Why "Road Ranger" you ask? Simple, here in Florida there is a service for motorists in distress called Road Rangers. Out of gas, broke down? The Road Rangers will assist you as they are constantly on patrol looking for drivers in need on Florida highways.
Is there anyone in greater need of assistance than George W. Bush? Who better to provide it James Baker, the Bush Family Fixer Extraordinary? Ever there to bail out the Bushes in their many screw ups and embarrassments, there could be no other choice.
Everything George W. Bush has attempted in his entire life has ended in failure, from Arbusto to the presidency George W. Bush has been responsible for running the operation into the ground. Every failure he engineered always ended the same way, with Poppy Bush's friends riding over the hill to rescue the boy who couldn't do anything right.
So now James Baker is trying to work his magic one more time by finding a way to get the idiot child of George and Barbara off the hook in Iraq and with him, hopefully, the country as well.
I wonder if Baker will lead the defense when George W. Bush finds himself on trial as a war criminal?
One can only hope for that scenario to play out and allow us to see for ourselves.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Dems take control of House & Senate.
We are now at the beginning of ending the nightmare that is Bush's America.
Halleluja!!
It's time to put right what Bush's enablers have done to America.
Halleluja!!
It's time to put right what Bush's enablers have done to America.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Keith Olbermann on the GOP response to the Kerry joke.
Is it any wonder why Keith Olbermann's audience is on the upswing?
Keith Olbermann on the Kerry joke.
Keith Olbermann on the Kerry joke.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Exercise your right to vote.
I just exercised my right, no, my obligation to vote in the 2006 midterm elections by taking advantage of the early voting system here in Florida.
To say that this election is important would be an understatement of immense proportions. Suffice it to say that this is the most important election in my lifetime, which spans 65+ years.
It is not hyperbole to cast this midterm election in a "Custer's Last Stand" light, for the flame of liberty and freedom, as envisioned by The Founders, flickers ever so feebly in the strengthening gale that is the assault on The Constitution and The Bill of Rights by George W. Bush and his republican enablers.
It is past time to bring congressional oversight back to the congress and accountability to George W. Bush for his unabashedly unamerican assault on the foundations of our republic. Foundations that have withstood the rebellion of civil war, two world wars and a cold war that threatened to obliterate us during the last half of the 20th Century.
The time for change is now, it is not too late... yet. On November 7 exercise your right to vote and save our great republic from the neo-fascists of the Bush Regime.
To say that this election is important would be an understatement of immense proportions. Suffice it to say that this is the most important election in my lifetime, which spans 65+ years.
It is not hyperbole to cast this midterm election in a "Custer's Last Stand" light, for the flame of liberty and freedom, as envisioned by The Founders, flickers ever so feebly in the strengthening gale that is the assault on The Constitution and The Bill of Rights by George W. Bush and his republican enablers.
It is past time to bring congressional oversight back to the congress and accountability to George W. Bush for his unabashedly unamerican assault on the foundations of our republic. Foundations that have withstood the rebellion of civil war, two world wars and a cold war that threatened to obliterate us during the last half of the 20th Century.
The time for change is now, it is not too late... yet. On November 7 exercise your right to vote and save our great republic from the neo-fascists of the Bush Regime.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Hastert and the corrupt GOP
What more can one say regarding the morally corrupt thugs that form the House leadership that hasn't been said already?
A measure of the seriousness of the scandal is the fact that they have not a clue as to what to do to make it go away. HINT: Stop using the democrats usual tactic of the circular firing squad.
They cannot do the right thing because it would involve tossing the entire leadership of the house under the bus and what would that do for their chances on November 7? HINT: Republicans are already toast, the only thing they can do is limit just how carbonized they become and the finger pointing, denial and counter accusations currently taking place is not they path they need to take.
This is a scandal that everyone can understand. No political slogans about "Standing up, standing down" or "Staying the course" or "Fight them there, fight them here" to be argued over but the stark fact that one of the senior members of the "values" party has been sexually stalking congressional Pages, male congressional Pages for at least 10 years. The fact that Pages were male is enough to get the steam coming out of the so called Value Voter's ears but the stalking and the subsequent and coninuing, coverup is causing them to rethink their plans for November 7, as well they should.
As I have said before, so called conservative republicans have far sunk lower in the pit of corruption and immorality in twelve years of power then that did democrats after holding the reins of congress for forty years.
Bring back a modicum of decency, competence and yes, morality to the congress and throw the bums out by voting democratic on November 7.
A democratic majority will bring honor, morality and ethics back to the leadership of a congress that has been lacking in such virtues.
A measure of the seriousness of the scandal is the fact that they have not a clue as to what to do to make it go away. HINT: Stop using the democrats usual tactic of the circular firing squad.
They cannot do the right thing because it would involve tossing the entire leadership of the house under the bus and what would that do for their chances on November 7? HINT: Republicans are already toast, the only thing they can do is limit just how carbonized they become and the finger pointing, denial and counter accusations currently taking place is not they path they need to take.
This is a scandal that everyone can understand. No political slogans about "Standing up, standing down" or "Staying the course" or "Fight them there, fight them here" to be argued over but the stark fact that one of the senior members of the "values" party has been sexually stalking congressional Pages, male congressional Pages for at least 10 years. The fact that Pages were male is enough to get the steam coming out of the so called Value Voter's ears but the stalking and the subsequent and coninuing, coverup is causing them to rethink their plans for November 7, as well they should.
As I have said before, so called conservative republicans have far sunk lower in the pit of corruption and immorality in twelve years of power then that did democrats after holding the reins of congress for forty years.
Bring back a modicum of decency, competence and yes, morality to the congress and throw the bums out by voting democratic on November 7.
A democratic majority will bring honor, morality and ethics back to the leadership of a congress that has been lacking in such virtues.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Kieth Olbermann!!
A textbook definition of cowardice
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 8:29 p.m. ET Sept 25, 2006
The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.
Nonetheless. The headline is this:
Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration did not try.
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except for this.
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for “e-mailing” you the question.
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth untold about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?
Who distracted whom?
This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book “1984.”
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence.
He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
Olbermann is on a roll... could be the Edward R. Murrow of our times.
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview
SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'
MSNBC
Updated: 8:29 p.m. ET Sept 25, 2006
The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.
Nonetheless. The headline is this:
Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration did not try.
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive.
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except for this.
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for “e-mailing” you the question.
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth untold about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?
Who distracted whom?
This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book “1984.”
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence.
He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
© 2006 MSNBC Interactive
Olbermann is on a roll... could be the Edward R. Murrow of our times.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Torture USA
What can be said regarding the total capitulation of Senators McCain, Warner and Graham on the torture bill? A reading of the compromise seems to indicate that the primary function of rewriting the bill, and with it our non-compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Accords, is to relieve those individuals at the top of the chain of command, who actually issue the guidelines for interrogation, from all culpability in the torture of prisoners, leaving that responsibility to those low level people in the ranks who actually perform the torture.
Let us understand this, we are not talking about "playing loud music" or "depriving prisoners of sleep" (although that is quite inhumane) or any of the other ridiculous acts that those on the right are saying this legislation is about. No, we are talking about torture by any standard, for who among us is willing to concede that 'waterboarding' is not torture, knowing that the act entails covering the head of a prisoner with plastic wrap or cellophane, etc. then running water over his face in an effort to simulate drowning? Who among us has had their sense of morals so warped by the fear mongering of Bush and his enablers that they cannot see 'waterboarding' for what it is, torture plain and simple?
When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al agree to endure "waterboarding" or any other of the "alternative interrogation" methods (read torture), then, perhaps then will I rethink my opposition to such unamerican methods. There is no chance that such a scenario will come to pass because first and foremost Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are morally bankrupt cowards who would never submit themselves to that which they wish to impose on others.
Somewhere The Founders surely weep at what has become of the dream that was America, certainly the citizens of this great country whose moral and ethical compasses still read true to the ideals of those great men are outraged at the path this cowardly and corrupt administration has taken the nation.
As for the Democrats, sorry to say that it seems they are only concerned with keeping their positions rather than standing up to those who would corrupt the American ideals of ethics, morality and above all, fair play. Democrats have not earned the right to retake the halls of congress for they have shown themselves to be as cowardly as the Republicans they wish to replace.
A pox on both their houses.
Let us understand this, we are not talking about "playing loud music" or "depriving prisoners of sleep" (although that is quite inhumane) or any of the other ridiculous acts that those on the right are saying this legislation is about. No, we are talking about torture by any standard, for who among us is willing to concede that 'waterboarding' is not torture, knowing that the act entails covering the head of a prisoner with plastic wrap or cellophane, etc. then running water over his face in an effort to simulate drowning? Who among us has had their sense of morals so warped by the fear mongering of Bush and his enablers that they cannot see 'waterboarding' for what it is, torture plain and simple?
When Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al agree to endure "waterboarding" or any other of the "alternative interrogation" methods (read torture), then, perhaps then will I rethink my opposition to such unamerican methods. There is no chance that such a scenario will come to pass because first and foremost Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al are morally bankrupt cowards who would never submit themselves to that which they wish to impose on others.
Somewhere The Founders surely weep at what has become of the dream that was America, certainly the citizens of this great country whose moral and ethical compasses still read true to the ideals of those great men are outraged at the path this cowardly and corrupt administration has taken the nation.
As for the Democrats, sorry to say that it seems they are only concerned with keeping their positions rather than standing up to those who would corrupt the American ideals of ethics, morality and above all, fair play. Democrats have not earned the right to retake the halls of congress for they have shown themselves to be as cowardly as the Republicans they wish to replace.
A pox on both their houses.
What he said!
RE: The Torture Agreement
Hullabaloo: "Kudos to Digby for calling this exactly right from the start. Shame, shame, shame on the cowards in both parties that permitted this disgracefully grotesque farce to happen. This is as inexcusable a stupidity as the neglect that permittted the 9/11 attacks, the idiotic reasoning and intellectual blindness that advocated and executed the Bush/Iraq war, and the failure to prepare for Katrina. What the hell is going on, that a country that prides itself on its heritage of freedom and liberty, that fought such an awful war over the degrading enslavement of human beings - that such a country would vote to permit some of the most repulsive and evil practices human beings are capable of and place the power to do so directly in the hands of a moral midget?"
The shame and anger at what has become of America is overwhelming this day. The anger is not only focused on the republicans who went along with this farce because they are republicans after all. No, the lion's share of the anger and shame is reserved for the democrats who would not, could not find the backbone to stand for America and say ENOUGH!
There is not much pride in being an American this day.
Hullabaloo: "Kudos to Digby for calling this exactly right from the start. Shame, shame, shame on the cowards in both parties that permitted this disgracefully grotesque farce to happen. This is as inexcusable a stupidity as the neglect that permittted the 9/11 attacks, the idiotic reasoning and intellectual blindness that advocated and executed the Bush/Iraq war, and the failure to prepare for Katrina. What the hell is going on, that a country that prides itself on its heritage of freedom and liberty, that fought such an awful war over the degrading enslavement of human beings - that such a country would vote to permit some of the most repulsive and evil practices human beings are capable of and place the power to do so directly in the hands of a moral midget?"
The shame and anger at what has become of America is overwhelming this day. The anger is not only focused on the republicans who went along with this farce because they are republicans after all. No, the lion's share of the anger and shame is reserved for the democrats who would not, could not find the backbone to stand for America and say ENOUGH!
There is not much pride in being an American this day.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Preznit Toretureboy
Perhaps it is time to ask the pathological liar and certifiable psychopath in the White House if he would be willing to undergo the procedures that he wants to inflict upon others. I suspect that everyone of the ankle biting bedwetters on the right would soil themselves at the prospect of enduring some of the non-torture interrogation techniques favored by the Coward-in-Chief.
His performance at the press conference was eye opening to say the least. One gets the impression that he is ever so close to totally losing it on national television. The grimaces, contortions, the tics and whining were highlighted by the redness of his face, as he strained mightily to keep his famously petulant, fratboy temper in check. Let it go George, blow your stack on national TV and show America just how unfit you are to hold the office of president.
The time is coming when he will lose it completely, ranting and raving at the reporter who asked the question, looking for all the world like the petulant, immature failure he is.
His performance at the press conference was eye opening to say the least. One gets the impression that he is ever so close to totally losing it on national television. The grimaces, contortions, the tics and whining were highlighted by the redness of his face, as he strained mightily to keep his famously petulant, fratboy temper in check. Let it go George, blow your stack on national TV and show America just how unfit you are to hold the office of president.
The time is coming when he will lose it completely, ranting and raving at the reporter who asked the question, looking for all the world like the petulant, immature failure he is.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
The ABC (Always Blague Conservative) Crockudrama, "The Path to 911"
So now comes the latest in a long line of conservative hit pieces. This time playing upon the pain and anguish of the events of September 11, 2001. While it is not surprising that those without ethics or honor would try to use the grief and shock of that infamous day for partisan political advantage, it is quite astounding that they would try and pass off as fact situations and circumstances so obviously constructed of distortions of fact and outright lies.
If one is determined to create a 'docudrama' of an historical event, especially one of such mind bending, heart searing import as that which transpired on September 11, 2001, it would be wise to tell the tale truthfully. Failing that requirement, if the telling of the tale was meant to be a propaganda piece, as this crockudrama obviously is, it would seem that the major requirement of the telling would be to wait until those who were witness to the events had passed on to their final reward.
The perpetrators of this sick fantasy have much in common with all those who have traded in lies and slander in service to a political idea, party or leader. They need an uninformed citizenry and a willingness to invent circumstances, situations and dialogues for those whom they wish to defame under the guise of dramatic license. Dramatic license is a colloquial term used to denote the distortion or complete ignorance of fact.
While the creators of 'The Path to 911' clearly distorted the facts of the years leading to that terrible day it cannot be said to have been done out of ignorance for the perpetrators of this outrage are the ulra-conservative relatives of other shameless prevaricators on the right. There is no lie too outrageous, no slur too low when it comes to trying to deflect blame for the events of that tragic day away from the current occupier of the People's House.
Facts be damned, in the manner of childish whiners the world over, they scream, 'It's not our fault!' In this they remind me of the scene from The Blues Brothers in which John Belushi as Jake Blues, when confronted by Carrie Fisher, playing his jilted lover, goes into a litany of lies, each more outrageous than the last, explaining why he did not show up for their wedding.
That one scene captures the essence of the extreme conservative effort to recast the tragedy of September 11, 2001 for purely partisan ends. Perhaps there is fear on the right that maybe, just maybe, the people have had enough of the lies and deceptions of Bush and his minions. That they have had enough of the lies and deceptions of the republican majority in congress, a majority that seems hell bent on destroying the civil liberties and time honored constitutional guarantees that have made America a beacon of freedom and opportunity.
Perhaps they are fearful that the people will come out and vote for change in such numbers that no amount of tweaking of voting lists by corrupt Secretaries of State or underhanded adjustments of vote counting programs by Diebold, Sequoia or ES&S will prevent the tidal wave of voter outrage that just may occur on November 7. Perhaps they decided that one more outrageous attempt at propaganda, worthy of a Joseph Goebbels, is all that stands between them, and their enablers, of a true judgement day at the hands of the people. Perhaps they are so desparate that they concluded that a lie of such magnitude about the signal event of the new century is all that will keep them from reaping the justice they so richly deserve for their incompetence, their arrogance and most of all, their lies.
The time for truth is long past. The time for retribution draws near. Above all things, remember that truth and retribution is what the ultra-conservative fears most. For the warcrimes of allowing torture and gulags, to the waging of war, and squandering our national treasure and the lives of our children, built on boldfaced lies, to bringing America down to the moral standards of a third world dictatorship, to the avalanche of lies told to the people, for all this and more, the day of reckoning draws nigh.
If one is determined to create a 'docudrama' of an historical event, especially one of such mind bending, heart searing import as that which transpired on September 11, 2001, it would be wise to tell the tale truthfully. Failing that requirement, if the telling of the tale was meant to be a propaganda piece, as this crockudrama obviously is, it would seem that the major requirement of the telling would be to wait until those who were witness to the events had passed on to their final reward.
The perpetrators of this sick fantasy have much in common with all those who have traded in lies and slander in service to a political idea, party or leader. They need an uninformed citizenry and a willingness to invent circumstances, situations and dialogues for those whom they wish to defame under the guise of dramatic license. Dramatic license is a colloquial term used to denote the distortion or complete ignorance of fact.
While the creators of 'The Path to 911' clearly distorted the facts of the years leading to that terrible day it cannot be said to have been done out of ignorance for the perpetrators of this outrage are the ulra-conservative relatives of other shameless prevaricators on the right. There is no lie too outrageous, no slur too low when it comes to trying to deflect blame for the events of that tragic day away from the current occupier of the People's House.
Facts be damned, in the manner of childish whiners the world over, they scream, 'It's not our fault!' In this they remind me of the scene from The Blues Brothers in which John Belushi as Jake Blues, when confronted by Carrie Fisher, playing his jilted lover, goes into a litany of lies, each more outrageous than the last, explaining why he did not show up for their wedding.
That one scene captures the essence of the extreme conservative effort to recast the tragedy of September 11, 2001 for purely partisan ends. Perhaps there is fear on the right that maybe, just maybe, the people have had enough of the lies and deceptions of Bush and his minions. That they have had enough of the lies and deceptions of the republican majority in congress, a majority that seems hell bent on destroying the civil liberties and time honored constitutional guarantees that have made America a beacon of freedom and opportunity.
Perhaps they are fearful that the people will come out and vote for change in such numbers that no amount of tweaking of voting lists by corrupt Secretaries of State or underhanded adjustments of vote counting programs by Diebold, Sequoia or ES&S will prevent the tidal wave of voter outrage that just may occur on November 7. Perhaps they decided that one more outrageous attempt at propaganda, worthy of a Joseph Goebbels, is all that stands between them, and their enablers, of a true judgement day at the hands of the people. Perhaps they are so desparate that they concluded that a lie of such magnitude about the signal event of the new century is all that will keep them from reaping the justice they so richly deserve for their incompetence, their arrogance and most of all, their lies.
The time for truth is long past. The time for retribution draws near. Above all things, remember that truth and retribution is what the ultra-conservative fears most. For the warcrimes of allowing torture and gulags, to the waging of war, and squandering our national treasure and the lives of our children, built on boldfaced lies, to bringing America down to the moral standards of a third world dictatorship, to the avalanche of lies told to the people, for all this and more, the day of reckoning draws nigh.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Keith Olberman!
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack. Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis--and the sober contemplation--of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as 'his' troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril--with a growing evil--powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the 'secret information.' It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's -- questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England's, in the 1930's.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions -- its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the the truth.
Most relevant of all -- it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic's name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History -- and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England -- have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty -- and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today's Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience -- about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago -- we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have -- inadvertently or intentionally -- profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we -- as its citizens-- must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart -- that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism."
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral."
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular."
And so good night, and good luck.
Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis--and the sober contemplation--of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration's track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life's blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as 'his' troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld's speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril--with a growing evil--powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld's, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the 'secret information.' It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld's -- questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England's, in the 1930's.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions -- its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the the truth.
Most relevant of all -- it "knew" that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic's name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History -- and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England -- have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty -- and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today's Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience -- about Osama Bin Laden's plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein's weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina's impact one year ago -- we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their "omniscience" as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have -- inadvertently or intentionally -- profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer's New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we -- as its citizens-- must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart -- that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld's other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism."
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: "confused" or "immoral."
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular."
And so good night, and good luck.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
FIDOnet Follies
FIDOnet, is an old BBS centered network, where one can find some truly bizarre commentary. The following examples from 2004 postings to the Politics Area are authored by one Stan Hardegree, erstwhile soldier and owner, editor and chief reporter for a shopper's weekly style newspaper which can be found on the web at http://www.villarica.com
He is a good catholic and a pillar of the community.
Makes one wonder about the well being of his community and catholicism.
Since these random notes from 2004, he has become even more vulgar. His use of vulgarity seems to increase in proportion to the decreasing numbers of Americans who support his idol, George W. Bush.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Suzanne Terio
Date: 2004-07-01 16:31:00
Subject: Humphrey's Dishonesty
VH>> I would have thought such language was beneath you, Bob
ST> Interesting. Day after day, week after week, year after
ST> year, we get this and lots worse from Vern Humphrey's
ST> friends and biggest supporters. Do we see Mr. Humphrey
ST> remark about Hardegree's foul language?
Fuck off.
---
* Origin: Bill Clinton - only elected president ever impeached (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: Mr. Humphrey has yet to comment regarding the vularity of Mr. Hardegree.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Ed Connell
Date: 2004-06-28 18:10:10
Subject: MONICA
JB>> Indeed except he and Hillary kept writing the checks. Must
JB>> be our funny American system of justice.
EC> I hear that Monica is not too pleased with Clinton's
EC> description of what happened. He'd better watch out.
When I heard that filthy bastard drawling about Monica and her '15
minutes of fame,' I thought, 'This is the stupidest son of a
bitch I have ever seen.'
Really.
---
* Origin: Against all enemies, foreign and domestic (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: This from the man who decries anyone who finds fault with his hero,
George W. Bush. Hypocrisy anyone?
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Steve Asher
Date: 2004-05-12 17:15:22
Subject: Withdrawal On The Cards?
SA> At some point during the 13 days, US officials took custody
SA> of him, & held him & would not allow him to make phone calls
SA> or contact a lawyer, according to his father.
You are a fucking liar and his father is a fucking liar. I know that and so do you.
---
* Origin: I will speak of controversial things (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: This is what passes for reasonable discourse from a conservative.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: John Hull
Date: 2004-05-09 14:36:24
Subject: Fair Story
SA>> More like an own goal.
JH> You people are so full of crap. You get all worked up over a
JH> handful of US troops exacting some vengeance for their
JH> murdered comrades, yet you couldn't even see anything wrong
JH> when Saddam was torturing and raping and murdering 300,000
JH> plus of his own citizens and burying them in secret mass
JH> graves so nobody would know about it.
JH> Goddamn yellow cowardly appeasers, every stinkin' one of you.
He may or may not be a coward, but Asher is a self-loathing, paranoid
little third worlder who sees a conspiracy lurking around every corner.
---
* Origin: Bill Clinton - only elected president ever impeached (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: In this example one can see that the vularity is not limited to the comments of Mr. Hardegree. Mr. Hull regularly goes over the top as well.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Alan Hess
Date: 2004-03-17 04:42:30
Subject: Socialist
VH>> Look for a major effort by Al Qaida to attack the United
VH>> States in October, in an attempt to influence our elections.
AH> Only if they want Bush to win. A pre-election attack would
AH> allow him to play soldier and homeland savior again.
Fuck you.
---
* Origin: Boss Percy mean. He kill Dell mouse. (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: Once again the elegance of the professional journalist come to the fore.
He is a good catholic and a pillar of the community.
Makes one wonder about the well being of his community and catholicism.
Since these random notes from 2004, he has become even more vulgar. His use of vulgarity seems to increase in proportion to the decreasing numbers of Americans who support his idol, George W. Bush.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Suzanne Terio
Date: 2004-07-01 16:31:00
Subject: Humphrey's Dishonesty
VH>> I would have thought such language was beneath you, Bob
ST> Interesting. Day after day, week after week, year after
ST> year, we get this and lots worse from Vern Humphrey's
ST> friends and biggest supporters. Do we see Mr. Humphrey
ST> remark about Hardegree's foul language?
Fuck off.
---
* Origin: Bill Clinton - only elected president ever impeached (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: Mr. Humphrey has yet to comment regarding the vularity of Mr. Hardegree.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Ed Connell
Date: 2004-06-28 18:10:10
Subject: MONICA
JB>> Indeed except he and Hillary kept writing the checks. Must
JB>> be our funny American system of justice.
EC> I hear that Monica is not too pleased with Clinton's
EC> description of what happened. He'd better watch out.
When I heard that filthy bastard drawling about Monica and her '15
minutes of fame,' I thought, 'This is the stupidest son of a
bitch I have ever seen.'
Really.
---
* Origin: Against all enemies, foreign and domestic (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: This from the man who decries anyone who finds fault with his hero,
George W. Bush. Hypocrisy anyone?
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Steve Asher
Date: 2004-05-12 17:15:22
Subject: Withdrawal On The Cards?
SA> At some point during the 13 days, US officials took custody
SA> of him, & held him & would not allow him to make phone calls
SA> or contact a lawyer, according to his father.
You are a fucking liar and his father is a fucking liar. I know that and so do you.
---
* Origin: I will speak of controversial things (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: This is what passes for reasonable discourse from a conservative.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: John Hull
Date: 2004-05-09 14:36:24
Subject: Fair Story
SA>> More like an own goal.
JH> You people are so full of crap. You get all worked up over a
JH> handful of US troops exacting some vengeance for their
JH> murdered comrades, yet you couldn't even see anything wrong
JH> when Saddam was torturing and raping and murdering 300,000
JH> plus of his own citizens and burying them in secret mass
JH> graves so nobody would know about it.
JH> Goddamn yellow cowardly appeasers, every stinkin' one of you.
He may or may not be a coward, but Asher is a self-loathing, paranoid
little third worlder who sees a conspiracy lurking around every corner.
---
* Origin: Bill Clinton - only elected president ever impeached (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: In this example one can see that the vularity is not limited to the comments of Mr. Hardegree. Mr. Hull regularly goes over the top as well.
****
From: Stan Hardegree
To: Alan Hess
Date: 2004-03-17 04:42:30
Subject: Socialist
VH>> Look for a major effort by Al Qaida to attack the United
VH>> States in October, in an attempt to influence our elections.
AH> Only if they want Bush to win. A pre-election attack would
AH> allow him to play soldier and homeland savior again.
Fuck you.
---
* Origin: Boss Percy mean. He kill Dell mouse. (1:379/1.2)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 396/45 106/2000 633/267
Note: Once again the elegance of the professional journalist come to the fore.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Lieberman
GONE!
If Lieberman continues his quest as an independent, and ignores the will of the Democratic voters of Connecticut, Harry Reid should remove him from every committee on which he sits.
Immediately!
If Lieberman continues his quest as an independent, and ignores the will of the Democratic voters of Connecticut, Harry Reid should remove him from every committee on which he sits.
Immediately!
Saturday, July 15, 2006
The Guns of July.
Are we witnessing the start of WW3?
Keep in mind that in June 1914, following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Serbia and his wife, no one thought they were on a slippery slope to what would become 'The War to end all wars' either.
Required reading: The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman 1962.
Keep in mind that in June 1914, following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Serbia and his wife, no one thought they were on a slippery slope to what would become 'The War to end all wars' either.
Required reading: The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman 1962.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Porter Goss Resigns
Was it a case of the Rats Deserting a Sinking Ship Syndrome or is a video, starring Porter in a starring role, of HookerGate about to surface?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Inquiring minds want to know!
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Iran
Surely the American people cannot be so gullible as to believe the rising tide of lies regarding Iran and nuclear weapons?
Should not the bullshit alarm be going off in the media and in the mind of every thinking person in the country? If we decide to attack Iran it will mean the beginning of World War 3. Perhaps that is what Bush and his Band of Bunglers want.
I was too young to remember Pearl Harbor and our entry into WW2 but I know that we will become a pariah nation, no friends, no allies, only utter contempt and hostility from the civilized world.
Lest these miscreants believe that we can do this again, attack another country who presents no danger to us or anyone else, without fear of retaliation because we are the only superpower, I would remind that there is more to power than military might.
The lesson we will have to learn will be bitter, indeed and it will rest on the heads of not only Bush and his cronies but on the heads of every one of us who allowed this travesty to come to pass.
Should not the bullshit alarm be going off in the media and in the mind of every thinking person in the country? If we decide to attack Iran it will mean the beginning of World War 3. Perhaps that is what Bush and his Band of Bunglers want.
I was too young to remember Pearl Harbor and our entry into WW2 but I know that we will become a pariah nation, no friends, no allies, only utter contempt and hostility from the civilized world.
Lest these miscreants believe that we can do this again, attack another country who presents no danger to us or anyone else, without fear of retaliation because we are the only superpower, I would remind that there is more to power than military might.
The lesson we will have to learn will be bitter, indeed and it will rest on the heads of not only Bush and his cronies but on the heads of every one of us who allowed this travesty to come to pass.
Stephen Colbert
Much has been written about how unfunny Colbert was, or how out of line he was in his entertainment. Can none of the talking heads and giants of journalism understand that he was not trying to be funny but that he was holding a mirror up to Bush, the press and the Bush sycophants?
I suspect that they did in fact "get it" but pride, ego, vanity, whatever, keeps them from admitting it. What they saw in Colbert's performance is what we, the people, see in their performance and that of Bush and his sycophants as well.
I suspect that they did in fact "get it" but pride, ego, vanity, whatever, keeps them from admitting it. What they saw in Colbert's performance is what we, the people, see in their performance and that of Bush and his sycophants as well.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Random thoughts.
With Bush and the republicans tanking in the polls as a result of their corruption and incompetence, democrats and progressives have high hopes for November. I would remind one and all that voting, in and of itself, is not enough for it is the counting of those votes that is of paramount importance. As long as Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, etc. are supplying voting stations without a paper trail capability and disallowing any review of the tallying software by independent agents, we can expect a redux of the elections of 2000, 2002 & 2004, elections where exit polling, a valuable and accurate tool for some twenty years or more, turned out to be 'inaccurate' and hence discarded. This phenomenom was also noted in selected state and local elections since 2000. So take heart from the tanking numbers, indicators that even republicans are seeing the truth, take heart but be on guard for another round of election thievery, for those in power know that with the loss of control of even one house of the congress would come the inevitable downfall of the abominable Bush regime.
Carl Rove's fifth appearance before the Grand Jury, regardless of how it is spun, cannot be a good thing. Look for an indictment in the coming days. Under indictment, the last thing on Rove's mind will be the coming elections. His focus will be on keeping himself out of jail because he, of all people, knows that with Bush, once anyone cannot do for him, that person is as the saying goes, 'Out of sight, out of mind' and given that this attitude is a Bush family tradition, Rove knows that there will be no pardon should he be convicted. No pardon, only a long and lonely stretch of twisting in the wind. That is a Bush family value.
Related to the election, if the democrats are successful in wresting control of one, or both, houses of congress from republican control, that will result in the most dangerous time in the history of the republic for the handwriting would be writ bold on the wall for Bush and his cronies and, in the time honored tradition of rats when cornered, they will do anything in order to stay the consequences of their actions both here at home and abroad these past 6 years.
Carl Rove's fifth appearance before the Grand Jury, regardless of how it is spun, cannot be a good thing. Look for an indictment in the coming days. Under indictment, the last thing on Rove's mind will be the coming elections. His focus will be on keeping himself out of jail because he, of all people, knows that with Bush, once anyone cannot do for him, that person is as the saying goes, 'Out of sight, out of mind' and given that this attitude is a Bush family tradition, Rove knows that there will be no pardon should he be convicted. No pardon, only a long and lonely stretch of twisting in the wind. That is a Bush family value.
Related to the election, if the democrats are successful in wresting control of one, or both, houses of congress from republican control, that will result in the most dangerous time in the history of the republic for the handwriting would be writ bold on the wall for Bush and his cronies and, in the time honored tradition of rats when cornered, they will do anything in order to stay the consequences of their actions both here at home and abroad these past 6 years.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
The Generals
The retired generals who have spoken out, in retrospect, calling for Rumsfeld's head while admirable, misses the point, I believe.
Until the generals, and other officers and men, are prepared to stand up for America and voice their opposition to the inept, unamerican national leadership, nothing will change.
Please spare me the nonsense about loyalty for the only loyalty is that of to the Constitution, period. Had the German Wehrmacht the courage to tell Hitler that they would not swear an oath of loyalty to him but would continue in the honored tradition of loyalty to the fatherland, the history of Europe, and the world, may well have taken a different path.
I understand that it is difficult to stand up in opposition when it makes likely the fact that all you have worked for will disappear but no one ever said that keeping our freedom was easy. The Founders risked everything to give us that which is now being trampled by George W. Bush and his willing henchmen in their task of transforming America from the last, greatest hope of humanity into just another cold and cruel imperialistic power.
Time grows short, the flame of liberty flickers dangerously low.
Until the generals, and other officers and men, are prepared to stand up for America and voice their opposition to the inept, unamerican national leadership, nothing will change.
Please spare me the nonsense about loyalty for the only loyalty is that of to the Constitution, period. Had the German Wehrmacht the courage to tell Hitler that they would not swear an oath of loyalty to him but would continue in the honored tradition of loyalty to the fatherland, the history of Europe, and the world, may well have taken a different path.
I understand that it is difficult to stand up in opposition when it makes likely the fact that all you have worked for will disappear but no one ever said that keeping our freedom was easy. The Founders risked everything to give us that which is now being trampled by George W. Bush and his willing henchmen in their task of transforming America from the last, greatest hope of humanity into just another cold and cruel imperialistic power.
Time grows short, the flame of liberty flickers dangerously low.
Friday, March 31, 2006
A plan for Democrats.
Does anyone have a clue as to the plan of attack of the Democratic Party in the upcoming election? Insisting that they aren't like republicans just isn't going to make it.
Voters who had had enough of the criminal incompetence and corruption of Republican rule will vote Democrat, Progressive or Independent for sure, but what of the moderate or (gasp) liberal republican? Democrats need to lay out a plan to reverse the near irreparable damage caused by republicans during the last 5 years.
Here is an idea or two.
The war on Iraq. The current plan of staying until the Iraqis can provide "their own security" is not a plan, it is a recipe for more of the same and anyone advocating such a "solution" is part of the problem. The American people are not tired of the war because it seems to be dragging on, rather they are tired of the war because they know, they know, we are there as a result of a lie. They want a plan, any plan short of the one they remember from Vietnam. Can the Democrats deliver on this?
Perhaps the first thing that should be done is to acknowledge that the government of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. If it is truly a sovereign government then the United States should cease meddling in Iraqi affairs of state, the recent call by Bush for the prime minister to step down comes to mind. We should honor the request of the Iraqi government and remove our troops from the country, period. As for the security of the oil fields, perhaps when we realize that oil field security is the responsibility of the Iraqis and the oil itself belongs to them.
To paraphrase a comment from the days of Vietnam, how can we get the troops out of Iraq? Ships and planes, the same way they got there in the first place. Could a post US dominated Iraq be any worse than the Iraq of today? Not likely and perhaps, just perhaps, once we are out of Iraq, the Iraqis will come together. If they don't and the Civil War continues, then what? Like the rest of the world did during OUR civil war, LEAVE THEM ALONE! It is THEIR country, it is THEIR problem, it is THEIR place to work out a solution.
How about a no nonsense, straight forward ban on the use of torture, gulags and abuse of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How about a serious effort to restoring the good name of America in the eyes of the world?
Congress on the take? How about requiring lobbyists to document all gifts, donations (including meals), etc. in addition to the time, location and subject of their meetings? How about requiring the same of congressmen? How about requiring publication of these logs in a new, public journal? Or, as an alternative, how about allowing no gifts of any kind? How about disallowing any congressman from joining, as a lobbyist or in any capacity, industries which they regulated or otherwise ruled over while they were in office?
How refreshing it would be to see democrats offering a clear alternative to the corruption and incompetence of republican rule.
Newt Gingrich was correct when he said that the best slogan democrats could have would be two words, "Had enough?" But a catchy slogan, no matter how appropriate, is not enough. Democrats must offer real choices for the real problems created by republicans, they must show the people that they "get it" and will bring real change, governed by the voice of the people, to Washington.
Voters who had had enough of the criminal incompetence and corruption of Republican rule will vote Democrat, Progressive or Independent for sure, but what of the moderate or (gasp) liberal republican? Democrats need to lay out a plan to reverse the near irreparable damage caused by republicans during the last 5 years.
Here is an idea or two.
The war on Iraq. The current plan of staying until the Iraqis can provide "their own security" is not a plan, it is a recipe for more of the same and anyone advocating such a "solution" is part of the problem. The American people are not tired of the war because it seems to be dragging on, rather they are tired of the war because they know, they know, we are there as a result of a lie. They want a plan, any plan short of the one they remember from Vietnam. Can the Democrats deliver on this?
Perhaps the first thing that should be done is to acknowledge that the government of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq. If it is truly a sovereign government then the United States should cease meddling in Iraqi affairs of state, the recent call by Bush for the prime minister to step down comes to mind. We should honor the request of the Iraqi government and remove our troops from the country, period. As for the security of the oil fields, perhaps when we realize that oil field security is the responsibility of the Iraqis and the oil itself belongs to them.
To paraphrase a comment from the days of Vietnam, how can we get the troops out of Iraq? Ships and planes, the same way they got there in the first place. Could a post US dominated Iraq be any worse than the Iraq of today? Not likely and perhaps, just perhaps, once we are out of Iraq, the Iraqis will come together. If they don't and the Civil War continues, then what? Like the rest of the world did during OUR civil war, LEAVE THEM ALONE! It is THEIR country, it is THEIR problem, it is THEIR place to work out a solution.
How about a no nonsense, straight forward ban on the use of torture, gulags and abuse of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How about a serious effort to restoring the good name of America in the eyes of the world?
Congress on the take? How about requiring lobbyists to document all gifts, donations (including meals), etc. in addition to the time, location and subject of their meetings? How about requiring the same of congressmen? How about requiring publication of these logs in a new, public journal? Or, as an alternative, how about allowing no gifts of any kind? How about disallowing any congressman from joining, as a lobbyist or in any capacity, industries which they regulated or otherwise ruled over while they were in office?
How refreshing it would be to see democrats offering a clear alternative to the corruption and incompetence of republican rule.
Newt Gingrich was correct when he said that the best slogan democrats could have would be two words, "Had enough?" But a catchy slogan, no matter how appropriate, is not enough. Democrats must offer real choices for the real problems created by republicans, they must show the people that they "get it" and will bring real change, governed by the voice of the people, to Washington.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The Bush Regime
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made"
--- From The Great Gatsby
Isn't that really what Bush was saying with his comment that ending the war of aggression in Iraq and bringing the troops home would have to wait for another president? Has not that been the story of his life?
Time and again, like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, Bush has “always depended on the kindness of strangers' to clean up the messes he has made of everything he's ever done. A failure in business who could not find oil in West Texas. A failure in the baseball world who would trade Sammy Sosa away for next to nothing. A failure in the world of state government, running Texas into the ground and burying its people in an ocean of red ink. Sound familiar?
Bush is a failure as president, running up the largest deficits in the history of the republic, bringing the specter of financial ruin to generations yet to be born. He is a failure as Commander-in-Chief, for as a result of his ill thought out war of aggression in Iraq, the army, reserves and national Guard are near the breaking point in terms of both men and material.
Finally, he is a failure of monumental proportions because of the damage he has done to the reputation of The United States of America. From pre-emptive war, to the acceptance of torture, to the Soviet style gulags in Guantamano and elswhere, to the brazen violation of the Bill of Rights in conducting warrantless monitoring of the words and deeds of American citizens.
It is past time to say ENOUGH! In the words of Robert Welch so long ago, 'At long last have you no shame?' Words today meant not for Bush, his Band of Bunglers and Cadre of Corruptables but words meant for the American people!
At long last America, have you no shame as a result of what these corrupt criminals have done and continue to do to America?"
--- From The Great Gatsby
Isn't that really what Bush was saying with his comment that ending the war of aggression in Iraq and bringing the troops home would have to wait for another president? Has not that been the story of his life?
Time and again, like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, Bush has “always depended on the kindness of strangers' to clean up the messes he has made of everything he's ever done. A failure in business who could not find oil in West Texas. A failure in the baseball world who would trade Sammy Sosa away for next to nothing. A failure in the world of state government, running Texas into the ground and burying its people in an ocean of red ink. Sound familiar?
Bush is a failure as president, running up the largest deficits in the history of the republic, bringing the specter of financial ruin to generations yet to be born. He is a failure as Commander-in-Chief, for as a result of his ill thought out war of aggression in Iraq, the army, reserves and national Guard are near the breaking point in terms of both men and material.
Finally, he is a failure of monumental proportions because of the damage he has done to the reputation of The United States of America. From pre-emptive war, to the acceptance of torture, to the Soviet style gulags in Guantamano and elswhere, to the brazen violation of the Bill of Rights in conducting warrantless monitoring of the words and deeds of American citizens.
It is past time to say ENOUGH! In the words of Robert Welch so long ago, 'At long last have you no shame?' Words today meant not for Bush, his Band of Bunglers and Cadre of Corruptables but words meant for the American people!
At long last America, have you no shame as a result of what these corrupt criminals have done and continue to do to America?"
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Random thoughts
Massaoui, arrested on Aug 20, 2001, was charged as an accessory in the events of 9/11 because he knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the authorities so that they might have prevented the attack.
George W. Bush, given the PDB of Aug 6, 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike the US" knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the appropriate security personnel so that they might have prevented the attack of 9/11.
George W. Bush possessed this knowledge, and was in a position to do something with it on Aug 6, 2001, a full 13 days before Massaoui was arrested.
Explain to me again why Massaoui is on trial and Bush is not.
South Dakota passed into law an anti-abortion law that bans all abortions, out of an alleged reverence for the life of the fetus, save when one is required to spare the life of the mother.
Does this mean that South Dakota values the life of the mother over the life of the fetus? If so then the law is a sham and is more about limiting what a woman may or may not do in the event she finds herself in the first trimester of an unwanted pregnancy.
The doctor or other medical personnel performing an abortion can be charged with a felony. Given the fact that there are few examples of a doctor forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion, one can presume that said doctor would not be doing the procedure were it not for the woman requesting it. If the doctor can be charged with a felony does the law also address the fact that the woman is an accessory and therefore also subject to a felony charge? If not then the law is a sham and designed only to limit the choices that are a woman's right regarding the outcome of unwanted pregnancies.
George W. Bush, given the PDB of Aug 6, 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike the US" knew of the plot and did nothing to alert the appropriate security personnel so that they might have prevented the attack of 9/11.
George W. Bush possessed this knowledge, and was in a position to do something with it on Aug 6, 2001, a full 13 days before Massaoui was arrested.
Explain to me again why Massaoui is on trial and Bush is not.
South Dakota passed into law an anti-abortion law that bans all abortions, out of an alleged reverence for the life of the fetus, save when one is required to spare the life of the mother.
Does this mean that South Dakota values the life of the mother over the life of the fetus? If so then the law is a sham and is more about limiting what a woman may or may not do in the event she finds herself in the first trimester of an unwanted pregnancy.
The doctor or other medical personnel performing an abortion can be charged with a felony. Given the fact that there are few examples of a doctor forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion, one can presume that said doctor would not be doing the procedure were it not for the woman requesting it. If the doctor can be charged with a felony does the law also address the fact that the woman is an accessory and therefore also subject to a felony charge? If not then the law is a sham and designed only to limit the choices that are a woman's right regarding the outcome of unwanted pregnancies.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Paul Hackett
The decision by Paul Hackett to withdraw from the Ohio senate race after being urged to do so by senior Democratic Party officials is offensive.
These senior officials will not get very far in promoting the Democratic Party by acting like republicans.
Absolutely disgraceful.
These senior officials will not get very far in promoting the Democratic Party by acting like republicans.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Destroying the Constitution in order to save it
After hearing the following idiotic comment in answer to the FISA lawbreaking president, "FISA doesn't overrule Article 2" I am continuously amazed at the willful ignorance of those on the right.
I would ask someone, anyone, to articulate where, exactly, in Article 2 of the constitution that the president is empowered to "protect, preserve and defend the constitution" by disregarding it.
I would ask someone, anyone, to articulate where, exactly, in Article 2 of the constitution that the president is empowered to "protect, preserve and defend the constitution" by disregarding it.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan was arrested in the capitol building last night for breaking the law barring demonstrations inside the building, she was wearing a T-shirt with, '2,245 Dead. How many more?' printed on it. Safia Taleb Al Souhail, on the other hand, an Iraqi woman was applauded by Bush during the SOTU address in 2005 for waving her purple finger, after he had noted the election in Iraq
So we have two demonstrations, a year apart. In one, the demonstrator is applauded for her action while in the other she is arrested. Perhaps the law should be changed to say that only those demonstrations against The Coward who would be king are prohibited for that is the implication.
The Founders, wherever their spirits reside, must be saddened by the events unfolding in their dream that became America.
So we have two demonstrations, a year apart. In one, the demonstrator is applauded for her action while in the other she is arrested. Perhaps the law should be changed to say that only those demonstrations against The Coward who would be king are prohibited for that is the implication.
The Founders, wherever their spirits reside, must be saddened by the events unfolding in their dream that became America.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Hand delivered letter to Senator Nelson, D-FL
Sir,
If Alito is not the nominee to be opposed, by filibuster if necessary, who exactly would warrant such action?
If this time of a presidency engaged in illegal and immoral acts and ignoring both the legislative and judicial breaches of our government is not the time to say, "enough" what exactly would you require of the times to finally say, "enough?"
If Alito, and his ideas regarding the presidency, is not the embodiment of the ideas that the Founders spoke so elegantly to in the Declaration of Independence, please Sir explain the difference.
Alito is most assuredly qualified for the court based on his legal education and training. He is most assuredly not qualified based on his interpretation of both law and the Constitution, to say nothing of his ethical lapses brought on by a rather unique interpretation of conflict of interest and lying under oath.
The time is now to oppose Alito, both in the floor vote and with a filibuster if necessary.
Please do not turn your back on the dream of the Founders.
Vote NO on the nomination of Samuel Alito.
As a registered democrat, I shall remember your actions come November.
If Alito is not the nominee to be opposed, by filibuster if necessary, who exactly would warrant such action?
If this time of a presidency engaged in illegal and immoral acts and ignoring both the legislative and judicial breaches of our government is not the time to say, "enough" what exactly would you require of the times to finally say, "enough?"
If Alito, and his ideas regarding the presidency, is not the embodiment of the ideas that the Founders spoke so elegantly to in the Declaration of Independence, please Sir explain the difference.
Alito is most assuredly qualified for the court based on his legal education and training. He is most assuredly not qualified based on his interpretation of both law and the Constitution, to say nothing of his ethical lapses brought on by a rather unique interpretation of conflict of interest and lying under oath.
The time is now to oppose Alito, both in the floor vote and with a filibuster if necessary.
Please do not turn your back on the dream of the Founders.
Vote NO on the nomination of Samuel Alito.
As a registered democrat, I shall remember your actions come November.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
No to Alito
On a straight party line vote, the Alito nomination is headed for the floor of the senate.
If he is to be nominated then let it be over a democratic filibuster. Democrats cannot rollover and play nice on this. Come to think of it, neither can the so called republican moderates.
For what it's worth, I see little difference in the judicial philosophy of Alito, as regards an imperious leader, and that of the judges in 1930s Germany.
If he is to be nominated then let it be over a democratic filibuster. Democrats cannot rollover and play nice on this. Come to think of it, neither can the so called republican moderates.
For what it's worth, I see little difference in the judicial philosophy of Alito, as regards an imperious leader, and that of the judges in 1930s Germany.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
The coming war on Iran
Seems Iran will open an oil bourse in March, trading in currency other than the US dollar and that would likely be a financial disaster for America.
Disregard the nonsense over the nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran because, for as with the WMD arguments regarding Iraq, it is lie after lie, one upon another, designed to build fear in the American people in order to get them to support another naked aggression by the criminals of the Bush-Cheney regime.
The likely result of such an aggression on Iran? Think oil embargo, not by Saudi Arabia but by Venezuela. Think the insurgency in Iraq and the increased likelihood of the Shi'tes joining with the Sunnis. Think Russia and their new Topol-M and last but not least, think China and the significant amount of dollars (as well as other government paper) they hold.
One thing is certain though, and that is the agression on Iran will likely not include US ground forces as they are stretched to the breaking point worldwide.
Such is the mess awaiting us as a result of aggression upon Iran by the Band of Bunglers and The Coward who would be king.
Disregard the nonsense over the nuclear weapon ambitions of Iran because, for as with the WMD arguments regarding Iraq, it is lie after lie, one upon another, designed to build fear in the American people in order to get them to support another naked aggression by the criminals of the Bush-Cheney regime.
The likely result of such an aggression on Iran? Think oil embargo, not by Saudi Arabia but by Venezuela. Think the insurgency in Iraq and the increased likelihood of the Shi'tes joining with the Sunnis. Think Russia and their new Topol-M and last but not least, think China and the significant amount of dollars (as well as other government paper) they hold.
One thing is certain though, and that is the agression on Iran will likely not include US ground forces as they are stretched to the breaking point worldwide.
Such is the mess awaiting us as a result of aggression upon Iran by the Band of Bunglers and The Coward who would be king.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Abramoff to get layed
From TIME:
[snip]
Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret
Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex,
and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit. Bush aides are
also trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men
together. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House,
according to an aide who has seen the list. Press secretary Scott McClellan
said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added,
"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever
meeting him."
[snip]
Oops, looks like Abramoff is about to get (Ken) Layed.
[snip]
Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret
Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex,
and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit. Bush aides are
also trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men
together. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House,
according to an aide who has seen the list. Press secretary Scott McClellan
said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added,
"The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever
meeting him."
[snip]
Oops, looks like Abramoff is about to get (Ken) Layed.
Questions for republicans
Three questions for republicans:
Does a president, ANY president, have the right, 'war' or no war, to ignore either US Code, The Constitution or both?
If so, exactly where is this right enumerated?
If not, what is the responsibility of the Legislative and Judiciary branches to correct such actions?
Does a president, ANY president, have the right, 'war' or no war, to ignore either US Code, The Constitution or both?
If so, exactly where is this right enumerated?
If not, what is the responsibility of the Legislative and Judiciary branches to correct such actions?
Monday, January 02, 2006
Keep your eye the ball
GratisNet: "It would do well to remain focused in the upcoming fight over the unauthorized spying upon Americans. The dispute is not about 'security' but about whether, in 'wartime', a president must follow the law. It is not about the speed one needs to react to threats for the FISA law clearly allows immediate wiretaps requiring only that the warrant be submitted to the FISA court within 72 hours.
It is, most certainly, about the oversight granted by the constitution to the congress and the courts, over the executive branch. In other words, is the Constitution of The United States still the supreme law of the land? If it is, then the president committed an illegal act when he ordered the wiretaps on the American people. If the constantly changing excuses made by The Coward who would be king (and by extension, his law hating, unamerican apologists) says anything it shouts that these psuedo patriots know damn well that his actions were illegal under both the constitution and US Code.
The unique advice that a president, in his role as CIC, is somehow above the law (L'etat, c'est moi) would be laughable were it not so serious. The bootlickers will raise the example of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus but do not be fooled for the question of whether the president must obey the law, at all times, was settled when the SCOTUS ruled against Truman's attempt to keep the steel plants open in 1952 during the Korean War.
Do not be mislead by claims that the constitution is not a suicide pact, that extreme times call for extreme measures. The fact remains that the principles of the founders, as vested in the constitution will not and cannot be protected by a failure to act within the boundaries set forth by them.
9/11 did not 'change everything' America is still a nation where the law is king.
America is one village that we will not let be destroyed in an attempt to 'save' it."
It is, most certainly, about the oversight granted by the constitution to the congress and the courts, over the executive branch. In other words, is the Constitution of The United States still the supreme law of the land? If it is, then the president committed an illegal act when he ordered the wiretaps on the American people. If the constantly changing excuses made by The Coward who would be king (and by extension, his law hating, unamerican apologists) says anything it shouts that these psuedo patriots know damn well that his actions were illegal under both the constitution and US Code.
The unique advice that a president, in his role as CIC, is somehow above the law (L'etat, c'est moi) would be laughable were it not so serious. The bootlickers will raise the example of Lincoln and Habeas Corpus but do not be fooled for the question of whether the president must obey the law, at all times, was settled when the SCOTUS ruled against Truman's attempt to keep the steel plants open in 1952 during the Korean War.
Do not be mislead by claims that the constitution is not a suicide pact, that extreme times call for extreme measures. The fact remains that the principles of the founders, as vested in the constitution will not and cannot be protected by a failure to act within the boundaries set forth by them.
9/11 did not 'change everything' America is still a nation where the law is king.
America is one village that we will not let be destroyed in an attempt to 'save' it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
