Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Are we getting anywhere?

Stuff seems to be happening. But are we getting anywhere? We know now that Libby lied and is guilty. Will he go to jail? Who knows? But we also know that Dick Cheney was behind the whole sordid, treasonous affair. But he isn't on trial. So are we getting anywhere? It also looks that quite likely Bush himself was involved. If this could be proven what, if anything, would happen? Does the fact that the highest levels of our administration are probably guilty of treason mean nothing? Is it going to be a case of "boys are just boys?" We also know that Bush/Cheney are guilty of multiple war crimes. The whole world knows. But nothing seems to be happening. We don't seem to be getting anywhere. Bush and Cheney just go on day after day giving speeches and spreading their lies endlessly and people seem to just accept this as normal. If we know they are lying as usual, and if we know they are guilty of terrible crimes, why isn't something being done about it? Oh, yeah, the nonbinding resolutions. I'm with John Edwards on this one. It's like a child standing in a corner stamping his/her feet (I'm certainly not with him when he says the most important thing in the world is to prevent Iran from having a bomb - the most important thing in the world at the moment is to get rid of Bush/Cheney and the neocons before it is too late). Even the Israelis know that the Iranians are intelligent, decent people, who are not going to drop a nuclear bomb on them even if they have one. Don't believe everything you hear about an Iranian threat to the world - you should worry a lot more about an American threat to the world).

Democrats are apparently too timid to cut off funds for the Iraq "war." They are afraid of being blamed if things go from bad to worse. There is a solution to this dilemna. An obvious one. One that should be taken right now. It is called impeachment. The Republicans should go to the White House en masse and inform the President and Vice President that if they do not resign they will be impeached. And if they refuse to resign they should be impeached. Given the multitude of their crimes it should only take a few days to present the case. We could get rid of this cancer that is the neocon mess and start afresh. If Nancy Pelosi would be acting President for a time, so be it. She couldn't possibly be as bad as Bush/Cheney.

Joe Biden announced his candidacy and then blew it on the same day. He still suffers from his usual foot in the mouth disease. I particularly liked it when he described Obama as "clean."
I guess the previous Black candidates for President must have been unclean. He also said that John Edwards doesn't know what he is talking about and Hillary's plan would be a disaster. He may well be right but I don't think he should have said so in quite that way. As he has no chance to get the nomination I don't know why we even have to bother about this. But, as usual, it's the American way.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007


It doesn't look good for "Scooter" Libby. Both Ari Fleisher and Judith Miller have now testified quite clearly that he knew about Plame long before he claims to have heard about her from reporters. It looks like he may be going to the slammer. But, wait - Bush could always pardon him. What do you think would happen if Bush were to pardon him? Probably just a few yawns on the part of Democrats and added dimensions to the arrogance of the neocons (and Republicans in general). It has also become perfectly obvious that the whole disgusting mess originated in the office of the Vice President (Dick the Slimy). I guess Bush must have been really serious when he said if anyone in the White House leaked he wanted to know about it and would do something (remember that). Do you think Bush didn't know? Of course he knew and he's just as guilty as the rest of them. The damndest bunch of criminals and liars ever to inhabit our capital. Makes one right proud to be an Amurican with all them nukular bombs and overwhelming power. Oh, would someone explain to me that while we already have a defense and military budget larger than all the rest of the world combined, we need an additional 92,000 troops? Are we expecting an invasion from Mars or Venus? Will they be bringing tanks and aircraft carriers and stuff like that? Fact is, we don't need more troops, the military-industrial-political complex needs more troops. More troops, more money for things we don't need, more profit for the corporations that are running the show. Our military/defense budget can't really get more obscene or unnecessary than it is but don't bet Congress won't authorize it (they, of course, are part of the system). Helpless sigh here.

We live about 30 miles from Creston, B.C. We like to shop there sometimes, mostly for food. This is because we can find things there like veal, duck breasts, artic char, and many other things that just do not exist here in Bonners Ferry. However, as it stands at the moment, we cannot bring beef, including veal into the U.S. Mad Cow disease, you know. But Mad Cow disease is known not to occur in beef younger than about three years. Veal, by definition, has to be no more than at most, one year of age. Doesn't matter, we can't bring veal. We can't bring chicken or duck or fowl of any kind either. Avian virus or whatever it is. They have frozen duck legs and breasts which we could never find here but we can't bring them in. Of course there are thousands upon thousands of ducks and geese that fly in from Canada during hunting season, and they are hunted. There is no one standing by to warn you not to shoot these Canadian invaders. Nor does anyone tell you not to eat them (and I asssure you many people do eat them). I don't know if we could bring American beef or poultry into Canada. I asked my staff of researchers (Linda) to look into this but she has been too busy bringing the upstairs books downstairs and the downstairs books upstairs. We used to buy frozen rabbit in Creston, too, but for some reason we can't anymore. Perhaps there is some bizarre rabbit flu going around. More likely, the people who raised the rabbits got so fed up with the red tape they just said to hell with it. Does any of this make sense to you? While I am not certain of this I do believe that we can now bring in Canadian beef (on the hoof) again, but we still can't bring in steaks or chops or whatever. I have to remind you, IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY!

Monday, January 29, 2007

What threat?

We hear everyday now that Iran is a threat (presumably to Israel, the U.S., and, indeed, the entire world). I don't get it. What threat? They are apparently years away from being able to make a nuclear bomb. They also claim they are not interested in making a bomb anyway, merely nuclear power. While I think they may be secretly trying to make a bomb, there is apparently no hard evidence that they are. In any case why would they not want to make a bomb? They are surrounded by countries that have such bombs (Pakistan, India, Israel at least). If I were them I would want to have a bomb. But does their desire to have a bomb really represent a threat to everyone else? Nuclear bombs have traditionally been defensive weapons (except in the unique case of the U.S., the only country to ever drop one). Iran is an ancient and quite sophisticated culture that has little history of aggression against others. Iranians are poets and cultured. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that even if they had a bomb they would immediately attack anyone with it, especially Israel, as they know if they did so they would be annihilated. I cannot imagine how Iran would constitute a threat to the U.S. (or anyone else) even if they did have a nuclear bomb. They are not crazy or self-destructive. Basically I am sure they would just rather be left alone (especially by the U.S. that has meddled in their country for years and is currently threatening them with bombs and aircraft carriers).

And speaking of meddling, where does the U.S. get off accusing them of meddling in Iraq? Of course they are meddling in Iraq. They are neighbors that share a very long border. Obviously they have an interest in what transpires in Iraq. So here we are, "meddling" in a country 8000 miles away and telling their neighbors to not "meddle?" Does the insanity of this not occur to anyone? Does our stated intentions of creating a new Middle East, coupled with our military attempt to do so not involve meddling to a degree almost beyond belief?

Israel is threatening to bomb Iran with nuclear bombs to destroy their (presumed) nuclear weapons program. Actually, they are trying desperately to get the U.S. to do it for them. We are currently trying to organize all the neighboring Arab states to oppose Iranian influence in the region (Iranians are Shiites, their neighbors are Sunnis). Israel is trying to make the U.S. believe that their interests are the same as ours. They are not. The U.S. is trying to convince the Europeans that their interests are the same as ours (and Israel's). The Russians and Chinese are far too smart to be taken in by this nonsense. Can we not hope that sanity might prevail, that the U.S. will finally agree to discuss the problems with Iran and Syria (not as long as Bush/Cheney have anything to do with it). And by the way, after we take over the Horn of Africa, why should we just not move on and take over the rest of the continent (we know there is oil there). The absurdity of American foreign policy is exceeded only by the idiocy of those who are presently pretending to carry it out (if they would just agree to give us the oil everything would be fine - after all, what do they need with all that oil anyway).

Sunday, January 28, 2007

A new world

I guess the 21st century has ushered in an entirely new world. Certainly there was nothing in the last century anything like what has happened so far in this one. However flawed and perhaps even unprincipled occurred in the United States, there was nothing like the Bush/Cheney disaster that seems to be going completely unpunished. Here we have a situation in which it is commonly known that our President and Vice-President have committed multiple acts that should have immediately led to their impeachment (or at least their forced resignations) but they go on blissfully lying and doing whatever they wish with apparently no serious opposition. If ever there was a clear-cut case for impeachment it has to be in the case of Bush/Cheney. If ever there was a case for Congress to exert its power and responsibility it has to be now. So what do they do? They pass nonbinding resolutions that basically say Bush/Cheney have been bad boys, thus slapping them on the wrists and ignoring absolutely blatant war crimes (high crimes and misdemeanors don't even begin to describe how hideously awful their crimes really are). Bush/Cheney continue to appear on national television spinning their foul lies and demented beliefs and those who interview them don't even challenge them. It is as if they still have some kind of credibility, as if they somehow still deserve to be heard, as if the entire world hasn't already turned off. How much more awful can their behavior be to warrant some kind of meaningful punishment? They blatantly lied to Congress and the U.S. citizens to bring about their illegal "war," they have tortured, hidden prisoners from the Red Cross, used illegal weapons, killed thousands of innocent civilians, illegally spied upon U.S. citizens, trashed our Constitution, engaged in egregious war profiteering, and continue to lie daily about what is happening in Iraq (and may be even planning to go to "war" against Iran - based upon further lies). They have done and continue to do all of these things - AND NO ONE SEEMS TO BE WILLING TO DO ANYTHING SERIOUS ABOUT IT!! This is not the world I grew up in during the 20th century. It is an entirely new world that seems to have abandoned all sense of decency and responsibility. GEORGE W. BUSH AND DICK CHENEY AND OTHERS OF THEIR ILK ARE KNOWN WAR CRIMINALS DRIVEN BY GREED AND DREAMS OF EMPIRE THAT HAVE CAUSED UNTOLD MISERY FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. WHY ARE THEY GOING UNPUNISHED, NOT EVEN BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY HAVE INFLICTED ON OTHERS? WE NEED ACTION NOW, NOT TWO YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THEY WILL APPARENTLY JUST RETIRE WITH THEIR LOOT AND WRITE GLORIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THEIR DESPICABLE BEHAVIOR.

I'm sorry, I just don't think I can take any more. Nothing in my lifetime has prepared me for what is now being allowed to happen.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Dick the Slimy

I said when Libby was first mentioned as the guilty party in the leaking of Plame's name and position that he would never have done so independently of Cheney. I knew, and I'm sure I was not the only person who knew, that this whole treasonous episode would eventually be traced to Dick Cheney's office. And so it is. Everyday in the Libby Trial so far has involved Cheney more and more importantly to the leak. There is little doubt that Libby did, in fact, lie about what he knew, and little doubt that he should be found guilty of lying. But if that is all that results from this trial it will be a hollow victory indeed. What of Cheney? He is not on trial. He will probably remain untouched by this whole sordid affair. If he had even a shred of decency he would resign. But as it is obvious he has no decency, no interest in serving his country, no interest in doing the right thing, we cannot expect him to do it. Bush could, of course, insist that he resign, but that seems so unlikely as to be out of the realm of possibility. The Republicans could insist that he resign for the good of their party and the good of the country, but that seems equally unlikely. It is a most interesting and unprecedented situation. It is obvious he is guilty of orchestrating the leak, and equally obvious that he is guilty of helping to lie us into an unnecessary and immoral "war." As Biden put it the other day, everyone knows Cheney doesn't know what he is talking about, he has been wrong about everything. So here we are. We have a Vice-President who is known to be a liar, participated in a treasonous act, has poll ratings lower than a snake's belly, and simply refuses to acknowledge any guilt or responsibility, and apparently nothing is being done about it. I conclude that the Republican party has a death wish.

Are the Democrats (and some Republicans) going to let Bush pursue his trophy "war" endlessly? Is there no limit to the number of American (and Iraqi) deaths we are going to tolerate? Is there no way out of this terrible mess? I suggest there is a way out. We withdraw our troops as cautiously and carefully as possible, abandon our plans for permanent bases in Iraq, and agree to pay reparations for what Bush/Cheney have done. Bush/Cheney, of course, could never go along with such a solution because (1) they would have to admit what they did was stupid beyond belief, and (2) they are fundamentally unable to give up their addiction to oil. No permanent bases, no guarantee of oil. But it was not about oil. Oh, no. It was about - what was it about? I've forgotten.

Last week I finished a book called Wine and War. It was an account of all the ways the French employed to keep the Germans from looting their best wines. It was fascinating, not only for the cleverness of the French, but also because of what it tells of the French Resistance and the behavior of both the Germans and French. I recommend it.

I have also just finished American Brew by Maureen Ogle, a history of beer in the United States from the very beginning until the present time. I'm not really a beer drinker but this is a most interesting account of the German introduction of beer to the United States, and the changing tastes for beer over the years. It is not as readable as Wine and War but if you are interested in such things it is very informative.

Here at Sandhill the winter offers much time for reading and reflection, a pleasant change from the demands of Spring and Summer gardening. Time to order seeds. Life goes on. We love it here on our sea of ice and snow.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

President Hillary Rodham Clinton

spacegirl: morialekafa is a word from the New Guinea Highlands which means, as far as I could determine, "small, insignificant bug with no other name." Apt, no?

As of this moment I believe that, barring some very unusual development, Hillary has already been chosen as our next President. The candidates and the election have already been orchestrated. I could, of course, be very wrong (I have a history of being wrong about Presidential elections). But consider what appear to be the facts: Hilary has far more money than any other candidate. Her money has certainly not come from peasants like you and me but obviously from the "big boys" in charge of elections and such. It is also being said that not only are her donors told to give her money but also not to give money to others, thus effectively shutting out her competitors. It is also unlikely that given the past few years under the Bush/Cheney Administration a Republican can win the Presidency in 2008. The corporate powers, knowing this, will be happy to settle for a Democrat like Hillary. Why? Because Hillary, like her husband before her, is Corporate friendly. She is also avidly pro Israel. Thus, being corporate friendly, pro-Israel, and loaded with more money than any other candidate will be able to raise, the die is cast. She will become the first woman President of the United States. And what of Bill, arguably one of the most popular people on earth? I suggest Secretary of State unless, of course, he stays in the White House to prepare dinners and dances. Hillary's Presidency is not going to come about because of some grass-roots movement to restore the Clinton's to the White House. It will come about because it is the will of our Corporate masters who see, in the Clintons, just what is needed after a failed Republican Administration. Also consider the treatment Hillary is getting from the MSM. Aside from Fox fake news it seems to be very positive. It is also the case, in all fairness to Hillary, that she is coming across as very knowledgeable, sensible, practical, and even Presidential. This is not meant to be an endorsement, merely a statement of what seems to me to be the facts of the matter at the moment. I cannot see how any of the other Democratic candidates can possible top her, either in fund raising, name recognition, or vision for America. And given that Corporate America has now decided that Universal Health Care is a go, that will propel her even farther.

The only possibility I can see that might upset her Presidential inevitability is if Al Gore should elect to run. Even so, I can't see this as a contest between Corporate desire and the man on the street. It would be more a decision as to who would be the most safisfactory candidate for the powers that be. Gore is big at the moment and some of the major corporations are coming around to the problem of global warming. They may well want to jump on the Oscar bandwagon.

Does any of this make sense? Stay tuned and see where it goes.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The Devil is in the Details

I just forced myself to watch Bush's State of the Nation speech. Ordinarily I wouldn't watch him do or say anything but I decided it would not be entirely fair to comment on his speech if I hadn't actually witnessed it. It was, of course, entirely predictable and for him I guess it was okay. He didn't manage to mangle the language entirely, didn't seem to make any really blatant mistakes, didn't appear to be under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. And he did and said mostly the right things. He was kind to Pelosi, and he finished his speech with acknowledging some American heroes. Did he accomplish anything? I don't think so. Oh, he said all the right things about what we have to do: he started by saying we should "spend wisely" (he has run the national debt up to totally unprecedented heights), he said we should not pass on our problems to the next generations (which he has done like no one else in history). He said our economy was strong and wages were rising (the new Democratic House just passed the first raise in the minimum wage in the past 10 years, something his Republican colleagues have resisted for that many years).

Bush went on to suggest we need to do something about universal health care (he is still touting private accounts for this purpose). He says we should do something about Social Security (he touts private accounts for this purpose). He says we need to do something about immigration (he wants to protect the interests of business, of course), he insists that No Child Left Behind has been a success (very questionable) and needs to be continued (thus privatizing education). He wants to reduce our use of oil by 20% by 2020 (I think that was his figure) and seemed to favor ethanol and nuclear energy (both highly questionable means). And, of course, he insisted that we should send more troops to Iraq (which virtually all sentient beings think is a bad idea).

In any case, my point here is simply that whenever he mentioned any of these goals (medical, Social Security, Immigration reform, etc.), there was great applause as obviously these goals are indeed commendable. But it was obvious that those who knew what his solutions were supposed to be just sat on their hands. In short, he might just as well have said nothing at all. It wasn't the worst of speeches, it wasn't the best of speeches, it was like no speech at all.

McCain is now blaming Cheney for what has gone wrong in Iraq. Cheney is now being blamed for outing Plame. He is also being blamed for turning Iran into a problem it need not have been. Will Cheney pay any attention to these "nattering nabobs of negativism?" Don't bet the farm on it. But the plot surely thickens and the arrows of accusation have certainly found the proper direction. Could it be that just once justice might prevail in these nightmare years of the 21st century?

Monday, January 22, 2007


I don't watch an inordinate amount of TV. At least I don't think I do. Lately I have mostly watched Hardball and Countdown. I used to watch CNN sometimes but haven't for a long time now. In any case, I am interested in the question of strategists. These programs often have strategists, both Democratic and Republican. There seem to be lots of them. Indeed, seemingly a never ending supply of them. You hardly ever see the same ones twice. And most of them are not anyone you (or at least I) ever heard of or saw before. So who are these strategists? A majority seem to be attractive young women (at least women probably about thirty years of age on average). There seem to be a lot of blonds. This is true of both Democratic and Republican strategists. Are all these people actually paid to be strategists? Do they have official credentials proving they are truly strategists? Or can anyone just claim to be one? How do you get to be a strategist? Do you really have to know anything about the various strategies or do you just announce your opinion based on whatever (you gut feeling, actual information you have, pipe dreams, what?). I confess I am not usually impressed with what these people claim to be the case. I have all kinds of ideas about what Democrats ought to do to win the elections and so on. Does that make me a strategist? Is there a school for strategists? Do they offer fellowships, scholarships, seminars, classes, whatever? I want to be one. Please advise.

I saw a brief interview with Bill Richardson on Hardball. He was referring to his experience in foreign relations, diplomacy, energy, as governor, and so on. I was somewhat impressed. He does seem to have some qualifications. It led me to wonder, what qualifications does Hillary have to be President? And what qualifications does Obama have? I have to admit that when you consider this question seriously it seems to indicate that, in general, they are not very well qualified. But what qualifications do you need to become President of the United States? Not many it appears. Look at Bush. He was not qualified (being Governor of Texas is a questionable qualification as the Lieutenant Governor seems to be more important there). His only other qualifications seem to have to do with incessant failures, one after another. Just look at how successful he has been as President (if you can keep from laughing out loud or crying yourself to sleep). Interestingly enough, one doesn't seem to have to have any particular qualifications to be President of the U.S. Being someone the "common people" would like to have a beer with seems to help. Having any intellectual qualifications, or even much governmental experience, seems to count for nothing at all (in fact, I would bet that being intellectually qualified is a strike against you). Would GM or Toyota or any other huge corporation hire an unqualified person to run their companies? I guess being President is not really such a big deal after all.

Tomorrow our sort-of President is going to give his annual State of the Nation speech. This is such a big deal that MSNBC is going to spend the entire day leading up to it, discussing and analyzing it. Doesn't it make you wonder why he would bother to make it at all? But not only will it be discussed and analyzed all day long before it happens, it will be discussed and analyzed all night long after it is over. Does anyone really believe that Bush could possibly make a speech worthy of so much attention? Furthermore, does it even matter what he says? His speech will be analyzed for what he doesn't say as much as for what he does say. Unless he announces his resignation or that he is pulling our troops out of Iraq immediately what difference does it make what he says? The media could just as well make up what they think he is going to say, then analyze and discuss it, and save him the embarrassment of trying to speak the English language, or pretending to know what the hell he is talking about. As usual, I will not be listening. He makes me sick.

I suggest that Rachel Ray be banned from all media for at least six months. Nutrisystem as well. Well, I don't know, maybe Rachel could sing the national anthem at the Super Bowl.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

The mother of all hypocrisy

Get this! George W. Bush, our sort-of president, has announced a National Sanctity of Human Life Day. This is the guy who is personally responsible for the deaths of perhaps as many as one million people (perhaps even more) as a result of his "war" and sanctions against Iraq. An illegal, immoral, and totally unnecessary "war" that occurred simply because of his desire to be known as a "War President" and his cronies desire to control the black gold of the Middle East. How does he have the gall to even mention the Sanctity of Human Life? This is man with no shame and apparently little understanding of even the most fundamental of human rights (like the right not to be imprisoned, tortured, and killed for no apparent reason). I guess he will be able to boast to his ultra-right evangelistic mob that he has prevented any useful purpose for embryos that were just otherwise destroyed. And of course he can claim to have forced thousands of babies to be born to parents who couldn't afford them, didn't want them, and that will most likely end up neglected and abused if not simply abandoned. So you see, he is not only a "compassionate conservative" but a real sanctity-of-life dude. I sometimes wonder if he was actually born of human parents as he seems to lack virtually all basic human qualities such as thought, emotion, empathy, understanding, decency, conscience and even curiosity. A lot of people, however, thought he would be a great guy "to have a beer with," one of the most important qualities for a president of the most important and powerful nation on earth (and in charge of the most destructive weapons ever conceived by mankind). Don't forget, a democracy cannot survive and succeed without a well informed citizenry (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha). I guess you just win some and lose some.

Surprise of surprises! Hillary Clinton announced today that she is going to run for president. Who would have thunk it? Now until 2008 we are going to hear millions upon millions of words dedicated to the question of whether a woman can be elected president in the United States. My wife says no way. I'm not so sure. But I wouldn't vote for Hillary, not because she's a woman, but because she's really a Republican. Of course what I think isn't going to matter anyway. The corporations in charge will tell us who the candidates will be (both basically Republican) and we will be presented with another Hobson's choice. It is even more inevitable than death and taxes. But let me ask you, what would you do if you had to choose between Hillary (presumably a democrat) and, say, McCain (presumably a Republican)? I don't like to think about it.

There are many other candidates at the moment, both Democratic and Republican. So, would you vote for a Hispanic (Richardson)? How about a Mormon (Romney)? An African-American (Obama)? A wealthy self-made trial attorney (Edwards)? An anti-war Republican (Hagel)? An anti-war Democrat (Biden)? An ultra conservative Republican (Brownback)? A pretty much unknown Vilsack? A raving lunatic (Gingrich)? How about another Bush (Jeb)? A previously failed war hero (Kerry)? Then there is old Al Gore (too little experience and not someone you would like to have a beer with)? Finally, there is Dennis Kucinich (probably, besides Gore, the only entirely sane candidate who has been consistently anti-war, pro-environment, and (hooray) anti drug war from the beginning). But he is (ugh) a vegetarian and a peacenik. The powers that be have decided long ago that he should just be ignored. I guess there may be others I have forgotten or who have not been mentioned as yet. God bless 'em all. Let the corporate powers sort them out. Once this happens we can decide not to vote at all or, as usual, vote for the least offensive of the two. It's the American way!

Thursday, January 18, 2007

What have we become?

The Pentagon has come out with new rules for trying the unfortunate (mostly innocent) people they have incarcerated (without charges) for the past five years at Gitmo. Now they claim they can use hearsay evidence, along with coerced evidence, and on that basis can even execute people. The last time I remember hearing about anything as horrible and absurd as this is when I was reading about the French Revolution and the lettres de cachet (I think that may be right but as it must have been over fifty years ago when I read it I really am not altogether certain). In any case, back then, if you didn't like someone you could write a letter about them and they could end up in jail, tortured, or put to death. I guess this is just part of the direction of our country under Bush/Cheney: illegally attacking a sovereign nation that was no threat to us, using illegal weapons, hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, killing innocent civilians (just collateral damage), renditions, torture, abandoning habeas corpus, profiteering, etc., etc., etc. Now, as we apparently have no real evidence against most of the detainees, we'll just be able to make it up and kill them anyway. My country, right or wrong?

Everything is going just hunky dory. Let's see, Methodist Ministers have come out opposing the Bush Presidential Library that is being planned for SMU (much of the faculty has also come aout against this). Methodists apparently believe that the Bush Library would be completely inappropriate for SMU (personally, I think it would be innappropriate even for our Bonners Ferry Middle School).

Alberto Gonzales has announced that the Constitution does not support habeas corpus. As he and Bush/Cheney have repeatedly violated that sacred document what does it matter if it does or not? Habeas Corpus has served us very well for at least 800 years and is the bedrock of our system of justice (I guess no one told Alberto about this).

Then there is the problem of trying to find a jury for the Libby trial. It seems they are having great difficulty finding jurors who think Cheney is honest (imagine that) or that the Bush/Cheney administration can be trusted (gee!). I guess they may have to call the trial off or more it to another nation somewhere (perhaps somewhere in darkest Africa where they have no news - nah, they wouldn't trust Cheney either).

According to a recent study more Americans do not believe in evolution than citizens of any other developed nation. I am really comforted to know that so many of my fellow citizens believe the earth is merely 6000 years old, that Noah built an ark and saved two of every creatures on earth (it was a truly big ark), that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, Moses (or someone or other) parted the Red Sea, dinosaurs and people existed contemporaneously (actually, we have high school students who don't believe dinosaurs even existed), and other such interesting biblical accounts (facts?).

All in all our Republic has bumbled along fairly well until now. The Bush/Cheney nightmare years may yet spell the end. They have certainly spelled the end of the neocons dreams of an American Empire. Fasten your seatbelts, it is all downhill from here (except maybe for the Rapture which may select out a small group of the biggest fools of all).

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Will anything ever actually happen?

There is so much going on at the moment I am beginning to wonder if anything will ever happen. Or are we just caught up in some kind of nightmarish surreal time-warp in which things just don't ever end? It would appear that if Bush/Cheney have their way the "war" in Iraq will never end. And certainly the "war on terrorism" will never end. And of course if they get their way and attack Iran you can be certain that war of some kind will never end, at least not in our lifetimes.

Will the controversy over the "surge" ever end, or will it manage to drag itself on endlessly with the Democrats unwilling to exercise their constitutional powers to bring it to an end? Supporters of Bush/Cheney keep harping on the same old nonsense about not supporting the troops. No one is in favor not supporting the troops. Do they really believe we are going to leave our troops there with no ammunition, no supplies, nothing to protect themselves with? Of course that will never happen. It is absurd to even suggest such a thing. But what ought to happen is we should use the funds already appropriated to BRING THEM HOME NOW! But of course that would mean giving up those expensive permanent bases and that billion dollar embassy (and control over all that OIL). I do believe that I actually heard Hillary say today at her press conference that we should give up permanent bases. At least she mentioned the problem, unlike virtually everyone else who discusses the Iraqi "problem." Bush/Cheney will never give up their attempt to control the entire Middle East even though that will never happen even in a million years.

The Libby trial raises what I think is an interesting question. If it would prove to be impossible to select a jury that would admit to being so biased towards the present administration would the trial have to just be abandoned? This strikes me as a test case. Can there actually be enough jurors in Washington, D.C. for there to be a fair trial? Given the poll ratings of Bush, and especially Cheney, it would seem to me a virtually impossible task. Not that it may matter very much as Bush could simply pardon Libby after we wasted all the money on his case (I know there are some that say Bush wouldn't dare pardon him - but I wouldn't put anything past Bush/Cheney - anything at all).

To "surge" or not to surge, that is the question. Bush is going to surge no matter what. One of our Generals (Schoomaker, I think) testified there is a 50-50 chance of success. Personally I believe it is closer to 0-100 but what are a few more American lives worth anyway, just glorious martyrs for the Bush/Cheney psycho-socio-pathological plan to become emperors of the world. Its all in a day's work.

Monday, January 15, 2007

Delusional and demented

George W. Bush said in an interview that "the Iraqis should owe us an enormous sense of gratitude," or words to that effect. Let's see. As a result of our 14 years of sanctions it has been estimated that a million Iraqi children perished. As a result of Bush's illegal, immoral, and unnecessary "war" it has been estimated that another 650,000 Iraqis have perished. The country's infrastructure has been mostly destroyed, unemployment is rampant, their nation has been plunged into a vicious civil war. Most Iraqis seem to agree that things were better under Sadam. And Bush thinks they should be grateful? If this is not an example of Bush's total divorce from reality what would be? It is also another example of his total lack of empathy or apparently even understanding of the monumental war crimes he has unleashed. Bush/Cheney are nothing short of monsters that should not only be drummed out of office but sent to the Hague to be tried for their obvious war crimes.

Pelosi for President! As Nancy Pelosi is now third in line for the presidency, if Bush/Cheney could be forced to resign, or be impeached, she would become president. I'm all for it. I don't know what kind of president she might be but I do know that she could not possibly be as bad as Bush/Cheney. Indeed, as I said once before, if she has a maid, the maid would be a better president than Bush. Bush, the great "decider," has decided to kill off more of our splendid military, all to satisfy his own ego and possibly hand over our defeat to the next president (whoever that unfortunate person may be). There is no other reasonable explanation for his pig-headed demand that we "move forward" (aka "stay the course"). I'm sure the entire world has to be wondering why we Americans continue to put up with this obviously insane loser. It is true that some are now "talking the talk," but so far no one is actually "walking the walk." Bush/Cheney have to go - there is no other way.

Sunday, January 14, 2007


So, is anyone actually going to do anything about "it?" The "it" being the fact that Bush (apparently at Cheney's urging) is just thumbing his nose at virtually the entire world. Those who wish to see our troops "augmented" in Iraq are few and far between (McCain, Lieberman, and some of the neocons). Bush/Cheney have made it clear they don't care what the American public wants, or what Democrats want, or what many of their own Republicans want, or what the entire world wants, they are going to go ahead and do what THEY want. What they want is so unutterably stupid and predictably useless as to make one tear out one's hair. It is perfectly obvious that 20,000 additional troops in Bagdad cannot possibly turn that doomed city around. This is no more than a human sacrifice designed to prolong the "war" until after the 2008 election when it can be simply dumped on whoever the next president may be. If, as some surmise, they are going to attack Iran (or have the Israelis do it), you can say goodby to life as we know it now. This would be an act so incredibly insane as to leave no doubt about the sanity of our "leaders." I wonder if it is possible to be too dumb to be insane?

Here at Sandhill it has been very cold for several days, single digits every morning and not much warmer during the day. This is unusual here. We often have temperatures in the 20's and 30's during the winter but rarely single digits or below. My wife has been sick with flu or something for several days. I have developed a sore throat and worry that I have what she has had. Our driveway is a mass of ice two or three inches thick, and there is no end in sight (of course there has to be an end eventually). But we have a nice fire in our living room stove, the kittens from hell have been put to bed, life, of course, continues.

Life. A terminal condition transmitted by sex.

Friday, January 12, 2007

The Village Idiot

When I was a teenager I lived in a small mining town in the heart of an area rich in silver, zinc, lead, and gold. For many years the many mines routinely dumped their waste into a small river that ran through our town. The result of this, of course, was a severly polluted river that ran a kind of grey milky unhealthy looking color and killed all the fish and more or less every other living thing. As the river was useless for any other purpose, people dumped their garbage, used refrigerators, tires, unwanted kittens and all other forms of detritus in it. We referred to it as the "Lead Creek." It was unbelievably vile.

There was a village idiot in our town. It was said he became an idiot because he had drank from this poisonous source. As a boy I never believed this. Now, however, knowing so much more than I did then, I believe this might have been true. In any case, this retarded boy was the subject of much fun. People would encourage him to do truly stupid things for their amusement. For example, they would goad him into pretending to be a cheerleader thus making an even bigger fool of himself. Once, I recall, they told him to join a parade where, again, he was seen as an utter moron. They would send him out to find a "left-handed monkey wrench," or on fake "snipe hunting" expeditions, and things like that. Actually, in spite of his retardation, he was a nice kid. He never hurt anyone, always had a smile on his face, and was seemingly unaware that he was being made to play the fool.

I mention this here only because George W. Bush reminds me so much of this unfortunate child. He seems to be obviously encouraged by his evil vice-president and his gang of thieves and bullies into doing truly outrageous things. I am never certain that he truly understands what he is saying or doing. His recent speech is a good case in point. First, he seemed to be almost drugged, reading his prepared speech like a retarded person might read it, and apparently not emotionally connected to it or to the implications of what he was mouthing. And what he was proposing was so outrageously at variance with what virtually all others in the known world had advised one had to wonder if he was completely sane (or perhaps just somewhat retarded). This had been touted as the most important speech of his presidency. It was a complete and total dud, a failure so grand as to make you wonder if he still had any interest in his job (he has never demonstrated much interest in it up until now anyway). He has clearly become the Captain Queeg of the not-so-great-anymore-ship of state. Can he really survive for another two years? Can we?

Can anyone explain to me why Donald Trump's juvenile behavior with respect to Rosie whats-her-name is worthy of as much media attention as the "war" in Iraq? I do not watch the news all day but I turn it on from time to time to see how the market is doing or hoping that some dramatic event has occurred (apart from the ubiquitous car chases). I am always disappointed. I have concluded that if anything really important happened the MSM wouldn't tell me about it. Anyway, as near as I could tell today there were only three stories of much interest to the media and they seemed to be receiving about the same amounts of attention: the "surge," Trump vs. Rosie, and the Duke Lacrosse team maybe and maybe not rape case. That's it. Oh, yeah, there were apparently some kind of hearings going on in Washington D.C. about what, if anything, they were going to do about Bush's call for the "surge." But that was mostly yesterday's news. There was a brief mention that perhaps we were going to attack Iran and something about us now being involved in Somalia, and some mention of a problem with Syria, but none of these items were apparently worthy of more than passing mention. I forgot, there was something or other about underwear or perhaps the lack of it, and Prince somebody-or-other's" girlfriend was getting a lot of attention. All in all a really exciting news day. If you wake up tomorrow and find we are in the middle of World War III don't say you weren't warned.

The market was up again today. Happy days are here again?

Wednesday, January 10, 2007


I did it! I managed to actually force myself to listen to George W. Bush's speech! And I didn't even throw up! I think the reason for that is that he didn't really say anything. It was all gobbelday-gook, so to speak. The so-called analyses and comments afterword were also just more gobbeldy-gook. I began to wonder if they had listened to the same speech I had. MSNBC devoted the entire day to a run-up to Bush's speech. They even ran a count-down (you know, like 2 hours 35 minutes and sixteen seconds until Bush speaks). This was said to be Bush's most important speech of his Presidency. It was just another farce. Oh, the headlines tomorrow will say "Bush admits mistakes," and presents his new plan for Iraq. One mistake, he said, was that we didn't have enough troops in the first place (so he is offering 20,000 more now to apparently make up for the 300,000 we didn't have in the first place). We couldn't maintain neighborhoods that were cleaned out because we didn't have enough troops to maintain them (so 20,000 more in a population of 30 million are going to make that possible). There was no talk of withdrawing troops (except for the nebulous claim that once we have pacified Bagdad we might withdraw some troops). There was no talk of trying to engage Iran or Syria (except a not very subtle hint that we didn't want them meddling in Iraq - we, of course, are not meddling in Iraq).

Bush managed to get everyone arguing about whether we should "surge" or not. The question of withdrawal was not really discussed (even though that is what a majority the American public wants). There was no mention of oil. No mention of our permanent bases. No mention of our half billion dollar embassy. No significant mention of healing the divisions in Iraq. No mention of reparations. Basically no strategy of anything other than more troops to pacify Bagdad. And, of course, it is really up to Maliki to solve the problems, we are just there to help. I'm sorry, but the whole thing was just simply more of the same old BS and pathetic. Bush might as well have spoken in Polish to an audience of illiterates.

Bush has denied the will of the American people, denied the advice of most of the Generals (he purged those who disagreed), denied the advice of Congress and the Senate, and even denied any semblance of common sense. After all, he is the "Decider," the "War President," the "Emperor," who does not have to explain anything to anyone. And he speaks directly to God. He, Cheney, Rove, Rice and others have so egregiously violated American and International law they could be impeached in a fortnight if Congress had the will to do it. Congress could cut off the funding for any more of this unnecessary murderous war-profiteering enterprise. Justice could be served. Don't hold your breath.

If they can Bush/Cheney are going to stonewall. They are going to prolong this completely untenable situation in Iraq until they can dump it on the next President. The only way to prevent this is impeachment - NOW!

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Warrior Nation

There is something on pay-per-view television called Warrior Nation. This is fighting of the most brutal, disgusting, and disturbing kind. Unlike boxing there appear to be no rules and nothing seems to be ruled out - kicking, kneeing, hitting your opponent while down, and I don't know what all else (I have never actually watched one of these stupid matches). This appears to be primitive savagery or barbarism of the worst kind. Personally, I find it impossible to understand how anyone would engage in this behavior and what is worse, why would anyone pay to watch it. Professional wrestling, as silly as it is, is at least rehearsed and put on as entertainment. Warrior Nation is more like the gladiatorial excesses of ancient Rome. I do not understand why this is allowed. We have laws against cockfighting and dogfighting but this is allowed to exist on television and presumably has an audience? I conclude there are a lot of really sick people out there.

Speaking of such things. Way back at the beginning of the Iraq "war," maybe even before it had actually begun and we were still thinking about it, I saw a bumper sticker on one of those silly raised up pickup trucks so common in North Idaho. This was in Sandpoint. It said, "Nuke Their Ass and Steal Their Gas." At the time I dismissed this as another redneck lunatic trying to get attention. I didn't realize that it might actually come true. While we haven't nuked anyone yet there are rumors that this might happen in Iran. Lunatics are obviously not confined to Sandpoint, Idaho. You see a lot of stupid bumper stickers here: "Hungry and out of work, eat an environmentalist," "This vehicle protected by Smith and Weston," "Let's log the earth first and then move on to the next planet," stuff like that. These usually appear on raised pickups, dual wheeled pickups, or those with the gun racks on the rear windows. They don't usually appear on ordinary sedans or even vans. Anyway, I suggest that there should be a generic bumper sticker for these guys, one that states merely, "I am an idiot." These could also be given to those who have bumper stickers that read, "Proud to be a Redneck," "Proud to be a Republican," or "Proud to be a Bush Supporter." These latter are becoming increasingly rare.

I can hardly wait until tomorrow afternoon when Bush is to present his plan for Iraq. If the leaks are correct he is going to predictably call for an increase in troops (that we don't really have to spare), for a limited amount of time (probably forever), for a mission (that is unclear), to try to salvage the unsalvageable (victory), for reasons that are political (rather than military), and will inevitably fail (as they have no anchor in reality), to establish a legacy (that is already known and will never change). Bush/Cheney have already dragged our wonderful country so far down into the sewers of history that perhaps one more disaster won't really matter that much.

Will anyone do anything substantial to stop him? Or will we just go on talking the talk but avoid walking the walk? These are, indeed, trying times.

Monday, January 08, 2007

It's not about oil?

You remember, I hope, how we were assured by several of the neocons and their ilk that the "war" in Iraq was not about oil. How is it then that our current puppet government in Iraq is about to pass a bill giving the major oil companies the right to develop and market their oil? The gigantic oil corporations are going to get 75% of the profits until such time as they have recovered their initial investments and then 20% thereafter (20% is twice what the usual arrangements have been). In other words, the Iraqi oil industry which had been formerly nationalized is now going to be privatized for the benefit of the oil giants. This means that U.S. forces will have to stay in Iraq until such time as the oil is exhausted (for all intents and purposes, permanently). This is because if Iraq were ever to have a truly sovereign government, completely free of U.S. oversight and control, they would, of course, re-nationalize their oil business (and we certainly wouldn't want that to happen, would we?). How much Iraqi oil do you think we could have bought for between 350 billion and a trillion (maybe more)dollars?

Someone figured out that it cost us one million dollars for each Iraqi killed. Way to go Bush/Cheney! Rumor has it that Bush is indeed going to call for more troops for his "war" in Iraq. I guess he is also going to provide a billion or so to create jobs in Iraq. We had earmarked funds like this for this purpose before but I guess they decided Halliburton and the Carlyle Group, and ultimately themselves, were more deserving. Way to go Bush/Cheney! Don't you just have to love these guys?

Cheney, I understand, has been on another "hunting" trip. He goes to a private reserve and shoots pen raised pheasants and ducks. Pheasants are big awkward slow-flying creatures that are much easier to shoot than clay pigeons. Pen raised ones are like shooting fish in a barrel.
Ducks, on the other hand, are very difficult to shoot. They fly very fast and come in from all directions. Apparently the "sportsmen" that provide these unfortunate fowls do something to make they dizzy before they are released. Cheney is reported to have killed 70 pheasants. I don't know how many ducks. Isn't he really a great guy, a true sportsman, a wonderful role model? I guess he managed not to shoot anyone else in the face.

I have managed up until now to escape the fear that Bush/Cheney/Rove have been peddling for years to get the American public to go along with their murderous designs on the rest of the world. I guess I thought the chances of a terrorist attack on Bonners Ferry, Idaho were not very great. I have to admit that I have become terrified lately. I am terrified that these evil bastards, now that they are trapped by their own lies and incompetence, might just be desperate enough to attack Iran (or encourage Israel to do so). Things do not look promising. They want more troops in Iraq, even though they are said by responsible people to be unnecessary (unless, perhaps, to cope with the fallout in Iraq from an attack on Iran). Then there are the two aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf (and apparently a third one on the way), with an Admiral being put in charge of events in Iraq (a puzzling choice if it were not for the carriers). Perhaps they think the navy will be able to find Osama bin Laden as everyone else has failed. As I have said before, I would not be surprised to learn that Osama is still a protected CIA asset. I confess that at this point I would put absolutely nothing beyond the capabilities of the Bush/Cheney gang of thieves and war criminals.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Cornered animals are dangerous

I must say Bush looks more and more like a cornered animal. His monstrous lies have been exposed, his "war" is a dismal failure, the American people (at long last) are aware of his incompetence, virtually no one believes anything he says anymore, even the neocons and the religious right are deserting him, and the new Democratic House and Senate are serving notice that he is to get no more blank checks for his trophy "war." He is expected to announce sometime this week what his new plan is for Iraq. It is expected that he will demand further troops, perhaps as many as 20,000 more, for his "war without end."

Will he actually do this? He has run up against an absolute wall of resistance. Most of our Generals are opposed, the American people are overwhelmingly opposed, Democrats are opposed, and many Republicans are opposed. Even long time professional hawks like Oliver North are opposed. In the face of this ubiquitous opposition will he really have the chutzpa to stand in front of the American public and insist that it's his way or the highway. I doubt that it is in him to do anything less. I believe he is absolutely unable to even consider that he might be wrong about anything. After all, he talks to God (but obviously does not listen). Is he unbalanced enough to actually pursue his delusions of victory to the point that he succeeds in destroying our military, our financial security, even our vulnerable planet?

Perhaps he will postpone his speech once again, waiting for further consultation. Maybe he can find a coalition of the completely delusional, like McCain and Lieberman and a few others, to back him up. And so - what if he does? This has all the makings of the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. All because the American public wanted a president they would like to have a beer with instead of one who was, shall we say, a thousand times more qualified. Could we not have, this time, please, someone who is actually fully qualified for the job? For me, Al Gore is the only possible candidate who would meet this description. I sincerely hope he will run. I will feel sorry for him if he does. Who would want to clean up the filth left by this current administration?

Saturday, January 06, 2007

The Eve of WW III?

Joe Lieberman and John McCain seem determined to start World War Three. Lieberman's motives seem clear enough, he is an avowed and uncritical Zionist. McCain seems to suffer from the delusion that if we just send enough troops into Iraq "victory" will eventually be ours. It is not clear to me just where these two think we will find enough troops to add to those we have in Iraq now. If they think they can just institute a draft and send more and more of our fine young people there to die for Bush's ego and corporate friends they must be clearly insane. There is, happily, no support for their absurd ideas on the part of the American public or virtually anyone else.

When you consider their desires, along with the rumor that Israel is planning to take out Iran's nuclear facilities with nuclear bunker-buster bombs, you can see this is not something to take lightly. This would be madness in the extreme. Assuming that Iran is even close to having nuclear bombs (which apparently they are not), and assuming that Israel could destroy their capacity (for a time), this would not prevent Iran from retaliating in all sort of ways - not the least of which would be to drive the price of oil out of sight, to say nothing of promoting terrorist attacks all across the world. And as much as the Arab world might not be enamoured of Iran they would certainly not condone such Israeli actions. If this did not lead immediately to another world war it would inevitably lead to the eventual destruction of Israel. The Israelis, having failed so far to get the U.S. to attack Iran, apparently believe that if they attack the U.S. will support them, which, given the mindless support we ususally give Israel, we might. It will be Israel and the U.S. against the entire world as it is highly unlikely that anyone in Europe or Asia would be sympathetic, including Britain. The Israeli tail is wagging the dog of disaster.

Obviously there is nothing that can be done about it now, but does it not occur to anyone that trying to establish a Jewish homeland on purloined land in the heart of the Arab world was not a very good idea? Ah, Colonialism, you will never rest in peace, you will haunt us forever.

In the meanwhile we go on continuing to ignore the permanent bases and the half billion dollar embassy we are building in Iraq, evidence of our own colonial desires. Somehow, when anyone speaks of withdrawing our troops they never even mention this obvious problem. To this day, to my knowledge, no one has ever officially stated that we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq, not the Democrats and certainly not the Republicans. Iraq is to have a puppet government and become for all intents and purposes a U.S. colony. This is the "victory" that must be achieved before all else. Do not expect to see our troops coming home until they are literally forced out as in the case of Vietnam. We may get a raise in the minimum wage. We may get some kind of ethics reform. We may get some tax reform. We might even eventually get universal health care. We are not going to get out of Iraq. I truly hope I am wrong.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Stop him before he kills again

What is this all about? Bush is reportedly going to send more troops to Iraq for a "surge," "bump," or "escalation," depending upon who you talk to and when. He is going to do this in spite of the fact that only 11% of Americans are in favor of doing this, virtually all of the Generals are not in favor (he is removing the ones that don't cooperate), the Democratic majorities are opposed, as are many Republicans. So what is he up to? Even though I have been convinced for years that he is marginally retarded, he must be aware that what he is doing is insane. Or is it? I think he is actually maneuvering himself into a situation in which whatever happens he (at least in some sense) "wins." Think about it. If Democrats or others oppose sending or funding this so-called "surge" he will be able to blame them when the miserable Iraq failure becomes too obvious to cover up. On the other hand, if he gets the troops, he can prolong the "war" until the next election at which time he can just dump the failure onto someone else's watch. Clever, no? This is more likely Rove or Cheney's idea than Bush's but he is, after all, the front man for this political con game. And make no mistake about it, this isn't about "war," it's about politics. Bush/Cheney and the neocons are using our troops for their own political ends.

I was wondering why Negroponte, who has arguably one of the most important posts in the Administration (head of all intelligence units) would resign to become an Assistant Secretary of State under Condi Rice. This made no sense to me. Stephen Pizzo, in an article entitled "White House Chess," (in Smirking Chimp), has come up with a speculation that makes perfect sense even if it may prove to be pretty unbelievable. Pizzo argues that the only reason Negroponte would agree to this is because he wants to become Secretary of State. The scenario goes as follows: Cheney will resign for reasons of health, Bush will appoint Condi as Vice President. Negroponte will become Secretary of State. Pizzo offers perfectly good reasons why this might happen that I do not wish to review here. I urge you to read his article. Remember, this is only speculation. But it is well worth watching.

Keith Olberman made an impassioned comment about Bush's idea of "sacrifice." If you didn't see it, or haven't yet seen it, you can find a video of it on Truthout. It is powerful and well worth watching.

Bush is supposed to announce next week what his plan is for "moving forward" (more accurately described as "staying the course") in Iraq. With virtually the entire world opposed to sending in more troops will he actually do it? And if he does what does that tell us about his opinion of anyone but himself? There is a deep psychological problem here such that reason, common sense, empathy, and even basic human values have no place. Bush, I believe, is not only marginally retarded but a genuine sociopath. Can no one or anything stop him before he kills again?

Dennis Kucinich is absolutely right. Cut off any funding for this phony "war" other than those funds needed to bring our troops home safely. Is anyone listening? Perhaps the Pelosi/Reid letter is just the first "shot across the bow." I sincerely hope so.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

The "bump"

Bush made the right choice - for him. Think about it. What else could he do? After saying f0r years that we could not leave Iraq without a "victory" he obviously could not suggest withdrawing from that troubled land. And he could also not just do nothing because it is apparent that the current situation is intolerable. So short of bombing Iran (let us fervently hope that is not coming up next), he is (apparently) going to announce his plan to send an additional 15,000 or 20,000 troops to "move forward" in Bagdad. This relatively modest increase in troops has been described as a bump rather than a surge. I seriously doubt that anyone (including Bush himself) believes that a bump is going to do anything to settle down Bagdad and will almost surely result in even more American casualties. So what is the point? The point is that Bush had no other choice short of admitting he has been a hopeless lying idiot for the last few years. So we will lose (sacrifice) some more of our finest troops in an absurd attempt to basically just stall for time. Bush obviously wants to be able to dump his incredible mess on the next President, whoever that unfortunate person may be. So far, as near as I can tell, no one, Democrat or Republican, is going to stop him. Perhaps people may actually listen to Kusinich or Edwards, or Murtha, or someone, and just say NO! to this utter looneytunes who pretends to be our "leader," but at the moment that seems doubtful.

I will not bore you with our tale of driving to Seattle through rain and snow and avalanches, the failure of our hotel's internet system, the fact that we got so far behind schedule we couldn't blog at all, and so on. Travel between Bonners Ferry and Seattle in winter is just a joy. Our trusty little Subaru Forester seems to succeed where other more grandiose vehicles fall by the wayside (putting on and taking off chains).

Our slim Democratic party has been seriously decimated recently by accidents. We lost Dan Krumpotich to a fatal motorcycle accident not long ago and now we have lost Julian Bucher in a fatal agricultural accident. Both firm and serious democrats, as well as friends, we will miss them terribly.

Some have extremely high hopes for the new Democratic majority, some do not. I remain optimistic but not overly so. I believe that Republican calls for bipartisanship, after the way they have behaved for the past 12 years, are pathetic. There are no greater hypocrites in the entire world than American Republicans. As far as I am concerned they deserve nothing but the back of the hand. And the more supoenas and investigations the better. I have very high hopes for Nancy Pelosi. I hope she doesn't disappoint.

Monday, January 01, 2007

The Hopelessness of the Dimwitted Decider

The Boise State Broncos beat one of the greatest football powerhouses ever in one of the most incredible football games ever played anywhere by anyone. After leading most of the game Oklahoma managed to tie the game and then went ahead by a touchdown. With 18 seconds left the Broncos scored on an unbelievably gutsy play that left them one point behind. Then, instead of going for the tie, they elected to put it all on the line and win with a two point conversion. With a deceptive play that they have apparently practiced all year they managed to win the game. This was the most incredible football game I have ever seen in my life. Boise State remains undefeated for the year and, depending upon what happens in the Ohio State/Florida game, might actually be considered the best team in the nation. This is a game that will be remembered forever! Forget potatoes, Boise State is a football powerhouse!

But back to the matter at hand. One almost has to feel sorry for the Decider because he obviously cannot decide. Oh, he may have decided what he wants to do, but he doesn't have the courage to do it. Thanks to his own complete incompetence and stupidity he has now managed to get himself into a situation with no acceptable outcome. He can't leave things as they are because as they are is completely disastrous. He wants to add more troops and escalate the "war" but there is so much opposition from generals and others he hopefully doesn't have the nerve, and he can't just withdraw because that would be an admission of failure. So what is he to do? For the moment he keeps insisting he needs more information. No amount of information is going to get him out of this mess he has made. Even Daddy's friends are helpless to clean up this mess. In short, I think he's "had it." It's only a matter of time before he either "cracks up" or is forced to resign (or is impeached). Hopefully his puppet master will have to go with him. Never in the history of the U.S. have we had a situation as dismal as this. Even the morons that keep on supporting him are going to have to come around to the reality that is the abject failure, George W. Bush. In the meanwhile, if you can believe it, the MSM keep treating him as if he is a credible "leader." Does anyone even listen to him anymore? Can anyone possibly believe him anymore? Why are he and Cheney allowed to continue in office? The House and Senate, along with the Republican party, are totally irresponsible (but they apparently like that corporate money more than their country). Will he attack Iran out of his desperation? He is apparently concerned about his "legacy." His legacy has already been determined. Nothing he can do now will ever change it. It is a legacy of one failure after another with this last one so horrible it is beyond understanding. Maybe next time we should pick a President who doesn't even want to have a beer with us.