OK, I am lame. I haven't posted in almost 18 months. Trust me when I say I have been busy.
This business with Bush not wanting to sign a bill because it put actual 'limits' and 'timeframes' on getting us out of this quagmire of a war he got us into, is ridiculous.
His argument that if we set a deadline that the terrorists will just "mark their calendars" and wait for us to leave to take over Iraq is just silly. On the surface of it, one could make the argument that we will never leave Iraq because the date will have to be set at some time. Somewhere in the future (hopefully soon) we will be leaving Iraq, and the terrorists will know. Doesn't matter when, right?
On a side note, do the terrorists use Outlook to keep track of their appointments? Couldn't we just send a virus to them via Microsoft Update to forward all their calendar appointments, contacts, and e-mails to the NSA or something?
Oh, right...I forgot that the NSA is already reading the terrorists e-mails...along with all my e-mail and blog posts.
Hold on a sec..some one is at the door...
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Dick Cheney proves once again that he is one
On Wednesday evening, Vice-President Richard “Dick” Cheney proved once again that he is the administration’s attack dog, and President Bush left him off his leash to run around Washington while he went off to Asia.
In a speech to the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala, the esteemed VP continued the new campaign style attacks on democrats that have the guts to question how in the heck we got into Iraq in the first place. The talking point of the day is that it is ‘Irresponsible’ to question pre-war intelligence and to try to ‘re-write history’.
Are these guys really serious?
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, which was pretty much a foregone conclusion in early 2003 since we had 100K+ troops already in the region, the overwhelming war cry was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they would give them to terrorists, and America would not be safe with Hussein in power.
Using the bits and pieces of intelligence that supported the claim, we shunned the world that asked for more time to prove the intel, kicked out the UN inspectors that could not find the WMD’s, and proceeded to invade. Now we are 3 years into this mess, 2000 plus American lives have been lost, countless Iraqi lives are lost, and no WMD’s have been found.
Oops. Sounds pretty ‘Irresponsible’ to me.
On the re-writing history front, if you ask them why we invaded today, you will get the standard “after 9-11 the world has changed…freedom and democracy should spread throughout the middle east…the Iraqi people were under the thumb of a dictator…we fight the terrorists there instead of here” line of Bush baloney. No mention of WMD’s, but Democrats are accused of changing history.
My favorite quote is this:
It’s important to point out that the previous administration did most likely arrive at the same judgment about Iraq’s WMD’s. The difference is that they also knew that some of the intel was sketchy, and they didn’t decide to INVADE Iraq to prove a point.
There was NO connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before or after 9-11. There were NO WMD’s in Iraq. There were NO terrorists in Iraq until after we invaded and sent the country into chaos.
The American people are hopefully smart enough to see through this massive ‘campaign style’ attack plan that is currently under way. The only WMD’s we need to be worried about are the words of mass distraction coming out of the oval office these days.
In a speech to the Frontiers of Freedom Institute 2005 Ronald Reagan Gala, the esteemed VP continued the new campaign style attacks on democrats that have the guts to question how in the heck we got into Iraq in the first place. The talking point of the day is that it is ‘Irresponsible’ to question pre-war intelligence and to try to ‘re-write history’.
Are these guys really serious?
In the run up to the invasion of Iraq, which was pretty much a foregone conclusion in early 2003 since we had 100K+ troops already in the region, the overwhelming war cry was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they would give them to terrorists, and America would not be safe with Hussein in power.
Using the bits and pieces of intelligence that supported the claim, we shunned the world that asked for more time to prove the intel, kicked out the UN inspectors that could not find the WMD’s, and proceeded to invade. Now we are 3 years into this mess, 2000 plus American lives have been lost, countless Iraqi lives are lost, and no WMD’s have been found.
Oops. Sounds pretty ‘Irresponsible’ to me.
On the re-writing history front, if you ask them why we invaded today, you will get the standard “after 9-11 the world has changed…freedom and democracy should spread throughout the middle east…the Iraqi people were under the thumb of a dictator…we fight the terrorists there instead of here” line of Bush baloney. No mention of WMD’s, but Democrats are accused of changing history.
My favorite quote is this:
"…these are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions. They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that was made by this administration and by the previous administration."
It’s important to point out that the previous administration did most likely arrive at the same judgment about Iraq’s WMD’s. The difference is that they also knew that some of the intel was sketchy, and they didn’t decide to INVADE Iraq to prove a point.
There was NO connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before or after 9-11. There were NO WMD’s in Iraq. There were NO terrorists in Iraq until after we invaded and sent the country into chaos.
The American people are hopefully smart enough to see through this massive ‘campaign style’ attack plan that is currently under way. The only WMD’s we need to be worried about are the words of mass distraction coming out of the oval office these days.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Bush decides to respect international law now?
The latest news on the continuing debate/scandal on how the US is treating people that it has captured and detained involves our Secretary of State, Condi Rice.
Before traveling to the Middle East this week with stops in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, she gave a speech at the American Bar Association meeting on International Law. In this speech she comments that the US is upholding its international agreements.
Yeah, right. I think that we have pretty much thrown out many of the previous international obligations we had signed up for after September 11, 2001. Some of them were even dropped before then. I find real irony in her statement.
1. Kyoto Treaty – In 2001 one of the first acts of a newly appointed Bush administration was to thumb their nose at the world and tell them that we no longer care about the environment and will not endorse the Kyoto treaty to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the previous administration had signed up to this international agreement, the Bushies basically said ‘we’re not interested’. One can argue that Kyoto was ineffective and wouldn’t work to curb global warming anyway, but it certainly was a start. And for Bush to claim that he is a long term strategic minded leader, this was a real stinker. Do these names ring a bell? Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Charley, Francis, Ivan, Jeanne?
2. Int'l War crimes Tribunal – Here is another example were we throw out our moral and legal obligation to the world. In 2002, Bush and his cronies decided that the US would not endorse an international war crimes tribunal if the US could not be exempted from prosecution by said court. How is it that we should be exempt from this? The argument that the court might be politically motivated to prosecute US citizens is shallow and false, and leads us back to the Bushies not wanting people to see what is happening in Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s so-called ‘black sites’.
3. 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty – This one is a real nice slap in the face to Russia. Donald Rumsfeld and his band of merry men decided that we needed a missile defense shield system to protect us from ‘rogue’ states. The problem is of course that we had previous international treaties that prevented us from testing and deploying such a system. So they just decided to throw it out. Of course any terrorist with half of their wits about them will smuggle a bomb in on a container ship and not bother to try to put it on top of a rocket and fire it at us.
For the highest ranking diplomat in the US administration to state that we have an obligation to uphold international law and abide by our agreements is really hypocritical at best, and downright illegal at worst. Time and again the Bush administration has thumbed their nose at the world. What makes them think that the world will listen to us now?
It’s not really that we should not keep and detain people that are a real threat to the US and its interests. My feeling is that we should do it within the boundaries of the constitution that we have held up for more than 220 years. It has served us well, and is flexible enough to change over time in its structure and interpretation. If these people really want to hurt us, put them on trial and lock them up in the federal penitentiary system. It was good enough for the Ramzi Yousef and the blind sheik that supported him in the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center, it should be good enough for all the other terrorists as well.
Before traveling to the Middle East this week with stops in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, she gave a speech at the American Bar Association meeting on International Law. In this speech she comments that the US is upholding its international agreements.
"For the United States, an essential element of the rule of law has always been and still remains law among nations…We have always respected our international legal obligations and we have led the world in developing new international law."
Yeah, right. I think that we have pretty much thrown out many of the previous international obligations we had signed up for after September 11, 2001. Some of them were even dropped before then. I find real irony in her statement.
1. Kyoto Treaty – In 2001 one of the first acts of a newly appointed Bush administration was to thumb their nose at the world and tell them that we no longer care about the environment and will not endorse the Kyoto treaty to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the previous administration had signed up to this international agreement, the Bushies basically said ‘we’re not interested’. One can argue that Kyoto was ineffective and wouldn’t work to curb global warming anyway, but it certainly was a start. And for Bush to claim that he is a long term strategic minded leader, this was a real stinker. Do these names ring a bell? Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Charley, Francis, Ivan, Jeanne?
2. Int'l War crimes Tribunal – Here is another example were we throw out our moral and legal obligation to the world. In 2002, Bush and his cronies decided that the US would not endorse an international war crimes tribunal if the US could not be exempted from prosecution by said court. How is it that we should be exempt from this? The argument that the court might be politically motivated to prosecute US citizens is shallow and false, and leads us back to the Bushies not wanting people to see what is happening in Guantanamo Bay and the CIA’s so-called ‘black sites’.
3. 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty – This one is a real nice slap in the face to Russia. Donald Rumsfeld and his band of merry men decided that we needed a missile defense shield system to protect us from ‘rogue’ states. The problem is of course that we had previous international treaties that prevented us from testing and deploying such a system. So they just decided to throw it out. Of course any terrorist with half of their wits about them will smuggle a bomb in on a container ship and not bother to try to put it on top of a rocket and fire it at us.
For the highest ranking diplomat in the US administration to state that we have an obligation to uphold international law and abide by our agreements is really hypocritical at best, and downright illegal at worst. Time and again the Bush administration has thumbed their nose at the world. What makes them think that the world will listen to us now?
It’s not really that we should not keep and detain people that are a real threat to the US and its interests. My feeling is that we should do it within the boundaries of the constitution that we have held up for more than 220 years. It has served us well, and is flexible enough to change over time in its structure and interpretation. If these people really want to hurt us, put them on trial and lock them up in the federal penitentiary system. It was good enough for the Ramzi Yousef and the blind sheik that supported him in the 1993 attacks on the World Trade Center, it should be good enough for all the other terrorists as well.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Big oil CEOs under fire in Congress
You have to ask yourself...why? Why wouldn't the senator from Alaska let the big oil company executives swear under oath to tell the truth? What difference does it make?
Alaska Republican Stevens, head of the Senate Commerce Committee, rejected calls by some Democrats to have the executives sworn in, saying the law already required them to tell the truth.
Turns out, big oil has donated more than $10mm to his campaigns over the years.
Ahhh..now it makes sense.
Classes on Ethics and Secure Documents
White House workers, from presidential advisers to low-ranking aides, began attending mandatory lectures on ethical behavior and the handling of classified documents Tuesday after the recent indictment of a high-level official in the CIA leak case.So, I have a question...why didn't they do this 5 years ago when the president first took office? Seems like that would be part of the new hire orientation, no?
Friday, October 28, 2005
Republican Corruption
Breaking News:
Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby indicted today on charges of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice.
One reporter said it best: “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up that will always get you in more trouble.”
Shades of Richard Nixon and the Watergate cover-up in this story. Get the underlings to do the dirty work, divert the blame from the POTUS and VPOTUS.
My prediction…Cheney is next.
Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby indicted today on charges of perjury, false statements, and obstruction of justice.
One reporter said it best: “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up that will always get you in more trouble.”
Shades of Richard Nixon and the Watergate cover-up in this story. Get the underlings to do the dirty work, divert the blame from the POTUS and VPOTUS.
My prediction…Cheney is next.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Iran wants to 'erase' Israel
I have ranted a bit on the dangers of
An elected head of state goes to a conference called
I will say this, I believe that the state of
I don’t know if removing them from the U.N. is a realistic idea, but it sounds good on paper. At the very least, the security council needs to get some balls and put some sanctions on
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Cheney endorses Torture
Take a look at this editorial in the Washington Post today.
Not only does our beloved Veep CONDONE torture of terrorist suspects, now he wants the government to actually endorse it!
It's bad enough that it is happenning right under our collective noses, now he wants us to stand up and say "Sure, hook their testicles up to electrodes. We don't mind."
What the?!?
Look, I am all for working over a person with some physical, but mostly psychological means of getting them to talk. If we can potentially stop impending attacks on US citizens and interests, then there are plenty of ways to get that info from them without violating international agreements.
And don't give me the 'this is war' speech, cause I am not buying it. We have been through plenty of wars where torture was not part of the S.O.P. for prisioners.
How can we stand up and call ourselves the greatest country in the world, ask others to follow our lead, tell others that they should embrace democracy and all it's rewards...but then toture our enemies.
We were appalled at what happenned to the guy who got his head severed off on video. We are shocked when we see dead bodies after a car/truck/suicide bomber.
Why are we not shocked that the number 2 man in the executive branch of our government actually endorses similar behavior? Why?
Luckily, the Senate has already passed the McCain amendment that runs counter to the VP's desires by a vote of 90-9. Can't get much more bi-partisan than that.
Not only does our beloved Veep CONDONE torture of terrorist suspects, now he wants the government to actually endorse it!
It's bad enough that it is happenning right under our collective noses, now he wants us to stand up and say "Sure, hook their testicles up to electrodes. We don't mind."
What the?!?
Look, I am all for working over a person with some physical, but mostly psychological means of getting them to talk. If we can potentially stop impending attacks on US citizens and interests, then there are plenty of ways to get that info from them without violating international agreements.
And don't give me the 'this is war' speech, cause I am not buying it. We have been through plenty of wars where torture was not part of the S.O.P. for prisioners.
How can we stand up and call ourselves the greatest country in the world, ask others to follow our lead, tell others that they should embrace democracy and all it's rewards...but then toture our enemies.
We were appalled at what happenned to the guy who got his head severed off on video. We are shocked when we see dead bodies after a car/truck/suicide bomber.
Why are we not shocked that the number 2 man in the executive branch of our government actually endorses similar behavior? Why?
Luckily, the Senate has already passed the McCain amendment that runs counter to the VP's desires by a vote of 90-9. Can't get much more bi-partisan than that.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
We're on a road to nowhere...
So, imagine that you are a U.S. Senator. You are faced with a tough choice in the wake of two major hurricanes to hit the gulf coast, and all the expenses that the federal government will have to incur.
One of those expenses is a couple of bridges in Alaska that will cost $450 million to build. These bridges are probably a good idea, and perhaps have some merit, but serve very few people.
You also have the expense of rebuilding and repairing the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Ponchitrain in LA, which serve hundreds of thousands of vehicles each day and is a critical part of the nation's transportation infrastructure.
You only have enough money to pay for one or the other. Which one do you choose?
If you are the Senator from Alaska that uses this pork spending to make yourself look good back home, you want your pet project. When someone else in the Senate tries to remove the project to help pay for other things, you have a rant on the Senate floor and threaten to resign. Even your own constiuients say that they would like to help the people of Lousiana and give up their bridges to help out. But you don't listen to them, you just have a little hissy fit and say you are going to go home. Good...fine...go home. Be sure and bring a sweater, I hear it's pretty cold up there in AK.
Well...since we have a Republican controlled Senate, and a Republican controlled house, and a Republican controlled White House, none of which have the balls to say no to anyone...you get both.
So where does the money come from? You have to sell more treasury bonds, of course. And who buys these bonds? The Chinese, The Saudis, etc.
Nothing like financing your future on the backs of your friends. Or, are they your friends?
The Chinese don't particulary care for us, and they see us as competition for global resources. Rumsfeld is worried that they are building up their military, as he should be.
The Saudis pretend to like us, but in fact hate our guts. It's a good thing they have all that oil to sell us, thereby keeping a corrupt monarchy in power.
One of those expenses is a couple of bridges in Alaska that will cost $450 million to build. These bridges are probably a good idea, and perhaps have some merit, but serve very few people.
You also have the expense of rebuilding and repairing the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Ponchitrain in LA, which serve hundreds of thousands of vehicles each day and is a critical part of the nation's transportation infrastructure.
You only have enough money to pay for one or the other. Which one do you choose?
If you are the Senator from Alaska that uses this pork spending to make yourself look good back home, you want your pet project. When someone else in the Senate tries to remove the project to help pay for other things, you have a rant on the Senate floor and threaten to resign. Even your own constiuients say that they would like to help the people of Lousiana and give up their bridges to help out. But you don't listen to them, you just have a little hissy fit and say you are going to go home. Good...fine...go home. Be sure and bring a sweater, I hear it's pretty cold up there in AK.
Well...since we have a Republican controlled Senate, and a Republican controlled house, and a Republican controlled White House, none of which have the balls to say no to anyone...you get both.
So where does the money come from? You have to sell more treasury bonds, of course. And who buys these bonds? The Chinese, The Saudis, etc.
Nothing like financing your future on the backs of your friends. Or, are they your friends?
The Chinese don't particulary care for us, and they see us as competition for global resources. Rumsfeld is worried that they are building up their military, as he should be.
The Saudis pretend to like us, but in fact hate our guts. It's a good thing they have all that oil to sell us, thereby keeping a corrupt monarchy in power.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Groups Threaten to Boycott American Girl
This is a story that really gets me riled up.
The company that makes the American Girl dolls and accessories, uses some of their profits to support charities that help girls. One of those charities is Girls Inc.
Girls Inc is devoted to inspiring girls to be bold, smart, strong, and decisive women. They primarily focus on poor and underprivileged girls, not on purpose, just because that’s how it worked out since they were founded in 1864.
The problem that the AFA (American Family Association) has is that Girls Inc supports such radical causes like abortion rights, preventing violence against women, and (gasp!) promoting that sexual orientation is genetic and not a chosen lifestyle (read ‘lesbianism’).
I am part of an American family, and I can tell you that the AFA does not represent my views on this topic. What they basically want to do is get conservatives to boycott American Girl products because of their support of Girls Inc.
Let’s call them what they are…bullies. Maybe not the push you down on the playground type, but the ‘we don’t like you so we will make a big deal out of nothing’ type of bully.
I have a news flash for the AFA.
1. They are in the minority when it comes to this topic.
2. Abortion is a privacy matter, and also LEGAL, regardless of how they feel about it.
3. Violence against women is a real problem that needs to be addressed with girls from a young age.
4. Your sexual orientation is your own business, and you have no control over it.
Having a young lady in my household that I am raising to be a respectable young woman who can be strong, independent, smart, and able to stand up for herself, is my most important goal in life right now. She likes American Girl products, even if I balk at the prices. I don’t plan to boycott them because some crazy AFA spokesperson in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
