Read How Bush Helped Osama Recruit Here

Lies That Led To War: Read The WMD B.S. Here

Under Construction


construction ...




Weblog Commenting and Trackback by

Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

You Can't Swiftboat A Clinton

Unlike Al Gore and John Kerry, Hillary and Bill Clinton don't let their attackers go unpunished.

While Chris Wallace nurses the new whole Clinton tore him this weekend, President Bush sends Condoleeza Rice out to defend his pathetic administration's record--you know, their record as the administration that let 9/11 happen on their watch despite ample warning signs such as a classified memo stating "Bin Laden determined to attack within the United States"; the administration that also let the attack on the U.S.S. Cole go unpunished; the administration headed by a president so incompetent that he refused to testify before the 9/11 commission under oath, and only under the condition that Dick Cheney would accompany him, and that nothing would be written down...

It's no wonder these guys can't swiftboat a Clinton. They're not competent enough to pour piss out of a boot. Condoleeza Rice isn't their point person on this one because she has more credibility than the rest of them, she's their point person because she's the most expendable. Oh, but they'd never frag you, would they, Condi?

Have you ever asked yourself why you had to testify before the 9/11 commission under oath, and the president didn't, Condi? Why are they hiding behind you? They did that to Colin Powell too, didn't they? Good thing he still has tremendous credibility and respect, huh? That was one heckuva speech he gave at the U.N...

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Tim Ryan(D)

Watch It

Monday, September 11, 2006

Americablog's Real Lessons of Sept. 11th

#1 The Constitution only applies when the going gets easy.
#2 War is the answer, even when you forget the question.
#3 The truth is for sissies.

Read The Rest Here:

Monday, September 04, 2006

Bush Should Get His Ass Kicked By Americans For A Change

Metaphorically speaking, there are many that would agree that President Bush deserves a good old-fashioned humbling ass-kicking. Unfortunately, the President has enacted policies that amount to 'assuming the position' for Al-Quaeda, and when Al Quaeda kicks one American ass, every American suffers. Don't get me wrong: I don't want to see Bush not get his ass kicked. I just want a different kicker. An American one. This isn't the NFL; I don't want some foreigner taking a shot at the goalpoasts when the game is on the line. If Americans had the courage to kick Bush's ass, the job wouldn't be outsourced to the terrorists.

Bush's every foreign policy move seems to perfectly serve the expressed agenda of the terrorists. Case in point: "Shock and Awe". There is no better terrorist recruiting tool for Bin Laden. In an ideal world, the president's ass-kicking would come via domestic political opposition to our self-destructive foreign policy in the form of a completely humiliating rhetorical smackdown during a televised debate. Bush's ass-kicking could come via Barak Obama's size twelves,Hillary's size eights or a disgruntled Colin Powell's size tens. Because I've lost hope that anyone in power will rise to the occasion, I'm here in the blogosphere with millions of others taking my lilliputan jabs whenever I can because as long as the neoconservative policies are in place, the terrorists will continue to win.

In light of today's Pentagon admission that things are going badly in Iraq, please allow me to cite an essay that clearly expresses one of the many fundamental flaws in logic that undergird the fundamentally flawed paradigm of our "war on terror:.

Today's fundamental flaw in Neoconservative thinking is the assumption that bombing the hell out of people will win them over to your way of thinking.

Bill Cusak examines the absurdity, and how it plays into the hands of Emmanuel Goldstein, er-excuse me-Osama Bin Laden:

"Neo Cons believe a zero tolerance confrontational policy will get Radical Islam to re-think their extremist/terrorist tactics and force moderate Muslims to rise up against their radical governments creating a democracy domino effect that will justify all American activities in the Middle East and make the world happy and safe and lovely. Bin Laden knows nothing of the sort will happen. I have no idea why Neo Cons would believe such a thing. There is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. When Muslims, moderates, radicals, whoever, are pushed into a corner they do not shrink and get all shocked and awed and become introspective and go for long morning walks and read Emerson under a tree and mull things over. They swarm like killer bees.

And that's not just crazy ass radical Islam jihad freaks. Anybody would do the same. In 1941 did Americans re-think their policies and overthrow their government after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? Did the English do anything of the kind during Hitler's blitzkreig? Did the North Vietnamese reconsider communism as American B-52's streaked across their skies? Did North Vietnamese peasants rise up against their leaders after fifteen years of intense almost daily bombing? They weren't interested in hitching their wagons to American wealth. They were under attack. They didn't say "Thank GOD the Americans are attacking us! Now we can drive Buicks!" They moved into rat holes and hung pictures. In 1939 Polish foot soldiers, some of whom were armed only with wooden swords, rushed Hitler's tanks. Presumably they were not caught up in some kind of agonizing reappraisal of their national identity as they went into battle. Nobody has ever responded to an attack the way Neo Cons predicted radical Islam would behave in the face of Shock and Awe. All you smart asses out there are thinking "what about the French?" Fine. But which Muslims, which terrorists, exactly, did Bush and Cheney think were going to get shocked and awed into buying Derek Jeter jerseys? Neo Cons have a serious reality problem resulting in one strategic and tactical disaster after another. If insanity is any distance from reality, Neo Cons are insane. Remember wealth and insanity are not mutually exclusive".

Read It:

Friday, September 01, 2006

Thoughts on Iran

Within a few months, my prediction is that the U.S., Israel, or both with be dropping bombs on Iran. This offensive will not take place until the groundwork for the military strikes has been carefully laid out day after day, night after night in the American and Canadian media. Before the military offensive comes the P.R. offensive. The first battle in the war to win hearts and minds is fought against us; against the natural inclination of everyday people to just live their lives.

Whenever the U.S. starts beating the war drum, I'm always reminded of the words of Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

When it comes to Iran, I seem to part ways with many people who share my skepticism. After all, they say, Iran is run by religious extremists who have denied the right of Israel to exist, and their leader has said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. In principle, I agree with you, Steve, but in the real world, we have to get people like this before they get us.

That's how the conversation goes. Because our perceived enemies are relgious fanatics dead-set on doing us harm and incapable of being reasoned with, we have no alternative but to wage war.

But what if that's not the case? Matthew Iglesias asks some pertinent questions that could slow down the manufacting of consent to another war:

"The Iran debate has really become rather surreal. You have the "Islamofascist" locution jumping from the fever swamps of rightwing punditry into the mouth of the President of the United States. You have the Secretary of Defense issuing dire warnings of another Munich. These things are being done by the exact same people who, four years ago, were utterly dismissive of claims that invading Iraq was likely to serve Iranian interests better than American ones. Indeed, you have the exact same people who two years ago were assuring us that it made sense to commit American blood and treasure to fight Sunni insurgents on behalf of Iranian-backed Shiite militias now saying we need to commit more blood and treasure in Iraq to stop . . . Iranian-backed Shiite militias.

You have Richard Cohen, who backed the Iraq War and came to regret it, turning around and saying it's time to party like it's 1938. Meanwhile, this entire view of the world has, as best I can tell, no relationship whatsoever to reality.

Via Kevin Drum, David Ignatius is in Iran and reports that though "you might expect that Tehran would feel like a garrison town" it's actually surprisingly relaxed. But why might you expect that Teheran would feel like a garrison town? Well, you would if you've been following the media's dubious, highly-spun coverage of the issue. But you wouldn't if you asked yourself some basic questions. For example, if Iran is preparing to mount a Hitler-style bid for world domination they must be engaged in a big military build-up, right? But there is no such build up. Maybe there's no need for a build-up because the Iranian military is already so vast and mighty? Well, no. Iran has a defense budget of about $6 billion a year.

The United States spends over 50 times more than that. But perhaps comparisons to the USA are misleading. Lets compare our would-be regional hegemon to its neighbors. Well, Israel spends $9.6 billion and Saudi Arabia spends $25.2 billion. Pakistan, immediately adjacent to Iran and nuclear armed, actually has engaged in a recent defense buildup. What kind of quest for hegemony is Iran supposed to be on? Ignorant American pundits and television personalities may be unaware of these facts, but surely Iranian military and intelligence officials have noticed that Iran has no capacity whatsoever to conquer the region.

Meanwhile, the freaky and unpredictable Iranian regime has actually been in power for a very long time. Since before I was born. The regime is not only long-entrenched, but quite corrupt. Mightn't this lead you think it's being run by reasonably comfortable men who enjoy the fruits of power, intend to stay in power, and know a thing or two about maintaining their power rather than by irrational lunatics who've been waiting in the wings for 27 years preparing to spring their bid for world domination upon us without first having acquired so much as a single modern tank?

And then there's the small matter that our purported would-be Hitlers in Teheran were trying to reach a comprehensive peace agreement with the United States as recently as 2003. Their proposal was rejected by the Bush administration. Not rejected, I remind you, because the Bushies found the details of the proposal inadequate and Teheran refused to compromise further. No! It was rejected without any effort at negotiation because, at the time, the administration was busy threatening to overthrow the government of Iran as the second or third item in an ambitious plan to overthrow every government in the region.

So, here's Iran. Outgunned by its two leading religio-ideological antagonists, Israel and Saudi Arabia, in the region. One immediate neighbor is Pakistan, with a larger population base and a nuclear arsenal. Another immediate neighbor, Afghanistan, is occupied by soldiers under the command of an American president who has spurned peace offers and threatened to overthrow the Iranian government. A second immediate neighbor, Iraq, is occupied by a larger number of soldiers from the same country. The Iranian military's equipment is outdated and essentially incapable of mounting offensive operations. So Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Under the circumstances, wouldn't you? Don't you think a little deterrence capability would serve the country well under those circumstances?

I'm sorry to have gone on at such great length here, and a little nervous about stepping outside the "sensible" zone with my commentary on this topic, but somebody needs to call bull$#*t on the prevailing elite consensus about Iran. Of course it would be better to find a way to persuade, cajole, whatever Iran out of going nuclear -- the spread of nuclear weapons is, as such, bad for the USA. But there's no need -- absolutely no need -- for this atmosphere of panic and paranoia".

Read It
Hit Counter

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?