move when they're in the shipping industrys pants. This technology should've been introduced years ago, but the Republicans are content to let the port operators "police themselves".

Rummy's Follies

"...it's bad for the military, it's bad for civil-military relations, and it's potentially very bad for the country..." - Geneneral Richard B. Meyers, USAF(ret), former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

For the full article on Runny's defense, goto:

Rumsfeld Gets Robust Defense From President

Let me tell you what's "...bad for the military...", "...bad for civil-military relations..." and "...potentially very bad for the country...".

A civilian administration which launches an illegal and unjust war of aggression against a sovereign state...Which punishes dissent or contradiction from any source...Which fabricates, from whole cloth, justifications for war and then changes them when they are found to be untrue...Which awards unbid contracts to private corporations with intimate ties to the civilian administration...Which then fails to hold said firms accountable for their actions as they engage in war-profiteering...Which states that it listens to "the generals on the ground" while ignoring their advice in favor of political expediency...Which seeks causus belli with another sovereign nation while its forces are already overstretched and over-taxed...While generals wait until they are safely retired before speaking up, placing their careers before the lives of those entrusted to their command...When junior officers and enlisted personnel are punished for the misdeeds of those at the top of the chain of command who get promoted rather than disciplined...

These are all "...bad for the military...", "...bad for civil-military relations..." and "...potentially very bad for the country...". Until those responsible for these wrongs are held accountable, things will only get worse. But until "We, the People..." wake up and install a new political order in Congress and the White House nothing will change. I only hope it will not be too late when we do awaken.