Wednesday, November 30, 2005


Michelle Malkin Calls Bush's Speech Bogus

A little over a month ago, the New York Times ran an articleby James Dao about the mounting death toll in Iraq. The count had recently reached 2,000 and Dao was reporting on what he described as "the painful stresses and recurring strains that an extended conflict, with all its demands for multiple tours, is placing on families, towns and the military." In the article he told the stories of several soldiers who have died in Iraq and the struggles their families have had to endure. One of those soldiers was Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr.

If you read the actual letter from Cpl. Starr (which is absolutely heart-breaking) you'll see that he did indeed write what Dao had quoted.But leave it to the crazies to complain. And who should complain the loudest? Well, none other than uber-wingnut Michelle Malkin. Little did she know that what she was doing would eventually come back to bite one of her own.

Two days after the NYTimes article ran, Malkin complained on her website that the Times had not told the entire story. She included a letter that she alleges to have received from Cpl. Starr's uncle in which he includes more of the original letter's content, including the entire paragraph from which the Times had quoted:

Malkin remarked:

Five days later, Malkin followed up on the story with an Op-ed piece in the NY Post and another rant on her website where she stated:

All feelings for Ms. Malkin aside, she obviously dislikes it when people misquote, or as she says "selectively edit"s, someone's words. Especially, it would appear, the words of our fallen soldiers. So it is with this knowledge that I am sure she is now applying the same scrutiny and resulting ire to George W. Bush's speech this morning. After all, Bush told us about Cpl. Starr's letter when he said:

You may have noticed the omission. Bush clearly left out the line that the NYTimes quoted to portray, in Malkin's words, a bogus sense of "fatalism." I wonder what she would call Bush's selective editing... Possibly a bogus sense of optimism?

As for Malkin, I find it interesting that someone who has played fast and loose with the truth on so many occasions should take exception to the NYTimes' "selective editing" of Starr's letter when they were clearly using his to illustrate a specific point. Bush's "selective editing," on the other hand, was a blatant attempt to eliminate any negativity or doubt that our soldiers might harbor about their mission. In my opinion, Bush's omission is a much more egregious misrepresentation of Starr's true feelings than Dao's.

Now, as for Bush, here's what I always like to say: He's always more informative for what his speech writers leave out than for what they put in.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005


I'll Take Nefarious Bastards for $1000, Please

Colin Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson really needs to quit beating around the bush and tell us how he really feels. This is priceless:

For the last several years, the Republican party's strongest attribute has been their unity. Whatever one Republican said you could count on hearing the same thing from at least a dozen others. If nothing else, they had their talking points down pat. But that was when Bush's approval numbers were high. Now that his numbers are tanking, we're finally starting to see the cracks in the facade. People are finally starting to realize that the emperor truly has no clothes. If the Democrats are going to take advantage of this, they need to keep hammering. A little party unity could go a long way right now.

Monday, November 28, 2005


The Culture of Corruption

Well, that's one.

So who's next? DeLay? Frist? What about former IL Gov. George Ryan? These guys have got to be stopped.

(Just for the record, I don't care if they're Democrat or Republican. If they're corrupt, they need to be gone.)

Friday, November 25, 2005


Meet the New Boss...

same as the old boss.

As the poll numbers continue to plunge and as the questions continue to mount, the Bush administration has decided to call upon an old hero to help them combat the growing discontent in America. When all else fails, they always revert to McCarthyism to quell the dissention. On Monday, Five Deferment Cheney had his McCarthyistic mojo going full force:

In not so many words, Cheney is saying that any attacks on the administration's handling of the war are false and thereby hurting the troops. But we know from past experience that the administration committed a collosal amount of errors in the run up to the war. They consistently relied on faulty intelligence, known forgeries, and known fabricators to bolster their case with the American public. So the claim that all of the attacks are untruthful is clearly erroneous.

But it's the "hurting the troops" claim that reeks of McCarthyism. Because basically what Cheney is saying is that you can't question the administration without harming the troops and thereby aiding the enemy. In other words, it's better to not question anything. Lies? Don't question them, it hurts the troops. Mistakes? Don't point them out because it hurts the troops. Incompetence? Don't talk about it. Ineptitude? Don't mention it. Complete assbackwards fuck ups? Well now, that would hurt the troops if you pointed those out too.

In the world of Cheney, Bush and the rest of the McCarthy Cabal, it is better to let the troops die for what may be lies and mistakes than to question the actions and motives of those responsible. Now who really supports our troops? Those that would let them die for mistakes and missteps or those that want to know the truth about how they got there?

(Thanks to wanda for the inspiration for this post.)

Tuesday, November 22, 2005


When It Rains...

As I have mentioned several times before, one of the more intriguing books I've read about the Bush administration is Worse Than Watergate by John W. Dean Yes, that John W. Dean). Written in 2004, Dean claimed that this White House had several scandals bubbling just below the surface and that they were bound to come out over time. Boy-oh-boy was he ever right. Just take a look at the news and you're bound to read about something that has just surfaced about prewar intelligence or backroom deals or incompetence. They seem to be coming with a little more regularity now and with Georgieboy's and Five Deferment Cheney's ratings in the shitter, the press doesn't seem to be holding anything back. Hell, even the tabloid headlines are getting attention. But today might be the start of the deluge. This from the National Journal's Murray Waas:

Well, whaddya' know? George and the gang knew all along that Iraq and al Qaeda had nothing to do with each other. Good thing they never made that claim, huh? Good thing they never insinuated anything like that, eh? What a bunch of fucking liars. Unbelievable. Un-fucking-believeable.

Monday, November 21, 2005


Oh, Sweet Irony

As I've said before, sometimes the blog almost writes itself.

Dick Cheney today:

The Iraqi government today:

Too funny!


Hey Wanda!

If you read this, please check your e-mail. I sent you something.

Friday, November 18, 2005


All This Talk About Torture Is...


For weeks, the MSM has been all abuzz about the "debate" over whether or not the US should torture. George W. Bush has stated somewhat unequivocally, "We do not torture!" Yet in the true conservative hypocritical style, he has promised a veto on any bill containing anti-torture legislation. At the same time, we've got Five Deferment Cheney all but advocating the use of torture as a means of "interrogation." Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle (which is where I'm located, just to avoid any confusion), we've got human rights advocates, clear thinking individuals, John McCain, and now the former CIA director who have stated that torture is wrong no matter what the situation may be.

First of all, I can't believe that we're even having this "debate." At what point did our country's moral fiber deteriorate to the point where bully-style, Tony Soprano-like behavior even merits consideration? When did "the land of the free and the home of the brave" become the "break your knee caps" society? Anyone who believes that this thug-like approach to security is a good thing only needs to look at the reputation of the mob to know how we're being viewed around the world. And if you're still comfortable with that, then I guess there's really not much hope in trying to get you to see the error of your ways.

But my favorite justification for terror came earlier this week when NBC (I think it was the Today show, but all those talking head shows blur together) presented one of the lawyers responsible for the Bush administration's policy alongside a military vet for one of their so-called "discussions." (By discussion I mean that they let both sides regurgitate their talking points ad nauseum and that way the station can claim to be non-partisan.) Anyway, the lawyer for the Bush administration said that the reason we can't outlaw torture is because al-Qaeda is not a country and has not signed on to the Geneva Convention. He further stated that we can't count on them to treat our captured soldiers hospitably just because we might do so with our detainees. In other words, they did it so that makes it okay for us. It's just like all of the other administration arguments right now such as "Clinton believed that Saddam had WMD, so therefore Bush couldn't have misled anybody" or some other such bullshit.

But what this lawyer was really advocating was the United States sinking to the level of the terrorists. By justifying torture on the grounds that al Qaeda would do it to us is, at best, the equivalent of the juvenile defense of "well, he did it first!" Is this what our nation has become? Not the beacon of leadership in a global society but the followers and the copycats of the worst among us? To me, this is just pathetic. My, how far we have fallen. What's next, are we going to hi-jack airplanes and fly them into buildings occupied by al Qaeda sympathizers? I can't wait to see the "debate" about that one.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005


Politics - GOP Style

So what do you do when you just can't seem to get anything accomplished? Why, you steal your opponent's idea and pass it off as your own, that's what. And that's just what the Republicans did today.

Yesterday, House minority leader Harry Reid announced the Democratic Party's plan for Iraq as an amendment to the defense bill. Then today, Sen. Warner of Virginia introduced his own amendment in which he literally crossed-out the names of the Democratic Senators and penciled in his own name along with Sen. Bill Frist's. The Republicans then changed a scant few words and crossed out the last section of the original amendment and called it their own. (Compare them for yourself: Democratic version - Republican version) Damn! Talk about lazy. It's like the loser from high school who didn't even bother to reformat the book report he copied off the internets.

Typical conservatives. Take a Democratic idea and claim it as your own. We've seen it before with the 9/11 commission and the Dept. of Homeland Security. But I'm sure it won't stop them from claiming that the Democrats aren't offering any ideas. However, those of us who are paying attention know it's all a lie just like everything else we've been getting from the conservatives for the last five years.

On the bright side, however, at least something is getting done while these ignorant fuckers are in control.

Monday, November 14, 2005


When the Going Gets Tough...

the tough get going the White House lies.

Such was the case this past weekend as the Sunday-morning talk shows were overrun with Republican party lackeys attempting to resuscitate Georgieboy's plummeting poll numbers. On Meet the Press it was RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman spinning the lies.

On CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, it was National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley doing the deception dance.

And just in case that wasn’t enough, the White House web page got into the act of spreading the bullshit.

So, you might ask, what’s the problem? The problem is, as has been pointed out numerous times in numerous places, that in each and every case the Robb-Silberman report is being misrepresented. The charge being refuted (albeit pathetically) by these inept attempts from the White House is that the administration misled the public by manipulating or misusing the intelligence. But the “evidence” being used to do the refuting, the Robb-Silbermann report (aka - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction) clearly states:

The White House is counting on the American public not paying attention to this little three-card monty scam they’re running. The Robb-Silberman report indicates that there was no pressure from the White House on the intelligence agencies. It makes absolutely no claims, whatsoever, as to what the White House did with the unpressured information.

So why would the White House run this little misdirection scheme? Why would they use non-evidence as evidence? I know of only one reason to lie and that’s because the truth makes you look bad.

Sidenote - Now that my little Blogger problem is fixed, I hope to be a little more consistent with my posting. For the record, Blogger was very polite and extremely helpful even if they seemed rather slow.

Saturday, November 12, 2005



Last time, I swear!

Thursday, November 10, 2005


Whiskey Pete and the US Military

For the last few days, the internets have been buzzing about white phosphorus. According to the Italian state-run television station RAI, the US military used white phosphorus (also known as whiskey pete) during last year's siege on Fallujah. (You can see the documentary here.) White phosphorus is an incendiary device used by the military to provide smoke screen for operations and to illuminate a darkened battlefield. However, WP can also be used much the same way as napalm was years ago. Such is the charge leveled by the Italian documentary. According to Wikipedia:

All I can say is that if this is true, we have truly become everything we've allegedly been fighting against. Do you remember back when the invasion of Iraq began? I do. And what I remember most is the embedded reporters reminding us every ten minutes or so of the possibility of a chemical or biological attack. I even remember an MSNBC reporter having to don a mask on-air as a siren blared in the background. Who would have thought that the country responsible for the chemical attack may have ultimately been us.

Watch the documentary for yourself and make your own decisions. I can only hope that it is false. But if not, I don't think we could possibly sink any lower.


Test #2

Is this thing on?



testing 1..2..3

Tuesday, November 08, 2005


Blogger Is Still Broken - Tonight's Post Is In the Comments

Monday, November 07, 2005


Blogger's Still Screwed Up - I'll Be Back As Soon As Possible

Friday, November 04, 2005


What Is Wrong With Blogger? I Can't Post!

Tuesday, November 01, 2005



(Thanks go to pb over at DailyKos for the cleaned up transcript.)

In one fell swoop, Harry Reid took the entire Republican party by the balls and he refused to let go until they agreed to play ball. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Send him a note of appreciation. I did.

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

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by