Letting bygones be bygones?

Does Nancy Pelosi truly believe in letting bygones be bygones? Like, it's not as if Bush snubbed her for her best girlfriend when they were in the eighth grade. We're talking here about murder, arson, rape, and pillage on a massive scale. Multiple war crimes. So Pelosi takes impeachment "off the table?" Does she really mean to just overlook the war crime of the century? Perhaps she has some secret plan for accountability that we don't know about? Sorry Nancy, this is not a time for letting bygones be bygones. Bush/Cheney must be held accountable. It is your constitutional duty to see that this happens. So get with the program. NOW!

The Democrats caved. I guess it was a foregone conclusion. Now they are supposedly negotiating over benchmarks. What a farce. They can set all the benchmarks they want, Bush/Cheney will simply ignore them and/or Bush will just sign another of his famous signing statements saying that he doesn't have to follow them. If either the Democrats or the Republicans wanted to stop this phony illegal "war" they could do so right now. It is obvious they don't want it to stop.

One also can only laugh at their desire to have neighboring countries help them in Iraq, countries like Syria and Iran, for example. What are they saying to them - please come and help us steal Iraqi oil? Here we are intervening militarily in a once sovereign nation 6000 miles away that was no threat to us (or anyone else at the time) and we have the gall to tell Syria and Iran to stop allowing insurgents to cross into Iraq? This is carrying chutzpa and hypocrisy to entirely new levels. No, I guess not, Bush/Cheney have done worse. Many believe that Bush has gone AWOL from the Presidency. Cheney has been quiet of late. Rice continues to babble on in various parts of the globe apparently with little or no success anywhere. She has got photo-ops down to a science. I guess maybe that is progress.

Our monthly Democratic meeting this evening. The topic was education and how we fund the schools (with periodic levees). Some believe you simply must vote for every levee because we have to support our schools and the Democratic platform says we must support public education. I don't believe this has to be interpreted in such a way that although you support education in general you have to support every individual school no matter how rotten it might be. Furthermore, why should we have to vote on levees every year or two in the first place? The reason is simple enough, our Republican controlled legislature over the last years simply refused to adequately fund the schools. And who votes time after time for the Republicans? Why none other than most of the school administrators and teachers. Other states don't have to vote levees constantly to barely fund their schools. Indeed, many states are proud to fund their schools and want them to be first class. Here in Idaho we think we are lucky to fund our schools at the most basic levels possible. Some said tonight we should demand excellence in our schools and go for levees much higher than we have in the past. Terrific idea. But the idea of excellent schools in Idaho, if possible, is only possible in the very distant future. Of course if we could elect a Democratic legislature it might become possible. The issue, as it seems to be framed, is that the Democratic party is obliged to support the levees. So I say, okay, let's say we do, that doesn't mean that every Democrat individually has to vote for the levee (it is a private ballot after all). Interestingly, and predictably I guess, everyone politely ignored the fact that both our Superintendent and Principal are authoritarian vindictive bullies that violate the civil rights of the students and the Idaho code of education, to say nothing of questionable spending priorities. Hey, this is Idaho, the most red state in the union, what would you expect? In the end we focused on the solution for all problems - we suggested a committee.

Viva Edwards!

I must say that John Edwards jumped a few hundred points in my estimation today when I saw him with Wolf Blitzer and he said "Bush has to be stopped." This is a belief I share wholeheartedly. Edwards insists the Democrats not back down and keep sending him bills with a deadlines for withdrawal until he will have to stop this dreadful "war." Virtually every sentient being on the planet (except for Bush's moronic base) want this killing and destruction ended. A majority of Americans want it ended, Iraqis want it ended, many of our Generals want it ended, troops want it ended, Democrats want it ended. Who doesn't want it ended? Republicans. If there was any doubt about who wants to continue the war and who doesn't it was made plain when the Republicans (with apparently only two exceptions) refused to vote with the Democrats. How Republicans can continue to support this dismal failure of a President along with this illegal and immoral "war" is something I fear I will never understand. I think it tells me something about human behavior I'm not sure I want to know. Indeed, I'm no long certain that these Republican supporters are fully human as they seem to lack both reason and empathy. They obviously have no regard for human life and nothing but contempt for their fellow citizens. Perhaps it is just case of "follow the money."

Bush assured us the other day that if Condi encountered her Iranian counterpart she would not be rude. She has now assured us that she will be polite. What did they expect, that she would punch him in the mouth? The utter nonsense that emanates from the mouths of Republicans never ceases to amaze (this is more true of our dimwitted President who apparently sets an example for the rest).

At least two Congresspersons have joined Kucinich in his attempt to impeach Dick the Slimy. I pray to the Great Mystery there will be more, many more. If ever there would be a "slam dunk" it would be impeaching this warmongering war profiteer who has proven to be a serial and pathological liar. I cannot think of one single thing Cheney has been right about. I have come to the conclusion that he has some kind of strange condition such that he is actually unable to tell the truth. He can't shoot straight either.

It seems the Gonzales problem has gone from being simply a politcal one to a possible criminal one. Apparently Ms. Goodling was hiring people based upon their political loyalties which is against the law. As this is how the Bush/Cheney administration hired people to work in Iraq why would they not have done it in this case as well. It also looks more and more that this particular scandal is leading directly to the White House. There ought to be a law that states whenever the number of scandals is higher than the age of the President multiplied by 213 he ought to be relieved of his position.

Progress?

According to our local conservative rag, The Spokesman Review, terrorist attacks increased by 91% in the past year or so. It also reported that this April was the worst month for our troops (over 100 dead) in the last four years. On the positive side it was reported that secular Iraqi deaths have declined (because they conveniently stopped considering car bombings). We are supposed to believe that progress is being made? The "surge" is working? That somehow we are going to (miraculously) "win?" Now Bush has vetoed the bill Congress sent him as it suggests a deadline for withdrawing our troops (while at the same time giving him more money than he asked for). Why is he doing this? Because, as I have said repeatedly, Bush/Cheney have no intention of ever withdrawing from Iraq. This is why there was no post war planning. Congress should send him another bill with the same insistence on withdrawing. If he vetoes that, they should send him another just the same. Don't bet they will. It appears the whole thing is little more than a charade. Bush will please his base (of utter nitwits) while the Democrats will pretend for while to make some points with the anti-war crowd, and then they will all agree on some kind of cockamami plan to insist on unenforceable goals that will just be ignored. All of this going on at the same time people everywhere are spelling out impeach with their nude bodies, candles, and what have you. Will Pelosi be able to keep impeachment off the table? I hope not.

When Bush was asked what Condi Rice would do if she encountered her Iranian counterpart he said she would not be rude. I did not make this up. I actually heard it on tv. Later he said Wolfowitz had brought to the World Bank the idea that it should deal with poverty. I'm not kidding. He actually said these things.

Don't be misled (as I was for a time) into thinking Gonzales is simply an empty headed moron who can't remember anything and doesn't know what's going on. He's falling on his sword for Bush. He has to act like a complete nitwit because if he did anything else he would have to give away the truth about this totally corrupt administration. This is why Bush can say he has even more confidence in Gonzales, he is doing what he has to do. It can't be pleasant pretending to be a complete fool but when the stakes are high enough it has to be done.

I doubt there is any truth to the rumor that the Bush's have bought a huge ranch in Paraguay. But the way things are going at the moment, if they didn't, perhaps they should.

'The Fate of the Embassy

If we were to withdraw our troops (all of them) from Iraq, and let that unfortunate country develop its own government free of our influence and coercion, what do you think might happen to our near billion dollar embassy? It doesn't matter what form of government they might end up with (dictatorship or whatever), it seem to me they will not be prepared to allow us to occupy the largest and most lush embassy ever built, especially while they are still trying to rebuild their bombed out streets and houses and getting their electricity and water back, and so on. The embassy will reportedly need thousands of troops and workers of various kinds, all living in luxury with swimming pools, golf course, and movie theatres and what have you. This would be nothing less than a symbol of the humiliation, terror, and horror we brought them in the opening years of the 21st century. I don't believe they would allow this. So what might happen to the embassy? I suggest we give it to them as part of our abject apology for the behavior of our criminal leaders. It would doubtless make an absolutely wonderful University that would atone, at least in part, for the fact that we have destroyed their universities, along with most everything else.

I suspect they might allow us a modest embassy, perhaps a suite of offices, insisting that as all we would be doing is signing checks for reparations (you don't need much space just for writing out checks). Surely they won't allow us to help in reconstructing their infrastructure and such, not after our dismal failure so far. I doubt we would need any troops to defend this embassy as the Iraqis would doubtless guard it carefully lest any rabid imperialists escape to cause further damage.

I guess the basic problem here is that the embassy was not built with any expectation that we would ever leave Iraq (until, perhaps, the oil was exhausted). So much for great expectations, as it looks like we will eventually have to leave whether we wish to or not. There appears to be no conceivable way we can "win," even if anyone knew what it was to win. Either the Iraqis are going to do our bidding or they are not. It's pretty clear they are not. Therefore, no embassy, no permanent bases, no theft of oil, and, in fact, just failure as far as the eye can see (and even farther). The most horrible foreign policy blunder in American history, the most expensive and humiliating defeat, the blunder of blunders.

Now we see the wheels coming off the Bush/Cheney administration, the rats deserting the sinking ship, the lies upon lies upon lies, the finger pointings, the weaseling, the denials, just what one would espect from a falling apart jalopy careening crazily down the street headed straight for the pit of shame. Bush has run true to form, he has failed at everything he has attempted. Think of where we might be now had a criminal Supreme Court allowed the rightful winner to become President. Whatever you might think of Al Gore he would never have allowed such a total disaster to befall our country. Think of all the lives that would have been saved. Think of all the billions that could have been so much better spent. I confess, thinking about it makes me ill. I live to see some accountability.

Daydreaming

I was daydreaming today of what I would want in our next President:

A Democrat (or even an Independent)

He/she would immediately bring our troops home from Iraq. All of them.

When Iraq managed to seat a stable government (of any kind) He/she would insist on reparations for the horrors Bush/Cheney inflicted on their country.

He/she would abandon the dream of empire and bring home many if not most of our troops in the 170 bases we maintain all over the earth.

There would be no torture, no Guantanamo, and no renditions.

He/she would immediately reduce the military budget by at least 50%.

There would be no pre-emptive strikes against anyone without clear evidence of threat, real evidence, not make believe evidence in the Bush/Cheney mode.

There would be no private military like Blackwater.

He/she would insist on universal single-payer health care.

There would be an all out campaign to halt global warming with strong and enforceable sanctions against transgressors.

There would be no nuclear energy plants and the promotion of all forms of clean energy - wind, solar, waves, and whatever else that might be discovered.

Israeli colonialism and near genocide against the Palestinians would cease immediately and a viable solution for a two nation outcome would be seriously promoted.

Tax cuts for the wealthy would be abandoned and we would see a return to our previous system of progressive taxation.

Money taken from the military/industrial/political combine and the filthy rich would be used not only for universal health care but also for rebuilding infrastructre, providing free education for all, and strengthening the endangered species act.

Measures would be taken to break up the enormous corporations who now hold a stranglehold on our lives. CEO's would have to accept a more livable wage.

He/she would also insure that Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld, et al, would be held accountable for their multiple war crimes.

No doubt I have overlooked something. Will I ever find a candidate that would live up to my expectations? Of course not. At the moment I would happily settle for Al Gore (or even Kucinich). I do not want to settle for Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or anyone who will simply maintain the status quo.

The weather and Bush/Cheney

You remember that someone once said, "everyone talks about weather by nobody does anything about it. That seems to be where we are with Bush/Cheney. Now retired General Odom has called publicly for Bush to sign the latest bill and get us out of Iraq. All of the Democratic candidates castigate Bush/Cheney for having completely mismanaged the "war." John McCain, likewise. And some 66% of Americans have indicated their desire to bring the troops home quickly.

So what have Bush/Cheney done? A surge. A surge that was going to be short-lived and involve some 20,000 more troops. That grew swiftly into about twice that many troops. On top of that they are going to send 10,000 or more National Guard troops. Now they say we can't know until September if the surge is working. Pig pucky! The surge is not working already and things will almost certainly get worse before they get better (if, indeed, they will ever get better, which is highly doubtful). There is also talk now about keeping the troops in Iraq well into 2008 (you believe it will even stop then?).

And what has anyone done about this blatant expansion of the "war?" Next to nothing, of course. Kucinich, bless him, has filed articles of impeachment against Cheney but it appears no one else will support him. If Cheney is not obviously impeachable who in hell will ever be? The Democrats won't even cut off funding for this phony "war." They have the power to stop it right now but simply refuse. They don't want to get blamed for losing the "war" in Iraq so rather than doing the right thing they'll just let a few dozens or hundreds more of our troops get killed and maimed for life. It's just politics. Nothing like playing political games with human lives, the ultimate sport. The Democrats will end up being accused of losing in Iraq no matter what they do. So why not do something now? History is not going to deal kindly with this dishonest cowardly bunch. But what do they care? As our criminally insane POTUS said, "we'll all be dead." Some claim Bush worries about his legacy. I don't think he should, his legacy has already been established for all time - the worst president ever.

For those of you enamoured of Barack Obama, before you get too carried away you should read Paul Street's article, "Sitting out the Obama Dance in Iowa City," which appeared today on Znet.

Not to worry. I shall get my first latte of the day at Jeanz Beanz. I'll buy my wife some flowers at The Enchanged Florist. The I shall lunch at the Wily Widgeon. In the afternoon I'll latte at Expresso Yourself, and finally I will dine at the Mouldy Moose. Cute, huh? I hate cute.

Wow!

Wowie, Zowie! Things are moving fast. George Tenent's book is coming out. He not only rakes Cheney over the coals but also clarifies the business of "slam dunk." More importantly, perhaps, he also reveals there was no discussion of going to "war" against Iraq, nor any discussion of the possible consequences of that dastardly act. This confirms what we already know from others; Bush/Cheney were determined to invade Iraq from the very beginning - no discussion was needed. What makes this all the more exciting is that Tenent's colleagues in the CIA are taking him to task for aiding and abetting Bush/Cheney's mad desire to attack Iraq. Tenent knew better, as did Colin Powell, but rather than resign in protest or raise a fuss about it, they just went along.

If that is not exciting enough consider that Durbin, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee has now revealed that they were well aware the public was being lied to about the necessity for going to war but couldn't reveal it because, as members of the Intelligence Committee, they were sworn to secrecy. I think this is a real cop-out because they could have said the intelligence didn't support what Bush/Cheney wanted to do without revealing any precise information. And given the importance of the situation - going to "war" in which thousands of innocent people and American troops would be killed, someone on the committee could have leaked. But like Tenent and Powell they just went along with the war crime of the century.

I repeat, the war crime of the century. Is anyone interested in holding these war criminals responsible for the horrors they have brought. Apparently not, the only complaints seem to be over the fact that they haven't been successful enough at it. It's like ordering people to murder, arson, pillage and rape, and then complaining they didn't do it well enough. I think the problem is that so many people on both sides of the aisle are complicit they dare not admit to themselves what they have done. Besides, no one wants to cut off all that wonderful cash that results from warmongering and feeds the bottomless military/industrial/political system that now controls the world.

I am sick of the way Kucinich is being treated by the mainstream press and everyone else. He is about the only one who has consistently opposed the madness of war and suggested ways to change things, including a plan to bring out troops home. He receives no respect. Today, for example, Margaret Carlson, on Hardball, when asked about Kucinich during the debate said, "I'm sure the vegans were pleased." I'm not a vegan. I was very pleased. And who is Margaret Carlson to be putting down anyone?
I would be delighted to see Kucinich as President but as the powers that be have already decided he can never become president we have little choice but to live with that. I guess being short and a vegetarian means you can't be president but being an AWOL and a pathological liar is okay. What a country!


Stephen Hawking has said there is no future for the human race unless we move into space. Does this really trouble anyone but me?

What is the problem?

Yesterday the Vermont House voted against impeachment (the Senate had voted for it). Today during the Democratic debate sponsored by MSNBC the candidates were asked to raise their hand if they supported Kucinich's articles of impeachment. Not one raised their hand. So what is the problem? What are they afraid of? If anyone deserved to be impeached is has to be Dick Cheney, no question about it. By not impeaching him they are actually failing to carry out their constitutional duty. The failure to hold Cheney (and Bush and others) responsible for their terrible crimes means, I conclude, that our Senators and Congresspersons think these crimes are perfectly okay. Is that the message we want to send to the rest of the world? What is even more amazing is that a majority of the American people apparently want impeachment (if Bush/Cheney lied to start the "war," which they clearly and demonstrably did). I confess I cannot understand this. I guess they are all so involved in the military/industrial/political complex that is running roughshod over our (past) democracy they just can't be bothered with the constitution (or even right from wrong).

Speaking of the debate, why did they call it a debate? There wasn't any debating. In fact, if it hadn't been for the presence of Kucinich and Gravel you might have thought you were watching a tea party. They all comported themselves with the utmost good fellowship. I thought they all did well (for what they did). Hillary was presidential, Biden had his verbosity under control, Dodd was Dodd-like, Obama was polite and glib as always, Richardson was like a western governor, Edwards was serious and thoughtful, and so on. I give Richardson credit for saying he would pull ALL the troops out of Iraq. I'm sure no one else, except Kucinich, would say such a thing. Gravel is obviously running for president only to express his anger and contempt for what the rest of them (excluding Kucinich) are doing. He managed to make Kucinich look sort of moderate. The only two that made any sense to me were Gravel and Kucinich. The rest were just the same as, same as. It was interesting (although probably entirely predictable) that the issue of Israel/Palestine barely came up. Obama was asked a direct question about the Palestinians and managed to say nothing other than he would try to deal with it. Kucinich brought it up himself and said he would deal with it. Nice to know that at least a couple of them would try to deal with the single most pressing issue in the Middle East. This is obviously the issue "that dare not speak its name" (Israeli lobby, you know). Some of the questions I thought were kind of dumb, like "what would you do if two American cities were attacked by terrorists simultaneously? Both Richardson and Obama immediately said they would respond with our military (hopefully they would try to find out exactly who the enemy was before launching their attacks). Too bad that the only candidate that makes any genuine sense, Kucinich, "can't get no respect."

There is some kind of commercial for Doritos that I think personifies where we are. Two bags of chips are fighting in a boxing ring until one of them attacks the other with a chain saw. Sigh.

Pathetic

Rudy Guliani is not fit to be President of the United States. I say this not because as Mayor of New York he was hated by some 80% of the citizens, not because he has no foreign policy experience, not because of his failed marriages, nor because of his views on abortion and gay rights, not because of his close relationship with the criminal Kerik, not even for the fact that he is an opportunist that had only one day of fame, or is an arrogant egomaniac. I say it because he is stupid. When he said that we would only be safe with a Republican President (and he would be the best one), and that if a Democrat were President we would have more terrorist attacks, he revealed himself as just plain stupid. If he doesn't know by now that trying to sow fear is out of fashion, and in his case simply absurd, he clearly is out of touch. The message, vote Democratic and die, is passe. That he would attempt to try this tactic again now reveals a kind of childlike mentality, something on the level of, if you don't give me a cookie I'll tell mama. As I don't believe he has even a ghost of a chance to get the Republican nomination I don't know why I even bother about this.

I just watched the Bill Moyer show, Buying the War. A wonderful show that makes it very clear (if we didn't already know) the Bush/Cheney administration lied us into an unnecessary war, the so-called fourth estate were lazy and incompetent beyond belief, and when they weren't they were mostly ignored. The most puzzling thing to me was how everyone in the media seems to have been taken in by Powell's famous report. I don't mean to boast but even I, living in a small town in north Idaho, with a primitive internet connection and a lousy newspaper, knew he was not telling the truth. I was not the only one here either, that wasn't convinced by his glib account. We had already marched against the start of the "war" and knew perfectly well it was phony (as did millions of people around the world). Actually, I don't believe the media believed it entirely either, they pretended to because by that time they had already committed themselves to the Bush/Cheney line and couldn't face having to admit they were wrong (besides, it would have taken some effort on their part to look for the truth and confront the administration). It has been a long and tragic and even bizarre story. Moyer has made it clear. I'm so pleased he is back on tv.

Things are picking up. Rice has been supoened (sp?) along with others, whats-her-face has been offered immunity, Kucinich has put forth articles of impeachment for Cheney, Gonzales has been ordered to give written answers to all the questions he claims to have no memory of (how he can do this I do not know), DeLay is getting closer to finally going to jail, the Abramhof scandal is still ongoing, Congress has still not capitulated entirely on Iraq, The Vermont House of Representatives is going to consider impeachment, and more. Exciting times. But the wheels of justice do, indeed, grind slowly. I'd like to say this is a great time to be alive - but everything considered, I'm not so sure. But chin up, stomach in, carry on, pip pip and all that.

What did he see?

What did President Bush see that apparently no one else saw? Well, maybe he didn't see it as he didn't actually watch Gonzales being confronted by the Senators. Maybe he just heard it. Well, he probably didn't hear it either. But it doesn't seem to matter. Those who did see and hear it were unanimous in their opinions that Gonzales flunked even basic credibility. Some 70 times he claimed he had no memory of something or other. It was absolutely pathetic and everyone who watched had to have been embarrassed at the spectacle or an Attorney General being so outrageously incompetent. Not so our President. He said that he thought Gonzales did a terrific job, answered every question as honestly as he could (get that "as he could"), and as a result of such a fine performance he had even more confidence in his ability to manage the Justice Department. In other words he just trashed the opinions of all the Senators and others who made negative comments. This is not surprising. Bush has shown nothing but contempt for the House and the Senate and the American Public for the past six years. Why should he change now? He was like a petulant child who, realizing he is wrong about something, is unable to admit it and just continues insisting that his view is correct no matter what anyone else thinks about it. I've seen this kind of behavior on the playground and even in juries. The person would apparently rather die than admit his mistake.

It would seem pretty obvious that Bush is not going to get rid of Gonzales (at least not at the moment). He will probably stick with Wolfowitz as well. What does he have to lose. He's finished as President for all intents and purposes. Of course he can continue to completely foul everything up with vetoes and absurd claims about progress and what have you. Both Republicans and Democrats seem prepared to put up with him until the bitter end. He gets away with saying the most outrageous and dishonest things and no one is willing to hold him accountable. He's now like the crazy uncle that everyone just politely ignores, waiting for him to go away. Doesn't say much for the condition of our nation, does it?

Another nine troops killed while our politicians play chess with our soldiers. They seem unable to understand that these are real people being killed, not just pieces of wood or stone. But, hey, gotta have that oil. You have to give some credit to Hillary. She knows what it's all about. We have to keep some troops there to defend our interests. How much Iraqi oil do you think we could have bought for the two trillion dollars we will have invested in this unsavory business? Probably for not much more than that we could have bought the country. This has to be the most sordid chapter in all of American history. Well, maybe not, we did commit genocide on a grand scale, and we certainly showed those Philippinos a thing or two, and...and... Even so, Iraq is probably the greatest foreign policy blunder ever. You might think that by the 21st century we should have known better. Some of us did.

I am a bubble boy?

I guess I must live in some kind of bubble. Until this morning it would never have occurred to me there would be anyone, anywhere, that would not want to see Bush/Cheney impeached. Apparently there are. How can this be? I need to reconsider. Let's see: Bush/Cheney deliberately lied to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to "war" against Iraq. They then attacked a sovereign nation that was no threat to us. They used illegal weapons such as white phosphorous and cluster bombs, as well as others. They bombed innocent civilians. They instituted torture and secret renditions. They hid people from the Red Cross. They have engaged in the most blatant war profiteering. There is more. In any case all of these things are war crimes. They are obvious war crimes, not just something I have made up. All of this horror and slaughter was carried out with the goal of gaining control of their resources - namely, oil.

Here at home they have lied to Congress, illegally spied on us, recklessly spent us into unbelievable debt, ignored the constitution, and attempted to install a dictator rather than a President, using any underhanded, illegal, and despicable means they could employ. They have carried incompetence to lengths heretofore not seen through their deliberate policy of appointing only "loyal Bushies" instead of fully qualified people. I'm sure I have missed other things that should be impeachable.

Is there anyone who disputes this? Is there anyone who can show in any way that at least one or more of these violations are not clearly impeachable offenses? Or is it the case that only sex between consulting adults is impeachable? It is completely and totally beyond my comprehension that Bush/Cheney and their cronies should not be held accountable for their crimes. I can understand arguments that say impeachment is just not practical at the moment, or that it would take too much time, or that it might have unwantaed political fallout, or whatever. I do not believe any of this but at least I can kind of understand it. I cannot understand how anyone could possibly believe that Bush/Cheney do not deserve impeachment, or worse. Am I really just living in a bubble?

Alberto Gonzales is little more than a bad joke. He should never have been confirmed as Attorney General in the first place. Wolfowitz is even more of a bad joke. He should be made to listen to himself on attacking Iraq 24 hours a day for life. It is turning out to be the case that the entire Bush/Cheney administration is little more than a bad joke. The joke's on us. Hahahahaha. Not to worry, we're surging to oblivion and the rapture will be here soon enough. Our cowardly Democrats will see to it.

Milestones in growing old

I was always just referred to by my first name or a nickname. I don't remember the first time someone addressed me as Mr. but it was a bit of a surprise. How old do you have to be to become a Mister? I eventually became accustomed to being addressed as Mr. and just accepted it as my due. But then an even greater shock to my delicate sensitivities came the first time someone called me Sir. Sir? How could I be a Sir? Well, I was one and I was often addressed as Sir for a long time. Again, I had no alternative but to accept such a salutation, so I did. After several years as a legitimate Sir, I was walking down the street when some boys on bicycles behind me shouted "lookout Gramps!" Gramps! It was a real shocker. I had no idea I looked like a Grampa. But then later, looking in the mirror, and considering my age, I had to admit that it was a fitting term. For a long time I was considered a grandpa. When I took my young son anywhere, especially to the golf course, people always commented on how nice it was that gramdpa was taking his grandson to play golf. I thought they were terribly rude and ignorant but I rarely corrected them, thinking it was probably hopeless, the price you pay for having a son come along at an advanced age. Finally, the other day, as I was crossing a busy street, I heard what I hope will be the last of these unpleasant milestones. The young man directing traffic said, "hurry up Pops." Pops! What kind of way is that to address someone sixty years older than you? I wanted to say, "Sir Pops to you, punk," but as I didn't want to get run over, I resisted. You see, life is like that. You should be prepared. I shudder to think what might come after Pops.

I had a pleasant couple of days without being burdened by the everyday idiocy that makes up the round of life these days. But reviewing things now I see that, just as Cheney predicted, the Democrats caved and have now changed their bill to simply be an advisory one. You know how Bush takes advice. Gonzales apparently made a fool of himself in front of the Senators but Bush thinks he did well. I should say Bush says he did well as we all know Bush doesn't actually think. And John McCain went way over the deep end this time with his rendition of bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. I truly believe he has totally flipped his lid, so to speak. Apparently we have abandoned trying to train Iraqi troops. Our new goal is to use American troops to establish security before we consider leaving (not that we are actually considering leaving). But obviously if you want to keep control over that oil you have to have some kind of security, at least in the Green Zone where our Puppets are being urged to sign away their resources. I must repeat what I have said so many time; we have no intention of ever leaving Iraq. No one running for President, as far as I know, has actually said they want all our troops out of Iraq, certainly not Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Kucinich maybe, although I haven't heard him say it outright in quite that way.

The only bright spot I can see is that there seems to be some serious maneuvering over impeachment (it's about time). Kucinich will introduce articles of impeachment for Cheney next week (I guess), Vermont is very close to forcing impeachment, and there seems to be a groundswell of public opinion for just that option. Let us hope.

What's wrong with me?

There is a motion picture playing in my living room. I am not watching it. I believe it is called Children of Men. I can hear it from the relative safety and comfort of my study. As near as I can tell every third or fourth word is fucking. There is, literally, almost non stop gunfire and explosions. Personally, I find it almost impossible to understand why anyone would make such a movie or why anyone would watch it. I cannot even remember the last time I saw an ad for a movie on tv that was not violent. I guess there must still be movies being made that are not violent, and that do not replace our potentially useful and beautiful language with incessant variations on the work fucking. They are few nowadays. I am not particularly upset by the words fuck or fucking. They have become so commonplace these days that they no longer register as dirty words or even shocking ones. I am upset by the fact they are used so frequently and thereby debase our language and arts (do we still have arts?). What would our scriptwriters and novelists do without these words? It seems to me we got along quite comfortably without such words for a very long time. Indeed, I was reading some W. Somerset Maugham short stories this afternoon. Marvelous stories. Maugham, I believe, was in his prime probably our greatest short story writer. He didn't have to use gutter words to convey his wonderful tales of human conduct and foibles. Neither did Hewmingway, Fitzgerald, or others of that generation. So what has happened to us? What has happened to talent? What happened to the great comedians, W.C. Fields, Jack Benny, Chaplin, Keating, etc.? They managed to entertain without having to resort to shock and awe. I think that's it, they had talent and didn't have to just try to outshock everyone else. Of what conceivable value are people like Coulter, Limbaugh, and the other hate mongers? Why is it they have large audiences that apparently like what these no-talents say day after day. And what's wrong with me that I cannot seem to enjoy any of this?

I am so disgusted with the state of the world, particularly Bush/Cheney's "war," and the scandals too numerous to count, I am taking two or three days off. I just can't stand anymore at the moment. I shall go to the Annual Seattle Library Book Sale, eat seafood, drink some wine, and pretend there is at least part of the world left that is sane and decent.

The News 24/7

News 24/7, if you haven't noticed, is little more than a bad joke. It ought to be advertised as one news item repeated endlessly 24/7. Remember Anna Nicole Smith (how could anyone not)? MSNBC, as well as the other major channels went on and on and on for days on end about this basically trivial story. Then the pontificated for several days on the Imus story (which granted, was a cut above the Smith fiasco). Now it's the Virginia Tech massacre which is, of course, a major story and well deserving of cover. But all day every day? These news people seem to be totally unable to deal with more than one story at a time. When they find one they just pursue it obsessively to the neglect of everything else. Are we supposed to believe that during these marathon sessions on Smith, Imus, and now Virginia Tech, there are no newsworthy happenings anywhere else on earth (or even here at home, for that matter)? Nothing in Iraq worth mentioning? Africa? Europe? Russia? It is as if they don't want us to get any news (alas, I believe this may be the case). Anything to take our simple minds off the disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the multiple Bush/Cheney scandals here at home.

This would be bad enough but consider how absurd their quest for news becomes. They see a story and begin reporting on it before they have any facts at all. Take this latest case. We were told that the suspect was Chinese, 24 years old, who had arrived in August through San Francisco. Totally wrong. We were told he was not a student at Virginia Tech. Totally wrong. We were told he may have had an accomplice. Wrong. We were told he had a 35mm automatic along with a 22 automatic. Then later, he had two 35mm pistols. Then he had an extra long clip which allowed him to fire many extra rounds. Now we're told he had a 15 bullet clip. Now we know that the suspect was from South Korea, having entered the U.S. in 1992 or thereabouts, was 23 years old, and was, in fact a student at Virginia Tech. As a senior majoring in English he wrote papers and plays that were so violent his teachers and fellow students thought he needed help. And he was a loner. Apparently at one point some of his fellow students even discussed the possibility that he might do something like this. Or so it is now being reported. Should we believe any of this? What might the story be tomorrow? Oh, don't worry, the story will continue tomorrow and probably the tomorrow after that. While this is a terrible trajedy and certainly worthy of extensive coverage, should it completely overshadow the situation in Iraq where more people than 33 die every day? Couldn't there be some mention of some other news event somewhere? Don't look for it, it almost certainly will not be there for a few days (and maybe never if another "big" story about a buxom blond turns up). Thank god for the internet and some foreign news once in a while.

I didn't hear it myself (as I make it a point to never listen to the dimwit if I can help it), but someone said that Bush, who was there ostensibly to help "heal" the people of Virginia Tech, couldn't resist adding, completely inappropriately, that he still supported the 2nd Amendment. Will anything come of gun control after this? Of course not. The gun laws in Virginia are awsome in their simplicity. If you are alive, a citizen of Virginia, and not guilty of a felony, you can buy all the guns you want. By the way, did the young man file those serial numbers off himself or did the weapons come that way? Where was he for the two hours between the shootings? Why, apparently in his dorm room. An unbelievable and horrific event. He wouldn't have been able to do it with a club or a knife. Guns are the thing. According to the NRA everyone should have one.

Guns

Even while the terrible trajedy at Virginia Tech was still being reported some of the gun lunatics were already arguing that it could have been prevented had laws been passed allowing students to carry guns. Think of that. What a terrific idea. Every student should have a gun, just like every citizen should have one. We could have had a great shootout at the Virginia Tech corral. I like the argument: "guns don't kill people, people do." Yes, it's true, people kill other people - WITH GUNS! It's true there are other ways to kill each other, like with clubs and knives and poisons and even frozen legs of lamb. But it's so much easier with guns. Actually I'm not a proponent of gun control. Having grown up with guns and hunting, and living now in a rural environment where I have guns, I have nothing against the ownership of guns per se. However, I don't think anyone needs an AK 47 or a 50 caliber machine gun, or hand grenades, or personal tanks, or whatever it is next the NRA is going to promote. Guns for hunting or home protection, okay. Guns for mass murder, no.

Who does Bush think he's talking to? I accidentally again today caught part of a speech he was making somewhere. He literally said that if we didn't defeat terrorism in Iraq there would be death and destruction all over the world, including here at home. This was such a pathetic example of fearmongering and complete nonsense it was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud. Of course there are terrorists. Thanks to Bush/Cheney there are now lots of them in Iraq where formerly there were none. And of course terrorists might strike anywhere at any time. Obviously this is a problem. But to implictly compare them to the hordes of Genghis Khan or the military might of the German Reich, is clearly a bit of overstatement. What is it that Bush/Cheney can't understand: the Iraqis want us out of their country and to leave them alone. That ought to be easy enough even for Dumbo and his Puppetmaster to grasp. In reality I'm sure they do understand it. They just won't give up control of all that oil, and all those potential profits no matter what. Who cares how many more innocent Iraqis have to be killed, or how many more of our troops? Oil is more precious even than blood. Black gold. The stuff that dreams are made of.

Reality suggests to me that if terrorists wish to strike at the United States there is no reason they should have to wait until we pull out of Iraq. Indeed, they would be wise to do it now rather than later when we have all our troops home. The claim that they will follow us here if we leave Iraq is not only stupid, it's actually childish. Apparently the Republican base still believes this. Of course they believe their recent ancestors cavorted with dinosaurs, Noah built an ark, Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and the sun revolves around the earth. They also believe women prefer straightened coat hangers in alleys to medical science and people actively choose to be homosexuals. "Nuke their ass and steal their gas." We, being the most superior and best people on earth, deserve everything we get (don't think too long or carefully about that).

Evil vs incompetent

Bubblehead: I can always rely on you to keep me on the straight and narrow. If space has no "edge" then I guess it would be even further than I thought.

I heard some time ago that one of these "camps" was being constructed somewhere in the Okanaugan (sp?). Of course I don't know if that is true or not. How can you tell anymore what is true and what is not? If they are not yet built, and if they are to be built, you can be sure that KBR will be in for their cost plus largesse.

I don't know. Hundreds of thousands of innocents killed. Some 3600 American troops dead. Thousands badly injured. Attacking a country that was no threat to us. Torture. Renditions. Lies. War crimes. All for a phony "war" that didn't need to be. Sounds pretty damn evil to me. Of course it could easily be both incompetent and evil. How much Iraqi oil do you think we might have bought for half a trillion dollars?

Can you believe that Government lawyers are actually trying to argue that Bush/Cheney have the right to remove anyone in the audience that does not share their point of view? First question: how did anyone that didn't share their point of view get in there to begin with (must have been poor security). Second question: how far do you think they will get with such an absurd argument? (Perhaps a long way now that they control what used to be the Department of Justice). Third question: will Alberto Gonzales survive after tuesday? Fourth question: Will Wolfowitz survive? Fifth question: Will Bush/Cheney survive? Sixth question: how many scandals does it take to bring down an incompetent and corrupt administration? Answer: just as space has no edge, so in a Republican administration, scandals have no outer limits. They just go on to infinity. Want to bet what those "lost" emails are going to reveal? Will we, the unwashed American public, ever be allowed to learn just how horribly corrupt Washington D.C. really is? Stay tuned, tuesday may be (or at least could be)the start of something big.

They lost emails?

The White House wants us to believe they lost a bunch of significant emails, as many as FIVE MILLION! This is carrying surreality far beyond anywhere it has gone before. I don't know much about computers but I don't think it is even possible to LOSE an email. You might well try to destroy one (and probably won't succeed entirely) but you can't just lose one, not in this technological world. As this is pretty much common knowledge it makes you wonder why they would make such an outrageous claim in the first place. Patrick Leahy is right. They aren't lost. They just don't want to produce them. Why not? Guess.

Of course focusing too narrowly on the presumed loss might well make you forget that what they were doing in many cases was probably illegal to begin with. That is, instead of using the normal White House system they were using the RNC system. Why would they do this? Could it have been to avoid the public record that is supposed to be provided for all such White House correspondence? Naw, they wouldn't do anything like that. It would be illegal and underhanded. Rove and the White House would never do something like that, would they? It has been suggested that Rove himself may have attempted to destroy emails. He claims he thought they were all being preserved (hahahahaha).

The strange and frustrating thing about this administration and its multiple scandals is that there seems to be no last straw. Scandals pile on one another so fast that no one of them seems to be the one to bring them down. You do have to admire them for Chutzpah far beyond the ordinary. Would anyone have believed that an administration would actually claim to have lost five million emails? This is "the dog ate my homework" multiplied by the number of light years it would take to reach the outer limits of space. I suspect this may have been deliberately concocted to cause Leahy and Waxman to have heart attacks and thus relieve some of the pressure these crooks are beginning to feel for the first time.

Just think, if the Democrats had not squeaked by and won the right to supoena people many of us would probably already be in the concentration camps Bush/Cheney have been building over the past few years. Why they have not been impeached (or worse) is beyond my comprehension. I don't think we can wait until 2008 to get rid of them. Where is the Lone Ranger when you really need him?

Nappy headed hos, faggots, and shlock jerks

Want to become rich and famous? Have no actual talent? Not to worry, you too can become a shlock jerk. It's easy. All you have to do is learn to lie about anything and everything, say hateful and destructive things about others (especially Democrats), find some radio program or tv show that will feature you, and before you know it, you'll find an audience of people who are even more stupid than yourself. While I am not certain I think this may well be a unique American profession. The rise of the shock jock probably correlates well with the degeneration of the American motion picture industry into little more than shock and awe (helped immeasurably by the computer industry). This is not to say there are no decent motion pictures at all, but they are certainly rare these days. When was the last time you saw an ad for a motion picture that was not filled with gratuitous violence?

I cannot believe that MSNBC has devoted the full hour of Hardball for the last three days to nothing but Imus and his disgusting description of the Rutgers girls' basketball team. I mean, like, there is nothing else newsworthy going on in the world? How about Iraq? The Gonzales fiasco? Iran? Syria? Pakistan? Whatever. MSNBC was not alone in the obsession with Imus. I guess after the Anna Nicole Smith paternity question there was just nothing else the American people needed to know about other than Imus. What troubles me the most about the Imus sitation is not that what he said was both racist and sexist. What bothers me more is that it was so stupid. He was stupid in the same way that Coulter's faggot remark was stupid. In these cases there was no connection whatsoever between the remarks and any reality. They were said for nothing more than the shock value. Why would they not say such things? They have been paid exorbitant salaries for years precisely to say shccking things. Things that decent people would simply never say. If we had a caste system these people: Imus, Coulter, Limbaugh, et al, would be at the same level as those in India who clean out the latrines. The fact that such people not only survive, but thrive, is a terrible commentary on the American public. Imus has said such things before. Coulter and Limbaugh routinely say such things. They are rarely condemned for it. They have gotten away with their trash talk for years. Perhaps this may be the final straw that will turn the tide away from indecent hip-hop lyrics as well as indecent, hateful, and stupid talk show garbage. I don't believe in censorship. On the other hand I'm not confident we can leave everything up to the market. Perhaps the only bright spot in this recent Imus situation is that many of his sponsors backed away. Perhaps in this case the market may actually start putting a stop to the worst of these shlock jerks. Wouldn't that be nice?

Who dunnit?

Our new Secretary of Defense outlined a new plan for troop deployments today. I guess all troops are going to have their tours extended. Then there is to be a system of 15 months on and then 12 months at home. The idea, as I understand it, is to give the troops a firm idea of where they stand, what they can depend on, and so on. This plan was announced publicly at the same time it was announced to the troops, an unusual format as usually the troop commanders and troops are getting this information before everyone else. When asked about this Gates said a most curious thing. He acknowledged that this was an unusual way of announcing such a plan but "someone higher up with little understanding or common sense had intervened." Those were not his exact words but he did say something to that effect. As far as I know (I did not watch the complete session) no one asked just who this higher up might have been. Now, who do you think would be the only person highly placed enough, and mean enough, to do such a thing? While I cannot say with certainty I should think it could only have been Dick the Slimy (who, as we all know by now, runs everything). Does any of this sound to you like planning to get out of Iraq anytime soon?

Here in Idaho Larry LaRocco has announced he will run for Larry Craig's Senate seat. It is not known whether Craig will run again although it is rumored that he may not. Of course if he does run he will no doubt get elected again. He is the perfect Senator for this red state as he never votes against the President, represents his constituency (big timber, big farmers, big business, big bigots) faithfully. LaRocco will have his work cut out for him and will have to be creative - no one ever ran against a rubber stamp before. Craig is rumored to have some unmentionable baggage that may disuade him from running again. It is not clear yet what Republican will run in his place if he does actually retire. LaRocco would make a great Senator. Unlike Craig, I think he realizes that there really were no WMD's.

tanka:

as I grow older
music has turned into noise
art is now grotesque
the world is changing fast
desperately I look back

Outrageous

I accidentally heard part of a Bush Press Conference today. I have no idea who he was speaking to or why. What I do know from my brief exposure is that he was saying things so outrageous as to leave one speechless. These were not things he hasn't said before, but the fact that he can still say them, and still go unchallenged, is to me quite unbelievable. He said, for example, Sadam was a threat to the U.S. and to the world. Utter nonsense. He said if we don't fight them there they will follow us here. Utter nonsense. He said the reason the troops won't come home as soon as they might is because of the Democrats refusing to give him the funds he wants. Utter nonsense. And of course he says we are making progress and will be victorious. Utter nonsense. I don't know what else he said but I'm sure it was all absolutely outrageous nonsense. He has been doing this for years and no one ever seems to challenge him. But how he can continue to say this utter nonsense now, under the current circumstances, and not be laughed off the podium is impossible for me to understand. What is worse, I don't know who his audience was, but I think I actually heard some applause. He must have been speaking to the deaf, dumb, and blind.

I saw somewhere today that during the recent Israeli/Lebanon battle Condi Rice actually talked Olmert into a 48 hour respite for humanitarian relief. But before the 48 hours even began Israel began bombing. Apparently Cheney's office intervened and told Olmert to ignore Rice. That Cheney, what a humanitarian. What a great guy. I bet if he ran for President he would get at least two votes.

It is pretty obvious by now there is little or no point in continuing hostilities in Iraq. We cannot "win" in any meaningful sense of that term. A political solution does not seem to be in the cards as Bush/Cheney refuse to even talk to anyone. The only purpose being served by continuing as we are is to drag this phony "war" out until Bush/Cheney can leave it for someone else and try to blame the Democrats for their complete failure. The question that comes to my mind at the moment: will our military collapse before they can run out the time? Whether it does or not it is obvious that Bush/Cheney and the neocons have effectively destroyed our fine military for several years to come. I find this quite amazing, given that our military budget has been larger than all the rest of the world combined. Where do you suppose all that money went? Don't think too deeply about it. You'll just make yourself sick.

Life in Babble-on

John McCain keeps on insisting that things are improving in Iraq. He was able, he says, to visit a market, the American people are not getting the full story of our successes in that troubled land, it is still possible to win, and babble on and on. Lindsey Graham, who accompanied McCain on this stroll through Bagdad, boasted that he bought five rugs for five dollars (so, you see, things are going well, business is brisk). Another one of McCain's entourage reported that it was just like a summer market in Indiana (this has to be the mother of all babble). Of course Bush and Cheney continue their non-stop babble about how we can still achieve victory, things are going well, Pelosi is a dirty dog, Congress has no business butting in on Bush's "war," when the Iraqis stand up we will stand down (never), we have to fight them there or we'll have to fight them here (absolute babble), and the same old tired and worn babble they have employed for years. There seems to be no end in sight. What do you suppose Graham wants with five cheap rugs? Things must be pretty bad in Indiana in the summer. Does anyone believe this anymore?

The Democrats have already caved in. Levin now says we will never cut off support for the troops (that might end the war and Democrats would be blamed for it - a fate for Democrats, I guess, worse than death). Aside from the persistent aim of stealing Iraqi oil, this "war" has long since been divorced from any reality other than the political. Both Democrats and Republicans are now using our troops for their own political ends. Democrats want to keep this as Bush's Republican "war," and Republicans want to string it out until after the next election so they can blame it on someone else. Our troops continue to die and/or come home maimed for life while being used as pawns in this terrible travesty of human behavior. Too bad there is not an objective scale of human misery such that when it reaches a certain point there has to be an accounting and severe penalties become automatic and irrevocable.

Anyone out there believe that Alberto Gonzales is going to keep his job as Attorney General? I won't be surprised if he fails to show up at his April 17th grilling. There is a story about a gambler who died. His funeral was being attended by many of his peers. The Preacher was carrying on about how it was that "our good friend, so-and-so isn't really dead, he's just gone on to a better place," when from the back of the room came a voice that said, "eight to five he's dead." That's how I feel about Gonzales. Cheers, chins up, stomachs in, pip pip, and all that. Better days are coming (I hope).

Never is a long time

We are apparently never going to get out of Iraq. At least not as long as Bush/Cheney are still in office (and I suspect now even after they are gone). Consider the situation. Bush's "surge" that was to last only three months and require only 21,000 troops quickly turned into more like 28,000 (and perhaps more). Now it is said we won't know if it is working until sometime in the fall. Now Bush is ordering 13,000 more national guard troops to Iraq. Bush, Cheney and McCain, along with Lieberman, continue to insist we can "win." I guess what they mean by win is that somehow Bagdad can be controlled like Kabul (while outside of Bagdad Iraqis will continue to do whatever they want (like get rid of us). I guess also that they think if Bagdad is controlled they will be able to trick or coerce the puppet Iraqi government to sign the oil deals giving American and British companies obscene profits from Iraqi oil for years to come. As the Iraqis are not stupid they probably will not agree to this. If they don't do you think we will just take our ball and go home? Not likely. We'll stay there until they do our bidding no matter how many lives it will cost. Even if they do sign this absurd proposal which amounts to little more than stealing their oil at the barrel of a gun, we still won't be able to leave because the minute we do they will nationalize their oil once again (as I say, they are not stupid people). Some of our generals now say Iraq can't be pacified in just months but, rather, it will be years. They all seem to agree that we can't win militarily what requires a political solution. As a political solution is not likely in a short time we, again, would have to expect to be in Iraq for a long time. We will quite likely never get out of Iraq (unless we are chased out or eventually they run out of oil). As the Democratic Congress is all mouth and no action, and will not cut off funding for this disaster, why suppose it will ever end. I suggest we just make Iraq our 51st state and have done with it. They won't like it, but who cares what they like. We stole Texas and California, we might as well steal Iraq as well. As we all know what happens to states that do not want to stay in the union I guess we shouldn't have to worry to much on that score. Just the other day I heard that Vermont is thinking of going their own way. California, too, might be ripe for independence. Iraq, being the newest state, might lack the temerity to demand independence and their oil would be ours for all time. Fantasy? You bet. But it doesn't rival the fantasy that is the Iraq situation at the moment. Rest assured Bush/Cheney, if the American people are not with you the representatives of both parties are, along with the corporations and war profiteers that keep things going. Never is indeed a long time.

I predict things are going to get a lot worse in the next few weeks and months. The Iraqis will probably give up on killing each other long enough to kill more of us. But whatever happens, remember things are getting better and we are going to win. Do nothing to upset the Emperor (I hear he is given to tantrums). Whatever you do, do not mention IMPEACHMENT. It only upsets him needlessly.

What ya gonna do?

What do you do when confronted by someone who insists something is true when all the evidence clearly demonstrates that it is not true? This is what we are up against when trying to deal with the Bush/Cheney administration. Cheney has argued for years that there was/is a relationship between al Quaeda and Sadam. Now that the Pentagon itself has released a definitive account saying there was no such relationship Cheney continues to insist there was. Is this merely a simple case of denial or is it the only claim Cheney still has to cling to?

This is not much different from the claims that have been made all along about the "progress" we have been making in Iraq. As near as I can tell there has been no progress whatsoever in spite of Bush/Cheney's claims to the contrary. McCain is the latest Bush supporter to make claims so outrageously wrong that even he has had to retreat from them. Of course it is safe to walk around in Bagdad and visit a market - if you have an entourage of a hundred armed soldiers, three armed helicopters, and a couple of other gunships. It also helps to have the market rendered safe before you arrive. How is it that McCain kept insisting on his ridiculous claim? What is wrong with these people? This perverse insistence on something that is so clearly false is no doubt the kind of behavior that sometimes gets a spouse killed. When the level of frustration reaches a certain point it seems the only recourse is some form of truly dramatic action. I guess the Democrats and the American public in general are not sufficiently frustrated by this as yet to erupt in some serious act - like impeachment, for example, or perhaps something even more dramatic. Are we just going to keep on putting up with one outrageous lying claim after another? Are Bush/Cheney/McCain simply delusional and actually believe what they say? Or is the case that things are so bad, and they are dug in so deeply, they just have no alternative but to go on sticking to their outrageous claims?

Speaking of outrage, there are people right here in windy city who want Dick the Slimy to run for President! I have no idea who these people may be (as I have not spent much time lately visiting insane asylums). Dick Cheney for President! Dick Cheney who has been wrong about EVERYTHING from the very beginning of this disaster in Iraq. The Dick Cheney from above who is so obviously divorced from reality he can maintain with a sort of straight face (he unfortunately doesn't have a straight face) that black is white, that Osama and Sadam were allies, that the sun revolves around the earth, that oil had nothing to do with it, and etc. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't claim before long that Sadam and Osama were gay lovers.

If Republicans do not turn on Bush/Cheney and force them out of office or impeach them soon I believe we can look forward to the complete demise of the Republican party for many years to come. It couldn't happen to a better bunch of crooks and war criminals.

Sanctioning the worst

Bush once again has resorted to appointing someone to a position when Congress has already turned the person down. In this case he has appointed this guy, Fox, as ambassador to Belgium. Democrats are outraged, and rightly so. This is like Bush sticking his finger in their eye. First, these recess appointments were not meant simply to allow Presidents to circumvent Congress. They were meant to allow Presidents to appoint someone for an interim when Congress was out of session for a long time (not merely a week). There is some question as to the legality of this particular case (but nothing will come of it). Fox is controversial because he is known to have donated $50,000 to the Swift Boaters, the sleazy bunch of outrageous liars that tried to roviate Kerry when he was running for President. When Fox came up for this appointment Kerry, among others, was involved in turning him down (and why not). The outrage over this appointment seems to be mostly because Bush is once again trying to demonstrate his power and basically insulting the Democrats. But I think there is a more serious implication involved. It is widely believed that the Republicans, following Rove, have been willing to do anything, no matter how illegal, immoral, unethical, or whatever to further their political agenda (trying to create a permanent Republican takeover of the U.S.). As Fox and the Swift Boaters are a classic example of totally immoral politics Bush, by making this appointment, is sanctioning this kind of political immorality. He is saying that this type of Rovian politics is fine with him. Personally, I find this disgusting beyond belief.
Will Karl Rove ever get his comeuppance? If ever there was an evil presence in American politics it has to be this slimy turdblossom.

We are heading for a most interesting confrontation. Ms. Goodling has not only said she will take the 5th if called upon to testify before Congress (a totally unprecedented act) she is now apparently refusing to talk to Congress at all. As a high level member of the Justice Department she really cannot get away with this in spite of what her lawyer seems to think. So what will happen? Will she be found in contempt of Congress? Arrested? Jailed? Or will she eventually be forced to give in and testify? The burning question here is, of course, what is she hiding? What does she have to fear by testifying whether under oath or not? In the meanwhile she is making it more and more likely that Rove and Meirs will be forced to testify under oath. Oh, it's all so exciting I can barely wait.

Locally we have an interesting situation with respect to our schools. Whereas most people, at least most Democrats, support Public Education in general, there is an increasing number that are unwilling to support our local schools. The basic problem, of course, is that our Republican legislators, who have been in complete control of education here in Idaho, have consistently refused to adequately fund our schools. Thus local communities are forced, year after year, to ask the local citizens to pass levies to make up for the annual shortfalls. As our local Schoolboard, and our local Administrators, have managed to alienate many of our citizens, and have engaged in a variety of questionable activities, many who routinely vote for the levees are now balking at this uncritical support. It is a very complicated and awkward situation. Stay tuned.

President Oblivious

Can anyone remember the last time they saw an ad on tv for a motion picture that was not violent? Perhaps I don't watch the right programs. I only watch a couple of news programs, the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and an occasional sporting event - and I never, ever, see an ad for a movie that is not violent. Maybe if I watched a Soap or a Children's program?

I have known from the beginning that George W. Bush was not endowed with a completely full deck, so to speak. His speech is pretty clearly similar to that of the marginally retarded. He often says really dumb things. I now believe that he is completely oblivious to what he does and says. Like today, for example, when he ridiculed Congress for being on vacation instead of working on something he wanted, while at the same time leaving for his umpteenth vacation tomorrow. I think I heard today that while being in office he has had 452 days of vacation. In other words, in six years he has had more than a year of vacation time. And he faults Congress for their week off at Easter? He has to be simply oblivious. Similarly, he argues that if Congress sets a deadline for withdrawal as a condition of funding the troops that means they are not funding the troops. This is clearly not so. They are funding the troops. If he vetoes this he will be the one that is cutting off funds. Do you think he doesn't understand this? He complains that the Democrats will cause our troops to not come home on time, have to redeploy, cause their families to suffer, and etc., when he is the one who is sending more exhausted and unprepared troops into Iraq, bringing about exactly those consequences. Do you think he doesn't understand this? He complains the Democrats have loaded their bill with pork, seemingly ignoring the fact that the Republicans have loaded everything with pork for the past six years. Do you think he doesn't understand this? There are many more examples of his utter hypocrisy and absurd pronouncements about the "war." We are making progress, for example. The Generals urged him to surge. The Iranians should release the 15 British soldiers, while we do not release the five Iranians we are holding. The list of his inanities goes on and on. Either he doesn't understand what he is doing or does understand it and does it anyway. Trying to be kind I suggest that he is, in fact, oblivious to reality rather than deliberately trying to mislead us (well, maybe I don't believe that).

Feingold/Reid say they will try to cut off funding entirely if Bush vetoes the current bill setting a timeline. Pat Buchanan says they will never do it. I hope he is very wrong and that Congress will stick with their right to cut off funding - and bring our troops home SOON.

The money puzzle

I have to admit I don't understand the connection between money and votes. That is, is there a genuine correlation between the amount of money one raises and winning the election? Hillary raised 26 million dollars in the first quarter of this year. Romney 23 million, McCain 12 1/2 million, Edwards 14 million, and so on down the line. Obama has not yet reported but it is rumored that he will almost match (and perhaps exceed Hillary). Now, if there is a real correlation between the amount of money raised and being elected, why bother voting? Why not just give the position to the candidate who raised the most money? Perhaps it is not the money per se that matters. Perhaps it is the number of donors. Obama claims to have 83,000 individual donors. How many does Hillary have? Romney? Kusinich (remember him). If it's the number of donors who count the most why not give the position to the one with the most donors (after all, I guess they each have a vote). If it is not the amount of money that counts, and if it is not the number of donors, then there must be some other factor that is the critical one. What might it be? Personality? Sincerity? Honesty? Charisma? Intelligence? Down hominess? Perhaps some combination of some or all of these?

Maybe the critical element has to do with the candidate's platform, their program, what it is they define as the most important issues, how they would go about solving those problems, etc.

Interestingly enough, whether it is some combination of personal attributes like intelligence, honesty, or whatever, or whether it has to do with platform and plan, it either case the money and/or number of donors would become irrelevant. So why bother about money and donors in the first place? Why not just expose each candidate to the same amount of time and public exposure (through debates, interviews, and whatever), and let the voters decide. Think of all the money and time that would be saved. Think of how the field would be equalized. On the other hand, if money really is the most important element, why not just give it to the most successful raiser and stop pretending there is anything democratic about it? If we have to choose between money and number of donors I would suggest the latter might be a more accurate measure (assuming that each donor represents a single vote). Why does all this not matter? Because it doesn't. I know it is more complicated than this but think about it.

Actually, given the kinds of Presidents we get, we might as well have the candidates just draw straws, winner take all.

Really McCain?

I don't know what to make of Senator McCain. Remember he recently said there were places you could safely walk the streets in Bagdad and that General Petreas (sp ?) was driving around in a unprotected Hummer. Of course he immediately had to retract his words when it became obvious he was dead wrong. So now, apparently to prove his point, he visited Bagdad and walked one of the steets near the Green Zone...accompanied by a large armed guard, two helicopters, and I guess some armed vehicles as well. So, see, you really can walk around in Bagdad. Then, to top that off, he insisted that things are indeed getting better. It does make you wonder, doesn't it?

Apparently Republicans were told by our Generals that they will demonstrate progress by August, and if not, they will recommend we withdraw. I don't know if this is true but it was reported by Andrea Mitchell who I think is usually pretty good at her profession. The most interesting thing about this is that some Republicans confessed that they voted for the surge even though they didn't believe it would work. In other words they decided to gamble with more lives on a wager they actually believed would fail. Well, what the hell, what's a few more lives more or less? I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that Republicans have no empathy, no compassion, no sense, and not much in the way of brains. While they have very few blacks, hispanics, or other minorities in their party, they do have diversity: morons, dimwits, nitwits, halfwits, idiots, sociopaths, pea brains, and lots of borderline retarded, to say nothing of fools, scoundrels, crooks, liars, and the otherwise demented. If this were not true we would have been rid of Bush/
Cheney and their gang of thieves and war criminals long ago.

Why are Idaho schools so poorly funded and decrepit? Ask Republicans, they have been in charge for a long time. They apparently don't like children. I guess they must believe children are simply God's punishment for original sin.

Some religious fundamentalist preacher is going around proving evoluton does not exist by opening jars of peanut butter. He claims that if you don't find life in an opened jar of peanut butter that proves evolution cannot be true. It's not clear what kind of life he thinks might be there, maybe some people living with dinosaurs? Maybe maggots or mermaids? Go figure. Unfortunately, I think he is serious.

Clement Leroy Otter, our current governor, could not agree with our legislature over reforming our regressive taxes on food so they managed to do nothing about it at all. Neither of two half-assed proposals could be enacted. Of course they didn't seriously consider doing what ought to be done - getting rid of this terribly regressive tax completely and replacing it with something that would be much more fair like, perhaps, a tax on services.

Does anyone know if Craig or Crapo have EVER voted against our Republican President?

Stay the course?

There seems to be no reason to believe the "surge" is succeeding. Indeed, there is every reason to believe things are getting worse. Car bombing is up 30%, according to one of our generals. More Iraqis were killed in March than in February. The last couple of days have seen incredible killings. Why are the Democrats (and most everyone else) putting up with this travesty. The majority of Americans want the troops home. The troops want to be home. The Iraqis want the troops out. Now even the Saudi King has said we are involved in an illegal occupation. Furthermore, the Saudis are so fed up with our failure to do anything reasonable about the Palestinian question they are intervening themselves. If Bush/Cheney will not stop this absolutely now completely useless killing they should be impeached or forced to resign. What in the world is wrong with us?

I don't understand the Republican argument that specifying a deadline for withdrawing our troops is bad because it tell everyone when we will be leaving so they can just wait us out and such. I thought the whole point of setting a deadline was to force the Iraqis to pull themselves together and step up their own efforts. I suppose the reason Bush and his lockstep Republican supporters are opposed to the deadline is because they cling to their absurd claim that we can still "win," whatever that might mean. There is just no way we can possibly win either in Iraq or Afghanistan, short of reinstituting a draft, creating a monstrous army, and starting WW III. Aside apparently from Bush/Cheney is that what everyone really wants? I don't believe even they want that, but they obviously want to continue this ridiculous "war" long enough to turn it over to someone else and then blame Democrats for the abject failure it is going to be. They don't seem to care how many more lives have to be lost as long as they can try to escape responsibility (they will never truly be able to ever escape from the reality of the tragic mess they have made of things).

Is there any Presidential candidate in either party (or even an Independent) that is willing to stand up to the the Israelis and tell them they must stop their imperialistic and genocidal behavior towards the Palestinians? Why do we continue to allow Israel to dictate our foreign policy as if their interests are identical to our own (when they clearly are not)? Their hysteria over Iran is pushing us the brink of an absolutely disastrous world war. They must know that even if Iran did have a nuclear weapon they would not use it agaist Israel (knowing if they did so they would be immediately blown off the face of the earth). I believe their fears about their neighbors in the Middle East have to do with their guilt over what they have been doing to the Palestinians for so many years. If they didn't think they were guilty why would they need to be so fearful of eventual consequences? There is no doubt that the absolutely basic problem in the Middle East is the Israeli/Palestian issue. Until it is addressed and somehow solved there can never be peace in that area of the world. As we have been cleverly conned into publicly and blatantly choosing the Israeli side of this problem we no longer have any hope of convincingly arbitrating it. Heck of a job, Bush!

Inumanity

Inhumanity -the quality of state of being cruel or barbarous. Websters.

Is there anyone who believes this is not an adequate description of our behavior in Iraq? We invaded and started a "war" against a nation that was no threat to us. We have bombed mercilessly, killed civilians including women and children with abandon, kicked in doors and brutalized innocent people, incarcerated and tortured others, raped, murdered, and destroyed peoples' lives, committed myriad other war crimes and in general have behaved worse than (some) "savages." This is both unforgettable and unforgivable. Is it any wonder we are now despised by probably 95% of the world? How is it that we managed to get thousands of our best young people to engage in this inhumanity? And why? What was the motive that drove us to these acts of barbarism? Unfortunately, the answer is just plain GREED! War is the seed that drives inhumanity. We went to this "war" (that is not a legal, moral, constitutional or necessary one) because we coveted others wealth, in this case, OIL.
There is no excuse for this and those who connived and lied to bring it about should be held fully accountable. This is a recognizable and terrible crime and what are politicians on both sides of the aisle complaining about? Merely that we haven't successfully pulled it off. If you look carefully at the human record we should be more realistically described as inhumans rather than humans. That this remains true in the 21st century makes one wonder if we are truly incapable of change for the better. It certainly doesn't say much for intelligent design.

One of the disturbing features of growing old is the nagging, persistent, unsettling feeling that everything may be your last. When I buy a car nowadays I always have this notion that it will be the last car I'll ever need to buy. It's the same with everything. "I guess this is the last pair of pants I'll ever need." Shoes, the same. Mennen speed stick that seems to last forever. Certainly big ticket items like refrigerators, stoves and such. Some Congressman (perhaps it was a Senator), when allusions were made to his age, replied something like, "son, I no longer even buy green bananas." I'm not quite that bad yet but I feel it coming on. The only bright spot I can think of in all this is that I have to go to the dentist to get two crowns replaced. I bet this is the last time I'll have to go to the dentist. Hooray!

Gonzales is toast

It would appear that Alberto Gonzales is about to be finished as Attorney General of the United States. His chief aide today in testimony before Congress made it quite clear that Gonzales lied when he claimed to be more or less "out of the loop" when it came to the firing of eight Federal Prosecutors. In fact he seems to have been in constant communication with Sampson about these matters from even before he became Attorney General. As most everyone assumed from the beginning that Gonzales was lying I guess this comes as no surprise. What remains to be determined now is just who else was involved in this travesty. All bets are on Karl Rove and probably even the President himself. Will Karl Rove ever be called on to testify under oath? Probably not until Bush's dying day as Rove knows too much to be allowed to testify. But the wheels continue to come off the Bush/Cheney administration day by day. It will doubtless get worse before it gets better (if, indeed, it ever gets better).
Gonzales is supposed to go before Congress on April 17th. Want to take bets on whether he does?

What I find the most interesting thing about Sampson's testimony is that he seems to believe they did nothing wrong. He points out that as these Attorneys are appointed by the President they should be expected to carry out the President's priorities. This is a curious position to take in so far as these Prosecutors, once appointed, are supposed to uphold the law and act in the best interest of justice. Are they supposed to abandon law and justice if in some cases it does not suit the President's agenda? Only a Republican who has swallowed the kool-aid could possibly believe such a thing. Sampson seems to be a case in point. He seems to think they did nothing wrong. The statistics on how many Democrats were targeted as opposed to Republicans, and the guilty sounding emails seem to indicate otherwise. It seems clear to me that this was Rove's attempt to politicize the judiciary just as he has politicized the White House away from the national interest in favor of the exclusive interest of the Republican party. This attempt by Rove to establish a permanent Republican administration will hopefully soon go down in flames.

Dorothy Parker once said that eternity was "two people and a ham." She obviously had never encountered a Mennen Speed Stick. Thinking about eternity leads me to think about growing old. But I will leave this for another day.

Morons in high places

Senator Inhofe believes that global warming is simply a hoax. He is going to prevent Al Gore from putting on a concert in Washington D.C. to call attention to the problem of global warming. Inhofe, whose view of global warming is not shared by hardly anyone (including now not even Wall Street), claims that the concert is a partisan event. He is apparently so blinded by his belief that he cannot even understand that global warming is NOT a partisan problem. Either Inhofe is an absolute moron or he is in the pockets of the energy companies. Global warming is REAL and human behavior has something to do with it. How do Republicans even find people like this (think Santorum, Allen, DeLay, Harris, and others)?

I don't think tomorrow is going to be a good day for Bush's wind-up toy Attorney General. I gather that Sampson, not wanting to be the fall guy, is going to testify that the firings of the eight attorneys were indeed motivated by political reasons (as if there were any real doubts about this). This is going to increase pressure for Karl Rove to be forced to testify about his role in this nefarious business. I cannot see how Gonzales can survive no matter how much Bush tries to protect him. There is just too much blood in the water at this point for this to simply be ignored along with the myriad other scandals of this criminal administration. Calls for impeachment are growing louder everyday (not that it is likely to happen as Bush/Cheney will probably be forced to resign first - or at least they should be).

All may not be lost. Here and there one sees a glimmer of intelligent thought. San Francisco is going to ban plastic bags (what a terrific idea), the absurd marijuana laws are increasingly being questioned, alternative forms of energy are being promoted, automobile manufacturers are starting to get the message, universal health care is on its way, and the gap between the rich and poor has become so dysfunctional that even that may begin to change. Most days under this administration I see the glass empty. Today I see it maybe 1/32 full. Perhaps things will pick up. Perhaps justice will prevail. Perhaps truth will triumph. Perhaps, perhaps.

It's all too confusing

Are we ever going to get our troops out of Iraq or not? Some seem to think we can bring all our troops home. Some say we should not maintain permanent bases there. Still others talk about bring our combat troops out. I guess this means leaving other troops there. We are building (or may have already built) several permanent bases in Iraq. We are in the process of building a near billion dollar embassy (apparently a heavily armed garrison of some sort). Some seem to think we need to pass legislation that would prevent permanent bases. Others say permanent does not mean forever. It appears that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards all believe we should maintain a troop presence of some kind. Does anyone truly believe we have any intention of bringing all our troops home and not having a military presence in that unfortunately oil-heavy land? It seems perfectly clear to me that Bush/Cheney have no intention of ever leaving Iraq (unless maybe all their oil eventually runs out). We may eventually be chased out but not as long as Bush/Cheney can find more and more cannon fodder. We're like the greedy monkey with his hand in a gourd holding the banana and refusing to let go even though he could then withdraw his hand. Ah, oil! Black gold! Better, apparently, than human blood.

John McCain claimed today (maybe it was yesterday) that there are places in Bagdad where Americans can just walk down the street in peace. Progress is being made, he insists. He was immediately contradicted by CNN's man in Bagdad (who has been there for four years) who said McCain's claim is completely ludicrous. So much for the Straight Talk Express.

So many scandals, so little time. And our Attorney General seems to be right in the middle of several of them. This is just another example of Bush's selecting people whose only genuine qualifications are loyalty rather than expertise and experience. This entire administration is riddled with people who are not up to the jobs they are given. I suspect that Bush/Cheney have rendered the Republican party useless for years to come. So much for Rove's permanent Republican majority. So much for Cheney's dreams of empire. So much for American credibility. Bush/Cheney have dragged us into the gutter of international relations. It will be a long and difficult climb out if, indeed, we ever fully recover.

Depends on what words is

A fascinating interview with Alberto Gonzales on MSNBC today. It reminds you of Alice in Wonderland when someone says, "a word only means what I say it means," or something to that effect. First he says he was not involved in the firing of the attorneys. Then when we learn there was a meeting to discuss the issue a few days before they were fired he says well, that's not what he meant. What he meant was he wasn't involved in the reviewing of those to be fired and simply signed off on what his underlings told him. Previously he had said that with 110,000 employees under him he couldn't possibly be up on everything that was happening.

Then he insists that no one was fired for political reasons but only for faulty performance. Turns out that most of the eight had very high ratings for their professional performance. So I guess the criteria for performance had to do with how well they performed the duties that Karl Rove wanted them to perform. Gonzales wants us to believe that he just took the word of his underlings on the firings. So if there were political reasons he knew nothing about them. And he insists that if there were political motives involved in the firings he will certainly take action against those involved. He says he only kept the President informed of what was happening (although he apparently didn't know anything about it). You have to give him credit for being the most believable liar of all time. It all comes down to playing fast and loose with words like "involved," "performance," and so on.

If you examine the individual cases it is perfectly clear that these attorneys were fired for political reasons. In one case to install a Rove protege in Arkansas, in another to punish one for not pursuing the election of a Democratic Governor in the state of Washington, another for not prosecuting a case against Democrats before the election, and still another for pursuing cases against Republicans in California. While it is true that Presidents can appoint attorneys when they take office, once appointed such attorneys are supposed to put politics aside. This is clearly a case of the Justice Department trying to politicize individual cases to influence attorneys to do the White House's business. Just another part of Rove's mad scheme to establish a permanent Republican administration. Sorry Karl, not this time. One of those involved has said she will take the fifth amendment if forced to testify. This is not looking good for Gonzales or the Justice Department.

I am pretty much convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. It seems obvious to me that the powers that be have already decided this. They believe a Republican cannot be elected President in 2008 so they will settle for a (Republican lite) Democrat. Hillary is committed to maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq although she says she will end the "war." And now that the corporations have decided universal health care is actually in their best interest, and virtually everyone is demanding it anyway, what do they stand to lose by supporting Hillary. Remember, the DLC is just another wing of the Republican party. I think this is a done deal. The corporations that run things don't give a damn if the next President is a woman or not, they only want someone who will protect their interests. Hillary isn't raising ten million dollars in one week from us commoners. What's good for Wal Mart is good for America!

Heil Bush

Bush has now taken to telling the Congress what they can do. That is, interview Rove and others only informally, in private, not under oath, and with no transcript of the interviews. He says this is a generous offer. Who does he think he is (unfortunately, we know who he thinks he is - The King of Everything). Congress has already refused this generous offer (thank goodness) so the question now is, will the Democrats actually serve subpoenas and will those who receive them honor them or refuse. If they refuse they can be held in contempt of Congress. There is no way Bush can win on this (short of another Supreme Court unconstitutional ruling). Executive priviledge only applies to conversations with the President, not to conversations between others in the White House. Thus if Rove spoke with Gonzales and Meiers spoke with either of them, and so on, that would not be covered by excecutive priviledge. Bush claims he had no knowledge of, or participation in this scandal. If that is true the claim of executive priviledge is just nonsense. This doesn't mean that Bush and his lawyers can't tie this up in court for the next 18 months until he leaves office which is no doubt what he intends, just as he intends to continue his illegal "war" until he is out of office. This is all so obvious and so pathetic it makes you want to just throw up your hands and say to hell with it. It's like trying to explain evolution to someone who believes in the literal truth of the bible.

What can you make of Republicans who continue to support Bush? They keep talking of "winning" and "victory" and "progress" in Iraq when anyone with a brain larger than a split pea knows full well that it is nothing but hot air. We have already lost in Iraq (and in Afghanistan, for that matter) unless we are prepared to reinstitute a draft, mobilize a million or more troops, start rationing things, and collecting paper and grease. Continuing this "war" is even more unconscionable than starting it in the first place. This whole enterprise has been the worst foreign policy disaster of all time. What would you expect when you make a near-moron Commander-in-Chief?

Now we have a situation in which Bush/Cheney have engineered the crime of the century and the outrage is not directed at the crime but only at the fact that they didn't do it well enough. They are incompetents, not just plain honest to goodness war criminals. I find this unbelievable. I find it unbelievable they have not been impeached and/or charged with war crimes or both. It's like saying, we know they're murderers and rapists, but let them continue until their time eventually runs out. As far as I am concerned this is a Republican problem. They could have stopped this attempt to establish a monarchy a long time ago. They could have insisted on checks and balances. They could have said no to Bush/Cheney's outrages. But they all seem to have bought in to Rove's attempt to establish a permanent Republican monarchy no matter what devious means were employed to bring it about. Having ravished the Constitution for the past six and a half years, having exercised their complete control over our government, having thumbed their nose at Democrats and the public, these creeps now are pathetically calling for bi-partisanship. All of their sins are catching up with them. They seem to be unaware that Bush/Cheney have destroyed the Republican party along with our military in their mad rush to empire.

It seems to me it is perfectly obvious what is involved in the firing of the eight prosecutors. It is equally obvious that Gonzales and others have lied about it. Serial, pathological lying by Republicans seems to be completely acceptable. Our current Republican politicians are the worst hypocrites ever. Send 'em all to Iraq as soon as possible. They don't need any training or armor. We'll take good care of them when they come back broken in body and mind. Support the troops - BRING THEM HOME!

Disintegrating

I actually wrote a blog last night. But I lost it. I have no idea what went wrong. Anyway, what we seem to be witnessing at this very moment is the slow but inevitable disintegration of the Bush/Cheney neocon administration. It will be somewhat ironic if this business about the firing of eight attorneys is what finally brings them down, what with their long and consistent record of war crimes and constitutional violations. But it looks more and more like that is what may happen. The "Bushies" will probably not give in, trusting that their colleagues on the Supreme Court will ultimately rule in their favor. In any case they will be able to stonewall and delay and obfuscate until after the 2008 election when the incredible mess they have made will be dumped on whoever the next President happens to be. There seems to be little doubt they were purging Prosecutors who were not doing what they wanted them to do (stop prosecuting Republicans and start more actively prosecuting Democrats). They could have done this legally with little or no fuss but their pathological lying exposed the whole disgusting episode.

Bush has made the Democrats an offer they cannot help but reject. He wants Rove, Meirs, and others to simply discuss what they know in private, not under oath, and with no transcripts. He regards this somehow as a generous offer. Tony Snow seems to believe they would not lie whether they were under oath or not and that this would be the best way for Congress to learn the truth about what happened. Tony Snow lacks even the ability of the worst carnival barker, and apparently even the intelligence of a turnip. If they have done nothing wrong why should they refuse to testify under oath? Why in private? Why with no transcript? Bush's generous offer is simply absurd. So now we will have a constitutional crisis that will probably end up in the Supreme Court where Bush's appointees will have the last say. Wonderful. Democracy in action. At this point in time would anyone believe anything any of these criminals might say?

Another school levy vote coming up. As a Democrat, and as a believer in democracy, I truly believe that we can only succeed if we have a well-informed and educated population. This is why we opted to have a system of Public Education in the first place. I believe in this wholeheartedly. Does this mean I have to support a system of bad Public Education? Here in Idaho we have an absurd situation in which the Republican run state refuses to adequately fund education so every year or two we have to vote on a supplemental levy to keep the schools running (not very well, just running at all). As one of our more astute Republican legislators recently observed, "if we give them an education they'll want jobs." Whee! I love it here. It's like living in the 18th century. This system is little more than Republican blackmail as they depend upon the fact that no one wants to hurt the children so they go along with this nonsense year after year. In Idaho this is a Republican problem. They should have to fix it (but they consistently refuse to do so).