Recap

Keith Olbermann Reminds Us

Why We Have Reason To Celebrate

Obama may not be perfect, but at least he's not Bush. (Fingers crossed for the future.)

TAGS: Open Thread, Bush Administration, Epic Failure

Shoe Throwing Hero Brutally Beaten

From the BBC:

The brother of the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has said that the reporter has been beaten in custody.

Muntadar al-Zaidi has suffered a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding, as well as an eye injury, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC. Mr Zaidi threw his shoes at Mr Bush at a news conference, calling him "a dog".

The head of Iraq's journalists' union told the BBC that officials told him Mr Zaidi was being treated well.
[...]
Mr Zaidi told our correspondent that despite offers from many lawyers his brother has not been given access to a legal representative since being arrested by forces under the command of Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, Iraq's national security adviser.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but my definition of being treated well does not result in a broken hand, broken ribs, internal bleeding and an eye injury. Nor does this brutal response jibe with Bush's own protestations that 1) it wasn't that big a deal and 2) that it was somehow an example of the new freedoms that Iraqis enjoy thanks to the heroic efforts of US troops. And we already know too well that Bush's definition of freedom includes being locked up in a cell indefinitely and denied legal representation.

As the same BBC article shows, Mr. Zaidi is now regarded more as a hero than a criminal - which hardly bodes well for Bush's attempts to pass the whole thing off as insignificant. Reaction to the incident only underlines how misguided it is to brutalize someone who now has a reputation as a hero in the Middle East.

Our correspondent says that the previously little-known journalist from the private Cairo-based al-Baghdadia TV has become a hero to many, not just in Iraq but across the Arab world, for what many saw as a fitting send-off for a deeply unpopular US president.
[...]
The shoes themselves are said to have attracted bids from around the Arab world. According to unconfirmed newspaper reports, the former coach of the Iraqi national football team, Adnan Hamad, has offered $100,000 (£65,000) for the shoes, while a Saudi citizen has apparently offered $10m (£6.5m).

The daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Aicha, said her charity would honour the reporter with a medal of courage, saying his action was a "victory for human rights". The charity called on the media to support Mr Zaidi and put pressure on the Iraqi government to free him.

Does anybody remember back when Bush was trying to sell this war to the American people, the UN and an array of countries who might join the coalition of the willing? One of the talking points was how the general Arab and Muslim world would embrace American intervention in the region and move towards a more stable and US-friendly footing. How's that working out for you Mr. Bush?


TAGS: The Shoe, Dumbya, World's Worst Statesman, Dodgy Diplomacy

Sunday Open Thread

Can we get a BWA HA HA for this item from the BBC?

Shoes thrown at Bush on Iraq trip

" A surprise visit by US President George Bush to Iraq has been overshadowed by an incident in which two shoes were thrown at him during a news conference.

An Iraqi journalist was wrestled to the floor by security guards after he called Mr Bush "a dog" and threw his footwear, just missing the president.

The soles of shoes are considered the ultimate insult in Arab culture.

[...]

His previously unannounced visit came a day after US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told US troops the Iraq mission was in its "endgame".

In the middle of the news conference with Mr Maliki, a reporter stood up and shouted "this is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog," before hurtling his shoes at Mr Bush, narrowly missing him.

"All I can report is a size 10," Mr Bush said according to the Associated Press news agency "

heh heh
heh heh heh
Laugh My Frickin' Ass Off!!

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: (from the BBC again)

Thousands of Iraqis have demanded the release of a local TV reporter who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush at a Baghdad news conference.

Crowds gathered in Baghdad's Sadr City district, calling for "hero" Muntadar al-Zaidi to be freed from custody. There were similar scenes in Najaf.

Officials at the Iraqi-owned TV station, al-Baghdadiya, also called for the release of their journalist.

This just keeps getting better and better. The only thing is Bush is such a delusional psychopath that the insult will roll off of him like water off a lame duck's back.

Rescued From the Memory Hole

Once again, three cheers for Keith Olbermann. This time the laurels are awarded for his piece comparing George W. Bush's 'legacy talking points' with reality. It should be presented with reference to this infamous quote from a Ron Suskind article in the NYT, from October 17, 2004, the quote attributed by Suskind to an unnamed Bush aide. (Source: Wikipedia)

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Those of us, including Olbermann, who inhabit the reality-based community don't think it works that way, but the Bush-bots persist in their delusions. K.O. schools them all, in what I think is one of his best segments ever.

"Rewriting History"

Oh, and by the way - Richard M. Nixon really was a crook despite all of his efforts to portray himself otherwise. This attempt at legacy tweaking is destined to fail just like everything else the Worst President Ever has tried his hand at. I mean really, how many Texas Rangers fans believe today that trading Sammy Sosa was a good move?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Instant Update/Further Reading: This is a great piece from BBC News looking back on Britain's attempted occupation of Iraq back in the 1920s - an utter failure that could well be compared to the current mess there.

As the insurgency spread, the letters from the British diplomat in Baghdad grew bleaker. "We are in the thick of violent agitation and we feel anxious… the underlying thought is out with the infidel."

And then: "The country between Diwaniyah and Samawah is abandoned to disorder. We haven't troops enough to tackle it at present."

A month later: "There's no getting out of the conclusion that we have made an immense failure here."

In fact, this insurgency was in 1920, the uprising against the British occupation of what was then still Mesopotamia. The diplomat was Gertrude Bell, an energetic and passionate Arab expert who literally drew Iraq's borders.

TAGS: Reality, Faith-based Arrogance, Historical Revisionism
The Bush Legacy of Epic Failure

The Bush Legacy

60 More Days of Awkward Moments Like This?

If he wasn't a career criminal and mass murderer, I'd almost feel sorry for him. Even so it feels a little unseemly of CNN to be so openly mocking him. I mean geez, he is still officially the Preznit. (He said as he gleefully piled on himself.)

To be fair, they could all be treating him like that because at dinner when he asked for the pepper all the interpreters misheard and translated it to "I'm a leper." Or he could be avoiding shaking hands because he sprained his wrist and nobody wants to aggravate his injury.

TAGS: Bush Legacy, Epic Failure, International Pariah
No, seriously, I was hoping someone was going to ask me about the pig.

The Emerging Corporate Feudalism

..or Didn't We Have a Bloody Revolutionary War
to Get Rid of This Mindset?

Remember the Declaration of Independence? Sure you do. Back in the day when there was such a thing on this continent as 'a decent respect to the opinions of mankind' a bunch of upstarts had the radical idea,

"..that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

Let's just consider for a moment how truly radical that sentiment was from an historical perspective. Because the rulers of Europe saw things in the exact opposite way. They believed themselves to have been endowed by their Creator (the same creator, BTW) with exclusive 'rights' not extended to their subjects. The Hapsburgs, Hannoverians, Saxe-Coburgs, Romanovs and Bourbons (to name just a few) were, by virtue of their lofty bloodlines, chosen by God to enjoy virtually unlimited authority over their fellow man, no questions asked.

In fact if I pull a Canadian coin out of my pocket right now it will be inscribed on the obverse (heads) side with the words "D.G. Regina" - D.G. standing for Dei Gratia, which translates to Queen by the grace of God. The tradition lives on. And needless to say these two views of God's grace, one general and one exclusive are mutually irreconcilable.

The thing is, the United States of America that came about because of this radical declaration seems to have switched sides. The current ruler professes himself to be (and I'm afraid that he really believes it) 'chosen by god' to rule over his 300,000,000 subjects, ignoring all contrary opinion and limited by nothing but his own petulant will.

WE, THE PEOPLE has apparently devolved to this:
So let's look at the situation under feudalism. Feel free to make comparisons to the way things are now, and especially the way they are heading.

• Under the feudal system, a very small number of people have control over vast resources, while everyone else is left the scraps.
• The children of privilege inherit the wealth and are responsible for its preservation regardless of their lack of talent or effort, and even despite any mental illness they may have.
• The legal system protects the privileged from prosecution for the most egregious of crimes, up to and including torture and murder - especially when the victims are from the disenfranchised lower classes.
• Unalienable rights? Forget about it. You can be arrested, imprisoned, even tortured or murdered on the whim of the powerful - with no recourse whatsoever.
• The rich keep get richer without earning it. Everybody else can sweat their balls off and get nothing.
• Having no restrictions placed on them but their own whim, many of the 'noble class' degrade to a system of ethics centered solely on their own immediate gratification.

Sound familiar? All too familiar if you ask me. and sadly, one of the most devastating long-term consequences is economic. Because the idea of inherited wealth and power is completely detached from the idea of sober competence. If anything the spoiled brats who get the spoils have been trained to be irresponsible and lazy. Get caught DUI? - let Poppy take care of it. Don't want to show up for the National Guard? - Don't worry, the underclass will never dare to question the nobility. Want to spend money like it's going out of style on an illegal war, while reducing taxes? - - -

- - WAIT, that has consequences! But Dumbya isn't in the habit of thinking that way. He can't even see the deaths of thousands of American soldiers as anything but a minor inconvenience. Guess we'll have to increase the bonuses, lower our standards, and recruit some more. They're just peasants anyway. It's like the shameful performance of William of Orange at the battle of Waterloo. He treats soldiers like they were so many wooden toys.

I've said this all before, quite a while ago, on another blog, where I argued that the new feudalism is demonstrably worse than the one that caused the Revolutionary War.

Conditions in the US are becoming far worse than those that precipitated the American Revolution. An arrogant privileged overclass are allowed to rewrite the rules that govern society to their benefit, with no regard to the harm caused to others. The concentration of wealth and power equals or exceeds that of feudal Europe, while opportunities for social advancement have declined to an all-time low. And yet the peasantry remains blithely complacent, apparently waiting to give their attention to this crisis only when it comes out in a movie starring Tom Hanks.

One distinction differentiates the modern corporate baron from the Peers of Olde England in the 18th century. The peers' capital was tied up in land, and could not conveniently be transferred to another country, whether that be a bank in the Caymans or a factory on the low-wage island of Saipan. This forced a noblesse oblige on the ruling class that is not in effect in this brave new world.

In this globalized, 'we'll just move our capital to Paraguay' environment that THEY CREATED FOR THEMSELVES, there is all of the noblesse (privilege) with none of the oblige (responsibility.) Which is why they're so blithe about flushing America's economy down the shithole. Or Dubai, or Bahrain - whatever. And did you know that Dick Cheney's investment portfolio has been betting on the failure of the American dollar? Well it has.

I thought this kind of selfish crap was what the Revolutionary War was fought to eliminate. Apparently not.

And one other thing. This new class structure isn't limited to the Republican party or even the U.S.A. It's global, and unless we do something about it real soon, it's going to be the reality of the future. Think for instance about how much influence the Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch has on the American discourse. See? Money knows no borders.

TAGS: Corporatism, Corporate Feudalism, Cronyism,

Reagan Diaries Called Bush Shiftless

From the Canadian website Global Research, (Via POAC, the best news aggregator by far, IMO) - an excerpt from the just-released Reagan Diaries.

May 17, 1986.

'A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne'er-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work.'

I think I can safely put a LOL in here without increasing the number of cats in my future. Saint Ronny himself thought Dubya was a lost cause. Too funny! I'll even risk a LMAO on this one.

UPDATE: The Unruly Mob's first RETRACTION to my knowledge - it turns out this quote isn't really from Ronald Reagan's diary at all, but from a satirical piece by Michael Kinsley. Kinsley heard that he really was mentioned in Reagan's diary, and wrote a piece for the New Republic (vol. 237, issue 1, 7/2/07) in which he speculated on the nature of that mention. (details, from Museum of Hoaxes)

Even if this isn't true it's still damn funny - a tip of the tinfoil chapeau to Mr. Kinsley. And for the record it's the second time I was fooled in the last couple of days, the other time by a parody troll named Kirk on a thread at Americablog. The thing is, the real trolls are sometimes so off the wall that it's hard to tell the difference. Here's Kirk's response to a piece by Cristy Hardin Smith, which I think is brilliant.

I don't understand why you are calling Hardin Smith a "Christy". I saw no religion in any of the excerpts you clipped, nor do I think it is appropriate to mock Christians in such a manner. The irony is that Mr. Smith supports your view of the Senator's "hypocrisy", yet you still can't resist the urge to zing him. Even further irony is that, given Mr. Smith's lack of devotion to the G.O.P., I hardly think he can be labeled a Christian.
Kirk | Homepage | 08.20.07 - 6:06 pm

Now, for my money that is every bit as funny as the phony Reagan diary excerpt.

TAGS: Dubya, Worst. President. Ever., Failure, Saint Ronny

Absolute Immunity Dictator

"Bush's Magical Shield from Criminal Prosecution"

Glenn Greenwald came through today with one of his best posts ever. An experienced litigator who specialized in first amendment issues, Glenn's analyses on the Bush administration's warping of the law for their own ends are definitive.

The Bush administration decided to announce to Washington Post reporters Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein its view that it has the power to block the Justice Department, and its U.S. Attorneys, from criminally prosecuting Executive Branch employees who refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas, notwithstanding a statute enacted by the American people through their Congress requiring such prosecution where Congress issues a contempt citation. We do not know who specifically in the administration announced this obviously radical position because the Post courteously granted them a shield of anonymity to hide behind..
..What is most significant is, as always, the underlying theory on which this claim is based. From the Post article:David B. Rifkin,... praised the position and said it is consistent with the idea of a "unitary executive." In practical terms, he said, "U.S. attorneys are emanations of a president's will."

Frickin' emanations! It has a weird, Darth Vaderish sound to it, or maybe I should say Lord Voldemort, what with the last Harry Potter novel being released tonight at midnight. Green sparks coming out of his evil bony Presidential fingers, evil poisonous clouds wafting their way down to the Federal Courts. US Attorneys as Death Eaters, casting the Dark Mark on everything they touch. Nightmarish!

In a chilling nod to George Orwell, "The administration's position is grounded in a 1984 Reagan administration memo (.pdf) written by then-OLC official Ted Olson which made the same claim." The claim was never adjudicated because it was withdrawn before it could be tested in court. Which is what usually happens to claims of executive privilege, going back at least as far as Nixon's invocations during the Watergate scandal. It's just a delaying tactic really. The words executive privilege* do not appear in the Constitution. Powers of oversight vested in the Congress, however do. The good news comes in the form of a Supreme Court decision, US vs.Nixon:

This presumptive privilege must be considered in light of our historic commitment to the rule of law. This is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that "the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer."

Glenn goes on to discuss Bush's use of signing statements to allow him to unilaterally interpret Constitutional limits on the authority of the Judiciary. Funny how the Constitution never seems to limit the Executive in Bush's view. Even funnier how these plenary executive powers never apply when a Democrat is in office. It's like the Constitution was like an old 45 RPM record, with an A side for the Repukes and a B side for the Dems.

Some excerpts from the WaPo article that sparked Greenwald's post,

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."..

..Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) called it "an outrageous abuse of executive privilege" and said: "The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law."

Randi Rhodes was discussing this very issue with John Dean as I blogged this. In an effort to emphasize that the situation is not yet hopeless, she just quoted Bill Clinton, "There is nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what is right with America."

I sure hope that he, and she, are right on that point. Otherwise, the two possible futures that Station Agent mentions in the post below could quickly devolve to a single, depressing outcome.

---

Update: Very closely tied to this story is this piece from TPMMuckraker,

Four Democratic senators wrote Alberto Gonzales today to inquire whether Stephen Bradbury, the apparent acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, was illegally carrying out his duties.

Bradbury was nominated for the top spot at OLC last year, but the Senate Judiciary Committee returned his nomination to the president, refusing to hear it until Bradbury's role in approving the National Security Agency's surveillance program became clear..since it's been more than 210 days since the Senate returned the nomination to the President, Bradbury should not be carrying out the duties for the spot under the Vacancies Act. But that certainly appears to be what is happening.

Here's the kicker: It was Bradbury who,

signed a letter last week that advised that "the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee." Both the White House and Harriet Miers relied on that advice when she refused to appear before the House Judiciary Committee...Remember that the head of the OLC is a crucial position. Back in 2004, former head of OLC Jack Goldsmith advised that the Justice Department could not authorize the President's surveillance program -- a decision that nearly led to a mass resignation of senior Department officials when the President decided (however briefly) to ignore that determination.

Flippin heck! By investigating malfeasance that indicates the Judiciary has been blatantly hijacked, they only uncover even more blatant hijacking of the Judiciary. Muckraker's Paul Kiel remarks, "It's enough to make your head spin..." I would add, ...'like Linda Blair in The Exorcist.'

Also Read: Bush: "It's My Legal System" (at TPM Muckraker)

---

*privilege (Look up the etymology of that word, by the way - privy, meaning secret; legere, meaning law - a concept more fitting to a monarchy or dictatorship than a democracy.)

TAGS: Executive Privilege, Unitary Executive, Absolute Dictator, Constitutional Crisis, Lord Voldemort,

Yet Another Judicial Travesty

Appeals Court Blocks Challenge to
NSA's Warrantless Wiretapping Program

Score another win for the fascist police state, another devastating body blow to the protections the US Constitution used to provide the citizen. From the ACLU (via C&L):

CINCINNATI - In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals today [Friday, July 6] dismissed a legal challenge to the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. The challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients.

Even though the plaintiffs alleged a well-founded fear that their communications were subject to illegal surveillance, the court dismissed the case because plaintiffs could not state with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.

Of course they couldn't state that they had been wiretapped - exactly who is under surveillance having their fourth amendment rights trampled is a STATE SECRET. It's the classic catch 22. For a good legal analysis, go to Glenn Greenwald's post on the matter. This site's comments are very informative as well, since his threads attract lawyers like a whiplash victim.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, by a 2-1 decision, vacated last August's Order from District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor which enjoined the Bush administration from eavesdropping without warrants. Judge Taylor had found that the President's NSA warrantless eavesdropping program violates both the Constitution as well as federal law (FISA).

Yesterday's ruling (.pdf) had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case -- i.e., whether the NSA program is illegal or not -- but instead rested only on the narrow, technical (though important) issue of whether the particular plaintiffs in this case are entitled to sue over the warrantless eavesdropping program.

Not being a lawyer, I am of course bewildered by the ruling. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled last August that the program was not only unconstitutional but criminal. The problem I saw then was that the judge ordered that the wiretapping be halted immediately, then was somehow bullied into accepting a stay of that order. I think that stay was a horrible mistake. What kind of message does it send? "I find you to be breaking the law (punishable by a $10,000 fine per offense, BTW, and up to 5 years in jail), but I will allow you to continue doing so." Besides, you don't have to issue an order to a rapist, burglar, bank robber or drug dealer to cease and desist. The fact of a criminal law being on the books is presumably an order for all within your jurisdiction to refrain from said behaviour. Sheesh!

Not being a lawyer, I am even more bewildered by the game of rock, paper, scissors carried out to determine the predominance of the various branches of law. Elements of this case include constitutional law, criminal law, and procedural law. One would think that the Constitution would come out on top, or at least the relevant criminal statute, but instead it is a question of procedure (in this case, the issue of standing) that determines the outcome. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, why is it allowed to be bullied in the very courts expected to enforce it?

Greenwald anticipated my reaction to this with uncanny accuracy. "This is one of those types of legal outcomes which -- understandably so -- can drive laypersons, along with conscientious lawyers, crazy. The result, on its face, is grotesquely unfair, outrageously so."

It's important to point out here that this is not about the government being able to use surveillance in its efforts against domestic terrorism. The question is whether it can do so free of the judicial oversight mandated by FISA, a law that was specifically written to guard against the kinds of abuses committed by the Nixon administration. In that light, it is absurd to claim that the law doesn't apply to the President, whether by any inherent authority, or any special authority invested by the AUMF. It was written just for this situation, almost tailor made for just the kind of president George W. Bush has shown himself to be.


TAGS: NSA Wiretapping, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Bush Crimes

There But For the Grace of God

..Goes God

I've been wondering how I would approach this round of Blogs Against Theocracy, and I've had a number of ideas. It suddenly occurred to me that the theme had actually dropped into my lap with the latest Bu$hCo™ outrage - the commutation of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's jail term for perjury and obstruction of justice. Because it shows an arrogance of such transcendant dimensions that one must wonder - does George W. Bush actually think he IS God?

Seriously, this self-aggrandized little pisher has been talking openly about his communication with his personal deity since the beginning of his administration. But what if it goes far beyond that? He certainly puts himself above all earthly authority. The Constitution is after all just a 'goddamned piece of paper' to him. It is from this document that he supposedly derives his authority as President, but if not, from whence? International laws, including the venerated Geneva Conventions are 'quaint.' And you can forget about any biblical concepts of justice or mercy, except of course where cronies are concerned.

Bush feels that he is in no way bound by any concept of human decency. Kidnap, torture, even mass murder are well within his purview, his perceived powers plenary. Pardon the pleonasm.

To Bush, the world is an endless game of no-limit Crawford Texas hold-em, where he wins every pot without ever having to show his cards. Whatever he's got beats whatever you've got - that's the only rule. Not thy will be done, but MY will be done, amen.

He accepts no advice from his father, who has experience of the presidency that his son could at least use as a reference point - because he listens to a 'higher father.' I'm beginning to think that he ascribes to a new theology where the trinity has been augmented to the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, and Georgie Boy.

This would of course be just a matter of another delusional ruler like King George III, whose megalomania helped precipitate the American Revolution being celebrated today, but for one sad fact. The federal police agencies, FBI, CIA and such, and the military are still taking orders from this maniac, regardless of the fact that many of those orders are illegal. Some, like the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and the holding of prisoners without habeas corpus, have been so ruled by the courts. As was Scooter Libby's sentence. To defy the law is tantamount to a declaration of divine right, even going beyond the definition of that concept used by the monarchs of medieval Europe.

This is a serious breach of the concept of separation of church and state. Not to mention the blasphemy of it all. To all appearances, the President worships himself.

Update/postscript: All hyperbole aside, whether Bush actually believes he IS God or not, the same danger applies when he starts confusing his own will with that of his imaginary friend in the clouds.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." -- Susan B. Anthony

TAGS:
Blog Against Theocracy
Commutation of Sentence
George Bush, Arrogant Bastard!!

Steal ThisThese Talking Point(s)

I am getting sick and tired of the left caving in to the most facile and specious arguments. These are frustrating times for sure, with the recent capitulation by the DINO party over war funding, and the breaking of news story after news story that just doesn't get reported on any of the Corporate Owned Media outlets.

So, here are a couple of talking points, or slogans if you will, just in case you get in an argument with one of the 28%-ers that are still sufficiently misguided or delusional enough to still support Bu$hCo™, the criminal enterprise that is posing as legitimate government in America.

First up, concerning the Prosecutors' Purge scandal. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to refute the weak and un-American talking points that the Republicans are relying on in this case. I'm sure you've heard them. The ever popular, "Clinton did it too." Well, he didn't really. He replaced all the prosecutors when he first got into office, but that is normal. What is not normal is replacing prosecutors in the middle of their terms, as the Bush administration has done. And what is certainly not normal is the interference in the performance of their duties while in office, as Sen. Pete Domenici (R. -epulsive) and Rep. Wilson (R. -eprehensible) of New Mexico did. That is criminal obstruction of justice, and they should be charged with those felonies. So the statements that this is 'business as usual', or that these vital law enforcement figures 'serve at the pleasure of the pResident' can neither stand on their own, nor can they be propped up by any number of talking heads on FOX and CNN. The Constitution very deliberately created the judiciary as a separate, independent, and co-equal branch of government. Tampering with that formula is a big deal. Huge.

Here's your talking point, that I have been spreading around the comment threads here and elsewhere. It's yours to repeat as necessary until the other side finally listens. Better yet, it will demonstrate that you are a better American than your opponent. This is a slight modification of something you may have seen in comments here or elsewhere. I thought it time to flesh it out a little.

It's not just the Democrats, but the people themselves, who have become complacent to the point of complicity. Among the grave offenses listed against King George in the Declaration of Independence are these,

• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  
• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Doesn't that italicized bit sound a lot like the Prosecutors' Purge to you?
That and other Declaration offenses - of which the current King George is equally guilty - precipitated the American Revolution. But the Patriots who created this country had a courage seemingly lacking in this generation. Listen to the national anthem, especially the last line. How can it continue to be the Land of the Free unless it is also the Home of the Brave?

Looking again at the Declaration, I see that George Bush has committed other listed offenses. His whole administration seems to be focused on nothing so much as the repudiation of the Constitution of the United States of America. I could have expanded my talking point considerably. In particular,

1. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
2. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
3. For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
4. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.
5. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.
6. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Now how is it that these offenses, worthy of a Revolutionary War in 1776 are not now worthy at least of impeachment? Is it not time NOW to resort to that most profound statement in the Declaration? "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.."

The Right of the People. Not the Democratic Party. THE PEOPLE - who are the Constitution's, and the country's last line of defense. The historical parallels to eighteenth century America demand that the people act, and act soon. Perhaps even more, the parallels to Germany in the 1930s demand it.

Feel free to spread these points around. It's not really stealing after all. Last I looked, the Declaration of Independence was still in the public domain.

TAGS: Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, American Revolution, Historical Parallels

"So Long As I'm the Dictator"

Bush is Getting All His Ducks in a Row

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier,

just so long as I'm the dictator."

— George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

The state of affairs that then President-elect Bush desired even before taking office has come one step closer with the new National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. To provide the White House with your IP address click here to read the official May 9th press release. No? That's smart of you. OK then, click here for the story from Roguegovernment.com.

The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media.. ..In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency..

..The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

Yeah, right. In Bushspeak, as we all know, 'cooperation' means you submit to Bush's will, without the slightest compromise from him. A situation only likely to get worse after the disastrous 'compromise' the legislative branch just made over funding Bush's continuing war crimes in Iraq.

What is he afraid of anyway, that his lapdog Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will suddenly learn to stand up on his hind legs? That the very Supreme Court that sElected him as pResident in Dec. 2000 (made even more subservient by two more Bush appointees) will suddenly apply the rule of law over their Republican blood oath of loyalty? Or that the spineless Democratic Congress and Senate will suddenly evolve from their current status as free floating jellyfish?

Truth be told, even without this directive Bush is a de facto dictator already. With the power to arbitrarily name anyone, citizen of the US or not, as an 'enemy combatant' and have that person or persons incarcerated indefinitely without charges, habeas corpus rights, or access to an attorney, what more power does he need? Never mind that this power is entirely unconstitutional, as long as the Supreme Court refuses to hear a defining case on the matter, and as long as the police and military continue to accept Bush's chain of command as valid, it doesn't matter, does it?

It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.

I agree, there should definitely be angry protests over this. But there weren't angry protests over the Military Commissions Act, there weren't angry protests over Guantanamo, nor Abu Ghraib, nor the rendition program. Not only are legislators silent over these matters, but so are the execrable Corporate Owned Media bobbleheads, and most lamentably the American public themselves. Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing or reading the phrase, "clear violation of constitutional separation of powers" practically every day with no-one voicing anything like an effective expression of disapproval. I know, there's been some clamoring, but I said effective.

Perhaps some new tactics have to be contemplated. Maybe if voters in some strong progressive states agitated for secession it might have some effect. The fact is, the compact promised in the Constitution of the United States of America has been broken. All it would take is a declaration of that fact from a few state legislatures, and at the very least some of Bu$hCo™'s most egregious malfeasance could be, I don't know, at least mentioned by CNN reporters or something.

In related news that I find nearly as lamentable is this analysis of a Scotusblog report on the prospect of one branch of government that has already fallen into Republican hands in a way that the 2008 elections cannot reverse. The next President will choose two or three Supreme Court Justices. Yeah, that's right. So as useless as the Democrats are showing themselves to be, the American electorate has no choice but to put them into power in '08, the consequences of not doing so being too grave to contemplate.

For those of you not inclined to plumb the depths of Supreme Court analysis, a brief summary:

1-The next President will select two or three new Supreme Court justices in his or her first term.

2-All three will come from the Court’s liberal wing.

This is disturbing in the extreme. I always knew this election would be important to the makeup of the court because, to a certain extent, every election is, and also because Justice Stevens is 87. What I did not know is that Justice Souter, at 67 a relatively young Justice, is itching to retire.

Yet another compelling reason for progressives to look to any and all means to find a way to block Bu$hCo™ from their nefarious aims. It's like Dr. Evil was President Dr. Evil or something.

I don't know. I'm grasping at straws here. I'm that desperate to find some way out of this mess. One thing I fear to be a sad and frightening truth, if progressives in America don't find a way to get their ducks in a row, and soon, it may very well be too late.

TAGS: Bush Dictatorship, Police State, Politics of Fear
Lowlife Republican Scumbags

Impeach Now

MSNBC Poll Shows Overwhelming Support

Come on Congressional Democrats, get the lead out. Listen up. Get off the stump, and go to work, fercryinoutloud!! We are tired of lame excuses. Sure, you say that the narrow majority in the Senate would preclude a conviction, but at least consider the political upside.

• You'd be wildly popular for showing some guts for a change.
• The Senate trial would bring the issues of malfeasance before the American public in a way the media could not ignore.
• Senators up for re-election in 2008 would be put on the spot. Could they vote to support an unpopular President after overwhelming evidence of criminal behavior had been presented in the news? I think not.

Those last two points are key to bringing normalcy back to politics in the United States. Without a healthy news media, you can forget about true democracy. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, it is ESSENTIAL that the voter be given the true facts upon which to base his electoral decision. That hasn't been happening since Reagan gutted the Fairness Doctrine. A public trial of a sitting President and Vice President would be so important to the American public that even FOX "news" and ABC/Disney might consider reporting the facts for a change. If they don't, they can face the consequences of losing their broadcast licenses after the Democratic landslide in '08. And if you DO impeach, you can count on that landslide. Should they elect to lie or spin the news in Bu$hCo™'s favor, they could even face charges of involvement in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the process of democracy. And that's TREASON. (cue image of a blindfolded Rupert Murdoch being offered a cigarette)

Finally, there are many more GOP senators than Democrats in the 2008 cohort up for re-election. I think it's 21 and 12 respectively. (Update: It is. Click for a list.)That is a major opportunity to put a lock on the upper house that will last until 2014. To ignore such a golden opportunity hardly sends a signal to the public that you're in it to win it, now does it? Just the opposite in fact, it at least hints that you are complacent in;

• the erosion of democracy
• the rigging of elections
• the subversion of Justice
• the selling out of the middle class to corporate interests
• being led lied into an unjustified, wasteful war of aggression
• the WAR CRIMES this administration is guilty of
• the suspension of habeas corpus
• illegal wiretapping of citizens
• torture and murder of uncharged 'suspects'
• a wholesale culture of corruption that is basically 'government for sale'

There comes a point where complacency becomes complicity, and you are very near to that point, beyond it in the opinions of some. When Russ Feingold called for a motion of censure over the NSA wiretapping where were you? Most of you sat on your hands, and the issue died, along with the fourth amendment. A LOT of you supported the odious Military Commissions Act, the most blatant outrage against Constitutional principles since the Constitution was drawn up in 1787. And some of you supported the traitor Joe LIEberman against Ned Lamont, not only in the primary, but in the election itself, after the Republicans had endorsed him for Gawd's sake! I could go on. I could go on and on.

If you want to earn back our trust, you must impeach Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales.

YOU MUST IMPEACH!! Can't hear me?

YOU MUST IMPEACH!! Dammit,

YOU MUST IMPEACH!!

Update: You simply must visit the comments thread on this post, where I have taken this argument considerably further on second thought. You really should visit comments on this site anyway, sometimes that's where the best stuff is happening.

Cross-posted to Ice Station Tango.
TAGS: Impeach Bush, Impeach Cheney, Impeach Gonzales, Investigations

1500

Today, Friday April 27, 2007 is the 1500th day since the beginning of the Iraq war on Mar. 20, 2003. U.S. military casualties are 3,337 dead, and 24,314 wounded, according to ICasualties.org. The number of dead is based on official statistics released by the DOD and does not include;

• Allied personnel of the 'coalition of the willing'
• Journalists (86 killed in the first 3 years)
• Personnel working for mercenary organizations such as Blackwater, Inc.
• Soldiers mortally wounded in Iraq who subsequently died of their wounds after being transported out of the country
• Suicides caused by PTSD, such as the soldier who recently hanged himself at Walter Reed and whose body went undiscovered for two days
• Anyone the administration could possibly exclude in order to keep the American public from knowing exactly how bad things are going in Iraq.

There are no official numbers for Iraqi civilian deaths, but the organization Iraq Body Count gives a range between 62,570 and 68,593 as recently as yesterday of confirmed deaths. Considering that the Washington Post estimated 100,000 dead as of Oct. 29, 2004, one must concede that the actual number is simply impossible to nail down. One could conclude from this that the government callously doesn't care about the brown-skinned Muslim populace that they 'liberated' from Saddam's cruelty. They don't even bother keeping track of how many of them have been killed.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that there is no prospect of victory in Iraq, no matter how that victory is defined and redefined ad nauseum by the administration's supporters. Nor is there any hope of avoiding defeat, which can easily be defined as a situation less favorable than the status quo pro ante. It is certain that the lives lost can never be regained, nor the national prestige of the US for engaging in this boondoggle. The trillion dollars plus pricetag, most of it underwritten with loans from China, will take decades to repay.

And yet another milestone is approaching. On May 1, it will be four years since the Chimperor of the Empty Codpiece declared 'mission accomplished' on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln. Silly ass son of a bitch parading around in a flight suit when he avoided his training as a pilot in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam war because he refused to show up and piss in the bottle to show he wasn't too stoned to take the controls. Revelations of the lies told about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, so offhandedly cynical as to give a new definition to the word casualty - "someone whose life has been thrown away casually." Meanwhile, Bush listens to the lame comedy stylist Rich Little, who was already a has-been when Ed Sullivan was still on the air.

It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Someone is going to have to wrest power from the hands of this madman before we see the last casualty. This after Donald Rumsfeld predicted the war would last, "six days, six weeks - I doubt six months." After 1500 days it is beginning to sound more like, "We have always been at war with EastAsia."

TAGS: Iraq War, Casualties, War Monger, George W. Bush

Reading Program Under Investigation

..And Other GOP Corruption Stories

You'd think the Republican party would have learned from the November elections - the American people will not accept the hypocrisy of a party that spews endless platitudes about morals while engaging in the most egregious conduct imaginable. This week alone saw Republican John Doolittle of California forced to resign his position on the house appropriations committee after the FBI raided his home seeking evidence in a corruption investigation Wednesday. On Thursday, it was Rick Renzi's turn. The Arizona representative's family business was also raided by the FBI, for as yet undisclosed reasons. According to the Arizona Republic;

"The Justice Department has been investigating Renzi for months, but the subject of the inquiry has never been made public. Media reports last fall gave conflicting versions, with authorities said to be looking into either a land swap involving a former business partner of Renzi or a Pentagon contract involving Renzi's father, a retired Army general.
[...]
Democrats in Arizona and Washington have raised questions about whether the investigation into Renzi was connected to the ouster of the state's former U.S. attorney, Paul Charlton, who was forced to resign last December as part of a controversial purge of federal prosecutors."

Renzi was also forced to leave a powerful committee position, in his case on the House Intelligence committee. The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman opines that these and other ethics breaches may hurt GOP efforts to retake Congress in 2008. Hmmmm.. D'ya think? Weisman also cited Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson's involvement in the dismissal of New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias - one of the main events in the now infamous Prosecutors' Purge Scandal.

Weisman also point to Rep. Gary G. Miller (R. - CA), Rep. Jerry Lewis (R. - CA) and Rep. Tim Murphy (R. - Pa) as being in significant legal jeopardy.

"Everybody's kind of a little bit numb," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "There's this, 'What else can happen now?' feeling going around here."

Well Jack, when it rains it pours, as the Republican party's exposure as a systemically corrupted criminal organization proceeds in the light of the first real scrutiny they've been under in six years. Adding to the storm is this story in yesterday's Washington Post.

The Justice Department is conducting a probe of a $6 billion reading initiative at the center of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law, another blow to a program besieged by allegations of financial conflicts of interest and cronyism, people familiar with the matter said yesterday.

The disclosure came as a congressional hearing revealed how people implementing the $1 billion-a-year Reading First program made at least $1 million off textbooks and tests toward which the federal government steered states.

"That sounds like a criminal enterprise to me," said Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House education committee, which held a five-hour investigative hearing. "You don't get to override the law," he angrily told a panel of Reading First officials. "But the fact of the matter is that you did."

Just like Iraq, just like Katrina relief, in fact just like everything the Republicans touch, the beleaguered No Child program is failing miserably at its stated objectives but succeeding fabulously in the real objective they well know the American people would never countenance - making GOP cronies rich. One could only imagine how many investigations would be under way if the entire Department of Justice wasn't staffed with 'loyal Bushies' and being micro-managed from the White House.

Check out this organizational chart from the second page of that Slate article (h/t RevPhat) - in comparison to only four people in the Clinton administration authorized to talk to three in the DoJ, there are 147 Bush White House flunkies talking to 40 DoJ officials. (Click on image for larger version.) The Republican party fits the definition of a criminal enterprise as defined in the RICO statutes, as George Miller points out. Worse, the Department of Justice looks like it exists only to enable these crimes.

The Doolittle, Renzi, and other corruption investigations are what they are - influence peddling for profit. My sixth sense tells me that there are other aspects to this No Child Left Behind case that put it in a different category. I hope the reporters covering this have the sense to ask two key questions. 1) - how much has the No Child program been used as a cover for the Christianization of textbooks, tests, and curriculum? and 2) - How much has intentional neglect from US Attorneys loyal to Bush enabled this and other crimes?

TAGS: Corruption, John Doolittle, Rick Renzi, Prosecutors Purge

Wa Wa Waaaaaaaaaaah!

Big Baby Bush Refuses to Speak Chavez's Name

As we all know, pResident George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela are both on speaking tours of Latin America right now. For his part Chavez is blaming US policy for the poverty and inequality in Latin America, and he is being well received.

From the Houston Chronicle:

On Friday night, Chavez led a two-hour anti-Bush rally attended by nearly 20,000 people at a soccer stadium in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He called Bush a "political cadaver" and said he was on his way to becoming "cosmic dust." "I believe the chief objective of the Bush trip is to try to scrub clean the face of the empire in Latin America. But it's too late," Chavez said on Argentine state television before the rally.

Bush is delivering quite the opposite message.

"I would call our diplomacy quiet and effective diplomacy," Bush said.

Ignoring Chavez in favor of a focus on U.S. compassion for the region is Bush's persistent tack on his five-nation tour, which also includes visits to Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Brazil.

"My message to the people in our neighborhood is that we care about the human condition and that we believe the human condition can be improved in a variety of ways," the president said.

The thing is, the people of Latin America aren't buying it. Chavez is being greeted enthusiastically and hosting large and popular anti-Bush rallies. Bush is being greeted with, well, popular anti-Bush rallies. I can only imagine the expensive security necessary to keep his worthless skin intact.

Why do you suppose the people of Latin America are so skeptical about Bush's pronouncements about compassion and regard for the human condition? Perhaps they're all reading Rolling Stone, particularly this must-read piece by Paul Krugman;

In a recent poll, only a minority of Americans rated the economy as "excellent" or "good," while most consider it no better than "fair" or "poor."

Are people just ungrateful? Is the administration failing to get its message out? Are the news media, as conservatives darkly suggest, deliberately failing to report the good news?

None of the above. The reason most Americans think the economy is fair to poor is simple: For most Americans, it really is fair to poor. Wages have failed to keep up with rising prices. Even in 2005, a year in which the economy grew quite fast, the income of most non-elderly families lagged behind inflation. The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

So, what is Bush's response to this apparently quite successful attack on his credibility? Does he come up with facts and figures to prove his point? Does he rally support for his position with lofty Churchillian rhetoric? Not quite.

Following his usual practice, Bush refused to utter Chavez' name during a news conference with the president of Uruguay — or even explain why he wouldn't.. ..Bush said he favors a more tranquil form of engagement with his neighbors to the south.

"I would call our diplomacy quiet and effective diplomacy," Bush said.
[...]
White House press secretary Tony Snow said Thursday that while it is tough to ignore Chavez' verbal jousts, Bush was concentrating on his meetings with more like-minded counterparts.

"I know you want to make this trip about Chavez," Snow told reporters aboard Air Force One as it flew to Uruguay. "It's not."

Yeah, right Tony. Ignoring your detractors instead of responding to them is a really mature way of governing. Not to mention that Bush's 'more tranquil form of engagement' has already included attempted coups against Chavez of the type that replaced Chile's Salvador Allende with the brutal Augusto Pinochet during the Nixon administration.

I say it's time to change Chimpy's diapers, give him a pacifier, put him down for a nap, and put the adults in charge.

Crossposted to: Ice Station Tango
TAGS: George W. Bush, Spoiled Brat Latin America, Hugo Chavez,

Hu Will Feed China

Remember in Robert Newman's The History of Oil, when Newman talks about how,

"The President of China is called Hu Jintao and China's Prime Minister is called Wen Jiabao? - So the President is Hu, and the Prime Minister is Wen. Ladies and Gentlemen, we are in a marvelous early twentieth century vaudeville routine."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, here is that vaudeville routine, as performed by 'President Bush' and 'Condi Rice.' Apologies to Abbot and Costello, from whose classic 'who's on first' baseball routine it is taken.



TAGS: Humor, Abbot and Costello, Robert Newman, Hu Jintao

Mythbusting the Bush Administration

“I reject your reality and substitute my own.” - Adam Savage, The Dungeon Master and George W. Bush, the other dungeon master.

“Well, Buster can’t give the Nazi salute without help, Jamie.”

Any week now, I expect to watch an edition of Mythbusters and to hear this exchange:

Jamie: What’s the myth, Adam?
Adam: We got a daunting challenge in an email from a viewer. The myth is that George W. Bush is even a nominally competent President.
Jamie: (chuckling) Sounds like a no-brainer to me, Adam.
Adam: A slam dunk.
Jamie: A cakewalk.

Before the first commercial break, they’d no doubt come to the conclusion that that not only is the myth of Bush’s competence smashed to dog shit but that Buster, their long-suffering stunt dummy, makes a more suitable chief executive.

Because one fact is readily obvious: This rube named George W. Bush would be pumping gas in a sleepy gas station in East Texas if it wasn’t for who his father is. No amount of shredded or disappeared incriminating documents, no volume of spin doctoring, white-washing, denials or right wing bloviating and bellowing can change the fact that this breathing Brooks Brothers suit mannequin has been a miserable, catastrophic failure his whole life. Yet, he’s been spared the indignity of leaning on fenders and squeegeeing bird shit off windshields by dubious virtue of his and his father’s powerful friends.

Oh, yes, Jamie and Adam could bust the inexplicably enduring myth of the competence of this barely-functioning tool of every earth-crippling right wing agenda on the planet. I imagine it would go something like this:

Jamie: OK, there are a few things we can gauge to determine the competence of a chief executive. One of them is their foreign policy. We collected some clips from Youtube of George Bush’s speeches and we’re going to compare the results.
Adam (wheeling in Buster): Well, Buster’s up to the challenge.
Jamie: Nice business suit. It actually looks good on Buster.
Adam: I got it from Duke Cunningham’s yard sale. OK, run the tape of Bush announcing Shock and Awe in Iraq.
Bush on TV: “On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign… Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder…”
Jamie: OK, that was back on March 19, 2003. Icasualties.org says that 3118 US troops have been killed since then. Let’s see what Buster would’ve done about Iraq.
Narrator: So Jamie and Adam waited a half hour but Buster just sat there in his suit and didn’t invade anyone.
Adam: No mention of an illegal and unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation, no bogus WMD or al Qaeda claims. Troops killed in Iraq under President Buster: Zero.
Narrator: So, Buster wins this round. But President Bush is just getting warmed up and isn’t about to exit in defeat quite yet.
Adam: So, what’s the emergency response test?
Jamie: Another qualification for a chief executive is said to be how well as well as how quickly they respond to emergencies. There’s no better way of testing that than by watching archived footage of what happened on 9/11.
Narrator: So Jamie rolls the tape of George Bush in that classroom on 9/11 and gives America an education.
Jamie: Now as you can see on the playback Chief of Staff Andrew Card tells President Bush about the other plane hitting the 2nd WTC tower. Start the timer.
Narrator: Finally, after seven minutes, Bush gets up.
Jamie: So, it took George W. Bush a full seven minutes to get up off his little chair and to respond to the nation’s biggest disaster. You have My Pet Goat?
Adam: Right here. My boys didn’t want to part with it, though. I’ll just put this in his lap…
Jamie: Upside down? There’s no call for that, Adam. Start the timer…
Narrator: Like his flesh and blood counterpart, Buster does nothing but look somewhat presidential. Then, six and a half minutes into the experiment, Buster does something extraordinary and… busts a move.
Adam: Whoa!
Jamie: Buster keeled over!
Adam: Time elapsed?
Jamie: 6:27.
Adam: So, Buster moved before Bush!
Jamie: Well, it wasn’t as if Buster actually displayed any disaster response skills. You just didn’t sit him up straight.
Adam: Still…
Jamie: Yeah, still… Buster the dummy actually moved before George W. Bush and that has to be factored in.
Adam: So, are you ready to declare this myth busted?
Jamie: Not quite. I want to do one more experiment…
Narrator: After the break, the boys give Buster the all-important pretzel test.
Jamie: Well, it’s been three minutes now and Buster hasn’t choked, yet.

Bush's Credibility..

..File with: Tooth Fairy, Unicorn

Just prior to the Stoat of the Onion address, Keith Olbermann aired this review of Bush's past SOTU speeches, and the veracity of the statements made therein. Of course most prominent were the lies bringing the country into the war in Iraq, but there were also the repeated broken promises. We will catch Osama bin Laden, whatever it takes. We will provide the army with the troops and equipment they need. We will listen to the generals. This administration has been nothing more than an endless string of lies, broken promises, and failures.

Review of Past SOTU statements

As KO concludes, the only goal truly accomplished by BushCo™ is the Orwellian goal of perpetual war against an implacable and undefeatable enemy. Heckuva job, King Codpiece.

There are broken promises Olbermann omits: No child will be left behind, but no funding will be provided. We will strive towards energy independence, but no funding will be provided for that either. I'm sure I missed some too. But the biggest broken promise of all came in January, 2001; the promise Bush made on assuming office. When he swore to uphold the constitution and the laws of the United States of America.
TAGS: Bush, SOTU, Keith Olbermann, Tooth Fairy

Bush Defends His Plan..

..NOT!!

pResident Bush's 20 minute speech just ended. My immediate impressions.

The body of this speech was unremarkable to the point of being totally irrelevant. After being given many chances to pull his reputation out of the shitcan of history, he has learned nothing, and there is nothing new here. Given yet another last chance to vindicate himself, he fails miserably. How many last chances does this guy think he has? After a lifetime of having his ass pulled out of every situation, he apparently believes that number to be unlimited. But he has never exhibited any facility with numbers.

When is he going to learn? - Every time he talks at length about the dire consequences of leaving Iraq to the USA, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and 'our other friends in the Middle East', it only reminds people that those dire consequences would not pertain had he never invaded Iraq to begin with.

When is he going to learn? - Pulling Joe Lieberman (Independent - NOT!!) off the bottom of the deck does not constitute an ace in the hole any more (although it sounds something like Ace and Hole.) So a phrase like 'key members of the Congress and Senate' that includes LIEberman's name no longer invokes images of bipartisan co-operation in the American mind. The Republicans' withdrawal of support for their own official candidate, and their endorsement of Joe in the last election are still fresh in everyone's mind. Joe's entire career was well and truly exposed then as a false flag operation - now he has progressed from DINO to IINO (Independent in name only.) Any so-called Democrats that continue to support the pResident's agenda in any way only serve to expose themselves as wolves in sheep's clothing. Come the next election - see ya', wouldn't want to be ya'. In fact, Bush should not be bandying the word 'bipartisan' around at all any more. Increasingly it is coming to mean the defection of more and more Republicans to join the opposition to him.

When is he going to learn? - anything.

Update 2.0: (Jan 11, 4:30 pm, EST) As promised, here's the video from Keith Olbermann discussing Bush's credibility, or lack thereof.

Countdown: 01/10/07

(You can also download WMV and QT versions, courtesy of Crooks and Liars)

When is he going to learn? - That nobody believes a word he says any more.

TAGS: George Bush, Imbecile In Chief, Iraq Speech, Learning Impaired