Friday, October 04, 2002
In these politically charged days of "either you support us or you support the terrorists" type jargon spewing from the right, I felt they should be reminded of their former leaders words.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." ---Teddy Roosevelt
Conason's online journal at Salon has a great gotcha piece about Toricelli. With all the Republicans crying foul and screaming at the top of their lungs about the horror of having to actually face an opponent in an election,. Joe points out to them that Republicans did the exact same thing in the Minnesotas governors race in 1990. An the Democrats didn't object. Why are so many Republicans becoming such crybabies?
Bill Sammons is back!!!
The oh so impartial journalist (Excuse me while I stifle a laugh) is back with a hard hitting puff piece about How unbelievably awesome a job Bush is doing!!!
Here is a direct quote in the book from George "change the tone" Bush from the book:
President Bush watched in disbelief when New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton went to the Senate floor and brandished the infamous NEW YORK POST 9/11 headline: "BUSH KNEW".
“What bothered me was the fact that somebody would be so irresponsible and kind of stirring up a bunch of wonderful Americans that somehow I wouldn’t have done what was necessary," Bush reveals in a new book set for release. "Yes, it bothered me.”
Gee Mr. President, maybe while you were busy being all disbelieffy maybe you should have turned up the volume and heard what the Senator had to say. Here are her exact words:
"I am simply here today on the floor of this hallowed chamber to seek answers to questions. Questions being asked by my constituents. Questions raised by our newspapers in New York, such as one headline ‘Bush Knew.' The president knew what?
"My constituents would like to know the answers to those questions. Not to blame the president or any American. But just to know. To learn from experience. To do all we can to ensure that a 9/11 never happens again.
Ooooooh. That was so divisive!! I mean it wasn’t as bad as accusing Decorated war heroes as not caring about the security of the American people, but hey, no one can be THAT divisive, right!
I'm sure some of you may be thinking, why would a Journalist print something so blatantly misleading and biased? Well this isn't a Journalist, this is Bill Sammons. His modus operandi is to portray Republicans as good and Democrats as bad, regardless of the actual facts. He then sends them out in these quickie books that are sold at Freerepublic.con and other such bastions of psychopathic insanity.
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
Thats just freaky.
Only ten years old and alrady has a f*cked up sense of his physical self. Poor bastards gonna be a mess when he grows up.
Osama who?
Thats the new talking points coming from the White House.
They have ceased to mention him by name because it does nothing but bring up the fact that Mr. "wanted dead or alive", as Bush once referred to him, is, as far as we know still at large. Instead the new boogeyman is Saddam.
Also they had this classic Ari Fliescher back and forth (thanks to Atrios):
Bush, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said in a morning briefing, "is now supporting a bipartisan compromise on homeland security."
Keith Koffler, White House reporter for Congress Daily, was puzzled. "How many Democrats support this bipartisan bill?" he asked. "I'm not aware of any more than one Democrat."
"Well," Fleischer replied, "that certainly does make it bipartisan."
A passage from Bush’s' famous ""can't get fooled again" speech in Tennessee is yet another lame attempt to try in vain to make up ANY excuse to invade Iraq. This time it was because of repression of women:
And all our history says we believe in liberty and justice for all, that when we see oppression, we cry; that when we found out that young girls in Afghanistan could not go to school because they were in the clutches of one of the most barbaric regimes in the history of mankind, we acted not only to uphold doctrine and to fight the war against terror, we acted to liberate people. Our history shows that we're not a nation which conquers; we're a nation which liberates.
From The Bush state Departments Human rights report on Saudi Arabia's treatment of women:
The Government prohibits or restricts freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, and movement.
Other continuing problems included discrimination and violence against women, discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and strict limitations on worker rights.
Women of many nationalities were detained for actions such as riding in a taxi with a man who was not their relative, appearing with their heads uncovered in shopping malls, and eating in restaurants with males who were not their relatives. Many such prisoners were held for days, sometimes weeks, without officials notifying their families or, in the case of foreigners, their embassies.
A woman's testimony does not carry the same weight as that of a man. In a Shari'a court, the testimony of one man equals that of two women.
Women may not marry noncitizens without government permission.
women are prohibited from marrying non-Muslims.
Government policy permits women to attend cultural and social events at diplomatic chanceries and residences only if they are accompanied by a father, brother, or husband.
The Government restricts the travel of Saudi women. They are not allowed to drive inside the country and are dependent upon males for any transportation.
Women play no formal role in Government and politics and are actively discouraged from doing so.
Women must enter city buses by separate rear entrances and sit in specially designated sections.
[Women are] are excluded from studying such subjects as engineering, journalism, and architecture.
women's testimonies in court are equal to half those of a man.
If it happens in Iraq, we must invade and “liberate”, if it happens in Saudi Arabia, we invite their ambassador for lunch on the ranch.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am a strong proponent of trying to change the policy of foreign countries through diplomacy and increased trade. It’s starting to work in China, it would work in Cuba if we ever eased sanctions, and it is working in Saudi Arabia, who despite the horrendous abuses listed above, has made positive strides in Human Rights.
It’s just more evidence of Bush’s utter failure of any kind of consistency in his foreign policy and Iraq. It started with his State of the Union Speech where he laid down the law “you are either with us, or with the terrorists”, and then completely did an about face (Bush was “disappointed” with Arafat yet Hussein is a murderer and must go, Saudi’s are our buddies while they have telethons to support terrorist bombers)
David Bonior and Jim McDermott are fools. Now I won't go as far as to question their patriotism and call them traitors, I leave that job to our change the tone President, but when they appear on This Week FROM Baghdad and make comments like "I think you have to take the Iraqis on their value -- at their face value.", it does nothing but make them look like what they are.
Clueless idiots being used as puppets by a brutal dictator.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
Damn it just gets weirder in the Garden state. In the span of a half an hour I received 2 email bulletins from ABC. the first saying that Congressman Frank Pallone was chosen to take over for Toricelli, and then, a half hour later, another email bulletin saying it may not be Pallone because, get this, he forgot to check with his wife first.
Hey, at least it ain’t Florida.
It’s time for the unqualified art major to give his take on Iraq. Something I am sure all of you have been waiting desperately for. Blogs offer a great way to vent to nooene in particular. So here is my completely stream of consciousness, badly written “anything to pass the time before Buffy” entry into the Iraq debate.
I've always bee on the fence about the whole Iraq issue. Yes Hussien is a bad guy. Yes he is trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction ever since the ones Reagan sold him were destroyed in 91 and the subsequent inspections. Yes we need to get rid of him. But to me there seems to be a bigger downside than an upside as far as a full-scale invasion is concerned.
. Despite the lies Bush spreads, Hussien is not 6 months away from getting Nuclear weapons and poses no immediate threat to the United States. He poses the same threat he ahs for the alst 10 eyars, in which a strict no fly zone and tough sanctions kept him in check. That doesn’t mean we should ignore him, but it means there is no reason for a full scale invasion and thousands of American dead so Dubya can avenge his daddy. What would be the fallout if the United States decided, with no proof of an imminent threat, to pre-emptively declare war against a sovereign nation? The floodgates will open. Pakistan could invade India, North Korea invade South Korea, etc., all with the excuse that “hey, if the U.S. can do it, so can we.” Not to mention the fact that it would galvanize the entire Arab world against us at a time when we could use all the help we can get from them. And it doesn’t stop there; if the U.S. acts unilaterally it will alienate and anger our European allies. (If any of you are the least bit interested in politics, you know this as the case against war has been made by people much smarter and more qualified than me, some random bored guy with a blog. )
And for those who say, “who cares what the Germans think”, remember there are known Al-Qaeda cells in Germany and many other Nato countries.
I mean, what are the reasons Bush has given for invasion? He doesn’t really have any compelling ones so every week they come out with a new one and see if it will stick. If it doesn’t , they discard it and try and come up with another one
Bush said he was six months away from having Nuclear capabilities based on a report by the IAEA. Not true. When the press corp pointed out this fact, the Bush people said oh wait you were mistaken we were referring to a report in 91. Also not true. No report exists that says that.
Then there was the one that said Hussien was somehow working with Al Qaida. A cheap attempt to try and graft the war on terror to Iraq. Proof? Sorry, none. Now yes there may be, as the Post reported, some Al qaeda seeking refuge in Iraq, but they also have been seeking refuge in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, even Germany and Spain. Should we bomb Munich? No. Unless there is a direct link between Hussien and Al qaeda working together, and there isn’t, that’s not enough of a reason to invade.
All of this has the net effect of making us look like complete and utter clueless shitheads in front of the rest of the world. But that sadly is something of a Bush specialty while President. Thank god he hasn’t puked on anyone yet. Bush even referred to Saddam last week as, no kidding, “the guy who tried to kill my daddy.” Not exactly full of a Churchillian "We shall fight on the beaches" flair but we can safely say Dubya's graded on a curve.
What makes Iraq, part one in the three part axis of evil, warrant an invasion, and North Korea, part 2 in the Axis of evil, an official U.S. envoy sent to open talks?
The only thing any of this makes clear is that Bush’s foreign policy is a complete and utter mess.
And unless Bush can come up with a clear and decisive reason to risk the lives of thousands of U.S. troops, I don't support an invasion. And contrary to what some pundits out tehre say, that does not make one a traitor or an appeaser.
What the hell is going on in New Jersey? It looks to me like it boils down to the Republicans getting exactly what they wished for, and now crying foul.
As for the Torch, good riddance, the guy was crooked.
A judge has ruled on the Noelle Bush controversy. The ruling says that not drug treatment staff do nothave to answer police questions about a piece of crack they found in her shoe.
It makes sense. People who need drug rehab shouldn't have to worry about being snitched on by the people that are treating them if they have a relapse.
Monday, September 30, 2002
I'm sure some of you have heard about the Ganske Harkin taping controversy. Well it looks like all the effort that the conservatives used to try and smear Harkin for something he didn't do ("This is worse than Watergate folks", bellows Rush the Hutt) backfired. Harkin has now opened up a a 20 point lead.
Signs of the Apocolypse:
The Moonie Times gets it right and calls Bush on a lie. A lie that is repeated as fact by the major news media. (thanks to Atrios for picking up on that)
Sunday, September 29, 2002
A specific listing of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Reagan and Bush sold Hussien in the eighties is documented here in a Senate report done in 1994. Just remember that the next time Bush talks about how evil it is that Saddam has these WMD's, that his father is the one responsible.
