Sunday, July 31, 2005

Constitution? Who the hell needs that?

As if you needed any more proof that the Republican Party has no interest in the Constitution or the rule of law.
Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim that the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.

More here.

Saturday, July 30, 2005

No timetables for the enemy. But check again next month.

6/24/05, George W. Bush: “There are not going to be any timetables. I have told this to the prime minister. We are there to complete a mission, and it's an important mission....Why would you say to the enemy: Here's a timetable, just go ahead and wait us out? It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you're conceding too much to the enemy.”

7/28/05: BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's prime minister said Wednesday he wants U.S. troops "on their way out" as soon as his government can protect its new democracy. The top American general in the country said he hopes to begin significant withdrawal by next spring.

Oops.

Sadistic logic

There are times when I honestly just grow so exhausted at all the psychopathic depravity of this adminstration and its policies that I honestly wonder if this is what Hell is like. BE WARNED. The following summary concerning torture from the American trained Iraqi police is not for the weak of stomach:

The Observer has seen photographic evidence of post-mortem and hospital examinations of alleged terror suspects from Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle which demonstrate serious abuse of suspects including burnings, strangulation, the breaking of limbs and - in one case - the apparent use of an electric drill to perform a knee-capping.

We not only condone this sort of thing, we fund it, train others to do it and lead by example. The facts are a matter of public record. Man's inhumanity to man is being endorsed and sponsored by this administration's policies. Pure and simple. These robotic Republican lunatics can hem and haw and joke about it all they like. But torture is torture. Cruelty is cruelty. Sadism is fucking sadism. I'd go so far as to say that anyone who delights in torture enough to sport something like this should be considered a possible danger to society. Same sociopaths that would giggle over an "I Heart Attica" or "I Heart Auschwitz" t-shirt.

And only someone so fucked up as to actually get off on hurting someone would dare defend what we've been doing as "good for America", especially at the spiritual level. To anyone who would find this amusing, I question their possession of a soul:
Mr. Dilawar asked for a drink of water, and one of the two interrogators, Specialist Joshua R. Claus, 21, picked up a large plastic bottle. But first he punched a hole in the bottom, the interpreter said, so as the prisoner fumbled weakly with the cap, the water poured out over his orange prison scrubs. The soldier then grabbed the bottle back and began squirting the water forcefully into Mr. Dilawar's face.

"Come on, drink!" the interpreter said Specialist Claus had shouted, as the prisoner gagged on the spray. "Drink!"

At the interrogators' behest, a guard tried to force the young man to his knees. But his legs, which had been pummeled by guards for several days, could no longer bend. An interrogator told Mr. Dilawar that he could see a doctor after they finished with him. When he was finally sent back to his cell, though, the guards were instructed only to chain the prisoner back to the ceiling.

"Leave him up," one of the guards quoted Specialist Claus as saying.

Several hours passed before an emergency room doctor finally saw Mr. Dilawar. By then he was dead, his body beginning to stiffen. It would be many months before Army investigators learned a final horrific detail: Most of the interrogators had believed Mr. Dilawar was an innocent man who simply drove his taxi past the American base at the wrong time.

This isn't taking the war to the enemy. This is beating the better angels of our nature to a bloody pulp and having a laugh about doing it. The more this country continues down a path of cruelty at all costs, the sooner the world will march to that beat, ultimately leading us to a human rights epidemic we will be too ill-equipped, morally and rhetorically, to stop. Another Rwanda. Another Yugoslavia. Is that what we want? America is supposed to be the shining light of civilization. If we're too busy inflicting suffering upon innocents, who else will take our place?

Bush-lovers have no idea the self-destructive whirlwind they're reaping here. And probably don't even care.

And while there are days (like today, having just finished reading Janet Gunter's thorough record of America's new love affair with third world sadism) that I think no one of any importance opposes these acts, I found a spark of hope in the lawyers of our nation's military.

God bless these courageous souls for taking a stand against our government's sickness. And God's curse on the twisted fucks who not only turn a blind eye, but fight passionately to continue torturing people.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, July 27 - Senior military lawyers lodged vigorous and detailed dissents in early 2003 as an administration legal task force concluded that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, newly disclosed documents show.

Despite the military lawyers' warnings, the task force concluded that military interrogators and their commanders would be immune from prosecution for torture under federal and international law because of the special character of the fight against terrorism.

In memorandums written by several senior uniformed lawyers in each of the military services as the legal review was under way, they had urged a sharply different view and also warned that the position eventually adopted by the task force could endanger American service members.

Batshit crazy

Want to know a pretty likely indicator that the sun is slowly setting on the Republican legacy? When they start returning to the conspiracy theories and insane narratives within their own heads.

Then again, I guess that's always been so. But it seems to be building in intensity again of late, now that the November champagne is getting a little stale.

FROM CRAZY (From frothing conservative pundit, Hugh Hewitt): For a nation that is the midst of a poker craze, you would think that by now most would have figured out that President Bush isn't the sort of character who calls "All In" twice a month. Rather, he plays his hands well, wins most of the time, and watches as his opponents throw down cards in disgust and walk away. True enough, Bush hasn't brought home Social Security reform, and Democratic obstruction on that and a host of other issues will be part of the campaign in '06. Bush knows that his place at the table goes on for three and half more years. But he keeps piling up win after win. When the "legacy" detectives come 'round in '09 and thereafter, they won't be struggling --as they have been with Clinton-- to find anything of note."

...TO CRAZIER (From the conservative blog Colossus): A lot of attention is being paid to the new ABC TV Show, Commander in Chief, featuring Geena Davis as an accidental president. But a lot of people (OK, me) are saying that this show is a nefarious plot to advance the notion of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The thought is that if we, the submoronic television viewers, get used to seeing a woman president on TV, we'll be more inclined to vote for one in 2008."

...TO CRAZIEST (Read at Tom Tomorrow): Apparently a guest on Fox News has suggested that the innocent man shot by London police may have been an al Qaeda decoy... There are times when I really don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe next someone will suggest that the taxi driver known only as Dilawar tortured himself to death, to make the U.S. look bad."

Hugh Hewitt makes me laugh. It's clear he either just finished watching The Cincinnati Kid or Celebrity Poker Showdown before he sat down to write that post. Unfortunately a mountain of poker metaphors can't save you from what is undeniably a pretty thin lie.

So you say Democrats are to blame for the minimal support from the public on Bush's Social Security reform (I honestly wonder when blaming the Democrats for every asinine Republican fuck-up will ever end)?

Here's the truth. The people didn't want it, Hugh. They weren't interested, no matter how many Bamboozlepalooza rallies Bush tried to throw in their towns. And legacies? Given that Bush's legacy thus far has been 400 billion in deficit spending, 1700+ American sons and daughters dead in a pointless, inflaming war and a terrorist threat that's more vigorous than ever, I wouldn't say the sonuvabitch's legacy is anything to crow about.

Or maybe it'd more digestible if I stick to the poker analogy: Bush won one good round in November and has been trying to bullshit his way through a stream of bad hands ever since. If it were his money, that'd be one thing. But a growing majority of Americans are getting sick of him gambling away our future.

If I were Bush or the Republican party, I'd be damn nervous right now about what cards get dealt in 2006.

Nervous enough, I'd wager, to start ranting like a batshit lunatic about conspiracies and evil Democrats.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Al Qaeda and new recruits

If you're not reading Juan Cole's blog, Informed Comment, you should be.

I think it would be a mistake to see al-Qaeda as a corporation where the CEO just gives orders to lower-level employees. It is mainly "a way of working," as a London policeman pointed out. It is intended as a model to inspire local groups, and as a global network to encourage them.

But occasionally the top leaders do intervene to order specific attacks, where they still have that organizational capacity. It is entirely possible that both London and Sharm El Sheikh were two instances where they could and did.

The worrisome thing is that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are obviously able to use the increasing anger in the Muslim world over Palestine and Iraq to recruit "newskins", who are not known to intelligence organizations in the countries where they operate.

Strategically, it is increasingly clear that if you wanted to wage a "war on terror," letting Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri alone while you invade and destabilize Iraq and let the Israeli-Palestinian conflict just fester was a very bad idea.

Many commentators are putting out the straw man argument that the Iraq War cannot be blamed for terrorism because September 11 and Bali, e.g., happened before the Iraq War.

This argument is so dishonest that it should make your blood boil when you hear it. No one is alleging that all the instances of radical Muslim terrorism can be traced to the Iraq War. What is being argued is that the Iraq War provided the already-existing terror networks with an enormous propaganda and recruiting windfall.


And the irony of this shouldn't be lost on Bush lovers who are fueling this war:

"Arab-American" wrestler Muhammad Hassan has taken a forced leave of absence from UPN's SmackDown after his appearance on the show two weeks ago -- on the day of the London bombings -- drew hundreds of complaints. Joanna Massey, a spokeswoman for UPN, which airs SmackDown!, said that the network had asked World Wrestling Entertainment to remove episodes featuring Hassan "because it was the right thing to do." Hassan's real name is Mark Copani; he is an Italian-American Buddhist.

Because naturally the London bombings were done by Arabs, not British Pakistanis and a Jamaican. 'Cause, y'know, them terr'rists is all Ay-rabs.

Morons.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

No maverick. Just another shill.

I would've voted for John McCain had he won the Republican presidential candidacy in 2000. Thank god he didn't.

As the years have gone on, I've realized what a sycophantic, political opportunist Mr. McCain is. He's no maverick. He's not the guy who sticks to his guns in the name of what's right or what's fair. All of that is a media invention. The truth is far less than his image machine would allow. In reality, he'd sooner cowtow to neo-conservatives and the pseudo-Libertarians, would sooner sell his mother to the wolves if he thought it could get him enough votes with the right people, than do the right thing.

Why am I ranting about John McCain today? Because Americablog just posted this up a few hours ago and it pretty much killed any belief I may have had that John McCain is a man of integrity.

On ABC's This Week, Stephanopoulos just read the text of the Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement that White House employees are required to sign:
"I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearance I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment..."

Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that this agreement should be abided by?

McCain: I do, but that also implies that someone knowingly revealed...

Stephanopoulos: This covers negligent disclosures

McCain: Again I don't know what the definition of "negligent" is.

Karl Rove fucked him over in 2000 so badly that I'm amazed, honest to god AMAZED, that McCain is defending the little snake. Not only did Rove spread a whisper campaign that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was the result of an affair with another woman (which wasn't true), the dirty tricks didn't stop there. Rumor mills pumped out lies that included: McCain's wife Cindy's drug abuse problem (she didn't have one); McCain's homosexuality (he isn't gay); McCain ratting out his fellow American prisoners in Hanoi (he didn't); his mental instability due to his torture at the hands of the Viet Cong (he wasn't unstable); that he wasn't a friend of Vietnam veterans and their interests (patently untrue).

Rove spat on his life and his kids and this guy has the nerve to apologize on his behalf, pulling a Clintonian "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" dodge, defending Turd Blossom when he knows perfectly well that Rove risked our national security for political revenge? Are you fucking serious, John?

McCain's a whore. There's just no two ways about it. Any individual that would prostitute their integrity like that for a political machine that tried to ruin your life, HAS to be getting something out of the deal. I just hope it's worth the price you're paying, Senator. 'Cause it looks pretty pathetic from here.

Bush admin hands Al-Qaeda another free pass

Honest to god, their bungling is simply astounding.
The Justice Department blocked efforts by federal prosecutors in Seattle in 2002 to bring criminal charges against Haroon Aswat, a suspect in the July 7 London bombings, according to a report in today's Seattle Times.

"They're in their last throes" doesn't mean a whole lot when you're letting these shitheads get away scot-free.

Friday, July 22, 2005

V for Vendetta

The new trailer for Warner Bros. V For Vendetta movie is out and beyond looking like a love letter to liberty over fascism, it might very well add a pop culture nail to the coffin of the Religious Right. The message of the film couldn't be any clearer.



My favorite quote? "People should not be afraid of their governments. The governments should be afraid of their people."

Looks good.

The unseen Abu Ghraib photos

Thanks to the legal work of the CCR, the ACLU and other concerned groups working through Freedom of Information Act channels, today was supposed to have brought about the release of the Abu Ghraib photos the public has yet to see. You know, the rest of the pictures that nearly made members of Congress sick when the complete collection was privately shown in May of 2004? Some examples of those photos include:

  • Soldiers forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing

  • A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee

  • Prison guards threatening male detainees with rape

  • Prison guards sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick. (The army report neglects to mention that the aforementioned detainee was under 17 years old)

  • So why haven't these new photos hit the media wires and Internet like a napalm bomb today? It would seem the Bush Administration has seen fit to make sure those other photos never see daylight again.

    From the CCR site:

    In June, the government requested and received an extension from the judge stating that they needed time in order to redact the faces of the men, women and children believed to be shown in the photographs and videos. They were given until today to produce the images, but at the eleventh hour filed a motion to oppose the release of the photos and videos, based on an entirely new argument: they are now requesting a 7(F) exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to withhold law enforcement-related information in order to protect the physical safety of individuals. Today’s move is the latest in a series of attempts by the government to keep the images from being made public and to cover up the torture of detainees in U.S. custody around the world.

    Busy little psychopaths, aren't they?

    EDIT 7/25/2005: Don't be fooled by Republican lies. This is not a few 'bad apples'. This is not an aberration. This is consistent policy on the part of the White House, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, policy on open and unmoderated torture that Cheney and others are currently fighting with Congress to keep.

    This is not what America stands for.

    Add 'em up

  • Cost of calling reporters to out CIA operative for political payback? 5 cents a minute and a DoJ investigation.

  • Cost of getting caught with a classified report listing that CIA agent's name? Roll of TUMS and the best damn defense lawyer you can find.

  • Getting busted for lying to a grand jury and shitting your pants at the possibility of jailtime?

  • Priceless.

    For everything else... there's the White House.

    Wednesday, July 20, 2005

    The anti-Earl Warren

    There's not a whole lot that I want to mark down at the moment about Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts to take O'Conner's seat on the US Supreme Court, primarily for two reasons.

    Roberts comes into this gig a veritable unknown, something that I'm sure was surgically crafted by the Rove machine as a means of placating conservatives (who see his record and more or less conclude that he could pleasantly surprise them) while giving little ammunition to progressives to protest against him. Make no bones about it. Roberts will develop into the anti-Earl Warren. Because of or in spite of Robert's small judicial record (he's only been a judge for 2 years fer chrissakes), there's not a whole helluva lot to pin on him, much less say about him. He'll been flown through Congress as a middle-of-the-road judge and end up turning the Constitutional table over once he's on the bench, scaring the shit out of us much, much later. (We'll see in September if Democrats have anything to say in protest, though from the looks of things right now, I highly doubt it).

    That's bullet number one.

    Bullet number two is that Bush putting his guy on the SCOTUS should pale in comparison to the on-fire controversy of Karl Rove's egregious CIA outing. I watched left-blog after left-blog this week bitch and moan about how Bush was announcing Roberts in an attempt to move the media focus onto something besides Turd Blossom. And yet, sure enough, those same blogs took the bait like nobody's business, ditching just about all discussion on Rove in favor of rooting out Robert's past. The Daou Report is practically peppered on the Left with either minimal Rove savaging or complete ballroom dancing with the Roberts/Supreme Court distraction. Even Right wingers are wiping their brows and thanking god that the Rove controversy is out of the spotlight.

    Their mistake. As the trouble's about to get a whole lot hotter.

    Saturday, July 16, 2005

    Certain meltdown

    With the recent news of a plan by UK and US officials to slowly withdraw troops from Iraq, I thought it might be high time to put a little spotlight on what is all but inevitable to happen following American disengagement.

    Here's the plain truth, folks... Iraq is plunging into certain meltdown. It's been in the cards for a while. We just happen to be the stupid little idiots who opened Pandora's box.

    A little history.

    Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was a nation of civil law and secularism, albeit only as a result of its dictator's brutal reign. Regardless of the demagoguery by Republicans to paint Saddam as Joe Stalin reincarnate, Saddam kept his house in order and kept a tight lid on any aggression between Shia and Sunni Muslims. The suicide bombings, the beheadings, the violence, ALL of that was nonexistent under Saddam's regime. His intimidation tactics in the 70s, his brutality, were the necessary means to establishing order, strict discipline and towards bringing into line the two conflicting sects.

    But now, with Hussein gone and with no real way to contain the chaos, much less the religious animosity between Shia and Sunni Iraqis, sectarian violence is exploding across the country. And old conflicts, old clashes of belief, are becoming the gunpowder this war will set alight.

    While Americans believe that US is the prime target right now (going so far as to advocate the annihilation of our troops because "at least we're fighting them over there"), there's more to this conflict than meets the myopia of our media outlets. Shia solidarity with the US-sponsored government and the overthrow of formerly Baathist Sunnis is turning Iraq into a country divided. Once we withdraw, there will be no other enemy amongst Shia and Sunni, save for each other. Hell, they're already starting to tear each other apart (Looking at it closer, I almost wonder if this was the entire plan all along, as Iraq has been a prime powderkeg for whipping Islamic sects into a frenzy for centuries now).

    The Al Qaeda cell in Iraq is lead by Zarqawi, a Sunni Jordanian and Al Qaeda itself, the core of it anyway (Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri), is lead by a Sunni Saudi and Sunni Egyptian. 99% of the bombings in Iraq following the US invasion have come from Sunnis: Either puritanical Salafists or former Baathists eager to take back control.

    On the other side of Sunni Iraqis, you have Shia Iraqis. Too used to the civil order under Saddam's regime and too fed up with the inept handling of the violence by American troops, they're growing more and more agitated by the steady barrage of bombings slaughtering their children and destroying their religious sites. While Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the most influential religious leader in Iraq, has continually urged Shia Iraqis not to respond to Salafist attacks, Moqtada al Sadr's Madhi Army, and the vigilante payback it dishes out to Sunni extremists, is the only line of defense against Shia Iraqi genocide. Militias are becoming the only answer. God knows, the daily intimidated, American-trained police can't handle it.

    And with Syria and Saudi Arabia fueling that Salafist insurgency from the West and with the predominantly Shia Iran at Iraq's East, Iraq is very much on the knife-edge of outright sectarian war. Any doubters of Iraq's descent should read the recent article in The Weekend Australian. It makes a cogent and fact-based case tackling the inevitable prospects of a rising conflict there. This is what the US has reaped. This is what Operation Iraqi Freedom will bring the Iraqi people. More death. More suffering. More war. Not democracy.

    But there is hope, scant and potentially scary hope to Western interests, though it may be. Iran's recent declaration of solidarity with the Iraqi government and its promise of financial support & military training, gives life to the chance that a democracy may yet exist in that region. And here's why.

    Ayatollah Sistani is about as moderate a Shia cleric as they come. His fatwa, or legal pronouncement, that Shia clergy should try stay out of politics, and his own moderate personal politics when it comes to religion and state, is considered by many to be an invigoration of sorts to Iran's current liberal reformers (Refomers in Iran petitioned Sistani to throw his voice into their political efforts last year. He declined). With the reform movement growing (despite the presidential election of extreme hardliner Ahmadinejad) the cross pollination between Iraqi Shias and Irani Shias could end up fostering a less extreme culture of government in both countries, lending itself towards the reform movement cause in Iran and ultimately giving Shias greater strength. An Iraqi Civil War could also distract Al Qaeda from its obsession with 'Western occupation' and move the focus of their aims towards Shias and an inter-religious strife. It's a shitty outcome. But in much of Islamic history, warfare within Islam has tempered and sharpened the faith. Given it cause to reexamine itself, reform itself. This could be the catalyst that moderates have wanted for some time.

    In the meantime, we must work towards removing our troops from Iraq as quickly and as safely as possible. Our continued prescence there not only keeps the Iraqis from sorting out their nation's political identity for themselves... but also postpones what is inevitably a reckoning between Islamic factions that could work out auspiciously for America and for the world.

    We've done enough damage as it is. The time has come to bring our soldiers home.

    Friday, July 15, 2005

    More incompetence

    Remember that deal I mentioned in previous posts about the Bush administration giving out too much information to the press last year over a captured Al Qaeda laptop? The media leak that ended up botching a major Pakistani sting and allowed countless terrorist operatives to slip away?

    It looks like that case had a greater impact than any of us realized. As those same Al Qaeda cell operatives who slipped away are being connected to the bombings in London.

    Here's Americablog with more details from ABC News. Basically, in an effort to look like they were doing something to fight terrorism, the Bush administration ended up alerting several terrorist cells to exposure, leading to their escape and later to the London attacks.

    I can't say it enough. If you lie down with Neocons, you'll get up with terrorists.

    Wednesday, July 13, 2005

    Puncture here

    Bloomberg blows holes in Rove's lousy defenders....
    The "Wilson/Rove Research & Talking Points'' memo distributed by RNC Director of Television Carolyn Weyforth contends, "Both the Senate Committee on Intelligence and the CIA found assessments Wilson made in his report were wrong.''

    Yet the Senate panel conclusions didn't discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn't solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson's report didn't change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue, while also concluding that an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate "overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.''

    ....while this independent writer from NY lays it all down:

    Karl Rove is paid to be an advisor. In that capacity he should not have had the access to the identity of Valerie Plame; dot number one. Judith Miller never wrote an article about this, yet was willing to go to jail instead of reveal her source; dot number two. Valerie Plame was working on the very issue, WMD, which Bush was pretending at the time he wanted to protect us from; dot number three. All of these things point back to the Downing Street Memos which prove impeachable offenses; dot number four.

    Connect the dots. Call a liar a liar. Call a traitor a traitor. It is time for the house of cards to fall. The American people can handle the truth. We will recover as long as the truth still stands for something. As long as honor still drives our purpose and feeds our soul. As long as we can have our faith in government restored. Connect the dots.

    Tuesday, July 12, 2005

    Not just weak on terrorism....Worthless on it

    Here's what I have the greatest trouble reconciling with this damn administration. 9/11 was more than just a political windfall. The deaths of 3000 people was a chilling wake-up call to a problem we could no longer ignore. No longer was terrorism that menace 'over there'. It came here and pounded down our door. It threatened our families. It threatened our lives. Terrorism is a threat, it is a disease of inhumanity and it has to be eliminated effectively.

    (I'm not about to get into the whole 'chickens come to roost' defense of other people on the Left. That argument, that the US 'deserves' what it gets, does little or nothing to address the ironclad mindset of Takfiri Wahhabists, a strain of Islam so virulent and dominating that it makes Dominionists look like children. Anybody who jumps up to carp ad nauseaum about the madness that is the American Taliban better not be bending over backwards to turn a blind eye to Islam's Religious Right)

    But what infuriates me the most, time and time again, is this administration's long and screwy record of just outright fucking negligence when it comes to catching these guys. For example:

  • the PR Hiroshima that was and remains Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. What a way to let extremist Muslims undermine moderates. "Americans don't mean us harm? Don't mean to subjugate fellow Muslims? Well what do you call dogs, prisoners being beaten to death and a guy with a hood on and electric wires strapped to his testicles? Oh, that's right. The Americans call it liberation."

  • the Clouseau-like idiocy that traded Bin Laden's capture for a war in Iraq. Here you have a country that had not one suicide bombing before we came along. Not one. Not one instance where the terrorists were in charge. Not one mosque or religious celebration rocked by violence or the deaths of children. No weapons of mass destruction. Barely a threat of any sort to its neighbors post Gulf War. Now? Now the place is lit up with terrorism every. single. day.)

  • the Pentagon command incompetence that resulted in soldiers not securing Iraq's explosives at Al Qaqaa, letting them be used against our own soldiers later by insurgents. Of all the 13000 official wounded, I wonder how many of them lost their limbs because Rumsfeld or his underlings decided that securing Iraq's bomb-making material really wasn't that important.

  • the cock-up that was leaking the name of a major figure in an Al Qaeda sting. Score one for the war on terra, eh?

  • and now, discovered only recently by the catatonic mainstream press, the almost jubilant disregard of national security that is the Valerie Plame incident.

  • And that's just the war on terrorism. I could probably hammer out a whole seperate list of the Bush administration's mistakes domestically or diplomatically (*cough*cough* deficit at 7 trillion*cough*cough*billions lost and missing at the Pentagon*cough* North Korea or Iran*cough*).

    The simple truth is that the Bush administration has consistently failed to secure "liberty, peace and democracy" for the American people, much less for the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, their actions have habitually resulted in the opposite. Look at the freedom that's 'on the march' in Iraq. It's nothing but chaos and a terrorist carnival now. Mission Accomplished, George.

    And still neo-con Republicans love him. Drunk on November champagne, they ignore the staggering amount of evidence that Bush isn't doing anything for anybody and blindly trumpet his success at a second term as if it was some kind of rubber stamp from God affirming their selfish little beliefs.

    All I can say is that it's pretty goddamn clear Bush-supporting Republicans do not care about this country. If they aren't undermining it from the outside (rhetorically or legislatively), by wasting our soldiers and our financial resources in an effort to create new terrorist training camps, they're attempting to kill it from the inside: by unravelling Constitutional protections, by bleeding the country dry economically; by fighting to make sure gays are legally recognized only as second class citizens; by selling, without apology, the rights of the American people, to large corporations and extremist Christian leaders; or by.... and this is the one that reeeeeally gets my blood boiling... by working to paralyze our Constitution and replacing it in turn, with a theocracy.

    I honestly wonder if that's what their intent is all along. To drag this country to the brink of destruction, by tearing it apart from all angles. Maybe, just maybe, that's part of their postmillenialist Left Behind fantasy. To see it all smoldering in ash. Maybe they think, in some twisted little part of their morally deprived belief system, that if they just blow the tits off the world, Jesus will come and prove all their detractors wrong. And then everything will be roses. Children will listen to their parents. Everyone will go to church. Gays will disappear. The Bible will be the only law of the land and it'll rain kittens, candy, popcorn and balloons every Sunday evening.

    It's a disconnection from reality I can barely comprehend sometimes.

    And now I think I need a drink.

    Monday, July 11, 2005

    Just desserts

    It would seem this is what you get when you get in bed with the Wal-marts and other large corporations as a means of greasing your Dominionist agenda.

    You get screwed.

    From the NY Times:

    Conservative Christian groups seeking to galvanize support for a battle over a Supreme Court nomination are rallying around the unlikely symbol of a mega-church in Los Alamitos, Calif., one of a handful of houses of worship that have tangled with towns over the use of eminent domain to take their properties.

    In the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling two weeks ago in favor of using eminent domain for development that increases a city's tax base, many Christian groups are warning supporters that the tax-exempt status of churches may make them targets, often citing the attempt to take a plot of land from the Cottonwood Christian Center in Los Alamitos.

    Many legal experts say the fears are unfounded, and a federal appeals court ultimately blocked the condemnation of Cottonwood's property. But calling the decision evidence that the court is out of touch, several Christian groups have seized on the ruling as a potent new motivation to fight for a conservative to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring.


    A conservative to replace O'Connor? Like who? Priscilla "Never Met A Corporate Payoff I Didn't Like" Owen?

    Honest to god, I'm trying not to laugh. But it's hard.

    White House actually being hammered by mainstream press?

    Naaaah. It can't be. Is this the sign of the Apocalypse? When mainstream journalists actually get off their asses and ask probing, investigatory questions? Surely they've recieved their weekly sedatives and pay-off checks by now, right?

    This from the White House press corp briefing today about Karl Rove and the Plame controversy. If you're unfamilar with the intricacies of this growing debate, click here for Salon's latest update:

    QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

    QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

    MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

    QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

    You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

    MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

    QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

    MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

    QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.


    Mind you, it's not any sort of drubbing that'll get anyone anywhere. Slapping Scott McClellan around is small-time journalism and his squirmy replies will be barely noticed by most of the American people. What should be happening is that these same journalists should be fielding these same questions, speedball-style, at the Commander-In-Chief. But I'm not holding my breath that that'll happen anytime soon. If ever.

    Y'know, looking at McClellan's responses, it's pretty clear that being the Press Secretary for this administration requires heretofore unseen verbal acrobatics and ninja-like ability to dodge a line of questioning. I honestly wonder if Scott's wife has to hose down his pants with a fire extinguisher before they're able to go to bed.

    How he sleeps at night is probably a different issue altogether.

    Now for some reason I smell a set-up with this Rove/Plame business. Mind you, I don't know what Fitzgerald knows and the man may have something in either knowing where the leak came from and/or who perjured themselves by disavowing knowledge about it. Regardless, the Left Blogosphere has been baited into this kind of bear trap before. The CBS 'memogate' fiasco comes immediately to mind (despite the mountain of additional evidence that still stands uncontested). And with all the admissions from Rove's lawyers that Turd Blossom didn't knowingly reveal Plame's identity, Fitzgerald might just have an easier time with a perjury charge than he would pinning Rove to a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

    Doesn't make much difference to me. If Rove is connected, the sonuvabitch needs to be taken down. I'll be the first in line to bust out the champagne if he gets nailed for perjury. I'm just skeptical, with the wily dumb-luck nature of this presidency, that anything will truly stick. Or that anything will actually be pursued in this matter.

    Here's to hoping I'm wrong.