Know Your Next President

Even if the campaign goes nowhere, he's obviously very qualified to be the next preznit of the Confederated States of America.

Senator Macaca, I mean, of course.

Link.

Holiday PSA -- Let's Give the Man a Break!!

Bush Urges Nation To Be Quiet For A Minute While He Tries To Think

August 30, 2006 | Issue 42•35

WASHINGTON, DC—In a nationally televised address Monday, President Bush urged all citizens, regardless of race, creed, color, or political affiliation, "to quiet down for just one minute" so he could have "a chance to think."

In a televised address to the nation, Bush called for "a little peace and quiet."

"Every American has an inalienable right to free speech and self-expression," Bush said. "Nonetheless, I call upon the American people to hold off on it for, say, 60 seconds. Just long enough for me to get this all sorted out in my head."

Dinky-linky.

Thought for the Day

The new season of Survivor, what you could call a color war -- Sort of reminds one of N'Orleans: Post-Katrina....

Holiday History Overview

Are Our Leaders great or what??

The imminent fifth anniversary of 9/11 provides the proper moment for a good, ol'-fashioned sum-up of the past half-decade under CheneyBush, especially because so much has happened in the past 12-months:

The Bush Administration's Katrina debacle, Iraq being sucked deeper into the civil-war vortex, Afghanistan turning once again into a major war theater, more and more military leaders speaking out about the disaster that is CheneyBush foreign policy, the defection of so many moderate conservatives from their GOP home, the plummeting of Bush's popularity to not much more than his fundamentalist base, the revelation that Bush&Co. have been spying on citizens' phone calls and emails without court warrants, the indictment of CheneyBush's chief aide Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice in the case of the White House's outing of a covert CIA agent, the "rendering" of detainees abroad for extreme torturing, etc. etc.

Way more here. It's required reading!

Two Quotes

That Stalin, gotta give to him -- he had great writers:

The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. -- Josef Stalin.

Rabble, n. In a republic, those who exercise a supreme authority tempered by fraudulent elections... -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

A History Lesson: Same As it Ever was? Not Exactly....

A thought: I'd like to think no dispassionate observer would disagree that the Cheney/Rove/Bush administration is anti-democratic and anti-freedom, at least at home.

But what got me to thinking is this: Even as we're welcoming the pro-West anti-Syria democratically-elected (if not Hezbollah-empowering) gummint in Lebanon, we are encouraging Israel to greatly destabilize it, at the least, to pointlessly attack a paper tiger, an inflated threat (something politicians have a weakness for, albeit radical right politicians significantly moreso).

And then there's the 51st and 52nd states, Afghanistan and the distinegrating Iraq. We don't truly liberate, we destroy. Remarkably, our -- or I should say, our leaders' -- efforts at nation-building do way more harm than good.

But I wonder whether or not what the current administration is doing -- ad nauseum, you could say, literally so -- is not part of a long pattern.

I mean, have we ever actually established a healthy anywhere? And when one would collapse into dictatorship, have we ever truly regretted it (unless of course it was a left-wing dictatorship)? And actaully could it normally, when paracticed properly, not be an attractive policy as it gives an opportunity to put a strongman happy to be corrupted by us and not faced with the nuisance of regular free elections? When we kicked out that democratically-elected Iranian president in the early 50s, we replaced him with a brand new monarchy and made no effort to reestablish the democratic state. And post-WWII, isn't remarkable how the major new or re-established democracies (Japan, Italy, Germany) had right-of-center governments?

And then there's Viet-Nam in the 60s....

One must wonder... maybe our committment to democracy was never terribly strong....

How a Proto-Wingnut Came to his Senses

A history lesson (good history is a good thing although human nature is such that we don't learn from our mistakes often enough):

Kipling helped his son get into the military so he could fight in the trenches despite his poor eyesight.

After John Kipling died at the Battle of Loos in 1915, Rudyard Kipling wrote: "If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied."

[Link to rest of story.]

Reminder why the Plame Affair Matters

It shows what scum our leaders, willing to weaken our security for solely partisan reasons.

Don't you thank God G.W. Bush is president?

Don't you feel safer with the radical anti-American traitors responsible for security?

What I've Been Saying for Five Years, Said Better by a Pro -- Terror is a Crime, Not an Excuse for a Pointless War Against an Enemy that Has...

-- nothing to do with terror.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics.

The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

Way more here.

Poor Pluto....

Some people have no mercy for a crappy little planet with a messy orbit. But some people do have mercy. (Above images via worth1000.com.)

Another Great Leap Forward in Protecting the SKies from Terror!

IPods get air security like all alert. To the extent of turning back a plane in flight even.

UPDATE -- and maybe the last word -- for now....

Saving One Life at a Time

There are two great mysteries of the crminal justice system.

First is why cops pump up busts without caring whether the bullshit component of a bust results in a guilty person being acquited and released on the streets instead of, you know, being thrown in jail for an appropriate period. I mean, shouldn't getting a conviction be part of a peace officer's goal?

Second is how prosecutors cannot acknowledge the proved absence of proof to a conviction, that a wrongful conviction wasn't wrong on a technicality but because of an absence of proof in the first place:

On 20 June 2006 Bernard Baran was granted a new trial!

Read the Judge's Decision.

On 30 June 2006 Bernard Baran was released on bond.

Baran's Story in Brief

While practically everyone knows about McMartin and some of the other day-care-panic cases of the 80s, few have heard of Bernard Baran, the first day-care worker convicted. Baran — a working-class gay man from Pittsfield, Massachusetts and an aide at Pittsfield's Early Childhood Development Center (ECDC) — was arrested on October 6, 1984 and charged with sexually assaulting two 3-year-olds. He was then 19 years old. He is now 39.

Baran — abandoned by his father when he was three — dropped out of school after 9th grade and went to work at ECDC at 16. Bernie was openly gay, which outraged the parents of one of the boys in his care. (Click here to hear the mother express her feelings about gay people in a sworn deposition. The accusing stepfather eventually came to doubt Baran's guilt. Click here for an excerpt from his deposition. The two depositions paint an interesting picture of the moral character -- or lack thereof -- of the couple who destroyed Bernard Baran's life.) They complained to ECDC that no ninth-grade dropout homosexual would help take care of their son. At the time, the McMartin case was major national news and accusations of sexual abuse of pre-school children at the Fells Acres Day School in Malden, Massachusetts were dominating the New England news. (Gerald Amirault had been arrested one month before Bernie.) A few weeks later, this couple -- who were drug addicts well-known to the authorities for their history of violence -- called the police to accuse Baran. The police went to ECDC, telling them that Baran was under suspicion.

The school's new Coordinator was alarmed by the police visit. She called a friend, the mother of a girl who had attended the school. The mother, a self-identified survivor of sexual abuse, began urgently interrogating her daughter, specifically about Baran. The mother then called the police to accuse Bernie as well. He was arrested and panic ensued.

The boy tested positive for gonorrhea. The test used has since been shown to have a high false-positive rate. (According to a 1988 US Center for Disease Control report, by W. Whittington et al, in more than a third of laboratory samples of children indicating positive for gonorrhea, the actual organism turned out to be something else.) Moreover, someone other than Baran may have sexually molested the boy, who was often placed in foster homes because of his abusive and chaotic home life. (The child sometimes came to school with bruises.) According to a Department of Social Services (DSS) report, the boy made to one foster mother a spontaneous, detailed, and credible disclosure of sexual abuse by one of the mother's boyfriends (someone other than the stepfather). This incident occurred before Baran's trial began. DSS investigated and decided that the accusation was substantiated. But they waited until Baran was convicted before notifying the DA's office, as mandated by law.

The trial transcript also contains a sidebar wherein Baran's lawyer says he might produce witnesses who overheard the boy's mother accuse the stepfather himself of having gonorrhea. If the mother believed that her son had been exposed to gonorrhea, she may have accused Baran in order to keep the authorities from finding out what was going on in her home. (In any case, Bernie tested negative, and an exhaustive search produced no evidence that Bernie had ever been treated for gonorrhea.)

Both the stepfather and the boyfriend, on separate occasions, were hospitalized for stab wounds to the chest occurring after fights with the mother. (The stepfather required open-heart surgery.) Incredibly, both men claim they had stabbed themselves. For more information about this troubled family, click here.

Although the police and the prosecutor were more than familiar with the boy's disreputable and irresponsible parents, they nevertheless considered them more credible than Baran, who had never in his life been in legal trouble. I'm certain that this was because Bernie is gay.

Prosecutor Dan Ford certainly didn't hide his hatred of gay people. He intimidated Baran's boyfriend, threatened him with prosecution, and repeatedly called him a "fag." Ford also illegally told Baran's boyfriend that he was not allowed to speak with anyone else, including Baran's attorney. (We are quite certain that Ford unethically intimidated other potential witnesses for the defense as well. And if threatening, abusing, and inflicting homophobic slurs upon a potential defense witness to insure silence does not constitute gross prosecutorial misconduct, then the term has no meaning. For more details, see this affidavit.)

Almost all of the 160 ECDC children were interrogated and four more accusations followed. (Some of the parents felt that the accusations against Baran were so ridiculous that they refused to allow their children to be questioned.) The interrogated children were subjected to interviews employing puppet shows and anatomically correct dolls — suggestive techniques now rarely used because research has shown that they produce mainly false accusations. (Click here for more information on how the children were interrogated.) One girl, a few months after Bernie's conviction, even told her therapist that nothing had really happened and that her mother (a drug-addicted prostitute and a friend of the initial accuser's mother) had told her to say that it had so they could get a lot of money. This recantation, discovered by an insurance investigation, was reported to DSS but not to Baran's attorney. (The two mothers sued the school for several million dollars. The mother of the recanter died of AIDS and her daughter's recantation was discovered by her attorney before the trial began. The insurance-company lawyers destroyed the credibility of the other mother on the witness stand.)

Baran's current attorneys also discovered -- in 2005 -- that this girl had made a spontaneous and credible accusation of sexual abuse by one of her mother's boyfriends. The documents were withheld from Baran, his trial lawyer, and his appellate lawyers.

No adult at the school witnessed anything suspicious occurring between Bernie and the children. Aside from the dubious testimony of the children, and the unreliable gonorrhea test, the only physical evidence came from a doctor who claimed that one girl had a 1-2 millimeter (about 1/20 of an inch) tear on her hymen. Subsequent research has shown that such hymeneal notches are common in girls who have not been abused. (According to a four-year study made public in 1988 by Dr. John McCann of the University of California's School of Medicine, such irregularities occur in 50 to 60 percent of non-abused girls.) Furthermore, according to the insurance-company report, this girl had also been observed inserting objects into her own vagina subsequent to observing the birth of a sibling. (One must wonder what sort of parents would force a two-year-old to witness a birth.)

Unlike some of the other day-care defendants, Bernie couldn't afford an adequate defense. (A poor gay man is doubly expendable.) No Bill of Particulars was ever provided to the defense. Baran turned down a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a five-year-sentence. After he refused, he was quickly tried. Because of the seating arrangement, (Bernie sat behind the lawyers' table and the children were on the floor in front of the table) Bernie couldn't even see what was going on when the children were being interrogated. (Click here for a short excerpt of the testimony.) The boy who was cited in the original accusation refused to testify, and screamed and shouted obscenities until he was removed from the court. Baran's sister told him that she heard DA [now Judge] Daniel Ford tell a little girl witness to just say yes to his questions and they would go to McDonald's afterwards. According to the trial transcript, Ford also used the McDonald's bribe when kids were on the witness stand. Ford used anatomically correct dolls in the courtroom. The children, when they bothered to respond at all, answered mainly with nods or in monosyllables. Whenever a child gave the wrong answer, Ford persisted until they gave the right one. If this failed, he suggested that the children wouldn't cooperate because they were in terror of Baran. The judge routinely overruled the defense's objections.

Ford, obviously playing to the jury's homophobia, in his closing argument said, "Bernard Baran could have raped and sodomized those children whenever he felt a primitive urge to satiate his sexual appetite." On January 30, 1985, after only 3 1/2 hours of deliberation, the jury convicted Baran on 8 counts. Before sentencing, an ECDC mother pled for Bernie, calling him a "miracle worker" who had "started my son on the path of a normal childhood." Bernie was sentenced to 3 concurrent life terms. Baran, who weighed around 100 pounds at the time of his conviction, suffered his first rape four days after being sent to Walpole. (Click here to read Baran's own account of what it's like to enter Massachusetts's Attica.) Baran has been shuffled around the Massachusetts prison system, where he has suffered stomach-churning physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. During his first four years, he was raped and physically assaulted 30-40 times. He has suffered serious eye injuries and many broken bones. He now fortunately resides in the relative safety of the Bridgewater Treatment Center.

Bernard Baran is a forgotten man. Partly because he is gay, he has never attracted the support that has benefited many of the falsely accused families. And because he has been convicted (albeit falsely) of sexually abusing children, gay leaders shun him because they fear accusations of condoning sex between adults and children. The press has either ignored him or treated him unfairly. When I visited him for the first time, I asked him about visiting rules. "I don't really know much about them," he said. "No one ever comes to see me except my mother." (A few friends and I now visit him regularly.)

Baran had never had good legal assistance. This finally changed when Boston attorney John Swomley agreed to help. Swomley is not an appellate attorney. But he has found an experienced and highly competent out-of-state trial and appellate attorney to prepare a new-trial motion. Many of the best and most experienced lawyers in the nation are now aware of this injustice, and we may make use of their knowledge in the future. When a new trial is ordered, Swomley will defend Baran.

Over the past two decades, suggestive and coercive child-interviewing techniques, combined with junk science, have sent innocent people to prison and destroyed many families. If we wish to live in a just society we must revisit all of the dubious convictions resulting from the child sex-abuse panic. It's frightening to realize that we live in a society where such terrible things can happen to a decent and gentle person such as Bernard Baran. But what would be even more terrible would be to live in such a society where few were willing to try to help. We hope to hear from those who will help us to rectify these grave miscarriages of injustice. (You can email me, Bob Chatelle, at bob@freebaran.org.)

I first learned about this case from this article on Jonathan Harris's web site.
Help With Bernard Baran's Legal Expenses

Contributions can be sent to:

The Bernard Baran Justice Committee
POB 230783
Boston MA 02123-0783

If you itemize deductions, you can make a tax-deductible contribution to the:

National Center for Reason and Justice
POB 230414
Boston MA 02123-0414

The NCRJ handles many accounts, so be sure to include a note indicating that the contribution is to aid Bernard Baran's fight for justice. You may also make a tax-deductible donation by credit card.

More here.

Free Unsolicited Military Advice

Not that I'm an expert, but I was reading the latest piece on how Israel lost the recent not-quite-a-war (subscription and totally irrelevant to this post). And it got me thinking.

An Israel, a US, others, can and has done great fighting what can be called top down wars: Just about any war involving Israel, WWs I and II.

That fine prowess and materiel though very often gets trumped by what can be called a bottom up war: Viet-Nam; the Intifidah (no matter how much one hopes and pray, the Israeli response has had a pretty limited net success -- certainly, the corruption of the Palestinian leadership has done far more hard all things Palestinian than Israel has).

This is not to say these bottom up wars are supported by a majority of the peons, just that generally there is a significant amount of support, whether or not explicit, such as tacitly allowing military facilities to be placed within civilian areas so they can't be taken out without
killing non-combatants and, of course, providing "martyrs."

As a bottom up problem, a top down response is expensive and involved to be successful -- if it can be. (Of course, Olmert wussed out. He should have refused to agree to a cease fire and continued on in south Lebanon. Standing Firm is a great policy for electoral success even of not very good militarily -- it's our plan for Iraq and it's working fine for our leaders, not so fine for the rest of the world.)

What the solution really is at the end of the day is that it's not a military one, it's an economic one.

It requires a limit to exploitation. In the Middle East, the West with its petro-pig partners has done an excellent job of exploitation and creating an ever-growing gap between rich and poor. (I'm of the school that there is an optimum spread of wealth.) Going for a maximum squeeze may do wonders for a company's or industry's bottom line -- but then there's the cost that everyone else ends up paying.

Poor people have nothing to lose. Desperately, hopelessly poor people can be desperate enough to do great harm. Or allow others to do so. Or to give electoral victor to an Arafat, Hezbollah, Hamas.

The failure of our policies is obvious and speaks for itself.

Stop the Joementum

The Deal

Alterman writes:

Here’s my prediction: If Lieberman wins the election, he will not switch to the Republicans, as some fear. But he will do the functional equivalent, which is accept Bush’s appointment to replace Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, resign his seat and allow the Republican governor of Connecticut to appoint a Republican in his stead. That is the implicit deal between the Lieberman camp and Rove, Cheney, Bush etc and the reason, that alone, in the entire country, this is the only race where this most partisan of political operations, refuses to support the Republican in the race. Bush, Rove and Cheney do not make political decisions on the basis of what they think is good for the country. They care only about their party and themselves. If Lieberman supporters are genuinely supporting him as a Democrat, is it not enough for him to pledge to vote with the party in the Senate. He must pledge that, under no circumstances, will he accept an appointment from Bush or resign his seat under any circumstances, so long as a Republican occupies the state House.

I don't know how likely this is, but if it comes to pass don't say we didn't warn you . Another guess about a likely possibility is that Lieberman's agreed to caucus with Republicans if they need him. If by some miracle the Dems manage to retake the Senate with Lieberman's vote he'll vote for the Repulican Majority Leader instead.

Joe's got many more opportunities for betrayal ahead of him. Maybe he's not as much of a wanker as I think he is. Let's hope we don't find out.

Bad for the party, bad for America and bad, well, the whole damn world.

Weakening America by Identifying Armed Forces who have Died on Duty in Iraq

Link.

Not the Joke of the Day

Except to the extent it is:

Limbaugh handicapped races in new Survivor series, suggested "African-American tribe" worst swimmers, Hispanics "will do things other people won't do"

The genius of Rush, to a very great extent, is that he really is as dumb as the average dittihead but can and gets the opportunity to articulate the derange-o crap they can't (lack of platform and/or ability, as it were (he's a mediocre user of radio)).

Fear Itself -- Our Leader's Mind at Work

HuffPo has the story here. Just click here now.

Almost 1000 Words Saved

Link.

Hope

If only....

Then, as the Mississippi waters rose, one politician, the state's electricity regulator, stood up on the back of a flatbed truck rigged with loudspeakers, and said, roughly,

"Listen up! They're lying! The President's lying! The rich fat jackals that are drowning you will do it again and again and again. They lead you into imperialist wars for profit, they take away your schools and your hope, and when you complain, they blame Blacks and Jews and immigrants. Then they drown your kids. I say, Kick'm in the ass and take your share of the wealth you created."

* * *

...even had the audacity to suggest that the poor's votes should count, calling for the end to the poll tax four decades before Martin Luther King succeeded in ending it.

* * *

FDR and the party establishment, scared witless of Long's ineluctable march to the White House, adopted his program, albeit diluted, called it the New Deal and later the New Frontier and the Great Society. America and the party prospered.

The rest of the story is here.

So the Theory is that We Pushed Israel into the Lebanon Disaster as a Test for Our Air War Against Iran

Parsing the headline from the end: We don't have the military ability to attack any other way, cetainly don't have the resources for a ground war.

As for the beginning of the headline:

There is increasing evidence that Israel instigated a disastrous war on Lebanon largely at the behest of the United States. The Bush administration was set on crippling Hezbollah, the radical Shiite political movement that maintains a sizable block of seats in the Lebanese parliament. Taking advantage of the country's democratic opening after the forced departure of Syrian troops last year, Hezbollah defied U.S. efforts to democratize the region on American terms. The populist party's unwillingness to disarm its militia as required by UN resolution--and the inability of the pro-Western Lebanese government to force them to do so--led the Bush administration to push Israel to take military action.

That's only the beginning; it continues here.

Yet More Better Airport Security

We are safe now from underendowed terrorists. You know they're out there and you know why:

Sex Toy In Luggage Gets Man In Trouble

CHICAGO -- Mardin Azad Amin found himself in a tight squeeze last week when security at O'Hare Airport discovered a suspicious-looking object in his luggage.
So Amin, 29, handled the delicate situation this way: He told security the object was a bomb, Cook County prosecutors said.
The security guard then asked Amin to repeat what he'd said to a supervisor. This time, Amin was chuckling as he spoke, prosecutors said.
In fact, Amin was trying to disguise the fact that the black object -- resembling a grenade -- was a component for a penis pump.
All the same, Amin was charged with felony disorderly conduct and faces up to three years in prison if convicted, said Andrew Conklin, a spokesman with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.
* * *
Amin eventually told investigators he'd lied about the object's true use because his mother was standing nearby when the object was discovered and he didn't want her to know about it, Cook County assistant state's attorney Lorraine Scaduto said during a bond hearing last week.

Why America is Loved and Envied Throughtout the World; Another Great Leap Forward

From SlashDot:

"The New York Times reports that the Evolution biology subject has disappeared from a list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students. The Education department has described this as a Clerical Mistake but others are skeptical about this. 'Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. "It's just awfully coincidental," said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State University.'"

As someone who made use of one of those grants to study Evolutionary Biology, I find this more than a little galling.

(Click on the link for the links within the SlashDot post.)

And this is a big part of the problem: the government is full of these little America-hating radical nutjobs, like growing cancer cells. It's not just our treasonous leaders but works all the way down. It's almost enough to make revolution look like an option....

Wankers, Wusses, Lying Thieves; P^ssies and C^nts

I refer of course to the Bush (God help us all) Dynasty.

As successful capitalists, they can only succeed in business by lying their way into political office where they in turn pander to the voters and bend over, so to speak (and may be literally for all I know) to the moneyed elite and then, upon retirement from electoral office, simply, well, whore.

The above is not opinion but simple fact, fair and balanced.

Sid Blumenthal has the latest but only the latest riff on father and son failures as leaders.

Headline of the Day -- Another Story Missed by Big Media

War-Torn Middle East Seeks Solace In Religion

Intersting Must Read

From Smirky!

***

'Why do they hate us?'

"The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation." --President George Bush, August 11, 2006. That's why.

'What we are seeing in Beirut is the birth pangs of a new Middle East'.--Condeleeza Rice. That's why. Maybe.

'We don't do body counts.'--Gen Tommy Franks. That's why.

'We don't do torture'--President George W. Bush. That's why.

'George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the US. He was appointed by God.' -General Boykin. Maybe that's why.

On U.S. sanctions against Iraq: 'We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?' -Leslie Stahl

'I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.' -- Ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 60 Minutes (5/12/96).

Could that be why?

Or:

Hiroshima?
Nagasaki?
Overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1952? The installation of the murderous Shah of Iran, 'King of Kings' and 'Light of the Aryans'? The brutishly savage 'SAVAK' secret police, American trained?
The 'School of the Americas' Coup and Torture College?
Vietnam?
Cambodia?
Laos?
Operation Phoenix (25000-50000 murdered)?
Nixon/Kissinger coup against democratically elected government of Chile?
Nixon/Kissinger assistance to Greek junta?
Invasion of Grenada?
Invasion of Panama?
Iran-Contra fiasco? Dirty war against Guatemala?
Dirty war against Nicaragua?
Reagan's nun-butchering 'Freedom Fighters' of Nicaragua?
Dirty war in El Salvador?
Reagan's good friendship with the likes of President 'Blowtorch Bob' of El Salvador? Gulf War I?
Depleted Uranium?
George H.W. Bush's 'Highway of Death'?
Invasion of Afghanistan?
Destruction of infrastructure in Afghanistan?
Bagram?
Gulf War II?
The vilification of Islam? Shock and Awe?
The destruction of infrastructure in Iraq?
The use of cluster bombs?
500 pound bombs?
The use of white phosphorus?
The bombing of ambulances and hospitals?
50-100,000 dead Iraqi civilians?
Abu Ghraib?
Secret prisons?
Extraordinary renditions?
Torture?
Virtual suspension of the American Constitution?
The imposition of American economic policies on third-world countries?
Abrogation of international treaties governing nuclear non-proliferation, first strike use, etc.?
Rampant American triumphalism, racism, ignorance and arrogance?
Blatant hypocrisy regarding non-existent American 'values' of freedom and democracy ?

***

This list is far from comprehensive, but at least offers an alternative to BushCo.'s pathetic 'They hate us for our freedoms and our beliefs.' America is hated for what it does, not for what it believes, unless one can take that to mean America believes it can do whatever the hell it likes.

There is currently a convergence of three inter-related lines of attack in the Middle East, any one of which could easily result in nuclear conflagration. First is the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) Iraq invasion plan, predating 9-11 and under discussion just ten days after Bush's 'inauguration. These plotters were busy through the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton years, and finally achieved perfect purchase with the selection of George W. This patient group includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Cambone, and others determined to invade Iraq in a 'cakewalk'. Rose petals were flying in their fertile imaginations. Saddam and Osama were bosom buddies. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and a mushroom cloud for Condi. They hoped for a new 'Pearl Harbor type event' to scare the crap out of Americans. They got it, by hook or by crook. Next they want to invade Syria and Iran, quite likely with tactical nuclear weapons. Russia and China might not appreciate this, but the Bush administration is so mired in Iraq and war crimes and crimes against humanity, not to mention domestic lawbreaking that it is desperate for any distraction. They are becoming reduced to a strategy of 'nothing left to lose'. Pile crimes upon crimes and hope the sum is just too overwhelming. But prepare certain domestic ...measures at the same time.

Secondly, there is the all-powerful Israel lobby within the US, (conveniently overlapping with some of the PNAC people--Wolfowitz, Perle, etc.) which was also in favor of the Iraq invasion and helped to drive it, and now also wants to move on Syria and especially Iran. Israel, for all its legendary brutality just lost the battle in Lebanon, but no matter, because America will do the dirty work in Iran, and Israel will benefit in terms of hegemony and oil. Perfect! Of course there are certain gambles involved, but when did Israel ever shy away from gambling with other peoples' lives? Israel has 200 or so nuclear weapons and no hesitation to use them. Iran may have one in about ten years. Danger, danger!

Finally, there are the Crocodile Christians. They have been patient also, slowly building their base within government so that now they can even claim the President as one of their own (sort of). Having long since disposed of Gentle Jesus on the trash heap of history, the Crocs for Christ want Armageddon, and they want it now, dammit. Haven't they earned it? Why wait? They're here to give Crocodile Rambo Redeemer a boot in the ass to get Him going, if that's what it takes. Nobody ever said Armageddon couldn't be nuclear, and if the Christian Crocs have to blow up the whole world (including you and me) to achieve their 'dream', well it's God's way, and the American way. No more waiting on some cold mountaintop for shit that isn't going to happen. Everyone knows Americans make things happen. Usually bad things.

Loads more in the entire piece.

Flight Advisory: More Airport Security

NEW AIRPORT SECURITY PROCEDURES

How They Do It

This is how they do, finding poor saps to ship to Iraq (when they run out of true believers et al).

All the News About How Mediocre and Water-Carrying the Times Has Becomes....

New York Times' Eavesdropping Story Wasn't The Only One Squashed For Bush During 2004 Campaign

This Sunday the New York Times' Bill Keller got dressed down on the paper's letters page, with scores of readers taking the executive editor to task for being evasive in his previous explanation regarding why--and for how long--the Times held back publishing its December 2005, Pulitzer Prize-winning scoop about the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping program under president Bush. A program recently deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge. At the time of publication in 2005 readers were told the story, which the White House pleaded the Times not to publish, had been delayed for "a year." But last week Times public editor, Byron Calame, confirmed the story had been held for 14 months, which, as many had suspected, meant the Times could have published the scoop during the height of the 2004 presidential campaign.

When Calame asked Keller why the paper had reported (vaguely and inaccurately) that the story had been held "a year", Keller conceded, "It was probably inelegant wording." Adding, "I don't know what was in my head at the time." When Calame pressed Keller whether the inelegant wording ("a year") and the sensitivity of the election-day timing issue had been discussed internally, Keller responded improbably, "I don't remember."

That was too much for some Times readers.

"It is depressing to think that the executive editor of The Times would even be able to speak this way," wrote Holly Ketron from Princeton, N.J., just one of many who lectured Keller in print about the proper role of journalists in a democracy.

Depressing, indeed. But even more depressing is the fact the eavesdropping story was just one of several legitimate news stories during the closing weeks of the 2004 campaign that were ignored by mainstream press outlets; stories that would have clearly hurt the Bush campaign. Stories such as the on-going Valerie Plame leak investigation, the tale of Saddam Hussein's hunt for yellowcake uranium, the looming military battle for Fallujah inside Iraq, and Bush's mysterious bulge spotted during the televised debates. I detail the media's disturbing, look-the-other-way approach from 2004 in Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.

• Time and Valeria Plame

In 2004 Time magazine's Matthew Cooper got caught up in the special prosecutor's CIA leak investigation. Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury subpoenaed Cooper to find out who leaked the Plame identity to him. He and Time initially refused to cooperate. Eventually Cooper agreed to testify during the summer of 2005 after receiving a waiver from his source Karl Rove assuring him it was okay to disclose their confidential conversation. Of course, Cooper could have asked for that same waiver in 2004 which would have quickened the pace of the investigation significantly. But Cooper did not, according to a Los Angeles Times report, because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year."

• NBC and Fallujah

On Nov. 4, two days after the nationwide presidential vote, NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw reported, "In Iraq, the American forces have been poised to make a major assault on Fallujah. We all anticipate that could happen at any moment." He asked Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, "What about other strategic and tactical changes in Iraq now that the election is over?" (Emphasis added.) Said Miklaszewski, "U.S. military officials have said for some time that they were putting off any kind of major offensive operation in [Fallujah] until after the U.S. elections, for obvious political reasons."

So according to NBC, military planners had been telling reporters "for some time" that, in what appeared to be a blatant attempt to boost Bush's domestic fortunes, the bloody offensive to try to retake Fallujah was going to be postponed "for obvious political reason" until after the U.S. Election Day. The problem was that prior to Nov. 2, nobody at NBC--not Brokaw, not Miklaszewski--actually reported that fact to viewers as they pondered their presidential pick. (The go-slow approach to Fallujah proved to be a wise public relations move for Republicans since November 2004 became the single deadliest month for U.S. servicemen and women serving in Iraq; 137 died.)

•CBS and Saddam's hunt for yellowcake uranium

Inn the wake of the embarrassing 2004 Memogate scandal, the network announced a 30-minute report by veteran correspondent Ed Bradley examining the administration's faulty claims about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities was being pushed back until after the election. CBS News president Andrew Hayward, under fire from conservative critics for the network's allegedly liberal ways, announced it would have been "inappropriate to broadcast the WMD report so close to the presidential election." [Emphasis added.] The election was six weeks away at the time of the unusual announcement.

•The New York Times and the Bush Bulge

The story was hatched when some careful viewers went back and watched the first presidential debate again and noticed, with the aid of a video freeze frame, the outlines of a bulge protruding out of the back of Bush's suit jacket, between his shoulder blades. Suspicious observers noted Bush's debate advance team had insisted that no cameras be positioned behind Bush or Kerry during the debate. But Fox News ignored the request and one of its cameras caught an image of Bush as he stood at the debate lectern, capturing the clear bulge under his jacket.

When Bush aides were pressed for a serious response to the bulge question (the TV image did not lie, a shadowy bulge was obvious), aides alternatively insisted the controversial image had been "doctored," then that it was merely a "badly tailored suit," a "poorly tailored shirt", and the presidential tailor responsible had been fired. Asked specifically by the New York Times whether the bulge was a bullet proof vest, a Bush aide insisted it was not; the president was not wearing one the night of the debate. It turned out none of those public pronouncements were true. (The bulge was later confirmed to be a bullet proof vest.)

Intrigued by the unfolding unfolding, Robert Nelson, a 30-year Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist who works on photo imaging for NASA's various space probes and is an international authority on image analysis, began to do some at-home research on the bulge image. Nelson, with no partisan ax to grind, took a video image of Bush's back captured from the first debate and, using the same methods used to analyze images taken from spacecrafts, greatly sharpened the details, and specifically the shadows.

Nelson quickly concluded the bulge was real. And the enhanced image of Bush from the debate Nelson created ended any speculation. It was irrefutable that Bush was wearing some sort of device across his back, complete with that liked like a wire snaking down Bush's back. Disturbed by the misleading explanations he had read from Bush aides in the press, Nelson forwarded his information to a New York Times science reporter, who was interested. Eventually, three reporters were assigned to the story.

According to the reporting of David Lindorff, writing for Fairness and Accuracy in Report's Extra!, Nelson was told by a Times reporters that the bulge article, complete with his compelling imagery, would run Oct. 28, five days before the election. Instead, on the night of Oct. 27 the story was killed. In an email the next day, one of the Times reporters apologized to Nelson: "Sorry to have been a source of disappointment and frustration to you." Two months later, executive editor Keller explained, "In the end, nobody, including the scientist who brought it up, could take the story beyond speculation. In the crush of election-finale stories, it died a quiet, unlamented death." In other words, the Times article would have easily proven there was a bulge underneath Bush's jacket during the debates, which would have undercut all his campaign's public denials and thereby raised questions about Bush's credibility. But because the story could not authoritatively say what the bulge was (and because Bush aides still refused to acknowledge its existence), the article was not worth printing.

As for Keller's insistence the story died a "quiet, unlamented death," that was not true. At least one of the reporters assigned to the article, Andrew Revkin, publicly expressed his frustration with the decision to kill the story, noting the oddity of accepting the Bush campaign's flimsy explanation about a tailor's mistake over the word of an esteemed scientist who produced images that were impossible to ignore. The Times' public editor later said he also thought the paper should have run the bulge story.

Meanwhile, can anyone think of a single bad-news-for-Kerry story that news outlets politely sat on during the 2004 campaign?

Link.

Exactly

Link

Leadership -- Our Leader is the Greatest

Animal House in the West Wing
He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.

(Link.)

Hav-A-Laff!

Slightly modified to inject extra humor:

Predicting His Son's Profession

A Tennessee country preacher had a teenage son, and as he neared the end of high school it was getting time the boy should give some thought to choosing a profession. Like many young men, the boy didn't really know what he wanted to do, and he didn't seem too concerned about it.

One day, while the boy was away at school, his father decided to try an experiment. He went into the boy's room and placed on his study desk three items: a Bible, a silver dollar, and a bottle of whiskey.

"I'll just hide behind the door," the old preacher said to himself, "and when he comes home from school this afternoon, I'll see which object he picks up. If it's the Bible, he's going to be a preacher like me, and what a blessing that would be! If he picks up the dollar, he's going to be a businessman, and that would be OK too. But if he picks up the bottle, he's going to be a no-good drunkard and, Lord, what a shame that would be."

The older man waited anxiously, and soon heard his son's footsteps as he entered the house and headed for his room. He tossed his books on the bed, and as he turned to leave the room he spotted the three items on the desk. With curiosity in his eye, he walked over to inspect them.

Finally, he picked up the Bible and placed it under his arm. His father, watching quietly, started to silently thank the Lord. But then his son picked up the silver dollar and dropped it into his pocket, and twisted the top off the bottle and took a big drink!

"Lord have mercy," the old man whispered, "he's gonna be a Republican Congressman!"

(Link to original. As if.)

Hersh -- Our Leaders' Enabling of the Stupid, Pointless War: Essential Reading

The Journal's poll of the day asks for grading our handling of the recent (current?) war in Lebanon. The largest vote-getting grade is an... F.

And that's without having read Hersh's piece (unless all the F's read the piece). After reading it, an F is way too high.

If the Dems had principals and balls, November would be a bloodbath for the GOP -- beyond a rout. (Still, no one actually saw 1994 coming....)

And after that, read this "humor" piece. Karen Hughes bashing is always fun.

Another Must-Read Analysis

Overview of some truths about Iraq getting lost in Our Leaders' and the water-carrying Big Media fog.

Creepy Scary Must-Read Analysis

Jane Smiley's been batting out dead-on analyses of Our Leader. Here's the latest. A juicy piece of it:

One thing you have to ask yourself, faced with American corporate culture, is, what is it about Americans, in particular, that makes them so indifferent to consequences, especially the consequence of doing harm to others, over and over and over? Why did those big tobacco folks persist, for fifty years, in poisoning their customers and attempting to get more customers? Was that what Jesus told them to do?

I bring up Jesus because many, if not most of these companies are headquartered in red states, states proud of their Christian heritage. Big tobacco is (or used to be) located in the south, big oil in Texas, big ag in St. Louis, Minnesota, and Iowa. If Christianity abounds in these states, and people working in these corporations, and running them, are professing Christians, and these people give themselves a license to steal and destroy every day of the year, what does that say about Christianity? Let me tell you. It says that Christianity, especially American Christianity, is the religion of death. Or it says that corporate culture is one thing and religious belief is another, and the religious side is powerless to confront any of the deadly sins perpetrated by the corporate side. But either way, American corporations are set up, not to "create wealth", but to plunder the wealth of everyone not powerful enough to stop them. And the rest of the world understands this. Why do they hate us, again? Oh, yeah. Our values.

When George Bush was elected, the big industries breathed a happy sigh. Finally, they had a "CEO president". The implication of that phrase was that Bush would know how to run the company, to reduce labor costs and outsource various services. The fact was that neither Bush nor Cheney had ever actually succeeded in business, but that was a detail. Failures though they were, they were steeped in corporate ways of thinking, and they owed a lot to big oil, big war, and big ag. They showed immediately that they knew how to do business in the corporate way by cheating in the 2000 election (let's call this "deregulating themselves and their governing behaviors"). This was the true mark of a "CEO President"--do what you can get away with, dare the others to stop you, act always as a predator rather than as a custodian of the common good, because according to theorists of the "free market", there is no common good. Thank you, Milton Friedman. And it doesn't matter how well or poorly they run the government. As they drive it into the ground, they are still acting as good CEOs in the American tradition, preparing their own golden parachutes, sticking it to the suckers (customers, suppliers, stockholders, citizens, soldiers), and treating the property of the corporation (for example the US Army) as their own private stock.

Deregulation has made this debacle.

This is what I remember about the 1980 election. When I got up the morning after and found out the result, I stood in front of my television and wept. I was right to do so. Ronald Reagan busied himself deregulating everything he could--the airlines, the savings and loans, the protections of consumers and workers, health care and the health of the nation itself, the industries that people relied upon for jobs. Babies, children, old folks, farm animals, you name it, he made their lives worse. Possessed of a nice ranch of his own, he assigned James Watt to wreck the environment for everyone else. And he just kept smiling. Americans loved it. He died a couple of years ago with the reputation of a saint. Why would that be? Well, he made Americans proud of themselves again, but for what? Profligate waste? Ignoring every sign that the era of big oil would someday come to an end? Accelerated destruction of natural resources for the sake of Conspicuous consumption? An increase in the number of homeless people in big American cities? Worthless fiddling in the concerns of other nations, like Nicaragua? Is it the US that gives corporations a bad name, or corporations that give the US a bad name? In 1980, the Republicans invited the corporate elite to have it their way. The world we have now, violent and selfish and brutal, contaminated and in danger of environmental collapse, is the world they made, both by actually dismantling the regulatory environment and by letting powerful people get in the habit of thinking that doing whatever they felt like, no matter how grossly harmful, was their right and their privilege.

American corporations always defend their activities by pointing to how innovative they are. This is especially galling when the food companies and the ag companies do it, because they have no good innovations to offer and never have. Olestra? Margarine? Dr. Pepper? GM foods? Roundup? Roundup Ready seed? Salty, fatty fast foods that have ruined the health of millions of Americans? High fructose corn syrup? Chickens raised in cruel and inhuman conditions, contaminated with E. coli and other bacteria? Rice carrying carotene supposedly invented to help starving children, except that children below a certain percentage of body fat can't metabolize the carotene? Whoops! A nice bowl of regular old brown rice and some tofu would work better, but no ag company can figure out how to own all of it. Or a piece of pumpernickel bread and some aged cheddar. Since humans know how to feed themselves, the only thing that the ag companies can do is introduce deceptively marketed products and take for themselves money that might have gone to feeding someone. Oh, yeah, and they can irrevocably change the world so that all biodiversity is reduced and destroyed. Once again, you've got to ask, are they inhumanly evil or inhumanly short-sighted? Oh, well. They are always wrapping themselves in the flag, so it must be the American way.

And it is. American corporations are uniquely free to do business in an irresponsible manner because of what you might call a typo in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which uses the word "person" without defining it as a human being. Since then, corporations have repeatedly interpreted their personhood in their own favor--they get to have the rights that humans have, such as free political speech (bribing candidates with contributions), but none of the consequences (mortality, moral reciprocity, full liability for bad actions). The result is all around us and threatens to destroy us.

A hundred years ago, the rapaciousness of the business elite spawned a century of war and social conflict. The power of Socialism and Marxism was in the rage people feel when their means are stolen from them, when they are duped and fooled and used as cannon fodder by people like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, when the world they live in grows more and more inhuman and self-evidently stupid. That rage is growing now. Anarchists have been replaced by suicide bombers. Marxists have been replaced by Islamicists and lefty bloggers. But, of course Bush and Cheney and the capitalists have empowered their own opposition because the human pattern is the same. The war machine, as in Lebanon (epitomized by aerial destruction) is just as clumsy as it ever was. You cannot torment and injure and murder and disfigure people into liking or agreeing with you, only into going underground while they prepare their revenge. You cannot treat people, even people who don't speak your language or dress like you, as suckers and babies (as in, taking candy from a baby). The average person knows this, but CEOs and CEO Presidents apparently do not. The fact is, the day Ronald Reagan was elected and the corporations decided to roll back the regulations that limited their power, greed, and egomania was the day they doomed themselves and all of us, because it was the day they began living the lie that there are no consequences to corporate activities. By deregulating themselves, they made sure only that the consequences of their misguided policies would be bigger--global climate change rather than higher gas prices, contaminated gene pools rather than lower profits from pesticides, global famine rather than localized corn blight, tens of thousands dead in Iraq rather than higher R and D costs, the death of the Ford motor company rather than a shift to less profitable, more fuel efficient cars. The list is endless. And their defense of what they do gets harsher and more shrill. We are given to understand that if they don't have their way at this point, conflagration in the middle east--war with Iran, possibly nuclear--will result. What kind of person plans such a thing? Inhumanly callous or inhumanly stupid? We have our answer--a CEO President, someone who epitomises both qualities.

Regulation was good because it rationalized not only business activity and human governance, but also because it rationalized the way the business elite saw themselves. It did not simply confront power with power, as Marxism did, it took details into consideration and broke up the huge gamble that is capitalism into a plethora of smaller gambles with perhaps fewer profits but also fewer consequences. You may have bought a piece of swampland in Florida, thinking you could develop it, and subsequent understanding of the ecosystem may have lowered the value of your particular piece of property. Too bad you had to eat that investment and come up with some other use for your acquisition, but your business failure is not a reason to destroy the Everglades. Too bad you put your R and D into SUVs, but that is not a reason to destroy Iraq, endanger Israel, and bomb Iran.

GOP Leadership

Isn't this lovely.

Frameshop: 'Macaca' or 'Macaque'

News breaking out of Virginia is that Senator George Allen called a person a 'macaca' while on the campaign trail. The person was dark skinned and, as it happens, working for Jim Webb's campaign.

There has been some question as to what this word 'macaca' means, so I took some time to fire off some searches on Google.

In the remainder of this post I will list key findings under headings of the search terms plugged into google.

'Macaca' or 'macaque' is a nasty racial epithet alright. It is often used by American white supremacists to describe black people. In Belgium, it is a racial slur for 'dirty arab.' Could this be George Allen's Mel Gibson moment?

WARNING: This findings in this post contain language that many readers may find offensive.

What I hope to show in these results are instances where the word 'macaca' or 'macaque' are being used as an offensive racial slur on par with other more familiar racial slurs. This research is intended to clarify what exactly happened in the outburst by George Allen using sources commonly available to anyone with a computer.

Google Search: nigger+macaque

Source: Vanguard News Network Forum
Quote: "I watched the press conference they had when they caught the rampaging macaque. Niggy the Pinhead here put on a hilarious performance: "I's only bin shairf fo' a few munts..." it mumbled over & over, desperate to pass dat ol' buck. "I's bin foccusin' on securetee in de jail, but now I be foccussin' on de coathouse, know whum sayin'?"

It's all part of the forced-at-fed-gunpoint jewfarce of pretending that niggers have any bidness leading anything more complex than tribal grub-hunting expeditions."

Farther down in the same thread, another reader quoted the section with 'macaque,' made it bold face and replied as follows:

Source: Vanguard News Network Forum
Quote: "I watched the press conference they had when they caught the rampaging macaque. ...goddamn rapin, lootin', murderin', rampaging niggers, goddamn them all...

Soure: ACDC Forum
Quote: "Well, I have the same opinion too ... but sometimes we're referring to a "human-race" and so I was a bit surprised that in the US they don't call a nigger a nigger. Here in our dictionary dutch translation : neger = black citizen originating from africa ... And here there's nothing wrong with that word. Here the "niggers" call themselves "niggers" too .... so, I don't know why in the US this word is so negative ... maybe because of people there where using this word more in a way of insults towards black people. I think that black people where much more discriminated in the US than here (slavery, etc...). Every continent has it's own history ... Another example : here in Belgium when you want to insult an arab .... you would never say "arab" ... but use the words "macaque" or "bougnoul". I don't want to teach you guys how to insult an arab or motivate you to insult them ... I just want to say we use a "nickname" instead of using the name of the race. But of course if you would call them a "dirty arab" ... this is offending too.

Source: Stormfront White Pride World Wide
Quote: "I agree with you Gabor, "our" players sure don't look like they had Celts or Francs for ancestors. Football in France isn't sport it's politics, what the French avatar of ZOG wants is for us to admire niggers and sand niggers like Zidane so that we get used to being around untermenschen and accept the presence on our soil of the millions of "chance pour la France" that plague our lives. Didn't work this time though, une France macaque-bougnoule-blancgnoule pas question, jamais...Victory through superior intelligence!

Google Search: "racial slur"+macaque

Source: Vanguard News Network - Reader Letters
Quote: "What it's like in France these days...I see it's the same in America as in Europe. Here in France we got those niggers and arabs (quite the same thing as your coons, but muslims !!!) saying their hate of everything White. They own a lot of suburbs where the police cannot go anymore, white families are forced to flee or see their kids molested, racketted, their young daughters gang-raped in a basement. The liberals in the gov't and medias just pretend it's "far-right lies", that the bougnoules (an offensive name for the arabs here) are victims of our racism (though of course they get every welfare aid that exists), marxist judges let em roam free. Islam is conquering the country fast, now there are muslim meals in the schools, and in some places white children have to learn arab at school ! Rappers are the same as yours, proclaiming they will conquer everything, fuck the country, kill the whites, fuck every white woman they see. Ordinary citizens aren't allowed to own a gun and defend themselves. This week a white father was jailed because he shot the arab raper of his 12 year old daughter. Of course now, if an arab does the same, he'll be let free because his fellows boucaques (contraction of bougnoule and macaque) would threaten to burn everything. Police station are attacked and even burnt every week, ethnic arab gangs own rocket-launchers and kalashnikovs.

Google Search: "Original Dissent"+macaque

Source: Original Dissent
Quote: "FYI - friends of mine who are cops told me years ago that [Rodney] King is "red-flagged" in the system, meaning that if/when he is pulled over, sergeants (superior officers) are to be called to the scene immdiately, or he is to be let go if possilble. All to avoid the appearance of Sir Rodney being picked on. Don't want another riot you know. And the macaque has taken full advantage of this privilege."

Source: Original Dissent
Quote:"Bryant lacked the all-important street credibility, they said, and although the defining characteristics of "street cred" remain unclear, some said Bryant didn't match up to the appeal of Allen Iverson and Tracy McGrady. Lying coward. We all know the only way to gain "street cred" with nigra gutter scum is to be just like them. That's why that ugly cornrowed thug Iverson has it while the well-tailored macaque-about-town Kobe doesn't. Keep it real, yo."

CONCLUSION
The term 'macaque'--also pronounced 'mukakkah'--is a commonly used racial slur on par with the word 'nigger' in the united states.

In Europe, the word 'macaque' is largely a racial slur used to insult people of North African descent. It is roughly synonomous with 'dirty arab.'

Most of the results that came back in these searches took me to well known white supremacy websites--and to posts from the past two or three years. So this is a phrase that is still in use.

Also returned where hundreds of 'ethnic slur' dictionaries online, all of which list this term as a 'Belgian' racial slur.

(Link.)

Songs

Pissing Our Pants
(sung to the tune of “Staying Alive”)

Well, you can tell by the way I stain my pants
I’m a patriot: just read my rants
Muslims make me want to hiss, when they come at me
I start to piss
And now it’s airtight, it’s inside
I have hung onto my pride
We just want to all be safe
But when I walk I tend to chafe

When you are so frightened the tension is quite heightened
You’re pissing your pants, pissing your pants
Feel the bladder leakin’, everybody freakin’
And we’re pissing our pants, pissing our pants
Ah, ha, ha, ha, pissing our pants, pissing our pants
Ah, ha, ha, ha, pissing our pants…

Well now, I get moist and I get dry
Sometimes in back I “bake a pie”
My body sometimes like to twist
I’m leakin’ from every orifice
And now it’s airtight, it’s inside
I have hung onto my pride
We just want to all be safe
But when I walk I tend to chafe

Saw a brown person. Somebody help me.
Somebody help me, yeah
Saw a brown person. Somebody help me.
Somebody help me, yea. Pissing my pants.

Well, you can tell by the way I stain my pants
I’m a patriot: just read my rants
Muslims make me want to hiss, when they come at me
I start to piss
And now it’s airtight, it’s inside
I have hung onto my pride
We just want to all be safe
But when I walk I tend to chafe

When you are so frightened the tension is quite heightened
You’re pissing your pants, pissing your pants
Feel the bladder leakin’, everybody freakin’
And we’re pissing our pants, pissing our pants
Ah, ha, ha, ha, pissing our pants, pissing our pants
Ah, ha, ha, ha, pissing our pants…

Saw a brown person. Somebody help me.
Somebody help me, yeah
Saw a brown person. Somebody help me.
Somebody help me, yeah. Pissing my pants.


(Link.)

How many stones must a man hurl down
Before you bleed from your hands?
Yes, ‘n how many votes must a candidate get
Before you strike up the band?
Yes, ‘n how many crimes must the White House commit
Before you make a last stand?
The answer, my friend, is ask Joe Lieberman
The answer is ask Joe Lieberman

How many dimes must a man cough up
Before they are spent for peace?
Yes, ‘n how many lives must end in the sand
Before we tame the killing beast?
Yes, ‘n how many lies will it take till we know
We have turned the most to the least
The answer, my friend, is ask Joe Lieberman
The answer is ask Joe Lieberman

Yes, ‘n how many guns must we ship overseas
Before we stop the killing game?
Yes, ‘n how many hearts must be broken apart
Before our heads are all buried in shame?
How many fears can a Congress exploit
Just to keep their jobs and their fame?
The answer, my friend, is not Joe Lieberman
The answer is not Joe Lieberman

(Link.)

*sugh*

(Link.)

Great Reporting

The reporter, Gary Webb, got essentially blacklisted for this: a less-than-fully-accurate story no one else was looking into. first part ran ten years ago, 18 August 1996. Google "dark alliance" -- or maybe "CIA drugs Nicaragua." Read an overview -- the story about the story -- here.

Art du Jour

A blast from the past.

An expert opines on Our Leader prior to the 2K election. What initially my eye was that I thought it was about 04 because of "bumbling." Prescience, though, is a sign of great art.

Correction

That english guy referenced in one of the posts below did not (allegedly) characterize Our Leader as being full of crap in regard to 8/10 but in regard to our leaders Mid East policy.

I got that wrong but I must disagree with the characterization in that context; our policy is actually a very dark comedy, not crap at all. (But again, after enabling and encouraging Israel into a humiliating defeat, where is our reward from Syria and Iran and the Itaqi insurgents?)

Mendancity

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "That's, I think, the $64,000 question. And as I've thought about it, I think a big part of it relates to the fact that many Americans aren't feeling the benefit, because they are clearly better off as a result of a strong economic growth and job creation. They're much better off than they would be if the economy were growing slower or weren't growing. But many of the Americans aren't feeling it in terms of their own economic situation. Part of this is a result of energy costs, healthcare, and so that's -- as I said, that's part of it.

"I would be optimistic that if we can keep the job creation, keep making new jobs and productivity levels high, that you're going to see wage growth follow this. And we've seen some encouraging signs if you look over the last couple quarters. And that's part of it."

Emphasis added.

Only two major lies. (I say lies because I must assume the former head of Goldman Sachs knws at least as much about things economic as I.

Link to more.

Meanwhile, the world's bloggingest blogger gives us this example of rightist profundity:

George F. Will discusses the British terrorist bust and what it may mean to us. One of the things he thinks it means is that John Kerry was right when he said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world." Of course, when Kerry said that, no Conservative — not even Mr. Will — would view it as anything other than some sort of admission of weakness.

No shame....

Proposed Bill that's Dead in the Water

Giving Congress the right to sue over presidential signing statements that state that Our Leader will refuse to obey the law he's signing.

Query: It gets passed and W signs it and the signing statement says he will not obey it? Don't we have a suitby Congress and a countersuit or defense that the law is constitutionally illegal?

Did I Not Say that No One Knows What Illegal Immigrants Contribute to or Cost Society??

Study: Immigrants Not Taking Jobs From Americans
By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press 8/17/06

WASHINGTON -- Big increases in immigration since 1990 have not hurt employment prospects for American workers, says a study released Thursday.

The report comes as Congress and much of the nation are debating immigration policy, a big issue in this fall's midterm congressional elections.

The Pew Hispanic Center found no evidence that increases in immigration led to higher unemployment among Americans, said Rakesh Kochhar, who authored the study.

Kochhar said other factors, such as economic growth, played a larger role than immigration in determining the job market for Americans.

The study, however, did not look at whether wages were affected by immigration. Advocates for tighter immigration policies argue that immigrant workers depress wages for American workers, especially those with few skills and little education.

Immigration supporters argue that foreign workers often take jobs that Americans don't want and won't take.

The Pew Hispanic Center is a non-partisan research organization that does not advocate policy positions. The center studied census data on the increase in immigrants from 1990 to 2000, and from 2000 to 2004, for each state. It matched those figures with state employment rates, unemployment rates and participation in the labor force among native-born Americans.

The U.S. had 28 million immigrants -- legal and illegal -- age 16 and older in 2000, an increase of 61 percent from 1990. By 2004, there were 32 million.

Among the study's findings:

• Twenty-two states had immigration levels above the national average from 1990 to 2000. Among them, 14 had employment rates for native-born workers above the national average in 2000, and eight had employment rates below the national average.

• Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia had immigration levels below the national average from 1990 to 2000. Among them, 16 had above-average employment rates for native-born workers in 2000, and 13 had below-average employment rates.

• Twenty-four states had immigration levels above the national average from 2000 to 2004. Among them, 13 states had employment rates for native-born Americans above the national average in 2004, and 11 had employment rates below the national average.

• Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia had immigration levels below the national average from 2000 to 2004. Among them, 12 had employment rates for native-born Americans above the national average, and 15 had employment rates below the national average.

Immigrants tend to be younger and have less education than American workers. The study, however, found "no apparent relationship between the growth of foreign workers with less education and the employment outcome of native workers with the same low level of education."

However, Steven Camarota, director of research for the Center for Immigration Studies, said his research shows that many young workers with little education are hurt by competition from immigrants.

"Employment for less educated natives has declined, and their wages have declined," said Camarota, who advocates stricter immigration policies. "There is no shortage of less educated workers in the United States."

Whiny Tit Babies

The paranoid, impotent whining of the enablers of the oppressive establishment has burned my butt for years, how these schmucks feel so impotent while their boys are firmly in power, despite their guys being in power. Boohoohoo!

Well, it bothers Thomas Frank, too, except he spells it out for you.

Liquid Explosives -- Really??

Add to the skeptical list the Register.

We're told that the suspects were planning to use TATP, or triacetone triperoxide, a high explosive that supposedly can be made from common household chemicals unlikely to be caught by airport screeners. A little hair dye, drain cleaner, and paint thinner - all easily concealed in drinks bottles - and the forces of evil have effectively smuggled a deadly bomb onboard your plane.
Or at least that's what we're hearing, and loudly, through the mainstream media and its legions of so-called "terrorism experts." But what do these experts know about chemistry? Less than they know about lobbying for Homeland Security pork, which is what most of them do for a living. But they've seen the same movies that you and I have seen, and so the myth of binary liquid explosives dies hard.
Better killing through chemistry
Making a quantity of TATP sufficient to bring down an airplane is not quite as simple as ducking into the toilet and mixing two harmless liquids together.
First, you've got to get adequately concentrated hydrogen peroxide. This is hard to come by, so a large quantity of the three per cent solution sold in pharmacies might have to be concentrated by boiling off the water. Only this is risky, and can lead to mission failure by means of burning down your makeshift lab before a single infidel has been harmed.
But let's assume that you can obtain it in the required concentration, or cook it from a dilute solution without ruining your operation. Fine. The remaining ingredients, acetone and sulfuric acid, are far easier to obtain, and we can assume that you've got them on hand.
Now for the fun part. Take your hydrogen peroxide, acetone, and sulfuric acid, measure them very carefully, and put them into drinks bottles for convenient smuggling onto a plane. It's all right to mix the peroxide and acetone in one container, so long as it remains cool. Don't forget to bring several frozen gel-packs (preferably in a Styrofoam chiller deceptively marked "perishable foods"), a thermometer, a large beaker, a stirring rod, and a medicine dropper. You're going to need them.
It's best to fly first class and order Champagne. The bucket full of ice water, which the airline ought to supply, might possibly be adequate - especially if you have those cold gel-packs handy to supplement the ice, and the Styrofoam chiller handy for insulation - to get you through the cookery without starting a fire in the lavvie.
Easy does it
Once the plane is over the ocean, very discreetly bring all of your gear into the toilet. You might need to make several trips to avoid drawing attention. Once your kit is in place, put a beaker containing the peroxide / acetone mixture into the ice water bath (Champagne bucket), and start adding the acid, drop by drop, while stirring constantly. Watch the reaction temperature carefully. The mixture will heat, and if it gets too hot, you'll end up with a weak explosive. In fact, if it gets really hot, you'll get a premature explosion possibly sufficient to kill you, but probably no one else.
After a few hours - assuming, by some miracle, that the fumes haven't overcome you or alerted passengers or the flight crew to your activities - you'll have a quantity of TATP with which to carry out your mission. Now all you need to do is dry it for an hour or two.
The genius of this scheme is that TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.
We believe this because a peer-reviewed 2004 study in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS) entitled "Decomposition of Triacetone Triperoxide is an Entropic Explosion" tells us that the explosive force of TATP comes from the sudden decomposition of a solid into gasses. There's no rapid oxidizing of fuel, as there is with many other explosives: rather, the substance changes state suddenly through an entropic process, and quickly releases a respectable amount of energy when it does. (Thus the lack of ingredients typically associated with explosives makes TATP, a white crystalline powder resembling sugar, difficult to detect with conventional bomb sniffing gear.)

Mrs. Satan
By now you'll be asking why these jihadist wannabes didn't conspire simply to bring TATP onto planes, colored with a bit of vegetable dye, and disguised as, say, a powdered fruit-flavored drink. The reason is that they would be afraid of failing: TATP is notoriously sensitive and unstable. Mainstream journalists like to tell us that terrorists like to call it "the mother of Satan." (Whether this reputation is deserved, or is a consequence of homebrewing by unqualified hacks, remains open to debate.)
It's been claimed that the 7/7 bombers used it, but this has not been positively confirmed. Some sources claim that they used C-4, and others that they used RDX. Nevertheless, the belief that they used TATP has stuck with the media, although going about in a crowded city at rush hour with an unstable homebrew explosive in a backpack is not the brightest of all possible moves. It's surprising that none of the attackers enjoyed an unscheduled launch into Paradise.
So, assuming that the homebrew variety of TATP is highly sensitive and unstable - or at least that our inept jihadists would believe that - to avoid getting blown up in the taxi on the way to the airport, one might, if one were educated in terror tactics primarily by hollywood movies, prefer simply to dump the precursors into an airplane toilet bowl and let the mother of Satan work her magic. Indeed, the mixture will heat rapidly as TATP begins to form, and it will soon explode. But this won't happen with much force, because little TATP will have formed by the time the explosion occurs.
We asked University of Rhode Island Chemistry Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, who has actual, practical experience with TATP, if this is a reasonable assumption, and she tolds us that merely dumping the precursors together would create "a violent reaction," but not a detonation.
To release the energy needed to bring down a plane (far more difficult to do than many imagine, as Aloha Airlines Flight 243 neatly illustrates), it's necessary to synthesize a good amount of TATP with care.
Jack Bauer sense
So the fabled binary liquid explosive - that is, the sudden mixing of hydrogen peroxide and acetone with sulfuric acid to create a plane-killing explosion, is out of the question. Meanwhile, making TATP ahead of time carries a risk that the mission will fail due to premature detonation, although it is the only plausible approach.
Certainly, if we can imagine a group of jihadists smuggling the necessary chemicals and equipment on board, and cooking up TATP in the lavatory, then we've passed from the realm of action blockbusters to that of situation comedy.
It should be small comfort that the security establishments of the UK and the USA - and the "terrorism experts" who inform them and wheedle billions of dollars out of them for bomb puffers and face recognition gizmos and remote gait analyzers and similar hi-tech phrenology gear - have bought the Hollywood binary liquid explosive myth, and have even acted upon it.
We've given extraordinary credit to a collection of jihadist wannabes with an exceptionally poor grasp of the mechanics of attacking a plane, whose only hope of success would have been a pure accident. They would have had to succeed in spite of their own ignorance and incompetence, and in spite of being under police surveillance for a year.
But the Hollywood myth of binary liquid explosives now moves governments and drives public policy. We have reacted to a movie plot. Liquids are now banned in aircraft cabins (while crystalline white powders would be banned instead, if anyone in charge were serious about security). Nearly everything must now go into the hold, where adequate amounts of explosives can easily be detonated from the cabin with cell phones, which are generally not banned.
Action heroes
The al-Qaeda franchise will pour forth its bowl of pestilence and death. We know this because we've watched it countless times on TV and in the movies, just as our officials have done. Based on their behavior, it's reasonable to suspect that everything John Reid and Michael Chertoff know about counterterrorism, they learned watching the likes of Bruce Willis, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Vin Diesel, and The Rock (whose palpable homoerotic appeal it would be discourteous to emphasize).
It's a pity that our security rests in the hands of government officials who understand as little about terrorism as the Florida clowns who needed their informant to suggest attack scenarios, as the 21/7 London bombers who injured no one, as lunatic "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, as the Forest Gate nerve gas attackers who had no nerve gas, as the British nitwits who tried to acquire "red mercury," and as the recent binary liquid bomb attackers who had no binary liquid bombs.
For some real terror, picture twenty guys who understand op-sec, who are patient, realistic, clever, and willing to die, and who know what can be accomplished with a modest stash of dimethylmercury.
You won't hear about those fellows until it's too late. Our official protectors and deciders trumpet the fools they catch because they haven't got a handle on the people we should really be afraid of. They make policy based on foibles and follies, and Hollywood plots.

Truth

Josh:

Is there anyone in the country who can say honestly, in their heart of hearts, that when that moment of fear hit them after the recent reports out of London, they said to themselves, "God, I'm glad we're in Iraq"?

Certainly not anyone who matters....

Prescient About This Too

So, as I was posting the other day, 8/10 -- just how serious and real a threat was it?

Less than Our Leaders want you -- or at least their core supporters -- to believe.

Look here, and here:

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would have done with the IRA.

In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.

And then even the Brits seem to think Our Leaders are %$#@ing liars about 8/10.

Speaking of Rightist Moral Hypocricy....

Our Whore-of-the-Day stands by her man -- not, kicking him when he's down. Of course, she has to be free to find a new John....

Are You Safer Under Republican Leadership?

Of course not. Look here, for one.

And here's a spin, as it were: The failure that made 9/11 possible belonged to the FBI and, to a lesser degree, the CIA -- both lead by Republican-Congress approved appointees. Maybe the agencies could have had better leadership than what the nutjobs were willing to approve? (Of course, that also gets to the whole nether issue of the post-94 Congress somehow having no responsibility for anything that went on under Slick Willy -- like they were his rubber stamp. Sure; you can see it in the appointments they approved for him....)

Oh, and look at this:

Say it loud, say it often, "Republicans are bad on national security"
Posted on Wednesday, August 16 @ 09:36:56 EDT
Larry Beinhart

Every Democrat running for national office - and local offices too, why not? - should say, "I'm running because Republicans are bad on national security."

Then they should go on to say, here's why I'm saying it:

1. 9/11 happened on their watch.

Of course, we can't say, absolutely, that it would not have happened if they had not been asleep at the wheel. But we can say that they did not do all they could have done to prevent it. We can say that Bush literally pushed away the warnings.

2. George Bush and the Republicans failed to get Osama bin Laden.

We got both Hitler and Hirohito in less time than we've been chasing bin Laden. Every day that bin Laden's out there, he's proof that you can attack the United States and get away with it. That's a bad message to send, and believe me, people in the terrorist world have heard it loud and clear. That's very bad for national security.

3. George Bush and the Republicans gave Osama bin Laden what he wanted.

Bin Laden wanted the US to get into a quagmire. He wanted our troops tied down in an Islamic country so that an insurgency could do to them what the Afghanis did to the Russians and to the British before them.

A modern, hi-tech army is very good at invasions. It's also good for fighting back against other armies. But a modern hi-tech army is not good at occupying a country against the will of the population. Even if the army is as violent and ruthless as the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan were.

4. George Bush and the Republicans squandered America's power and prestige.

Before 9/11 most people in the world probably thought that America's intelligence services were able and astute, agencies to be feared.

The Bush administration has made them appear bumbling and inept. They did this, first, by ignoring their warnings and then, second, by making them the fall guys for 9/11.

After 9/11 most of the world feared America's wrath and America's might. By failing to get bin Laden and his gang, then by attacking the wrong country, unleashing chaos, and getting our armed forces into a situation that they can't win, the administration showed the world they have less to fear than they imagined.

5. The Bush administration empowered Hezbollah.

The 'insurgency' in Iraq was Hezbollah's textbook and their inspiration. If Iraqis could do that to Americans, surely they could do the same to the Israelis. And they have.

It's not yet on the record, but it's clear from everyone's conduct, that the administration encouraged the Israelis to 'unleash' their forces against Hezbollah. They probably thought Israel's modern hi-tech armies would quickly smash their enemy.

6. The Bush administration radicalized Hamas.

Hamas was elected. Sworn to the destruction of Israel or not, they should have been encouraged to become responsible players with carrots as well as sticks. Instead the administration put them up against the wall, hoping to starve the Palestinian people into voting for a different group. Would that work if someone tried to do it to us?

7. Bush and the Republicans tied down our forces in Iraq while Iran and North Korea invested in nuclear technology.

That made North Korea feel secure enough to test ICBMs. If they had been successful, they would have had a delivery system for their nuclear weapons.

That would be incredibly bad for national security.

Iran, with American forces tied down in Iraq, feels secure enough to defy the UN as well as the US.

Very bad for national security.

8. By the way, every major European nation has had successful arrests and real trials of real, dangerous terrorists. People on the level of this group that the British just took down.

The most ferocious terrorist arrested in the United States since 9/11 has been the shoe bomber.

Ten, twenty, forty, a hundred billion dollars, a trillion dollars, and the best we have to show for it is the shoe bomber?!

Republicans are bad on national security.

9. We have trashed the bill of rights. We have trashed the Geneva conventions. We have a president and a vice president willing to go the mat to fight for the right to torture people. We have spent a fortune on illegal wiretaps. We have spent a fortune on collecting everyone's telephone data.

And what have we achieved by all of this?

A quagmire in Iraq. Dishonor. Debts. An empowered al Qaeda. A new war in Lebanon. The inability to stand up to Iran and North Korea. Osama bin Laden at large, an inspiration to extremists everywhere.

Republican are unimaginably bad on national security.

Say it loud. Say it often, it's the truth, Republicans are bad on national security.

Me, I think within a generation or two Iraq will be better off than it was during the sanctions era. Unless it breaks up first. (A unified Iraq iss not necessary for our oil-controlling, base-building purposes.)

Anyway.

A more professional opinion is here.

Ans speaking of which, closet-loving pathological liar Kenny Mehlman admits we're in Iraq for the oil. I'm the honesty is an aberration that will have no effect at all.