Analysis: Rove Flap Gives Dems Ammo
The AP Reports :
The fight over documents has gone to red alert. The White House acknowledges it cannot find four years' worth of e-mails from chief political strategist Karl Rove. The admission has thrust the Democrats' nemesis back into the center of attention and poses a fresh political challenge for President Bush.
Read Full Story
Related :
- Who Is Behind The 4 Years Of "Missing" Karl Rove Emails?
- Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena
Saturday, April 14, 2007
McCain Sees ‘No Plan B’ for Iraq War
“I have no Plan B,” [if the troop surge does not succeed in Iraq] Arizona Senator John McCain said in an interview with journalist from The New York Times.
No "Plan B"?
Isn't that one of the biggest problems with the war to begin with?
That invasion was planned without a "Plan B"?
The occupation was planned without a "Plan B" and now the surge is without a "Plan B".
Because we all know that the best way to win a war is to not to have a backup plan if your first plan does not succeed.
John McCain is a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the recent troop surge and is running for President.
McCain has recently been ridiculed for giving out misleading information regarding the security of Iraq.
Senator McCain had asserted that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,” and that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."
Both statements of course, are untrue. Read McCain's April Fools Day Joke and McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed for more information regarding McCain's fairy tale vision of Baghdad.
“I have no Plan B,” [if the troop surge does not succeed in Iraq] Arizona Senator John McCain said in an interview with journalist from The New York Times.
No "Plan B"?
Isn't that one of the biggest problems with the war to begin with?
That invasion was planned without a "Plan B"?
The occupation was planned without a "Plan B" and now the surge is without a "Plan B".
Because we all know that the best way to win a war is to not to have a backup plan if your first plan does not succeed.
John McCain is a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and the recent troop surge and is running for President.
McCain has recently been ridiculed for giving out misleading information regarding the security of Iraq.
Senator McCain had asserted that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,” and that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."
Both statements of course, are untrue. Read McCain's April Fools Day Joke and McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed for more information regarding McCain's fairy tale vision of Baghdad.
Debunking Bush’s Whoppers On Pork
Think Progress reports:
"President Bush has tried to justify his planned veto of Congress’ Iraq withdrawal legislation by complaining about the non-Iraq related funds included in the bill.
American Progress senior fellow Scott Lilly, who served for years as Clerk and Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee, debunks Bush’s rhetoric:"
Read Full Story
Think Progress reports:
"President Bush has tried to justify his planned veto of Congress’ Iraq withdrawal legislation by complaining about the non-Iraq related funds included in the bill.
American Progress senior fellow Scott Lilly, who served for years as Clerk and Staff Director of the House Appropriations Committee, debunks Bush’s rhetoric:"
Read Full Story
Who Is Behind The 4 Years Of "Missing" Karl Rove Emails?
Related:
- Rove E-Mail Sought by Congress May Be Missing
- Missing E-Mail May Be Related to Prosecutors
- Deleting embarrassing e-mails isn't easy, experts say
- Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena
I don't want to hear that five million emails were lost. I don't want to hear that four years of Karl Rove's emails have magically disappeared from the face of the earth.
I don't want to hear that the five million missing emails and the recent attorney purge are unrelated. I don't want to hear it because I simply don't believe it.
If the emails are missing, it is only because someone doesn't want the emails to be found.
There are also questions being raised about White House use of GOP-provided, nongovernmental email accounts to avoid complying with Federal law, which requires the preservation of all electronic communications sent or received by White House staff .
The White House and The Republican National Committee are being investigated by The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who are trying to determine if the missing emails are connected to the attorney purge.
Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer is claiming that Rove believed that his emails were being stored on other machines and that he did not intentionally delete emails.
But Democrats aren't buying the explanations, and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy stated to following on the Senate floor of the missing emails :
"You can't erase e-mails, not today," ... "They've gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there -- they just don't want to produce them. It's like the infamous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes."
Leahy is more right than wrong, McClatchy reports that :
"If Karl Rove or other White House staffers tried to delete sensitive e-mails from their computers, experts said, investigators usually could recover all or most of them."
...
It's like "removing an index card in a library," said Robert Guinaugh, a senior partner at CyberControls LLC, a data forensic-support company in Barrington, Ill. "You take the card out, but the book is still on the shelf."
...
"People think they can delete e-mails, but that's not always the case," Guinaugh said.
...
As an investigator works, he may run across evidence that someone had installed scrubbing software or changed the date and time that a file was created.
"That would be suspicious," Guinaugh said. "It might indicate that something nefarious was going on."
First the White House claimed the attorney purge was not politically related but performance related.
Closer inspection has proven that performance was not the basis of the firing of eight U.S. Attorney's, political loyalty was.
The attorney's were rated to determine whether or not they were, using Karl Rove's own words "loyal Bushies".
To the White House, US Attorney allegiance to the Republican Party and to George W. Bush was (and is) far more important than any allegiance to United States law.
Now the White House is claiming that the reason Rove & Co. used RNC email accounts instead of White House email accounts was because they were politically related emails.
Politically related emails that are now magically missing. Four years of them. Five million of them.
Are we are really supposed to believe these missing politically related emails sent threw the RNC to avoid federal law on White House record keeping are not related to the politically related firing of eight US Attorneys that the White House claims is not politically motivated?
Do they really expect intelligent people to swallow that pill using the poisoned Kool-Aid they have so artfully provided for us?
My intuition and skepticism are telling me the emails have gone missing because someone wanted those emails missing.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet there is much more in those missing emails than just the information about the attorney purge.
Given that the five million missing emails are pre-2005 there is likely to be other important emails in the batch besides emails regarding the attorney purge. This could include emails regarding the invasion of Iraq and the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the press - all more good reasons to try to make the information disappear.
In the days and weeks to come more information will become available, and I doubt any of it is going to indicate that the Bush Administration is a pious and effective Administration.
As the pressure builds it is likely that the White House and it's loyalist will continue to lash out, just like many cornered animals will do. Their anger and refusal to fully cooperate (while claiming to cooperate) only makes them look more guilty to average Americans.
Everyday this scandal gets bigger and more complicated.
More and more comparisons are being made between the missing emails and the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Richard Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.
[Fact: Did you know Karl Rove worked on the Richard Nixon reelection campaign? Vice President Dick Cheney first served as a Nixon intern and then served under former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who served in various positions under Nixon. Many people who work for Bush once worked for Nixon. That's not very surprising, is it?]
Hopefully the emails can be recovered even if the cronies went to great lengths to hide or destroy them.
Related:
- Rove E-Mail Sought by Congress May Be Missing
- Missing E-Mail May Be Related to Prosecutors
- Deleting embarrassing e-mails isn't easy, experts say
- Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena
I don't want to hear that five million emails were lost. I don't want to hear that four years of Karl Rove's emails have magically disappeared from the face of the earth.
I don't want to hear that the five million missing emails and the recent attorney purge are unrelated. I don't want to hear it because I simply don't believe it.
If the emails are missing, it is only because someone doesn't want the emails to be found.
There are also questions being raised about White House use of GOP-provided, nongovernmental email accounts to avoid complying with Federal law, which requires the preservation of all electronic communications sent or received by White House staff .
The White House and The Republican National Committee are being investigated by The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who are trying to determine if the missing emails are connected to the attorney purge.
Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer is claiming that Rove believed that his emails were being stored on other machines and that he did not intentionally delete emails.
But Democrats aren't buying the explanations, and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Patrick Leahy stated to following on the Senate floor of the missing emails :
"You can't erase e-mails, not today," ... "They've gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there -- they just don't want to produce them. It's like the infamous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes."
Leahy is more right than wrong, McClatchy reports that :
"If Karl Rove or other White House staffers tried to delete sensitive e-mails from their computers, experts said, investigators usually could recover all or most of them."
...
It's like "removing an index card in a library," said Robert Guinaugh, a senior partner at CyberControls LLC, a data forensic-support company in Barrington, Ill. "You take the card out, but the book is still on the shelf."
...
"People think they can delete e-mails, but that's not always the case," Guinaugh said.
...
As an investigator works, he may run across evidence that someone had installed scrubbing software or changed the date and time that a file was created.
"That would be suspicious," Guinaugh said. "It might indicate that something nefarious was going on."
First the White House claimed the attorney purge was not politically related but performance related.
Closer inspection has proven that performance was not the basis of the firing of eight U.S. Attorney's, political loyalty was.
The attorney's were rated to determine whether or not they were, using Karl Rove's own words "loyal Bushies".
To the White House, US Attorney allegiance to the Republican Party and to George W. Bush was (and is) far more important than any allegiance to United States law.
Now the White House is claiming that the reason Rove & Co. used RNC email accounts instead of White House email accounts was because they were politically related emails.
Politically related emails that are now magically missing. Four years of them. Five million of them.
Are we are really supposed to believe these missing politically related emails sent threw the RNC to avoid federal law on White House record keeping are not related to the politically related firing of eight US Attorneys that the White House claims is not politically motivated?
Do they really expect intelligent people to swallow that pill using the poisoned Kool-Aid they have so artfully provided for us?
My intuition and skepticism are telling me the emails have gone missing because someone wanted those emails missing.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet there is much more in those missing emails than just the information about the attorney purge.
Given that the five million missing emails are pre-2005 there is likely to be other important emails in the batch besides emails regarding the attorney purge. This could include emails regarding the invasion of Iraq and the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the press - all more good reasons to try to make the information disappear.
In the days and weeks to come more information will become available, and I doubt any of it is going to indicate that the Bush Administration is a pious and effective Administration.
As the pressure builds it is likely that the White House and it's loyalist will continue to lash out, just like many cornered animals will do. Their anger and refusal to fully cooperate (while claiming to cooperate) only makes them look more guilty to average Americans.
Everyday this scandal gets bigger and more complicated.
More and more comparisons are being made between the missing emails and the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Richard Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.
[Fact: Did you know Karl Rove worked on the Richard Nixon reelection campaign? Vice President Dick Cheney first served as a Nixon intern and then served under former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who served in various positions under Nixon. Many people who work for Bush once worked for Nixon. That's not very surprising, is it?]
Hopefully the emails can be recovered even if the cronies went to great lengths to hide or destroy them.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish - Imus Finds Little Sympathy
Related :
-MSNBC drops simulcast of Don Imus show
-CBS fires Don Imus from radio show
-Roker : There is no joy in what has transpired
-It's not just Imus
-Rosenberg alluded to previous racially insensitive remarks that first got him fired from Imus
"Shock jock" Don Imus triggered outrage when last week he called the female players of the Rutgers basketball team "nappy-headed hos" - a comment that is not only racially offensive but sexist as well.
The reaction was slow, but once realization hit, Imus was sunk.
Once the advertisers begin to flee, you know your days are numbered. Yesterday MSNBC announced it was dropping the Imus simulcast and today CBS announced Imus was fired from the radio show.
The AP reports : "Imus had a long history of inflammatory remarks. But something struck a raw nerve when he targeted the Rutgers team — which includes a class valedictorian, a future lawyer and a musical prodigy — after they lost in the NCAA championship game."
The firing of Don Imus should be a redefining moment in American public discourse. The line has been drawn in the sand and America is finally starting to reject open bigotry.
While the words and popularity of Don Imus expose that a large segment of America is at least still somewhat racist, the negative reaction to the derogatory words reveal that an even larger segment of America will no longer tolerate racism and sexism in public discourse.
So while this incident exposes the ugly and racist underpinnings of American society it also offers a beacon of hope because the outrage triggered by the Imus remarks shows progression in our society.
In the past the comments made by Imus would have been socially acceptable, but today we have been shown that racial and sexist slurs will not be digested as easily as they once were.
So while I am disgusted with the use of such openly racist and sexist language I am pleased to see America's rejection to such crude language.
The firing of Don Imus should serve as a warning for other shocking personalities who want to use their time on the air or in print churning out sexist or racist remarks that are disguised as "jokes".
I'm sure some voices on the hard right will claim that their "Freedom of Speech" is under fire. This argument can be debunked very easily.
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
Simply put, Congress is not restricting Imus so his right to free speech is not being restricted. Imus still has the right to make vile comments, he just will not have the privilege of making such comments on CBS or MSNBC.
Related :
-MSNBC drops simulcast of Don Imus show
-CBS fires Don Imus from radio show
-Roker : There is no joy in what has transpired
-It's not just Imus
-Rosenberg alluded to previous racially insensitive remarks that first got him fired from Imus
"Shock jock" Don Imus triggered outrage when last week he called the female players of the Rutgers basketball team "nappy-headed hos" - a comment that is not only racially offensive but sexist as well.
The reaction was slow, but once realization hit, Imus was sunk.
Once the advertisers begin to flee, you know your days are numbered. Yesterday MSNBC announced it was dropping the Imus simulcast and today CBS announced Imus was fired from the radio show.
The AP reports : "Imus had a long history of inflammatory remarks. But something struck a raw nerve when he targeted the Rutgers team — which includes a class valedictorian, a future lawyer and a musical prodigy — after they lost in the NCAA championship game."
The firing of Don Imus should be a redefining moment in American public discourse. The line has been drawn in the sand and America is finally starting to reject open bigotry.
While the words and popularity of Don Imus expose that a large segment of America is at least still somewhat racist, the negative reaction to the derogatory words reveal that an even larger segment of America will no longer tolerate racism and sexism in public discourse.
So while this incident exposes the ugly and racist underpinnings of American society it also offers a beacon of hope because the outrage triggered by the Imus remarks shows progression in our society.
In the past the comments made by Imus would have been socially acceptable, but today we have been shown that racial and sexist slurs will not be digested as easily as they once were.
So while I am disgusted with the use of such openly racist and sexist language I am pleased to see America's rejection to such crude language.
The firing of Don Imus should serve as a warning for other shocking personalities who want to use their time on the air or in print churning out sexist or racist remarks that are disguised as "jokes".
I'm sure some voices on the hard right will claim that their "Freedom of Speech" is under fire. This argument can be debunked very easily.
The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
Simply put, Congress is not restricting Imus so his right to free speech is not being restricted. Imus still has the right to make vile comments, he just will not have the privilege of making such comments on CBS or MSNBC.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
End The War Or Start The Draft?
Two headlines popped out at me this afternoon.
The first : Gates announces longer tours in Iraq
The second : Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad
The first headline details that US troops tour of duty will be extended, the second headline claims the United States plans to break several parts of Baghdad up into isolated communities.
Imagine you are the US soldier, tired and weary of combat who is told "Effective immediately, your prison sentence has been extended an additional three months, you will now serve 15 month tours."
Oh, you think, what a bummer - you were really hoping to see your daughter and wife in another sixty days when your tour ended, but suddenly it will be nearly half a year before you see them again. Nice.
So let me be the 800 pound guerilla in the room and ask : how can over-stressing the military be beneficial to the United States or Iraq? Obviously the troops are being asked to stay for longer tours because there is a shortage of manpower.
Furthermore, one only needs to look to the neglect of Walter Reed to understand that not only is our manpower limited, so is the ability to take care of those who have been injured in war.
There is but one "solution" to the problem, end the war or start the draft.
I am an opponent of the draft, everything about a draft indicates that you no longer live in a free society.
But I am also opposed to a mere handful of men and woman taking all the punishment for the President's bad decisions.
If Jane and John Doe can wear a uniform then so can Jenna and Barbara Bush.
I am quite certain there is only one way to establish control over Iraq, and that is to have a military draft, and I really don't think that's going to happen without civil unrest and molotov cocktails in the United States.
If the draft is not an option then scaling back or ending the war has to be an option or we will accomplish nothing but exhausting ourselves and our supplies.
With that said, does anyone think dividing up Baghdad will accomplish anything?
The Independents Robert Fisk writes
' 'The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq."
"The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success. ' '
OK, but my questions are : What about the other 59 districts in Baghdad that will not be "gated"? What's to prevent insurgents from setting up base in non-gated communities?
Furthermore what is to prevent insurgents from launching more attacks in Ramadi, Fallujah, Mosul, Basra, Najef, Karbala, Samarra and Kirkuk?
And why, why, why are we taking advice from the Israeli's? The Israeli's have not been entirely successful in quelling the Palestinian uprising, which even in it's zenith is nowhere near as violent and dangerous as the insurgency in Iraq.
Have we already forgotten that Israeli's strong arm completely failed against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer?
Israel has been unable to coexist with their Arab neighbors for decades, so what on earth qualifies them to be giving us advice on Iraq?
The only qualification Israel has in my eyes to be giving us advice on Iraq is their exceptional ability to not solve the problems brewing with their Arab neighbors ... And that's not much of a qualification at all when you think about it.
Hmm...
Hey, I got an idea! Let's turn Baghdad into a new West Bank since life is soooo good in the West Bank for the Palestinians...
We can put a wall up and everything. Then we can say it's for the "security" of the Iraqi's even though it's just a cage to lock them up in just like the Wall in the West Bank bank does. That will solve all our problems!
Sounds like a good idea, if your a proud neocon unaware of the realities of such a scenario.
...
Attempting to turn Baghdad into a divided police state will not solve the major political and religious divides among the Iraqi people and therefore will not aid in eradicating the violence amongst them.
In the long run the practice of dividing communities may only serve to aggravate sectarian feuds further so may in fact be detrimental to stopping violence.
I know the idea sounds tempting for a problem that has been so complex. But the truth is and always will be that only the Iraqi's can take control of their country, we cannot shape, manipulate or carve their destiny forever.
It may sound harsh, especially from a Liberal, but sometimes countries need a revolution, sometimes there has to be a civil war.
Sometimes the good guys come out on top, sometimes it's the bad. Covertly aiding the Iraqi's who have been deemed as the favorable choice is always an option in trying to ensure a better future for Iraq.
But to deny a civil war when perhaps one needs to be waged is almost like denying fate, the time bomb will explode eventually so you might as well quit stalling and take cover.
The President was foolishly optimistic in his thinking that toppling Saddam would somehow trigger a wave of freedom and liberty throughout the Middle East.
The Bush Administration has illustrated how incompetent they are in dealing with issues in the Middle East with their utter lack of knowledge about Muslims before the occupation began. That ignorance leads directly to the failure you see here today.
If the Bush Administration had understood the complex political and religious differences among the people of Iraq then none would have believed such a fairy-tale scenario was possible.
If the Bush Administration itself didn't also have a complex political and religious ideology themselves then such a fairy-tale scenario in Iraq would have never been dreamt up in the first place.
The two articles -
The first : Gates announces longer tours in Iraq
The second : Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad
These articles paint a lovely picture when combined together.
The first article suggests that the military is stretched thin.
The second article indicates that the US military believes it can complete a massive security operation that would realistically requite much more troop strength than we currently have.
So the question of the day is : End the war or start the draft?
Two headlines popped out at me this afternoon.
The first : Gates announces longer tours in Iraq
The second : Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad
The first headline details that US troops tour of duty will be extended, the second headline claims the United States plans to break several parts of Baghdad up into isolated communities.
Imagine you are the US soldier, tired and weary of combat who is told "Effective immediately, your prison sentence has been extended an additional three months, you will now serve 15 month tours."
Oh, you think, what a bummer - you were really hoping to see your daughter and wife in another sixty days when your tour ended, but suddenly it will be nearly half a year before you see them again. Nice.
So let me be the 800 pound guerilla in the room and ask : how can over-stressing the military be beneficial to the United States or Iraq? Obviously the troops are being asked to stay for longer tours because there is a shortage of manpower.
Furthermore, one only needs to look to the neglect of Walter Reed to understand that not only is our manpower limited, so is the ability to take care of those who have been injured in war.
There is but one "solution" to the problem, end the war or start the draft.
I am an opponent of the draft, everything about a draft indicates that you no longer live in a free society.
But I am also opposed to a mere handful of men and woman taking all the punishment for the President's bad decisions.
If Jane and John Doe can wear a uniform then so can Jenna and Barbara Bush.
I am quite certain there is only one way to establish control over Iraq, and that is to have a military draft, and I really don't think that's going to happen without civil unrest and molotov cocktails in the United States.
If the draft is not an option then scaling back or ending the war has to be an option or we will accomplish nothing but exhausting ourselves and our supplies.
With that said, does anyone think dividing up Baghdad will accomplish anything?
The Independents Robert Fisk writes
' 'The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq."
"The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success. ' '
OK, but my questions are : What about the other 59 districts in Baghdad that will not be "gated"? What's to prevent insurgents from setting up base in non-gated communities?
Furthermore what is to prevent insurgents from launching more attacks in Ramadi, Fallujah, Mosul, Basra, Najef, Karbala, Samarra and Kirkuk?
And why, why, why are we taking advice from the Israeli's? The Israeli's have not been entirely successful in quelling the Palestinian uprising, which even in it's zenith is nowhere near as violent and dangerous as the insurgency in Iraq.
Have we already forgotten that Israeli's strong arm completely failed against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer?
Israel has been unable to coexist with their Arab neighbors for decades, so what on earth qualifies them to be giving us advice on Iraq?
The only qualification Israel has in my eyes to be giving us advice on Iraq is their exceptional ability to not solve the problems brewing with their Arab neighbors ... And that's not much of a qualification at all when you think about it.
Hmm...
Hey, I got an idea! Let's turn Baghdad into a new West Bank since life is soooo good in the West Bank for the Palestinians...
We can put a wall up and everything. Then we can say it's for the "security" of the Iraqi's even though it's just a cage to lock them up in just like the Wall in the West Bank bank does. That will solve all our problems!
Sounds like a good idea, if your a proud neocon unaware of the realities of such a scenario.
...
Attempting to turn Baghdad into a divided police state will not solve the major political and religious divides among the Iraqi people and therefore will not aid in eradicating the violence amongst them.
In the long run the practice of dividing communities may only serve to aggravate sectarian feuds further so may in fact be detrimental to stopping violence.
I know the idea sounds tempting for a problem that has been so complex. But the truth is and always will be that only the Iraqi's can take control of their country, we cannot shape, manipulate or carve their destiny forever.
It may sound harsh, especially from a Liberal, but sometimes countries need a revolution, sometimes there has to be a civil war.
Sometimes the good guys come out on top, sometimes it's the bad. Covertly aiding the Iraqi's who have been deemed as the favorable choice is always an option in trying to ensure a better future for Iraq.
But to deny a civil war when perhaps one needs to be waged is almost like denying fate, the time bomb will explode eventually so you might as well quit stalling and take cover.
The President was foolishly optimistic in his thinking that toppling Saddam would somehow trigger a wave of freedom and liberty throughout the Middle East.
The Bush Administration has illustrated how incompetent they are in dealing with issues in the Middle East with their utter lack of knowledge about Muslims before the occupation began. That ignorance leads directly to the failure you see here today.
If the Bush Administration had understood the complex political and religious differences among the people of Iraq then none would have believed such a fairy-tale scenario was possible.
If the Bush Administration itself didn't also have a complex political and religious ideology themselves then such a fairy-tale scenario in Iraq would have never been dreamt up in the first place.
The two articles -
The first : Gates announces longer tours in Iraq
The second : Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad
These articles paint a lovely picture when combined together.
The first article suggests that the military is stretched thin.
The second article indicates that the US military believes it can complete a massive security operation that would realistically requite much more troop strength than we currently have.
So the question of the day is : End the war or start the draft?
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Bush Administration VS. A Democratic Congress
I am truly amazed at President Bush's absurd game of demanding that Congress submit to his will, as if he really believes this is a monarchy and that the job of Congress is to grant his wishes. Ha!
Perhaps if Bush had employed real constitutional scholars in his administration instead of 150 religious ideologues from Pat Robertson's Regent University he would understand how this thing we call a "Democracy" [not Theocracy] really works.
However I am truly concerned that the President seems to be unaware of the fact there are three branches of government and that he does not exercise absolute authority over the Legislative Branch.
The President "demands" a bill with no strings [i.e. deadlines, timetables] attached.
This means that the President wants unlimited amounts of money to wage a war for an undetermined amount of time, yet he can't even explain to us what constitutes as a victory or how he plans to achieve it.
Congress recently passed a bill that would have allotted President Bush the money necessary to wage his war in Iraq, if troops were to begin withdrawing from Iraq in 2008.
The President and his enablers have wrongfully labeled this move as "political theatre" and have falsely claimed that Congressional Democrats are trying to harm the troops by putting guidelines in the bill.
The Bush Administration has also been proclaiming the date of April 15 as being the day that "the money runs out" but an independent report concludes the Pentagon has enough money to continue operations of the war threw July without significant impact.
What else the President, his loyalist and his enablers are failing to mention is that the President is the one who failed or refused to include necessary money for the war in his annual budget. Because, you know, it's pretty hard to balance the budget with a trillion dollar war on the books.
Now President Bush seems to be holding press conferences for the sheer purpose of having nationally televised temper tantrums.
The President has reduced himself to throwing out partisan slurs to the audience so everyone can see just how outraged [!] he is that Congress is no longer acting as his complicit puppet.
The President's recent behavior is reminiscent to a spoiled child who is used to getting his own way and who doesn't know how to play well with the other kids.
Unfortunately for Bush he does not realize this behavior is extremely unbecoming of a mature President and that history will duly note his stubborn foolhardiness as detrimental to his own cause.
The President's recent behavior indicates he had grown far too comfortable with the old Republican Congress and the age of unaccountability they had enabled him to reign over.
So, where is that bi-partisanship spirit that Bush promised shortly after the Republicans lost the elections?
Oh, that's right, by "bipartisan" what the President really meant was that if the Democratic Congress was as subservient as the Republican Congress then bipartisanship was absolutely possible in one of the most partisan countries in the world! It's all so clear now!
Back to reality ...
Now the President wants to meet with Democrats to discuss the issue, with preconditions of course.
What a surprise! This is the exact same reason the Bush Administrations foreign policy is floundering at an impasse, because of it's unrealistic and unfair preconditions.
The Bush Administration attitude is "I'll only talk to you if you agree to compromise your position beforehand and I will not compromise my position at all."
No wonder they can't get anywhere. The Bush Administration cannot even negotiate with it's opponents in the US, so how would it ever be able to negotiate with opponents outside the US? The answer is they can't and that's part of the reason why the Bush Administration is broken down on so many levels.
The President and Republicans have to realize that they have already been given every opportunity and chance to win or end the war in Iraq while they were in power, but they failed to do either.
Their failure led to their defeat in the 2006 elections, but the Republicans don't even have the dignity to loose with grace and refuse to quietly surrender their position of authority even though they are no longer the majority.
That failure and fall from grace should serve as a lesson to anyone, Democrats included, who wants to wage a war, you need to have a plan for ending the war just as you had a plan for beginning the war and you must set a goal that is realistic and obtainable.
It's time for Republicans to give the other team it's chance at bat because they lost the inning. Whether they like it or not, it's the rules of the game and if they don't follow them history will not forgive them as easily as their enablers have.
I am truly amazed at President Bush's absurd game of demanding that Congress submit to his will, as if he really believes this is a monarchy and that the job of Congress is to grant his wishes. Ha!
Perhaps if Bush had employed real constitutional scholars in his administration instead of 150 religious ideologues from Pat Robertson's Regent University he would understand how this thing we call a "Democracy" [not Theocracy] really works.
However I am truly concerned that the President seems to be unaware of the fact there are three branches of government and that he does not exercise absolute authority over the Legislative Branch.
The President "demands" a bill with no strings [i.e. deadlines, timetables] attached.
This means that the President wants unlimited amounts of money to wage a war for an undetermined amount of time, yet he can't even explain to us what constitutes as a victory or how he plans to achieve it.
Congress recently passed a bill that would have allotted President Bush the money necessary to wage his war in Iraq, if troops were to begin withdrawing from Iraq in 2008.
The President and his enablers have wrongfully labeled this move as "political theatre" and have falsely claimed that Congressional Democrats are trying to harm the troops by putting guidelines in the bill.
The Bush Administration has also been proclaiming the date of April 15 as being the day that "the money runs out" but an independent report concludes the Pentagon has enough money to continue operations of the war threw July without significant impact.
What else the President, his loyalist and his enablers are failing to mention is that the President is the one who failed or refused to include necessary money for the war in his annual budget. Because, you know, it's pretty hard to balance the budget with a trillion dollar war on the books.
Now President Bush seems to be holding press conferences for the sheer purpose of having nationally televised temper tantrums.
The President has reduced himself to throwing out partisan slurs to the audience so everyone can see just how outraged [!] he is that Congress is no longer acting as his complicit puppet.
The President's recent behavior is reminiscent to a spoiled child who is used to getting his own way and who doesn't know how to play well with the other kids.
Unfortunately for Bush he does not realize this behavior is extremely unbecoming of a mature President and that history will duly note his stubborn foolhardiness as detrimental to his own cause.
The President's recent behavior indicates he had grown far too comfortable with the old Republican Congress and the age of unaccountability they had enabled him to reign over.
So, where is that bi-partisanship spirit that Bush promised shortly after the Republicans lost the elections?
Oh, that's right, by "bipartisan" what the President really meant was that if the Democratic Congress was as subservient as the Republican Congress then bipartisanship was absolutely possible in one of the most partisan countries in the world! It's all so clear now!
Back to reality ...
Now the President wants to meet with Democrats to discuss the issue, with preconditions of course.
What a surprise! This is the exact same reason the Bush Administrations foreign policy is floundering at an impasse, because of it's unrealistic and unfair preconditions.
The Bush Administration attitude is "I'll only talk to you if you agree to compromise your position beforehand and I will not compromise my position at all."
No wonder they can't get anywhere. The Bush Administration cannot even negotiate with it's opponents in the US, so how would it ever be able to negotiate with opponents outside the US? The answer is they can't and that's part of the reason why the Bush Administration is broken down on so many levels.
The President and Republicans have to realize that they have already been given every opportunity and chance to win or end the war in Iraq while they were in power, but they failed to do either.
Their failure led to their defeat in the 2006 elections, but the Republicans don't even have the dignity to loose with grace and refuse to quietly surrender their position of authority even though they are no longer the majority.
That failure and fall from grace should serve as a lesson to anyone, Democrats included, who wants to wage a war, you need to have a plan for ending the war just as you had a plan for beginning the war and you must set a goal that is realistic and obtainable.
It's time for Republicans to give the other team it's chance at bat because they lost the inning. Whether they like it or not, it's the rules of the game and if they don't follow them history will not forgive them as easily as their enablers have.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Nancy Pelosi In A Hijab? Someone Notify The Culture Police!
Our little Republican friends were running out of ammunition to use against Nancy Pelosi's for her trip to Syria, being it that it may that a Republican delegation recently visited Syria and a Republican is traveling with Pelosi.
But now, after much effort the right wing presents...
Nancy Pelosi in a hijab!
This is the ultimate proof that the secular Democrats are colluding with Islamic extremist in an effort to rule the United States by Sharia law and hang the crescent and the star over the capital! OH, THE HUMANITY!!
Seriously though, Nancy Pelosi looks more like an poor old farmer woman from Romania than a terrorist in a hijab. I am sorry to be the one to inform the Reich Wing of that, but it's true.
Laura Bush wore a hijab when visiting the al-Aqsa mosque... Where were the accusations that Laura Bush was being subservient? Where was the disgust and distrust? Laura looks more authentic in a hijab than Nancy, that I can say for sure.
Look at Laura over there, dark blood red lipstick, black glasses and black hijab, she actually looks severe. She looks just like the kind of Muslim matriarch that the whole Drudge-Coulter-Malikin-Limbaugh-Hannity crowd despises. Nancy Pelosi in a hijab? She looks more like a potato farmer from Europe.
But Laura, like Nancy was only showing respect towards the people she was visiting. There is an old saying "While in Rome do what the Romans do." I suspect Nancy and Laura were doing as the Romans do, which isn't such a big crime when you think about it.
Our little Republican friends were running out of ammunition to use against Nancy Pelosi's for her trip to Syria, being it that it may that a Republican delegation recently visited Syria and a Republican is traveling with Pelosi.
But now, after much effort the right wing presents...
Nancy Pelosi in a hijab!
This is the ultimate proof that the secular Democrats are colluding with Islamic extremist in an effort to rule the United States by Sharia law and hang the crescent and the star over the capital! OH, THE HUMANITY!!Seriously though, Nancy Pelosi looks more like an poor old farmer woman from Romania than a terrorist in a hijab. I am sorry to be the one to inform the Reich Wing of that, but it's true.
But that hasn't stopped comments like the following:
Indeed, what kind message is Pelosi trying to send?
Hmm, just off the top of my head I bet the message she is trying to send is that she has respect and tolerance for the culture of the people she is visiting. Which is always a good idea when on a diplomatic mission.
Hmm, just off the top of my head I bet the message she is trying to send is that she has respect and tolerance for the culture of the people she is visiting. Which is always a good idea when on a diplomatic mission.
A western woman wearing a hijab to a mosque is not a sign of subservience, it is a sign of respect. If a male was to enter a Synagogue it would only be appropriate and respectful for him to wear a Yarmulke. The same rules can be applied to a woman and a hijab when entering a mosque. World Bank President Neocon Paul Wolfowitz even had the "subservience" to remove his shoes when entering a mosque in Turkey.
Laura Bush wore a hijab when visiting the al-Aqsa mosque... Where were the accusations that Laura Bush was being subservient? Where was the disgust and distrust? Laura looks more authentic in a hijab than Nancy, that I can say for sure.Look at Laura over there, dark blood red lipstick, black glasses and black hijab, she actually looks severe. She looks just like the kind of Muslim matriarch that the whole Drudge-Coulter-Malikin-Limbaugh-Hannity crowd despises. Nancy Pelosi in a hijab? She looks more like a potato farmer from Europe.
But Laura, like Nancy was only showing respect towards the people she was visiting. There is an old saying "While in Rome do what the Romans do." I suspect Nancy and Laura were doing as the Romans do, which isn't such a big crime when you think about it.
Pelosi was visiting an Omayyad mosque in Damascus in which the tomb of John the Baptist is believed to be in.
Pelosi crossed herself before the tomb, an action which should prove her Christianity to the logical. But the illogical ignore Pelosi while she makes the sign of the cross and focus in on her hijab, that despicably evil piece of cloth.
(Funny thought, in the USA it is OK to show lots of skin, the more skin you show, the better. But it is not OK to cover your skin and be modest. Interesting. What does that mean, and what does that say about American culture and sex?)
However, I do regret to inform the airbags at Hot Wind, I mean the windbags at Hot Air -- that the image of Pelosi in a hijab does not pain the left, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
I am sure some of the far left, those who are offended by ALL religion (including Christianity) are offended by this move.
But the base prides itself on tolerance and Pelosi wearing a hijab in a mosque is an ultimate sign of tolerance, so I am proud of Pelosi wearing the hijab in the mosque, but wearing a skirt and free hair when meeting with Syrian officials.
So, na-nana-na-bobo...
Pelosi crossed herself before the tomb, an action which should prove her Christianity to the logical. But the illogical ignore Pelosi while she makes the sign of the cross and focus in on her hijab, that despicably evil piece of cloth.
(Funny thought, in the USA it is OK to show lots of skin, the more skin you show, the better. But it is not OK to cover your skin and be modest. Interesting. What does that mean, and what does that say about American culture and sex?)
However, I do regret to inform the airbags at Hot Wind, I mean the windbags at Hot Air -- that the image of Pelosi in a hijab does not pain the left, that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
I am sure some of the far left, those who are offended by ALL religion (including Christianity) are offended by this move.
But the base prides itself on tolerance and Pelosi wearing a hijab in a mosque is an ultimate sign of tolerance, so I am proud of Pelosi wearing the hijab in the mosque, but wearing a skirt and free hair when meeting with Syrian officials.
So, na-nana-na-bobo...
Monday, April 02, 2007
McCain's April Fools Day Joke
Related : McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed
Once upon a time I believed that Arizona Senator John McCain was one of the few decent Republicans in this country. But once upon a time I also used to believe in Unicorns and Care Bears and the power of a good decoder ring.
You know John McCain. He's Mr. Strait Shooter, Mr. Strait Talk Express...
But lately, McCain's shooting and talking is no longer strait, but a little crooked.
When asked what "Plan B" was regarding the troop surge Condoleeza Rice replied "Plan B" was to make "Plan A" work. It seems now that Republicans and war supporters have resorted to "Plan C", lie your freaking ass off.
Last week McCain was ridiculed for saying “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,” and "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."
McCain's ridiculous assertions were obviously false and were quickly and hotly rebutted by CNN's Michael Ware.
“To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”
That's right, because there are not even any streets in Baghdad where an Iraqi can walk freely, so you might as well forget about an American doing it.
Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”
McCain looked like an ass, everyone was laughing at him. He sounded like a senile old fool trying to sell us snake-oil with the promise of eternal youth.
So now, to prove just how safe Baghdad really is on April Fools Day (of all days!) McCain went to a Baghdad market accompanied by 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships.
See how safe Baghdad is? You only need some odd 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships to be safe on the streets of Baghdad! Now, if only we had 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships for every Iraqi, imagine how safe Baghdad would be then!!
So, I think it's obvious. Senator McCain went into that Baghdad market with the intention of trying to prove that he had been correct in his assertion that it was safe to walk the streets in Baghdad.
What McCain really proved by his heavily armed visit was how just how unsafe it is in a Baghdad marketplace.
McCain illustrated perfectly just how dangerous the streets of Baghdad are when his intentions were to illustrate the exact opposite.
UPDATE : Think Progress reports that NBC Iraq correspondent Tom Aspell said this of McCain's marketplace visit :
“It looked as though the whole trip had been arranged by someone to get rid of the negative publicity about [McCain’s] remarks in the States earlier in the week.
"It seemed as though he’d come to Baghdad, made a point of going to a market, staging this kind of visit to the market, and it just seemed to backfire.” He remarked that this weekend’s deadly violence in Iraq “made the trip look rather foolish.”
Related : McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed
Once upon a time I believed that Arizona Senator John McCain was one of the few decent Republicans in this country. But once upon a time I also used to believe in Unicorns and Care Bears and the power of a good decoder ring.
You know John McCain. He's Mr. Strait Shooter, Mr. Strait Talk Express...
But lately, McCain's shooting and talking is no longer strait, but a little crooked.
When asked what "Plan B" was regarding the troop surge Condoleeza Rice replied "Plan B" was to make "Plan A" work. It seems now that Republicans and war supporters have resorted to "Plan C", lie your freaking ass off.
Last week McCain was ridiculed for saying “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,” and "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."
McCain's ridiculous assertions were obviously false and were quickly and hotly rebutted by CNN's Michael Ware.
“To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”
That's right, because there are not even any streets in Baghdad where an Iraqi can walk freely, so you might as well forget about an American doing it.
Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”
McCain looked like an ass, everyone was laughing at him. He sounded like a senile old fool trying to sell us snake-oil with the promise of eternal youth.
So now, to prove just how safe Baghdad really is on April Fools Day (of all days!) McCain went to a Baghdad market accompanied by 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships.
See how safe Baghdad is? You only need some odd 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships to be safe on the streets of Baghdad! Now, if only we had 100 soldiers, 3 Black hawks and 2 Apache Gunships for every Iraqi, imagine how safe Baghdad would be then!!
So, I think it's obvious. Senator McCain went into that Baghdad market with the intention of trying to prove that he had been correct in his assertion that it was safe to walk the streets in Baghdad.
What McCain really proved by his heavily armed visit was how just how unsafe it is in a Baghdad marketplace.
McCain illustrated perfectly just how dangerous the streets of Baghdad are when his intentions were to illustrate the exact opposite.
UPDATE : Think Progress reports that NBC Iraq correspondent Tom Aspell said this of McCain's marketplace visit :
“It looked as though the whole trip had been arranged by someone to get rid of the negative publicity about [McCain’s] remarks in the States earlier in the week.
"It seemed as though he’d come to Baghdad, made a point of going to a market, staging this kind of visit to the market, and it just seemed to backfire.” He remarked that this weekend’s deadly violence in Iraq “made the trip look rather foolish.”
Sunday, April 01, 2007
WH Condemns Pelosi Plan To Visit Syria, Doesn't Condemn Republicans Doing The Same Thing
Welcome to the age of hypocrisy. In case you haven't noticed we have been living in it for about six years now.
Bloomberg reports that White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's planned trip to Syria was "really bad idea,'' and "Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies.''
What Perino did not mention is that as she spoke those very words a Republican delegation, including Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) were in Syria.
What else didn't perky Perino mention? She also failed to mention that Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson will also be accompanying Pelosi on her trip to Syria.
So what's up with that? It's OK for Republicans to go to Syria but it's not OK for Democrats to go to Syria?
What kind of double standard is that?
The Iraq Study group recommended that the Bush Administration have direct talks with Iran and Syria, something the Bush Administration has so far failed to do.
So let's can the hogwash and the hypocrisy.
Welcome to the age of hypocrisy. In case you haven't noticed we have been living in it for about six years now.
Bloomberg reports that White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's planned trip to Syria was "really bad idea,'' and "Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies.''
What Perino did not mention is that as she spoke those very words a Republican delegation, including Rep. Robert Aderholt’s (R-AL) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) were in Syria.
What else didn't perky Perino mention? She also failed to mention that Ohio Republican Rep. David Hobson will also be accompanying Pelosi on her trip to Syria.
So what's up with that? It's OK for Republicans to go to Syria but it's not OK for Democrats to go to Syria?
What kind of double standard is that?
The Iraq Study group recommended that the Bush Administration have direct talks with Iran and Syria, something the Bush Administration has so far failed to do.
So let's can the hogwash and the hypocrisy.
Friday, March 30, 2007
General Warned Bush Not To Publicize Tillman Death
Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth _ that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.
The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.
Read The Full Story
Chasing The Ghost Writes:
To me, Pat Tillman always seemed like G.I. Joe, but only real. The real American hero.
What they used Tillman for was terrible. Just terrible. Look what they did to our true American hero. A man who gave up his NFL career to serve in the military was killed by friendly fire, only to have his President use him as a martyr to bolster support for the war cause.
They used his death as a political platform.
While Bush showcased the bravery and integrity of Pat Tillman, he did it knowing that Pat was not killed by the enemy, but by friendly fire.
How could Bush lie to Pat's family like that, to the Nation like that? The same way he lied to us about everything else I suppose.
They disgraced Pat, and what they did was was inexcusably cruel and maniacal. They lied to his family about how he really died to score political points. That's so dishonorable, only a scoundrel would consider it.
They said, "Look at Pat, what a hero - he died for this country - he was killed by the enemy." It made the heart swell pride and patriotism at the same time, but half of it was a lie.
Pat Tillman is a hero, he did die for his country. But the enemy didn't kill him, his own country did.
His own President disrespected his memory by making false statements and convincing people of war stories that were not true. All in the name of politics, and support for the war.
If I didn't think Bush could get any lower, I've just been proven wrong.
Rest in peace, Pat Tillman. Thank God the truth was told about your death.
Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.
It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth _ that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.
The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.
Read The Full Story
Chasing The Ghost Writes:
To me, Pat Tillman always seemed like G.I. Joe, but only real. The real American hero.
What they used Tillman for was terrible. Just terrible. Look what they did to our true American hero. A man who gave up his NFL career to serve in the military was killed by friendly fire, only to have his President use him as a martyr to bolster support for the war cause.
They used his death as a political platform.
While Bush showcased the bravery and integrity of Pat Tillman, he did it knowing that Pat was not killed by the enemy, but by friendly fire.
How could Bush lie to Pat's family like that, to the Nation like that? The same way he lied to us about everything else I suppose.
They disgraced Pat, and what they did was was inexcusably cruel and maniacal. They lied to his family about how he really died to score political points. That's so dishonorable, only a scoundrel would consider it.
They said, "Look at Pat, what a hero - he died for this country - he was killed by the enemy." It made the heart swell pride and patriotism at the same time, but half of it was a lie.
Pat Tillman is a hero, he did die for his country. But the enemy didn't kill him, his own country did.
His own President disrespected his memory by making false statements and convincing people of war stories that were not true. All in the name of politics, and support for the war.
If I didn't think Bush could get any lower, I've just been proven wrong.
Rest in peace, Pat Tillman. Thank God the truth was told about your death.
Dear Jihadist, I Will Not Wet My Bed When I Think About You At Night
Michelle Maglalang Malkin, as usual, is full of "Hot Air", or maybe she's just full of it.
"The John Doe Manifesto" is a creepy proclamation of civil vigilantism. It reads like the author was checking her "Cliffs Notes" on Stalin's Guide To Disseminating Propaganda as she was writing her "Manifesto" to make sure she got the mantra just right .
On the surface "The John Doe Manifesto" appears to be nothing more than the work of fearful and impotent people, trying to make a verbal stand against terrorist.
Closer inspection of the individual orders reveals that the "Manifesto" is asking you to do nothing short of becoming a junior spy to help to create a paranoid and "big brother" like environment in the United States of America.
The use of the term "John Doe" disturbs me in this case because it seems to strip strip the person of it's individuality and insert a rigid and paranoid doctrine of "I Will's" and "I Am's" in it's place.
Just note the frame of the "Manifesto" ;
I am
I am
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
Now note individual phrases, the following lines smack of Soviet like propaganda.
"I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”
I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy" ...
She forgot to write "And I will write with the intent of pleasing the 'propaganda ministry' because that is what a good and fearful American does."
Who need liberty when you have security? That's what Malkin is asking.
Of course, citizens need to be alert for their own security to a logical extent -- but this sickeningly pathetic "Manifesto" reads like it was coauthored by Kim Jong Ill's propaganda team to use on the North Koreans.
Furthermore, I am suspicious of anything with the word "Manifesto" stamped on it. I am sure there are many people on the Grassy Knoll handing out "Manifesto's". Ted Kaczynski had a "Manifesto".
In a sense Malkin's "Manifesto", like most her work, has played right into the terrorist agenda, to cause terror. One look at the "Manifesto" reveals truly how fearful some people in this country are.
The terrorist want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors, it feeds their frenzy, hence the word terror.
People like Michelle Malkin also want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors.
While their agenda's may be different I have to be wary of anyone who wants me to be afraid, paranoid and spying on my neighbors.
Before I scoot off to my Spring Break, I want to break down some of the weaker lines in the "Manifesto"...
"I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities."
While I subject Muslim woman in America to discrimination and show intolerance to religious minorities...
"I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools."
What a flake! Talk about your conspiracy theories! Last time I checked the Muslims were not trying to indoctrinate our children in our schools. Now she's just making sh*t up to justify her call for a spying jihad against all brown skinned people and their acquaintances.
"I will not be censored in the name of tolerance."
Oh, jeez, she should give it a rest already! It sounds like she's fighting for the right to use the word "sand n*gger" when speaking of Arabs or something.
"I will put my country above multiculturalism."
Uhh, hello! Malkin lady, newsflash!
Multiculturalism is what allowed your Filipino immigrant parents to come to America on a work visa and have an "anchor" baby like you.
Multiculturalism is America, I know it's a concept the Reich Wing fails to grasp, but it's true.
If it were not for multiculturalism Malkin wouldn't even be in America, spewing her "Hot Air".
Malkin should get real, she's a minority in more than one way and should exercise some of the tolerance people gave to her and her foreign family to others. But she doesn't, leading me to believe she is a self hating b*tch and channels that self hatred on other minorities and immigrants.
"I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated."
You hear that, you stupid-wupid terrorist? She's not intimidated! Small woman, big stand, she hates terrorist, long time ...
You know what? Malkin's "Manifesto" sounds more like a self help book the more I read it. "I will not eat to much dessert, I will not be afraid of the dark."... Or like something written for victims of domestic abuse "I will not let a man undermine my worth, I will not let people tell me what to do." Blah, Blah, by f*cking BLAH!
Not only is the "Manifesto" creepy it is also pathetic, as the title of this post indicates.
The "Manifesto" really shows the terrorist how fearful they have made some Americans when they are willing to sign on to propaganda that was disseminated by fear-bot Michelle Malkin.
But do these silly little Stalinist spies really think their cute "Manifesto" is going to intimidate the terrorist, if they even see it? I don't think so.
Special thanks to Chris Kelly at Huffington Post for raising the issue to my attention in a blog.
Michelle Maglalang Malkin, as usual, is full of "Hot Air", or maybe she's just full of it.
"The John Doe Manifesto" is a creepy proclamation of civil vigilantism. It reads like the author was checking her "Cliffs Notes" on Stalin's Guide To Disseminating Propaganda as she was writing her "Manifesto" to make sure she got the mantra just right .
On the surface "The John Doe Manifesto" appears to be nothing more than the work of fearful and impotent people, trying to make a verbal stand against terrorist.
Closer inspection of the individual orders reveals that the "Manifesto" is asking you to do nothing short of becoming a junior spy to help to create a paranoid and "big brother" like environment in the United States of America.
The use of the term "John Doe" disturbs me in this case because it seems to strip strip the person of it's individuality and insert a rigid and paranoid doctrine of "I Will's" and "I Am's" in it's place.
Just note the frame of the "Manifesto" ;
I am
I am
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I will
I am
Now note individual phrases, the following lines smack of Soviet like propaganda.
"I will act when homeland security officials ask me to “report suspicious activity.”
I will embrace my local police department’s admonition: “If you see something, say something.”
I will support law enforcement initiatives to spy" ...
She forgot to write "And I will write with the intent of pleasing the 'propaganda ministry' because that is what a good and fearful American does."
Who need liberty when you have security? That's what Malkin is asking.
Of course, citizens need to be alert for their own security to a logical extent -- but this sickeningly pathetic "Manifesto" reads like it was coauthored by Kim Jong Ill's propaganda team to use on the North Koreans.
Furthermore, I am suspicious of anything with the word "Manifesto" stamped on it. I am sure there are many people on the Grassy Knoll handing out "Manifesto's". Ted Kaczynski had a "Manifesto".
In a sense Malkin's "Manifesto", like most her work, has played right into the terrorist agenda, to cause terror. One look at the "Manifesto" reveals truly how fearful some people in this country are.
The terrorist want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors, it feeds their frenzy, hence the word terror.
People like Michelle Malkin also want Americans afraid, paranoid and spying on their neighbors.
While their agenda's may be different I have to be wary of anyone who wants me to be afraid, paranoid and spying on my neighbors.
Before I scoot off to my Spring Break, I want to break down some of the weaker lines in the "Manifesto"...
"I will raise my voice against your subjugation of women and religious minorities."
While I subject Muslim woman in America to discrimination and show intolerance to religious minorities...
"I will challenge your attempts to indoctrinate my children in our schools."
What a flake! Talk about your conspiracy theories! Last time I checked the Muslims were not trying to indoctrinate our children in our schools. Now she's just making sh*t up to justify her call for a spying jihad against all brown skinned people and their acquaintances.
"I will not be censored in the name of tolerance."
Oh, jeez, she should give it a rest already! It sounds like she's fighting for the right to use the word "sand n*gger" when speaking of Arabs or something.
"I will put my country above multiculturalism."
Uhh, hello! Malkin lady, newsflash!
Multiculturalism is what allowed your Filipino immigrant parents to come to America on a work visa and have an "anchor" baby like you.
Multiculturalism is America, I know it's a concept the Reich Wing fails to grasp, but it's true.
If it were not for multiculturalism Malkin wouldn't even be in America, spewing her "Hot Air".
Malkin should get real, she's a minority in more than one way and should exercise some of the tolerance people gave to her and her foreign family to others. But she doesn't, leading me to believe she is a self hating b*tch and channels that self hatred on other minorities and immigrants.
"I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated."
You hear that, you stupid-wupid terrorist? She's not intimidated! Small woman, big stand, she hates terrorist, long time ...
You know what? Malkin's "Manifesto" sounds more like a self help book the more I read it. "I will not eat to much dessert, I will not be afraid of the dark."... Or like something written for victims of domestic abuse "I will not let a man undermine my worth, I will not let people tell me what to do." Blah, Blah, by f*cking BLAH!
Not only is the "Manifesto" creepy it is also pathetic, as the title of this post indicates.
The "Manifesto" really shows the terrorist how fearful they have made some Americans when they are willing to sign on to propaganda that was disseminated by fear-bot Michelle Malkin.
But do these silly little Stalinist spies really think their cute "Manifesto" is going to intimidate the terrorist, if they even see it? I don't think so.
Special thanks to Chris Kelly at Huffington Post for raising the issue to my attention in a blog.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
McCain Lies To Media, Calls Media "Jerks" After Lies Are Exposed
The picture "strait talk" John McCain has been painting of Iraq is one of success and harmony.
A place where westerners can walk the streets safely and the commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq can travel around in an unarmed Humvee.
Sounds like "Mission Accomplished", right? The only problem with that scenario is that John McCain's claims about Iraq are completely false.
The Republican Senator from Arizona who wants to be President in 2008 is carrying such a large load of lies that one has to be surprised that the wheels on the "Strait Talk Express" have not blown out as a consequence.
It started on Monday when McCain claimed to radio host Bill Bennett “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,”
The lie continued on Tuesday when McCain spewed out on CNN that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." McCain then claimed that those who said it was unsafe for Americans to leave the heavily fortified "Green Zone" were "giving the old line of three months ago."
Journalist Michael Ware, who has worked for both TIME and CNN and has been in Iraq for several years strongly disagrees.
Ware stated in response to McCain's claim that “To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”
Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”
Ware makes it quite clear that "Senator McCain is way off base on this one."
Watch the video below :
How dare McCain be so openly misleading about the conditions in Iraq? Is McCain that stupid, or does he think that the American people are that stupid?
This morning McCain was confronted by John Roberts of CNN with his fudging of the facts when Roberts stated “I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored Humvee.”
Roberts also noted that a recent report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey stated "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection.”
So not only has McCain's statements about Iraq been proven to be false by journalist Michael Ware, but also by former and current military officials.
But you know ole' strait talkin' McCain, he blundered “Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”
But McCain did say General Petraeus went out without protection, he said he went out in an "unarmed Humvee".
To top of his own audacity McCain also appeared on GOP friendly FOX News and stated that he sometimes lets “jerks from the media” on board his "Strait Talk Express" bus.
Nice talk from a guy who wants to be President of this country, who knowingly misleads those "jerks from the media" about the conditions in Iraq in order to try to gain temporary political points at home.
The picture "strait talk" John McCain has been painting of Iraq is one of success and harmony.
A place where westerners can walk the streets safely and the commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq can travel around in an unarmed Humvee.
Sounds like "Mission Accomplished", right? The only problem with that scenario is that John McCain's claims about Iraq are completely false.
The Republican Senator from Arizona who wants to be President in 2008 is carrying such a large load of lies that one has to be surprised that the wheels on the "Strait Talk Express" have not blown out as a consequence.
It started on Monday when McCain claimed to radio host Bill Bennett “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today,”
The lie continued on Tuesday when McCain spewed out on CNN that "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee." McCain then claimed that those who said it was unsafe for Americans to leave the heavily fortified "Green Zone" were "giving the old line of three months ago."
Journalist Michael Ware, who has worked for both TIME and CNN and has been in Iraq for several years strongly disagrees.
Ware stated in response to McCain's claim that “To suggest that there’s any neighborhood in this city where an American can walk freely is beyond ludicrous. I’d love Sen. McCain to tell me where that neighborhood is and he and I can go for a stroll.”
Ware also stated that “In the hour since Sen. McCain’s said this, I’ve spoken to military sources and there was laughter down the line. I mean, certainly the general travels in a Humvee. There’s multiple Humvee around it, heavily armed.”
Ware makes it quite clear that "Senator McCain is way off base on this one."
Watch the video below :
How dare McCain be so openly misleading about the conditions in Iraq? Is McCain that stupid, or does he think that the American people are that stupid?
This morning McCain was confronted by John Roberts of CNN with his fudging of the facts when Roberts stated “I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored Humvee.”
Roberts also noted that a recent report by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey stated "no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat reporter could walk the streets of Baghdad without heavily armed protection.”
So not only has McCain's statements about Iraq been proven to be false by journalist Michael Ware, but also by former and current military officials.
But you know ole' strait talkin' McCain, he blundered “Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”
But McCain did say General Petraeus went out without protection, he said he went out in an "unarmed Humvee".
To top of his own audacity McCain also appeared on GOP friendly FOX News and stated that he sometimes lets “jerks from the media” on board his "Strait Talk Express" bus.
Nice talk from a guy who wants to be President of this country, who knowingly misleads those "jerks from the media" about the conditions in Iraq in order to try to gain temporary political points at home.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Surge Is Working, The Surge Is Not
Some chicken-hawks are already claiming that the "surge" is working.
Chicken-hawks proclaim that even though United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon was nearly killed alongside the Iraqi Prime Minister the other day, and even though the deputy Prime Minister was nearly assassinated the following day that the surge is indeed working. Okaaay...
So violence in Baghdad is slightly down. Violence outside of Baghdad is reportedly up. So why is violence in Baghdad slightly down?
Well, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has a somewhat shady alliance with Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr who has a lot of control over the Mahdi Army who slipped into hiding when they were tipped off that a security crackdown was about to begin.
How is that any kind of victory? They'll be back. They are just laying low, making it more difficult to track them down. It certainly doesn't indicate the "surge" is working, it indicates that the Shia militants are being more clever than their Sunni enemies. In other words, they lay low, let the US kill the Sunni insurgents, and it saves Mahdi Army a lot of trouble.
But what happens the minute the "surge" ends? Mahdi Army is on the streets again, only this time without the pestilence of many of the Sunni insurgents who by that time may be partially deposed, paving the way to a Shia dominated insurgency to go right along with the Shia dominated government. Which will only add to Sunni animosity and fears of ethnic cleansing.
So I don't really see how the "surge" is working yet, especially when all I am hearing about it the capturing and killing of Sunni insurgents but nill on the capturing and killing of Shia insurgents, when, isn't is supposed to be the Shia who are being funded by Iran ... But oh well, who cares, it's not like were trying to win this war or anything.
Some chicken-hawks are already claiming that the "surge" is working.
Chicken-hawks proclaim that even though United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon was nearly killed alongside the Iraqi Prime Minister the other day, and even though the deputy Prime Minister was nearly assassinated the following day that the surge is indeed working. Okaaay...
So violence in Baghdad is slightly down. Violence outside of Baghdad is reportedly up. So why is violence in Baghdad slightly down?
Well, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki has a somewhat shady alliance with Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr who has a lot of control over the Mahdi Army who slipped into hiding when they were tipped off that a security crackdown was about to begin.
How is that any kind of victory? They'll be back. They are just laying low, making it more difficult to track them down. It certainly doesn't indicate the "surge" is working, it indicates that the Shia militants are being more clever than their Sunni enemies. In other words, they lay low, let the US kill the Sunni insurgents, and it saves Mahdi Army a lot of trouble.
But what happens the minute the "surge" ends? Mahdi Army is on the streets again, only this time without the pestilence of many of the Sunni insurgents who by that time may be partially deposed, paving the way to a Shia dominated insurgency to go right along with the Shia dominated government. Which will only add to Sunni animosity and fears of ethnic cleansing.
So I don't really see how the "surge" is working yet, especially when all I am hearing about it the capturing and killing of Sunni insurgents but nill on the capturing and killing of Shia insurgents, when, isn't is supposed to be the Shia who are being funded by Iran ... But oh well, who cares, it's not like were trying to win this war or anything.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Religion In Schools In England
You can be Muslim, you just can't look Muslim, or so seems with new government guidelines that were published on Tuesday that would leave it up "to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class, a DFES spokesman said." the AP reports.
Critics of the niqab claim that the scarf interferes with learning and causes security threats. Critics site the unique examples of Turkey and Tunisia in the Muslim world as having outlawed the niqab, although Turkey only loosely enforces the ban.
So does the niqab interfere with learning and does the niqab in itself cause security threats?
Before I answer that I was to elaborate that I view preventing Muslim woman from wearing religious clothing is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I am not from England. My country rebelled from Britain, so I know little of the intricacies of British law.
What I do know is this : in America we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression and that is part of what makes it great.
I am obviously not a Muslim woman, I am a secular woman, but I will stand up for Muslims woman's right to wear a veil.
Why? Because, I believe to ask a Muslim woman to remove her veil is the same as asking a Christian to remove their cross or to ask a Jew to remove his locks or his Star of David, and I would stand up for their rights as well.
It is hypocritical to try to spread "tolerance" in the Muslim world but exhibit so little of it in the West. How can the West ask Muslim countries to treat it's Christian minorities with kindness and respect it the West cannot treat it's Muslim minorities with kindness and respect?
Do I think the niqab interferes with learning? No. But I believe asking a pious young woman to remove the veil because it is "bothering you" would interfere with her learning and her ability to be at comfort with her surroundings and her religion.
For a conservative Muslim woman wearing the niqab is the moral thing to do, thus asking her to remove it is asking her to be immoral in her own eyes and what she views as the eyes of God.
Why the controversy over being modest? Why does it offend a Western person more to see a modest woman in a veil than it does to see a 15 year old wearing cleavage and thigh baring clothing?
That is part of what is so absurd about this whole situation. In the West your free to show your skin, but apparently your not free to cover your skin. Who would've thought "daisy dukes" are more acceptable than veils??
Currently, Muslims are in the spotlight. Because of 9/11, because of the mess in Iraq and our relationship with the government of Iran, many in the West have allowed themselves to become discriminatory towards all Muslims people, and feel completely justified in doing so.
But I ask, is this really the kind of reality and history we want to make?
Do you want our ancestors to look back and call us discriminatory and see us as overreacting and contributing to these problem rather than solving them? Or see us as bunch of hypocrites who try to instill tolerance on other nations while failing to exercise it at home?
Or do we want our ancestors to be able to look back and see that we exercised tolerance, restraint, and above all logic in a time of hardships and clashes between our worlds?
You can be Muslim, you just can't look Muslim, or so seems with new government guidelines that were published on Tuesday that would leave it up "to individual head teachers to decide what pupils should and should not be allowed to wear in class, a DFES spokesman said." the AP reports.
Critics of the niqab claim that the scarf interferes with learning and causes security threats. Critics site the unique examples of Turkey and Tunisia in the Muslim world as having outlawed the niqab, although Turkey only loosely enforces the ban.
So does the niqab interfere with learning and does the niqab in itself cause security threats?
Before I answer that I was to elaborate that I view preventing Muslim woman from wearing religious clothing is a blatant violation of freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
I am not from England. My country rebelled from Britain, so I know little of the intricacies of British law.
What I do know is this : in America we have freedom of religion and freedom of expression and that is part of what makes it great.
I am obviously not a Muslim woman, I am a secular woman, but I will stand up for Muslims woman's right to wear a veil.
Why? Because, I believe to ask a Muslim woman to remove her veil is the same as asking a Christian to remove their cross or to ask a Jew to remove his locks or his Star of David, and I would stand up for their rights as well.
It is hypocritical to try to spread "tolerance" in the Muslim world but exhibit so little of it in the West. How can the West ask Muslim countries to treat it's Christian minorities with kindness and respect it the West cannot treat it's Muslim minorities with kindness and respect?
Do I think the niqab interferes with learning? No. But I believe asking a pious young woman to remove the veil because it is "bothering you" would interfere with her learning and her ability to be at comfort with her surroundings and her religion.
For a conservative Muslim woman wearing the niqab is the moral thing to do, thus asking her to remove it is asking her to be immoral in her own eyes and what she views as the eyes of God.
Why the controversy over being modest? Why does it offend a Western person more to see a modest woman in a veil than it does to see a 15 year old wearing cleavage and thigh baring clothing?
That is part of what is so absurd about this whole situation. In the West your free to show your skin, but apparently your not free to cover your skin. Who would've thought "daisy dukes" are more acceptable than veils??
Currently, Muslims are in the spotlight. Because of 9/11, because of the mess in Iraq and our relationship with the government of Iran, many in the West have allowed themselves to become discriminatory towards all Muslims people, and feel completely justified in doing so.
But I ask, is this really the kind of reality and history we want to make?
Do you want our ancestors to look back and call us discriminatory and see us as overreacting and contributing to these problem rather than solving them? Or see us as bunch of hypocrites who try to instill tolerance on other nations while failing to exercise it at home?
Or do we want our ancestors to be able to look back and see that we exercised tolerance, restraint, and above all logic in a time of hardships and clashes between our worlds?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials
The Bush Administration recently purged eight U.S. attorneys, a move that has caught the attention of the mainstream media and Democrats, many of which feel the firing of several attorneys who had preformed well on the job, was at the very least, suspicious.
The American public is starting to catch on, especially when the Los Angeles Times and others are reporting that
"Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired in a direct attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California."
A DoJ official commented that "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." when it was learned that "Lam notified Washington of search warrants in a Republican corruption case"
It doesn't help either when The Washington Post is reporting that David C. Iglesias, who was one of the other attorneys was fired after he had been "heralded for his expertise" by the Justice Department "which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes."
Which blows to pieces the Bush Administrations original claim that the attorneys were purged because of poor performance.
Iglesias alleged crime? Apparently Republicans were not happy with Iglesias because he failed to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud because “we didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Iglesias stated on FOX.
“Prosecutors can’t just prosecute on rumor and innuendo. I set up only one of two election fraud task forces in the country. In fact, the Justice Department asked me to speak at an election fraud seminar as a result of those task forces.” Iglesias also says that his firing was a "political hit" and wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times "Why I Was Fired"
The Bush Administration and it's apologist have supplied a steady stream of various excuses regarding the ouster of the attorneys.
First the Administration claimed the attorneys preformed poorly. Then it was within it's right to purge the attorneys, however suspicious and politically motivated the circumstances appeared. Then they pointed fingers at each other "Harriet did it" or "Rove did it" and "Gonzales did it". Finally they pledged accountability, right before they said they had nothing to be accountable for.
So, one would reasonably assume that if the Bush Administration was not participating in lecherous partisanship and trying to steer investigations when it purged the attorneys then it should not have any objections to going under oath and explaining themselves, should they? If the Bush Administration did nothing wrong then they should have nothing to hide and going under oath should not be a problem, right?
Wrong. Someone is hiding something.
The Politico is reporting that “In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”
That's pretty damning, it reminds me of the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.
Not only that, now the President is refusing to allow implicated members of his Administration to go under oath.
The audacity of this President never ceases to amaze me, he could have cookie crumbs on his lips and he would still try to make a convincing case that he really wasn't eating cookies from the cookie jar.
The President now claims that the Democrats are just being "partisan" because they want answers regarding the attorney purge. Does he really think we are all that ignorant than we buy that nonsense? If he does, then I guess we can see who the ignorant one is.
It was the Bush administration that chose to purge attorneys for what clearly appears to be political reasons, and this is what the President seems to be choosing to ignore when he claims the Democrats want partisanship and impasse rather than truth and justice.
President Bush has a warning for those nefarious Democrats...
“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”
"A partisan fishing expedition"?!? Ooh, I get it, like the "partisan fishing expedition" the Bush Administration went on when it purged the eight attorneys?
"Honorable public servants"?!? The President is talking about the same Alberto Gonzales that said the US constitution prohibited taking away habeas corpus but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to habeas corpus? I'm sure Gonzales is an honorable servant, but he is not a servant to the public, obviously.
Democrats "scoring political points"? That may be so, but that is only because they are doing the right thing, what the public would want them to do, which is investigate. I am referring to the same public that Gonzales is an alleged "honorable servant" of, lest there be any confusion.
It will be "regrettable if they [Democrats] choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas"?!? Someone needs to tell Bush that it is normal procedure, if one refuses to cooperate and refuses to talk that the next step is a subpoena.
"I hope they [Democrats] don't choose confrontation." But essentially it is Bush who chose confrontation when he decided to refuse to allow members of his Administration go under oath and on record to explain the events surrounding the attorney purge.
The Bush Administration recently purged eight U.S. attorneys, a move that has caught the attention of the mainstream media and Democrats, many of which feel the firing of several attorneys who had preformed well on the job, was at the very least, suspicious.
The American public is starting to catch on, especially when the Los Angeles Times and others are reporting that
"Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired in a direct attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California."
A DoJ official commented that "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." when it was learned that "Lam notified Washington of search warrants in a Republican corruption case"
It doesn't help either when The Washington Post is reporting that David C. Iglesias, who was one of the other attorneys was fired after he had been "heralded for his expertise" by the Justice Department "which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes."
Which blows to pieces the Bush Administrations original claim that the attorneys were purged because of poor performance.
Iglesias alleged crime? Apparently Republicans were not happy with Iglesias because he failed to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud because “we didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Iglesias stated on FOX.
“Prosecutors can’t just prosecute on rumor and innuendo. I set up only one of two election fraud task forces in the country. In fact, the Justice Department asked me to speak at an election fraud seminar as a result of those task forces.” Iglesias also says that his firing was a "political hit" and wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times "Why I Was Fired"
The Bush Administration and it's apologist have supplied a steady stream of various excuses regarding the ouster of the attorneys.
First the Administration claimed the attorneys preformed poorly. Then it was within it's right to purge the attorneys, however suspicious and politically motivated the circumstances appeared. Then they pointed fingers at each other "Harriet did it" or "Rove did it" and "Gonzales did it". Finally they pledged accountability, right before they said they had nothing to be accountable for.
So, one would reasonably assume that if the Bush Administration was not participating in lecherous partisanship and trying to steer investigations when it purged the attorneys then it should not have any objections to going under oath and explaining themselves, should they? If the Bush Administration did nothing wrong then they should have nothing to hide and going under oath should not be a problem, right?
Wrong. Someone is hiding something.
The Politico is reporting that “In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”
That's pretty damning, it reminds me of the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.
Not only that, now the President is refusing to allow implicated members of his Administration to go under oath.
The audacity of this President never ceases to amaze me, he could have cookie crumbs on his lips and he would still try to make a convincing case that he really wasn't eating cookies from the cookie jar.
The President now claims that the Democrats are just being "partisan" because they want answers regarding the attorney purge. Does he really think we are all that ignorant than we buy that nonsense? If he does, then I guess we can see who the ignorant one is.
It was the Bush administration that chose to purge attorneys for what clearly appears to be political reasons, and this is what the President seems to be choosing to ignore when he claims the Democrats want partisanship and impasse rather than truth and justice.
President Bush has a warning for those nefarious Democrats...
“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”
"A partisan fishing expedition"?!? Ooh, I get it, like the "partisan fishing expedition" the Bush Administration went on when it purged the eight attorneys?
"Honorable public servants"?!? The President is talking about the same Alberto Gonzales that said the US constitution prohibited taking away habeas corpus but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to habeas corpus? I'm sure Gonzales is an honorable servant, but he is not a servant to the public, obviously.
Democrats "scoring political points"? That may be so, but that is only because they are doing the right thing, what the public would want them to do, which is investigate. I am referring to the same public that Gonzales is an alleged "honorable servant" of, lest there be any confusion.
It will be "regrettable if they [Democrats] choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas"?!? Someone needs to tell Bush that it is normal procedure, if one refuses to cooperate and refuses to talk that the next step is a subpoena.
"I hope they [Democrats] don't choose confrontation." But essentially it is Bush who chose confrontation when he decided to refuse to allow members of his Administration go under oath and on record to explain the events surrounding the attorney purge.
Monday, March 12, 2007
"Let Them Wait"
Over three million Palestinians live in the occupied territories.
Palestinians have lived under Israeli military occupation for forty years.
Twenty years after the occupation began the intifada began. The uprising brought more excessive force from Israel, leading to a second Palestinian uprising in 2000 following the collapse of the Oslo Accords.
Checkpoints are a part of daily life for many Palestinians. Gaza Strip and the West Bank are separated by miles.
In Palestine people often have to travel to work, many times walking long distances to visit family, go to school or visit hospitals.
Palestinians are routinely harassed at such checkpoints for hours before they are many times denied permission to pass.
Herded like cattle and treated no different, the conditions Israeli's impose on Palestinians only fuel greater hostility and animosity among the Palestinian people.
Many of the Palestinian people are not just angered with their treatment, they are hurt, and their pain is etched into many of their faces, young and old.
Another obvious symptom of oppression is the fear many Palestinians feel towards Israeli soldiers because of their routine and systematic harassment, and being constantly treated like a criminal.
Few people really know what it is like for the Palestinians, why they are frustrated while they world ignores them, and in many cases demonizes them.
Israeli Filmmaker Yoav Shamir takes a deeper look into the lives of Palestinians, and how their lives are dictated by various checkpoints where harassment is routine.
At the checkpoints, all Palestinians are treated equally, equally as criminals.
The film is an Israeli film, made with Israeli money, shot by an Israeli. What's more interesting is that the Israeli forces are now using the documentary as training material for their guards.
This film provides an eye witnesses perspective to a situation many Americans do not even realize exists. The film is at the end of this post, but I want to highlight what I view as some of the most important scenes from the documentary.
Tensions can run high when human beings are corralled like animals and treated without the slightest amount of dignity or respect. Frustration is common, but only because of the systematic abuses of power Israeli soldiers display.
In a crowded checkpoint Israeli soldiers command the Palestinians to get on the pavilion - no one gets threw the checkpoint until everyone is on the pavilion. The problem, there is not enough room on the pavilion for all waiting Palestinians to gather on.
One man frustrated, carrying his young child complains that "We have been here since 6 AM."
A sick family is prevented from crossing a checkpoint to see a doctor. An Israeli guard harasses the family with taunts and repeatedly tries to get a four year old boy to answer his questions, when the child is clearly frightened by the guard and does not understand Hebrew.
Dissatisfied with the child's lack of response the guard turns the family away from the checkpoint, saying "maybe" they could come back tomorrow. There appears to be no legitimate reason for turning the family away.
A school bus full of elementary age children rumbles on the scene of a checkpoint and is stopped by the Israeli's. The children are pulled out of the bus, but it is not the Palestinian children the Israeli guards are interested in, it is the Israeli man traveling with them, who is a pastor and has a large cross on the back of his vest.
The pastor was prevented from crossing the checkpoint without just reason after the Pastor told the guards he was crossing with the children to see how they were being treated at the checkpoints, the pastor was obviously concerned about the well being of the children.
Inexplicably, after the children have left one of the Israeli guard insists that the pastor get his picture taken with him. The pastor agrees, only if the guard removes his gun and helmet. The guard complies, perhaps conveying the importance he is placing on the photo of the man. But why is it so important to have a picture of this peaceful Israeli pastor? Perhaps to identify him later, or make him identifiable to other Israeli guards as a "trouble maker".
At another checkpoint an Israeli guard says "Jews are the best." At the same checkpoint male soldiers can be found sexually harassing young Palestinian girls, one even after she has informed the guard she is a minor.
Another checkpoint finds Palestinians who are made to wait in the freezing rain for an extended period of time. Not because Israeli guards are busy, but because Israeli guards are trying to prove some kind of point to them.
A guard checks a mans ID by phone. After he has verified the man is who he indeed says he is, the soldier decides to "make him wait" in the freezing rain for no other apparent reason to other than to prove a point to a nonviolent and productive Palestinian man.
At a Ramallah checkpoint it is snowing and again the Palestinians are forced to stand out in the elements for an unreasonably long amount of time.
A young guard notices the camera and places himself in front of it. "What do you want to film here? Animals, Animals. Like the Discovery Channel" the guard laughs, clearly implying his belief that the Palestinians are animals.
"All of Ramallah is a jungle, there are monkeys, dogs, gorillas (laughing) The problem is that the animals are locked, they can't come out. We're humans. They're animals. They aren't human, we are." He continues, "that's the difference between..." (one can assume "us and them" were the words poised to follow) but the guard is interrupted by another, perhaps sensing the peril of his comrades words.
"What?" The young guard asks his comrade who has interrupted him "Let him film, what do I care? I don't care what people think." Exactly.
Palestinians are routinely turned back from checkpoints not allowed to return home without any justified reason other than the fact they are Palestinian.
At one such checkpoint an old man hobbles with a cane, sits on a gathering of rocks, and almost whispers "Film this. See what they do to us." to the cameraman.
"I'll break her bones." One guard menacingly threatens an older man and his wife as they try to cross the checkpoint. "We are going home" The man replies defiantly.
"Why are you doing this to us?" Rings out an anguished voice. "Shoot me, I don't care." Indeed, in a life like this death may seem a release. "Why are you doing this to us?" and "Why do you treat us this way?" are questions often raised by the Palestinians.
"Is this freedom? Is this the peace they've promised us?"
The closing scenes of the documentary brings us to a scene of darkness, Palestinians lined up against a concrete barrier. A cell phone rings, "We have been waiting for more than five hours." the man tells the person on the other end.
"We're tired of waiting in the cold." Another says.
Another voice in the darkness pleads "I've been here for ten hours."
An Israeli soldier "Let them wait. Let them wait."
The excerpts above were taken from the documentary below.
Update : The embeded video does not seem to be working correctly, the video can be found at Google Video.
Over three million Palestinians live in the occupied territories.
Palestinians have lived under Israeli military occupation for forty years.
Twenty years after the occupation began the intifada began. The uprising brought more excessive force from Israel, leading to a second Palestinian uprising in 2000 following the collapse of the Oslo Accords.
Checkpoints are a part of daily life for many Palestinians. Gaza Strip and the West Bank are separated by miles.
In Palestine people often have to travel to work, many times walking long distances to visit family, go to school or visit hospitals.
Palestinians are routinely harassed at such checkpoints for hours before they are many times denied permission to pass.
Herded like cattle and treated no different, the conditions Israeli's impose on Palestinians only fuel greater hostility and animosity among the Palestinian people.
Many of the Palestinian people are not just angered with their treatment, they are hurt, and their pain is etched into many of their faces, young and old.
Another obvious symptom of oppression is the fear many Palestinians feel towards Israeli soldiers because of their routine and systematic harassment, and being constantly treated like a criminal.
Few people really know what it is like for the Palestinians, why they are frustrated while they world ignores them, and in many cases demonizes them.
Israeli Filmmaker Yoav Shamir takes a deeper look into the lives of Palestinians, and how their lives are dictated by various checkpoints where harassment is routine.
At the checkpoints, all Palestinians are treated equally, equally as criminals.
The film is an Israeli film, made with Israeli money, shot by an Israeli. What's more interesting is that the Israeli forces are now using the documentary as training material for their guards.
This film provides an eye witnesses perspective to a situation many Americans do not even realize exists. The film is at the end of this post, but I want to highlight what I view as some of the most important scenes from the documentary.
Tensions can run high when human beings are corralled like animals and treated without the slightest amount of dignity or respect. Frustration is common, but only because of the systematic abuses of power Israeli soldiers display.
In a crowded checkpoint Israeli soldiers command the Palestinians to get on the pavilion - no one gets threw the checkpoint until everyone is on the pavilion. The problem, there is not enough room on the pavilion for all waiting Palestinians to gather on.
One man frustrated, carrying his young child complains that "We have been here since 6 AM."
A sick family is prevented from crossing a checkpoint to see a doctor. An Israeli guard harasses the family with taunts and repeatedly tries to get a four year old boy to answer his questions, when the child is clearly frightened by the guard and does not understand Hebrew.
Dissatisfied with the child's lack of response the guard turns the family away from the checkpoint, saying "maybe" they could come back tomorrow. There appears to be no legitimate reason for turning the family away.
A school bus full of elementary age children rumbles on the scene of a checkpoint and is stopped by the Israeli's. The children are pulled out of the bus, but it is not the Palestinian children the Israeli guards are interested in, it is the Israeli man traveling with them, who is a pastor and has a large cross on the back of his vest.
The pastor was prevented from crossing the checkpoint without just reason after the Pastor told the guards he was crossing with the children to see how they were being treated at the checkpoints, the pastor was obviously concerned about the well being of the children.
Inexplicably, after the children have left one of the Israeli guard insists that the pastor get his picture taken with him. The pastor agrees, only if the guard removes his gun and helmet. The guard complies, perhaps conveying the importance he is placing on the photo of the man. But why is it so important to have a picture of this peaceful Israeli pastor? Perhaps to identify him later, or make him identifiable to other Israeli guards as a "trouble maker".
At another checkpoint an Israeli guard says "Jews are the best." At the same checkpoint male soldiers can be found sexually harassing young Palestinian girls, one even after she has informed the guard she is a minor.
Another checkpoint finds Palestinians who are made to wait in the freezing rain for an extended period of time. Not because Israeli guards are busy, but because Israeli guards are trying to prove some kind of point to them.
A guard checks a mans ID by phone. After he has verified the man is who he indeed says he is, the soldier decides to "make him wait" in the freezing rain for no other apparent reason to other than to prove a point to a nonviolent and productive Palestinian man.
At a Ramallah checkpoint it is snowing and again the Palestinians are forced to stand out in the elements for an unreasonably long amount of time.
A young guard notices the camera and places himself in front of it. "What do you want to film here? Animals, Animals. Like the Discovery Channel" the guard laughs, clearly implying his belief that the Palestinians are animals.
"All of Ramallah is a jungle, there are monkeys, dogs, gorillas (laughing) The problem is that the animals are locked, they can't come out. We're humans. They're animals. They aren't human, we are." He continues, "that's the difference between..." (one can assume "us and them" were the words poised to follow) but the guard is interrupted by another, perhaps sensing the peril of his comrades words.
"What?" The young guard asks his comrade who has interrupted him "Let him film, what do I care? I don't care what people think." Exactly.
Palestinians are routinely turned back from checkpoints not allowed to return home without any justified reason other than the fact they are Palestinian.
At one such checkpoint an old man hobbles with a cane, sits on a gathering of rocks, and almost whispers "Film this. See what they do to us." to the cameraman.
"I'll break her bones." One guard menacingly threatens an older man and his wife as they try to cross the checkpoint. "We are going home" The man replies defiantly.
"Why are you doing this to us?" Rings out an anguished voice. "Shoot me, I don't care." Indeed, in a life like this death may seem a release. "Why are you doing this to us?" and "Why do you treat us this way?" are questions often raised by the Palestinians.
"Is this freedom? Is this the peace they've promised us?"
The closing scenes of the documentary brings us to a scene of darkness, Palestinians lined up against a concrete barrier. A cell phone rings, "We have been waiting for more than five hours." the man tells the person on the other end.
"We're tired of waiting in the cold." Another says.
Another voice in the darkness pleads "I've been here for ten hours."
An Israeli soldier "Let them wait. Let them wait."
The excerpts above were taken from the documentary below.
Update : The embeded video does not seem to be working correctly, the video can be found at Google Video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
