The majority of Americans are not in favor of Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq and an emerging majority favors immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. With this polling information coupled to recent public outcries over federal incompetence in response to hurricane Katrina, Democrats do not appear to be able or even interested, to take advantage of the public’s discontent.
Of course, there have been sniping remarks occasionally but, no constructive plan has been set forth by Democrats. Many are still in the Bush Iraq war camp and continue their lame attempts to justify their support for the illegal occupation. Can this be due to their having given Bush the authority to invade and now, don’t want to be seen as incompetent or even complicit?
That does not appear to be the case when Democrats like Joe Biden appear on news shows to claim Bush is wrong while insisting that the U.S. can not leave Iraq. Hilary, the other high profile Democrat, takes the same approach in regards to Iraq as part of her plan to strengthen her appeal to moderate and moderate-conservative voters.
So, what are the choices for the growing number of voters displeased with our involvement in the occupation of Iraq? Republicans refuse to even consider leaving and may be preparing additional invasions into Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. Democrats offer increased number of troops to stabilize Iraq but, so far have not indicated their predictable support for further invasions.
Since the majority of Americans find neither party’s policies acceptable, why are politicians ignoring voters and avidly advancing an unpopular agenda? Isn’t this a representative government? Aren’t the wishes of the voters supposed to be advocated by the people we elect to public office?
The answers to these questions will be disappointing to anyone believing we still live in a democracy or to those who believe this government is “of, by and for the people” of our once great country.
The political process is awash in corporate money and has evolved into a “Pay to Play” type of commerce. Politicians advance the agenda of the highest bidder, and then attempt to sell it to the voters as good governance. Our system of representative government survives but, the definition of who is represented has changed from the people that elected the politician to the corporation that financed that politician’s campaign. Lastly, politicians elected to office are suppose to represent their constituents but, often find it difficult or even in contrast to the agenda of the corporation financiers they are indebted to.
For our democracy to survive it is absolutely imperative that we remove corporate involvement from the political process and hold our officials accountable to the electorate and not the agenda of big business.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Friday, September 02, 2005
Main Stream Media Getting It
Never are so many eyes opened as there are in the event of a natural disaster, especially the type we are all susceptible to. The people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama have been dealt a shattering blow from Mother Nature and are having to deal with the aftermath the best way they can. This task is not made any easier by the federal government’s lack of an appropriate response. The main stream media has even taken to challenging the excuses and glowing predictions of relief agency leaders. Anderson Cooper, of CNN, literally attacked the Governor of Louisiana for her blubbering gratitude for victim relief that there was absolutely no evidence of as reported by Cooper, himself.
Perhaps, the excesses of the administration has gotten to the reporters in the MSM, since there have been so many so often. The media began reporting on Hurricane Katrina days before it made landfall on the Gulf coast. They were simultaneously reporting on Bush’s lengthy vacation and occasional day trips to promote more of his ideological agenda. The contrast of these photo op joy trips with the increasing severity of the storm bearing down on the coast and little or no preparations taking place seem to have been too much for many of them. When the storm hit with such fury and widespread destruction, yet not severe enough to pry Bush away from his vacation, reporters began asking questions about the lack of assistance for the victims and the left wing blogs mounted a non-stop assault on Resident Bush for remaining on vacation in a time of a national emergency. It was these forces, and not any concern on Bush’s part, that caused him to curtail his vacation (by 2 days) and return to Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately for Bush his personal sacrifice, of actually returning to the White House to do his job, came too late to prevent the MSM from pursuing the embarrassing story of mismanagement that caused the fiasco taking place in New Orleans, Biloxi and all over the Gulf coast. The devastation being aired on both cable and networks have people rightfully upset and the media is not letting this one fade away. Also, because of the high profile of this event coupled with the compassion for the victims felt by those seeing the suffering on the 24/7 coverage, Bush’s and Rove’s standard tactic of blaming the victims is falling flat. The usual culprits, Limbaugh, Barnes, Hume, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc., have been issued their talking points and are dutifully attacking those who stayed in New Orleans because they didn’t have the resources to leave, as being too stupid to receive any help and responsible for bringing this upon themselves. Of course, there are a handful of lunatics that buy this crap and would continue to worship the coke snorting deserter-in-chief regardless if he was raping their daughters in front of them and saying it was for national security. That handful is growing smaller along with the Bushs approval rating.
Yet, with all the noise and babbling from the right, some sanity is making onto the airwaves like the interview Keith Olbermann had with Al Sharpton on MSNBC. I found the following diary on Daily Kos weblog by mcolley:
Olbermann remarked that he had heard Rush Limbaugh earlier today saying that those that were still in New Orleans deserved what they had gotten, as they had chosen to live there. Olbermann went so far as to call him, "that Limbaugh". Denouncing the inherent inconsiderate nature of such a statement.
But Sharpton made the point that struck me: The Right, as embodied by Limbaugh, Frist, Bush, Hastert, DeLay. They would move heaven and earth to save the life of one White Woman in Florida to combat the very idea of euthanasia (which technically it was not). A woman that a decade earlier had lost her ability to so much as ask for help, much less have coherent thoughts about the quality of her own life.
He really hit the mark with his description in regards to the culture of life: This is the culture of life. The culture of life wants to save brain dead white women and unborn children. The culture of life wants you to watch endless non-news about the disappearance of one white teenager in Aruba. The culture of life wants you to support your nation as it kills tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in its Quixotic quest against a non-threat. The culture of life wants a zero-tolerance for looters policy to sound authoritative as babies die of dehydration. The culture of life expects you to take care of yourself, and if you can't, then it is your own fault for getting into that situation in the first place. Fuck off. You had your shot. Station in life, where you hang your hat, and whether you have the $40 at the end of the month to pay for the overpriced gasoline to get out of that home in time is all up to you.
We will just have to wait and see if Bush’s performance in response to Katrina is enough to cause some of the loyal right wing to open their eyes to his uselessness and ineptitude. His continued presence in the White House jeopardizes the people of this country and other countries that depend on our prudent leadership.
Perhaps, the excesses of the administration has gotten to the reporters in the MSM, since there have been so many so often. The media began reporting on Hurricane Katrina days before it made landfall on the Gulf coast. They were simultaneously reporting on Bush’s lengthy vacation and occasional day trips to promote more of his ideological agenda. The contrast of these photo op joy trips with the increasing severity of the storm bearing down on the coast and little or no preparations taking place seem to have been too much for many of them. When the storm hit with such fury and widespread destruction, yet not severe enough to pry Bush away from his vacation, reporters began asking questions about the lack of assistance for the victims and the left wing blogs mounted a non-stop assault on Resident Bush for remaining on vacation in a time of a national emergency. It was these forces, and not any concern on Bush’s part, that caused him to curtail his vacation (by 2 days) and return to Washington, D.C.
Unfortunately for Bush his personal sacrifice, of actually returning to the White House to do his job, came too late to prevent the MSM from pursuing the embarrassing story of mismanagement that caused the fiasco taking place in New Orleans, Biloxi and all over the Gulf coast. The devastation being aired on both cable and networks have people rightfully upset and the media is not letting this one fade away. Also, because of the high profile of this event coupled with the compassion for the victims felt by those seeing the suffering on the 24/7 coverage, Bush’s and Rove’s standard tactic of blaming the victims is falling flat. The usual culprits, Limbaugh, Barnes, Hume, Hannity, O’Reilly, etc., have been issued their talking points and are dutifully attacking those who stayed in New Orleans because they didn’t have the resources to leave, as being too stupid to receive any help and responsible for bringing this upon themselves. Of course, there are a handful of lunatics that buy this crap and would continue to worship the coke snorting deserter-in-chief regardless if he was raping their daughters in front of them and saying it was for national security. That handful is growing smaller along with the Bushs approval rating.
Yet, with all the noise and babbling from the right, some sanity is making onto the airwaves like the interview Keith Olbermann had with Al Sharpton on MSNBC. I found the following diary on Daily Kos weblog by mcolley:
Olbermann remarked that he had heard Rush Limbaugh earlier today saying that those that were still in New Orleans deserved what they had gotten, as they had chosen to live there. Olbermann went so far as to call him, "that Limbaugh". Denouncing the inherent inconsiderate nature of such a statement.
But Sharpton made the point that struck me: The Right, as embodied by Limbaugh, Frist, Bush, Hastert, DeLay. They would move heaven and earth to save the life of one White Woman in Florida to combat the very idea of euthanasia (which technically it was not). A woman that a decade earlier had lost her ability to so much as ask for help, much less have coherent thoughts about the quality of her own life.
He really hit the mark with his description in regards to the culture of life: This is the culture of life. The culture of life wants to save brain dead white women and unborn children. The culture of life wants you to watch endless non-news about the disappearance of one white teenager in Aruba. The culture of life wants you to support your nation as it kills tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in its Quixotic quest against a non-threat. The culture of life wants a zero-tolerance for looters policy to sound authoritative as babies die of dehydration. The culture of life expects you to take care of yourself, and if you can't, then it is your own fault for getting into that situation in the first place. Fuck off. You had your shot. Station in life, where you hang your hat, and whether you have the $40 at the end of the month to pay for the overpriced gasoline to get out of that home in time is all up to you.
We will just have to wait and see if Bush’s performance in response to Katrina is enough to cause some of the loyal right wing to open their eyes to his uselessness and ineptitude. His continued presence in the White House jeopardizes the people of this country and other countries that depend on our prudent leadership.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Is there a strategy?
It is possible that the Democrats have chosen to keep their own counsel while the effects of the Bush administration take their toll on the country and the world. After all, Bush's own policies are causing his poll numbers to fall as fast as the price of oil is rising. So, why should Democrats offer strategies or opinions that are sure to be ridiculed by the corporate pundits and take the country's attention away from the administrations self immolation?
As much as I would like this to be the case, I am more of the opinion that Democrats find themselves at odds with the war in Iraq. The front runners for the presidential nomination are Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden, who have both stated their belief that we must see the war through and warned of dangers by removing the troops immediately. Isn’t this the same song and dance we heard from John Kerry in ‘04’ and can’t we expect the same results?
A scant few Democrats have taken a position in opposition to the war while most keep to the sidelines, making their critical observations in relative safety. But, now there are several Republicans who have come forward to criticize the war and voice their opposition to their own party’s policies in Iraq. The Democrats are now in jeopardy of being behind the curve as more Republicans find their spines and dare to defy Resident Bush’s war policy.
Even the most faithful republicans are approaching their limits for the abuses of power carried out by this administration. The list of atrocities stretches from the administration’s initial disregard of any and all warnings and intelligence offered by the out-going Clinton team, to the current morass of CIA outings, lying to Congress, misleading the country to go to war, wrecking the economy, the environment and America’s reputation around the world. Moderate Republicans are beginning to realize that their political careers will be at stake if the Democrats regain the presidency, and considering the degree to which this administration has taken liberty with policies, laws and the constitution, they certainly can not feel their positions will be secure. In fact, some may be realizing that they can be judged complicit with some of the transgressions perpetrated under Bush, et al.
Democrats need to take a strong stand against the Iraq war and demand the administration take immediate steps to remove our troops and replace them with an international force. They need to take responsibility for abdicating their duty and voting to give the president the power to declare war with Iraq. They need to demand investigations of the Bush administration’s actions leading up to the war and not be afraid to issue indictments to anyone found in violation of US or international law.
In other words, they need to start doing the jobs they are being paid to do.
As much as I would like this to be the case, I am more of the opinion that Democrats find themselves at odds with the war in Iraq. The front runners for the presidential nomination are Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden, who have both stated their belief that we must see the war through and warned of dangers by removing the troops immediately. Isn’t this the same song and dance we heard from John Kerry in ‘04’ and can’t we expect the same results?
A scant few Democrats have taken a position in opposition to the war while most keep to the sidelines, making their critical observations in relative safety. But, now there are several Republicans who have come forward to criticize the war and voice their opposition to their own party’s policies in Iraq. The Democrats are now in jeopardy of being behind the curve as more Republicans find their spines and dare to defy Resident Bush’s war policy.
Even the most faithful republicans are approaching their limits for the abuses of power carried out by this administration. The list of atrocities stretches from the administration’s initial disregard of any and all warnings and intelligence offered by the out-going Clinton team, to the current morass of CIA outings, lying to Congress, misleading the country to go to war, wrecking the economy, the environment and America’s reputation around the world. Moderate Republicans are beginning to realize that their political careers will be at stake if the Democrats regain the presidency, and considering the degree to which this administration has taken liberty with policies, laws and the constitution, they certainly can not feel their positions will be secure. In fact, some may be realizing that they can be judged complicit with some of the transgressions perpetrated under Bush, et al.
Democrats need to take a strong stand against the Iraq war and demand the administration take immediate steps to remove our troops and replace them with an international force. They need to take responsibility for abdicating their duty and voting to give the president the power to declare war with Iraq. They need to demand investigations of the Bush administration’s actions leading up to the war and not be afraid to issue indictments to anyone found in violation of US or international law.
In other words, they need to start doing the jobs they are being paid to do.
Monday, August 22, 2005
A Suggestion for Democrats
The Democratic leaders need to understand that rhetoric like that of Senators Joe Biden, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton is not what their party wants to hear:
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) reason that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country. Washington Post
The very Democrats that have complained that Bush has never defined his strategy for Iraq and has no benchmarks for success, are now claiming the importance of achieving it, but have not themselves attempted to define success.
From the WaPo article above an argument is made that Democrats who voted for the war now cling to the belief that we must stay the course in Iraq. "Clearly Democrats are not united in what is the critique of what we're doing there and what is the answer to what we do next," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled."
I have a suggestion for the Democrats described by Senator Gephardt. First, re-read the Constitution to familiarize yourselves with whom the responsible party is for declaring war. They will learn that - Article I, Section 8 specifies that Congress alone must "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
Next, they should re-read their oath of office - I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Finally, they should contemplate the obvious conflict between having sworn to uphold the Constitution in their capacity of office holders in Congress and the abandonment of that duty they committed when they voted to give the authority to go to war in Iraq to the president. If and when they are able to admit to shirking their responsibility, they should reassess their position on the war based on its legal and moral issues and not its impact on their political careers.
Once they have admitted to having made a mistake they can take action to correct it. If they continue to deny their responsibility, they should not be considered seriously for any office.
Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) reason that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country. Washington Post
The very Democrats that have complained that Bush has never defined his strategy for Iraq and has no benchmarks for success, are now claiming the importance of achieving it, but have not themselves attempted to define success.
From the WaPo article above an argument is made that Democrats who voted for the war now cling to the belief that we must stay the course in Iraq. "Clearly Democrats are not united in what is the critique of what we're doing there and what is the answer to what we do next," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. "The difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they can admit that they were misled."
I have a suggestion for the Democrats described by Senator Gephardt. First, re-read the Constitution to familiarize yourselves with whom the responsible party is for declaring war. They will learn that - Article I, Section 8 specifies that Congress alone must "declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
Next, they should re-read their oath of office - I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Finally, they should contemplate the obvious conflict between having sworn to uphold the Constitution in their capacity of office holders in Congress and the abandonment of that duty they committed when they voted to give the authority to go to war in Iraq to the president. If and when they are able to admit to shirking their responsibility, they should reassess their position on the war based on its legal and moral issues and not its impact on their political careers.
Once they have admitted to having made a mistake they can take action to correct it. If they continue to deny their responsibility, they should not be considered seriously for any office.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Ode to a Tyrant
There once was a boy from New Haven
Who by nature was reckless and craven
But he came from a clan
With an imperial plan
So his treatment of others was raven
His family was invested in oil
So the boy for a living wouldn’t toil
He would live off his name
Impervious to shame
And less fortunate lives he would spoil
His dad became second in charge
The boy, Texas governor at large
Since in business he failed
On to politics he hailed
Though all his faults wouldn’t fit on a barge
Then the country elected his dad
For their leader, but he turned out so bad
He claimed “no new taxes”
But that ain’t what the facts is
So one term is all that he had
The new century found the boy in control
Appointed since he lost at the polls
But his ass needed cover
As a democracy lover
So dad’s cronies got all the top roles
9/11 changed the rules of the game
A chance for the boy to win fame
But, once we knew we’d been had
We were already in Baghdad
Though the reasons he gave were all lame
Now he rules over the land like a king
War and torture are now his big thing
Yes, he has broken the law
But claims that God oversaw
But the nation’s opinion he can’t swing
Who by nature was reckless and craven
But he came from a clan
With an imperial plan
So his treatment of others was raven
His family was invested in oil
So the boy for a living wouldn’t toil
He would live off his name
Impervious to shame
And less fortunate lives he would spoil
His dad became second in charge
The boy, Texas governor at large
Since in business he failed
On to politics he hailed
Though all his faults wouldn’t fit on a barge
Then the country elected his dad
For their leader, but he turned out so bad
He claimed “no new taxes”
But that ain’t what the facts is
So one term is all that he had
The new century found the boy in control
Appointed since he lost at the polls
But his ass needed cover
As a democracy lover
So dad’s cronies got all the top roles
9/11 changed the rules of the game
A chance for the boy to win fame
But, once we knew we’d been had
We were already in Baghdad
Though the reasons he gave were all lame
Now he rules over the land like a king
War and torture are now his big thing
Yes, he has broken the law
But claims that God oversaw
But the nation’s opinion he can’t swing
Monday, August 08, 2005
Stop the Presses
Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and the rest of the right leaning commentators in the media love protesting the Liberal media and its dominance in the press and over the airwaves. This always amuses me since they are part of the media and must be part of the calculation to determine the media is liberal. Also interesting is the criterion used in determining what qualifies as liberal.
A pet phrase of the conservatives over the past 25 years has been “the liberal media” when referring to any coverage they did not like. The New York Times, LA Times and the Washington Post have been their favorite targets and branded as the “Liberal media elite”. However, any comparison of the so called liberal media with media outlets deemed acceptable by the right wing demonstrates that the main difference is that those labeled as liberal are guilty of covering both sides of an argument. They also have the audacity to include liberal viewpoints along with conservative columns on their editorial pages.
The conservative assault on the liberal media has been a disciplined and long term effort that is now paying dividends in a big way. Either through intimidation by the right, or by corporate influence of the mega-businesses that have acquired the major media companies, news organizations have shown reluctance to cover stories that might leave them open to further ridicule. All of the news outlets, cable and networks, now invite far more conservatives than liberals to discussion panels or to supply political analyses. Press releases from the White House and from Congress are reported uncritically and often with little editing and minimum if any research to corroborate the information supplied.
This environment, created by conservative effort to suppress news that is not to their liking, enabled the abuse of trust introduced by the Bush administration in the form of fake news stories using fake reporters, but aired without informing viewers of the source or the story or who was paying for them.
The most telling example of the conservative take-over of the media is the comparison between news coverage of the Clinton and Bush administrations. You will recall that for nearly eight straight years, every lead, rumor, and unconfirmed hearsay tidbit was headlined by the press. A special prosecutor, Ken Starr, was assigned to investigate the Clintons, but after $80 million and years of investigating not one charge could be proven against them. Had it not been for Clinton’s own indiscretion with that intern, the Republicans would have never been able to foist the circus they called impeachment upon the public. Yet, there is a plethora of evidence to show Bush lied to the American people to garner support for a war with Iraq but, more criminally he lied to Congress and submitted a signed letter to congressional leaders justifying his invasion of Iraq based on these very lies.
Congress has not seen fit to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these much more serious charges and the reason for that is that the Congress is in the hands of the Republican Party and is in lock-step with their despotic leader. Bush and his accomplices have ridden to power on the torrent of corporate donations which they secured through quid pro quo arrangements with the corporate raiders who want maximum influence in government, exoneration from prosecution for wrong doing and greater profits. This last item is not just greedy but absolutely frightening. Corporations are raking in record profits thanks to Bush’s willingness to sacrifice individuals’ safety and legal rights but, also by encouraging big business to view federal tax revenues as a source of untapped wealth that is theirs for the taking.
A pet phrase of the conservatives over the past 25 years has been “the liberal media” when referring to any coverage they did not like. The New York Times, LA Times and the Washington Post have been their favorite targets and branded as the “Liberal media elite”. However, any comparison of the so called liberal media with media outlets deemed acceptable by the right wing demonstrates that the main difference is that those labeled as liberal are guilty of covering both sides of an argument. They also have the audacity to include liberal viewpoints along with conservative columns on their editorial pages.
The conservative assault on the liberal media has been a disciplined and long term effort that is now paying dividends in a big way. Either through intimidation by the right, or by corporate influence of the mega-businesses that have acquired the major media companies, news organizations have shown reluctance to cover stories that might leave them open to further ridicule. All of the news outlets, cable and networks, now invite far more conservatives than liberals to discussion panels or to supply political analyses. Press releases from the White House and from Congress are reported uncritically and often with little editing and minimum if any research to corroborate the information supplied.
This environment, created by conservative effort to suppress news that is not to their liking, enabled the abuse of trust introduced by the Bush administration in the form of fake news stories using fake reporters, but aired without informing viewers of the source or the story or who was paying for them.
The most telling example of the conservative take-over of the media is the comparison between news coverage of the Clinton and Bush administrations. You will recall that for nearly eight straight years, every lead, rumor, and unconfirmed hearsay tidbit was headlined by the press. A special prosecutor, Ken Starr, was assigned to investigate the Clintons, but after $80 million and years of investigating not one charge could be proven against them. Had it not been for Clinton’s own indiscretion with that intern, the Republicans would have never been able to foist the circus they called impeachment upon the public. Yet, there is a plethora of evidence to show Bush lied to the American people to garner support for a war with Iraq but, more criminally he lied to Congress and submitted a signed letter to congressional leaders justifying his invasion of Iraq based on these very lies.
Congress has not seen fit to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these much more serious charges and the reason for that is that the Congress is in the hands of the Republican Party and is in lock-step with their despotic leader. Bush and his accomplices have ridden to power on the torrent of corporate donations which they secured through quid pro quo arrangements with the corporate raiders who want maximum influence in government, exoneration from prosecution for wrong doing and greater profits. This last item is not just greedy but absolutely frightening. Corporations are raking in record profits thanks to Bush’s willingness to sacrifice individuals’ safety and legal rights but, also by encouraging big business to view federal tax revenues as a source of untapped wealth that is theirs for the taking.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Get Real
It's about time that we stop the charade, the pretense of politeness we have been following for the purpose of political correctness and just start to "call 'em as we see 'em?" Primarily, I'm referring to the completely disingenuous description of George W. as anything other than a complete idiot. I am so tired of hearing congress and the media giving him credit for being a savvy politician, or brilliant statesman. Even Democrats followed suit to show deference to the Commander in Chief, but we can now dispense with this sham. The man is a total shit-head who, left to his own devices, couldn't make an informed decision about anything.
That leads us to his other claim that he surrounds himself with smart people with whom he can consult when making these hard decisions. That would mean he is surrounded by Karl Rove, a truly discomforting image.
What about Dick Cheney, you ask? - Dubya consults his Dick when the weighty decision involves energy; otherwise Dick is left to Halliburton hand jobs, vulgar attacks on opponents and trying not to die in case Bush's brain Terri Schiavos from lack of use and the facade of power falls to him.
How about Don Rumsfeld? - Not even Dubya will take seriously anything from the anally retentive chicken hawk who famously said "What we know, what we know we don't know, what we don't know we know..." or something like that.
Alright, Colin Powell? - Had Powell been allowed any input within his first year as Sec. State it could have been useful. But, since his presentation to the UN after swilling the kool-aid he has nothing of interest for Dubya & Co.
What about Condi? - Right! Ms. Rice is, in fact Dr. Rice, a learned professional from the halls of academia who pulled herself up from humble beginnings to achieve the pinnacle of her profession. However, she has effectively overcome this drawback within the Bush administration by prostituting her principles and propagating lies and misinformation in furtherance of the Iraqi war.
No, the pin-head in charge gets his marching orders from Rove who works the deals with the captains of industry who pay unknown costs in campaign funding, confidential access, favors and other considerations for the privilege of enacting their own legislation.
No one of sound mind really believes that our nation is being run by this inarticulate, mentally challenged, mouth-breathing, Darwinian throw-back. The difficult thing to believe is that the American public has tolerated the deception foisted on them by the Neo-Conservative Reichstag without rising up in armed rebellion. Instead, we are witness to the effectiveness of their continuing efforts to pare away individual freedoms by focusing on patriotism, a diversionary tactic used by most of the world's worst dictators.
It is more likely that Dubya is the modern day Lee Harvey Oswald, the infamous patsy set up to take the wrap for the conspirators behind the Kennedy assassination. Dubya is being used in much the same way since he will be the focus of the ire and discontent of the public if the ongoing coup upon democracy fails and the Neo-cons are not able to sweep it away entirely to be replaced by the fascism they so revere. If the international community demands charges be brought against the United States for war crimes and crimes against humanity, whom do you suppose they will want to answer those charges. Of course, the rest of the world hates Cheney and Rumsfeld, but it will be Bush they will want in the hot seat.
In the end, if justice is to be served and democracy saved, Dubya will have to answer for his actions even though he was just following orders. Halliburton and other contractors who raped the government and abused the Iraqis will most likely get a slap on the wrist. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Powell, etc. will be seen as lesser figures deserving of lesser penalties, leaving dumb-ass Dubya as the main villain. And then won't he regret his lack of sympathy for the execution of the mentally challenged?
That leads us to his other claim that he surrounds himself with smart people with whom he can consult when making these hard decisions. That would mean he is surrounded by Karl Rove, a truly discomforting image.
What about Dick Cheney, you ask? - Dubya consults his Dick when the weighty decision involves energy; otherwise Dick is left to Halliburton hand jobs, vulgar attacks on opponents and trying not to die in case Bush's brain Terri Schiavos from lack of use and the facade of power falls to him.
How about Don Rumsfeld? - Not even Dubya will take seriously anything from the anally retentive chicken hawk who famously said "What we know, what we know we don't know, what we don't know we know..." or something like that.
Alright, Colin Powell? - Had Powell been allowed any input within his first year as Sec. State it could have been useful. But, since his presentation to the UN after swilling the kool-aid he has nothing of interest for Dubya & Co.
What about Condi? - Right! Ms. Rice is, in fact Dr. Rice, a learned professional from the halls of academia who pulled herself up from humble beginnings to achieve the pinnacle of her profession. However, she has effectively overcome this drawback within the Bush administration by prostituting her principles and propagating lies and misinformation in furtherance of the Iraqi war.
No, the pin-head in charge gets his marching orders from Rove who works the deals with the captains of industry who pay unknown costs in campaign funding, confidential access, favors and other considerations for the privilege of enacting their own legislation.
No one of sound mind really believes that our nation is being run by this inarticulate, mentally challenged, mouth-breathing, Darwinian throw-back. The difficult thing to believe is that the American public has tolerated the deception foisted on them by the Neo-Conservative Reichstag without rising up in armed rebellion. Instead, we are witness to the effectiveness of their continuing efforts to pare away individual freedoms by focusing on patriotism, a diversionary tactic used by most of the world's worst dictators.
It is more likely that Dubya is the modern day Lee Harvey Oswald, the infamous patsy set up to take the wrap for the conspirators behind the Kennedy assassination. Dubya is being used in much the same way since he will be the focus of the ire and discontent of the public if the ongoing coup upon democracy fails and the Neo-cons are not able to sweep it away entirely to be replaced by the fascism they so revere. If the international community demands charges be brought against the United States for war crimes and crimes against humanity, whom do you suppose they will want to answer those charges. Of course, the rest of the world hates Cheney and Rumsfeld, but it will be Bush they will want in the hot seat.
In the end, if justice is to be served and democracy saved, Dubya will have to answer for his actions even though he was just following orders. Halliburton and other contractors who raped the government and abused the Iraqis will most likely get a slap on the wrist. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, Powell, etc. will be seen as lesser figures deserving of lesser penalties, leaving dumb-ass Dubya as the main villain. And then won't he regret his lack of sympathy for the execution of the mentally challenged?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
