Even more lies!

Wow! I don't think I ever heard as many lies in one day as I did today. Everyone seems to be lying at the moment (not that they haven't been lying the whole time anyway). Bush and Cheney are absolutely outraged that democrats could possibly suggest they might have lied to lead us into war. This in spite of the fact that their lies are recorded on tape for all time. Cheney especially has so many lies recorded they are virtually uncountable. Also, at the very moment Cheney was on the telly outraged about this we were being treated to an account of how it is the Pentagon and CIA have spent somewhere between 50 and 100 million dollars for the Rendon group to prepare (through propaganda and other means) for regime change in Iraq (that is, war). So the Rendon group invented the INC (Iraq national congress), picked Chalabi to be its titular head, and prepared the soil for him to replace Sadam Hussein after our "victory" in that unfortunate country. I guess spending that much money for a Public Relations group to promote a war doesn't constitute lying? Not only that, they relied upon an Iraqi defector who was found to be a liar, for justifications for the "war." Even after lie detector tests showed this guy to be dishonest they continued to quote him about Sadam's weapons of mass destruction. Then, again, after they took him to Iraq to show them the sites he claimed to exist and could not find they continued to cite him. I guess that's not lying. If it's not, it's stupid even beyond belief.

This, of course, is in addition the the obvious lies that Bush/Cheney promoted endlessly. WMD's, mobile chemical plants, aluminum tubes, relations between Sadam and Osama, and on and on. And now lies about the intelligence that everyone supposedly had (which, in fact, only Bush/Cheney had), and whatever. The lies now are coming so thick and fast you can't even keep up with them. Rumsfeld now claims he was not in favor of invading Iraq! Santorum and others want to pretend they never even heard of George W. Bush, Woodward wants us to believe he was just an innocent bystander, no one in Congress ever heard of Abramhof, things are going really well in Iraq, To "cut and run" would be cowardly and Iraq would be plunged into civil war (which it already is), our military, especially the soldiers on the ground, want to "stay the course," torture does not occur, "collateral damage" is being minimized, we have not used chemical weapons, democracy is about to be established next month with the elections, and progress is being made (by leaps and bounds?).

I repeat what I have said before: If George W. Bush and Dick (the Slimy) Cheney had even one iota of decency and respect for the United States they would resign and give us a chance to restore democracy and respect to the United States before it is far too late. There is simply no way we can survive another three years of their criminal administration. If Republicans themselves cannot see this they will self-destruct and become merely a memory of what was once a viable political entity.

A deal?

Does the Bush/Cheney administration have a deal with the terrorists? A deal such that we promise to keep providing some of our finest young prople as sacrificial lambs to be murdered there, provided the terrorists, in turn, promise not to attack us here in our (presumably helpless and unprotected homeland)? Bush/Cheney have been saying repeatedly that "we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Why fighting them there prevents them from attacking us here is not at all clear. In fact, it is utter nonsense, unless, there actually is such a deal. I don't, of course, believe there is such a deal but bring this up merely to illustrate how ridiculous a claim this really is. Actually, we are fighting them there because...because they were a threat to us and their neighbors? No, not that. Well, maybe because they had weapons of mass destruction? No, not that. Well, maybe because they might have wanted to have weapons of mass destruction some time in the future? Yeah, that's it. Oh, and yeah, they have a lot of oil that we would like to control. Besides, Sadam was a bad guy. He used to be a good guy when we provided him with chemical weapons but later he became a bad guy. When he agreed to let the weapons inspectors into his country with no restrictions on where they could inspect that was the last straw. We might have found out the Bush/Cheney administration had been lying to us the whole time and that just wouldn't do. But I forget, we had to spread democracy throughout the Middle East. That would be good, wouldn't it? Apparently the best way to spread democracy there would be to destroy it here at home. That's a good plan and it was working until that evil Congressman Murtha said we should call it off.

But you notice that even Murtha doesn't suggest that we should not retain a presence in the area. He suggests a rapid strike force, maybe based in Kuwait or at least nearby. There is just no telling what those crazy Iraqis may do with their oil if we are not there to insure they do the right thing (sell it to us at a nominal cost and in dollars rather than euros). This also doesn't say what we are to do with the billions of dollars we have spent on permanent facilities in Iraq. But, then, as Dirksen once said, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." It's not as if the 200 billion plus we have already spent there hasn't produced some marvelous results. A mere 8 billion just disappeared into thin air, the Iraqis still don't have decent water or electricity, and we are assured by Bush/Cheney that everything is going well.

It appears that the American people may be reaching the point where they are simply not going to put up with this any longer. The Bush/Cheney gang is starting to implode and there are at last signs of hope. But do not be surprised if some truly strange things happen soon. We might find that Lichenstein is becoming very agressive and trying to develop a bomb with the help of Luxembourg and Monaco. There may even develop fears that we are about to be invaded by creatures from outer space. This would be all the more reason for following Florida and making it legal for everyone to carry a gun. Indeed, make it mandatory that everyone must own a gun, I suggest a 50 calibre machine gun. Those are really cool. Hard to conceal, perhaps, but everyone could have one mounted on their car and one on their front porch. That should keep those terrorists at bay. But maybe they wouldn't work on creatures from outer space? This is all too confusing.

Some translations

Let us for the moment consider what some of the Bush/Cheney rhetoric actually means:

We are embarked on a "noble cause." Cindy Sheehan has asked just what is this noble cause? Bush/Cheney have not given us an answer. Apparently the noble cause was/is to (1) destroy their non-existent weapons of mass destruction, (2) save us from their imaginary buddy (who actually hated them) Osama bin Laden, (3) remove a dictatorial murderous tyrant (who was an ally who apparently outlived his usefulness), (4) spread democracy (at the point of a gun) across the Middle East, (5) prove that we are a machismo country who will not just cut and run (as we did in Somalia), and (6) whatever else the Bush/Cheney loonies want to proclaim is/was the noble cause they have not yet shared with us.

We need to "stay the course." As no "noble cause" has been offered it is not at all clear what the "course" is. As near as I can tell the course has to do with just continuing what it is we have been doing - murdering as many patriotic Iraqis as possible who do not want us occupying their country, and killing innocent civilians, women and children in the process, to demonstrate what "shock and awe" really means to the rest of the world. Oh, and also to make it clear that "war crimes" do not apply to the United States (because, after all, might makes right, and we are the only superpower in the world). There is also the fact that unending "war" is good for business. Very good.

We are going to continue the fight until we have achieved "complete victory." What is it that would constitute a "victory" in Iraq, let alone a complete one? Perhaps we could get someone to sign a surrender document? As no one represents all of the resistance (turrists) would we need each one to sign individually? Would the victory be complete if we managed to kill every last Iraqi along with the foreign fighters who are involved? Would we need surrender terms from the Saudis? How about the Iranians? There probably can't be more than 40 to 50 million of them who want us out of Iraq. Would they all agree to surrender and give us our victory? Are we to believe as Bush/Cheney assure us that everything is going well in Iraq? That victory is imminent?

Finally, there is the claim that we are "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." That is, if they don't try to cross two enormous oceans and try to attack us here in our stronghold, we will continue to provide them with our finest sacrificial lambs they can kill there where it is so much easier for them. That ought to placate them and keep them from attacking us here at home where we are more defenseless. I'm sorry, but fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here is the most pathetic bunch of bullshit I have ever encountered in my life.

They are now already starting to roviate Murtha, suggesting that they should investigage his ethics and relationship to his brother's business. Can you believe these bastards have the nerve to even mention the word ethics?

Question of the day: do you believe American Corporations and businesses in general really care about abortion and gay rights?

Republican nonsense

Congressman Murtha, a retired Marine Colonel, a staunch advocate for military action against Iraq, a Vietname veteran, decorated with a bronze star and two purple hearts, suggested that we should get out of Iraq as whatever we could have done there we have done and our continuing presence is simply fueling the resistance and is self defeating. From the response you might think he had actualy called for an end to the earth.

Republicans, never ones to miss a cheap shot, called for an immediate resolution on the Iraq "war." Should we withdraw from Iraq immediately, yes or no. Murtha did not suggest an immediate withdrawal, merely a withdrawal as soon as practicable. Obviously no one was going to vote for an immediate withdrawal as that would be totally ridiculous. But this stupid charade gave them a chance to embarrass Democrats which is what it was all about. It's not as if there are any more important problems facing the nation. So they managed to waste some time and take our minds off (for a moment) the real problems of this failed Republican administration. I have no idea how the vote came out. But it doesn't matter as the whole thing was a farce.

I suggest we should have an immediate up or down vote on whether or not the CIA should be exempt from torturing people. Or how about an up or down vote on whether Bush/Cheney should continue to direct the "war" in Iraq. Or even whether or not they should continue in office? How about an up or down vote on whether or not the "war" in Iraq is going well?

Fitzgerald has called for a new grand jury and announced that his investigation is not over. Wheee! There are going to be good times ahead. At least depending upon your point of view. My greatest wish in life is to see Dick the Slimy indicted. No one could deserve it more. Bob Woodward is going to get more press than Judy Miller, I guess that will make him happy and help him sell more books. Now that he is no longer a reporter but now a celebrity author he needs all the publicity he can get.

Things in Washington D.C. are getting ugly. It's about time. Democrats appear to have had spine transplants. Actually what has happened is that the Republicans have finally managed to outrage just about everyone, Democrats and the population at large. "We're fed up and not going to take it any more, etc. So let us not let up on this bunch of greedy, corrupt, lying, and dishonest war criminals. Maybe our corporate masters will see that Bush/Cheney have now become too radioactive to be of any further use and will dump them like they did Nixon. The Republican party itself seems to enjoy this cancer they continue to nurture.

Does Alito support human rights, privacy, and Roe vs Wade? Do bears do it in the woods?

I leave you with the question of the day: does Dennis Hastert have a brain?

What is it about imperialism they don't understand?

Exit strategy. Exit strategy. Exit strategy. They keep talking about this as if it is something that is somehow, someday, someway, perhaps sooner than later, perhaps not, but surely a goal to keep aiming for. Why can they not grasp the simple fact that exiting Iraq is not something that is going to happen? At least not as long as the neocons are in power, and probably not as long as anyone else is either. Get with the program! We (both Republicans and Democrats) invaded Iraq because we wanted to "change the face of the Middle East" (be able to control their oil). Some say this was really over ideology (spreading democracy), others say it was to rid Iraq of a dictator (who was no longer of any use to us), the truly naive seem to still believe it was because Sadam Hussein was a threat to the U.S. (with his two or three rubber band driven airplanes), and the truly true believers because Iraq had WMD's and were in cahoots with Osama bin Whats-his-face (who may very well be in retirement on the French Riviera for all we know - it would be just like the French wouldn't it?). I have to repeat once again: we are not going to exit Iraq. We are going to establish a puppet government that will cooperate with us and sell us their oil under our terms until such time as oil becomes irrelevant. This was the plan and this is what we are going to stick with. Oh, sure, they are going to vote in December for a democratically elected government and then we are going to leave. BELIEVE IT WHEN YOU SEE IT! But it does give the House and Senate something to pretend to argue about.

You see, it seems like Murtha, Kerry, Reid, and others (certainly not Biden, Hilary, Lieberman. McCain, etc) are really putting on the pressure for the U.S. to withdraw our troops. Have you heard anyone say publicly that the U.S. is not going to maintain a permanent force in Iraq? Anyone?

Bob Woodward, in an apparent attempt to upstage Judith Miller, has now guaranteed that the Plamegate scandal will continue indefinitely, keeping him on the front page, and perhaps influencing the Libby case. Woodward, who was at one time a first class investigative reporter, has become a celebrity of sorts, writing about those in power (who tell him how great they are in apparent confidence). In short, a toady for the White House.

And oh, yeah, ho hum. Just another war crime. It appears there is little agreement in the military about whether or not they used white phosphorus for legitimate purposes (as if there were legitimate purposes for such a thing), or whether they used it for illigetimate purposes (and, indeed, if there is any agreement among them about which might be which). Certainly the Lt. Colonels that have been interviewed don't seem to know. Not only that, they don't seem to know whether or not white phosphorous is a chemical (perhaps they have it confused with angel dust). Dropping this stuff on individual humans, combatants or not, is a war crime. So, first they denied it, and then when presented with the evidence, admitted it. But what's another war crime to this bunch?

And now we are confronted with Bush/Cheney accusing everyone but themselves of being irresponsible and unpatriotic because they are being criticized for their lies (finally). Cheney (aka Dick he Slimy), who has been the chief liar all along, spewing out claims that are/were utterly without foundation, now says that those who are criticizing him (and Bush), in addition to being unpatriotic and aiding and abetting the enemy, are "dishonest and reprehensible." I'm sorry Dick, WE NOW KNOW WHO HAS BEEN DISHONEST AND REPREHENSIBLE. Look in the mirror and start counting the days you may have left.

Accountability?

It seems that Tomlinson, who recently resigned as head of Public Broadcasting, was guilty of some criminal acts. There seems to be no doubt about this. But is he going to be held accountable? The answer is almost certainly NO.

An Israeli officer was observed shooting a 13 year old Palestinian girl after she was wounded and lying helplessly on the ground. He fired shots into her head and proclaimed he was going to make sure she was finished (or words to that effect). This was observed by others. He has been exonerated. He said that if anything moves at all in a restricted zone, even a three year old, they needed to be killed. I guess Palestinian children should not be allowed to move when Israeli troops are present.

It has now been established that officers of some of the major oil companies met with Dick the Slimy with respect to the creation of our energy plan. Cheney tried successfully to keep this a secret. The oil people previously denied the meeting. They lied. As they were conveniently not under oath when they were asked about this they presumably will not be prosecuted (unless they might be for lying to Congress. I think this would be a long shot).

I was a fan of Hilary Clinton. I even contributed money to her organization. I never doubted that she was ambitious and, indeed, respected her for it. That dreadful Olson woman used to constantly harp on the fact that Hilary was ambitious. I always wanted to point out to her that being ambitious was not a crime in America, or even a behavior disorder or whatever. Olson died in a crash on 9/11 so the whole point is moot. But I must confess I would be hard pressed to support Hilary for president now that I know more about her. First of all, she was (perhaps still is) on the Board of Directors of Wal Mart. In my opinion this makes her just another corporate whore, and we certainly have enough of them. Second, she has supported the "war" in Iraq and has suggested that we should send an additional 80,000 troops for that lost cause. She has apparently indicated she did this because no woman could possibly be elected president if she was seen as soft on defense. I take this to mean she is willing to do anything to get elected and, if elected, would support our obscene military/industrial complex. Third, she has come out as an avid supporter of Israel, including support for their completely illegal wall that is stealing even more Palestinian land. I understand that no politician could survive in New York if they did not support Israel. This means to me she would continue to support our unceasing and uncritical support of an international pariah that has ignored world opinion and the U.N. far more egregiously than even Iraq. Unless someone is prepared to curb Israel and their occupation there will of course never be peace in the Middle East.

I want my mommy

I don't know if any of this is true or not. Indeed, after five years of nothing but incessant lies, one after another, how can one even tell anymore what is a lie and what is not. That, perhaps, is the beauty of the Bush/Cheney administration (if you can say they have any beauty). That is, they have lied so persistently and so outrageously one is no longer able to separate the lies from anything else (if there is anything else).

Anyway, according to Buzzflash, Rumsfeld is now taking the position that he never really wanted a war. He just wanted to play around with the military to make it more efficient and more up-to-date. As far as the "war" with Iraq goes, he just did what Bush wanted him to do. Another rat trying to leave the sinking ship.

What might be even more disturbing is that the Washington Times, a conservative magazine, reports that Bush no longer speaks with anyone much other than his mother, his wife, Condi Rice, and Karen Hughes. He apparently feels betrayed by the other senior members of his administration and is so upset he only communicates with his mother and mother surrogates. It is also reported that he might be drinking again. Like I say, I don't have any idea if any of this is true. But even if there is a grain of truth one might conclude that our "war president" is losing it big time.

It has now been revealed by none other than Bob Woodward himself that Valerie Plame's name was leaked to him at least a month before anyone else. He thinks this is unimportant and that little or no damage was done. Bob Woodward has demonstrably been shown to be nothing but a toady for the Bush administration.

Things have now become so bad they are actually laughable. If you can keep from crying. In spite of the unbelievable problems and scandals of the Bush/Cheney bunch the democrats still can't seem to get it together. Why, things are so bad here in one of our local counties, they have had to hire a professional arbitrator. What does this tell you about the future of the democratic party? Well, at least they aren't shooting each other yet.

What can they be thinking?

Senator Lindsey Graham, he of bring down Clinton fame, has sponsored an amendment that would do away with habeas corpus for the inmates of Guantanamo. This passed on a partisan basis with 5 democrats also voting in support, including, of course, Lieberman, the true wolf in sheep's clothing. How anyone can continue to believe Lieberman is a democrat is a genuine mystery to me. There were 4 other Democrats who voted with the Republicans on this totally unprecedented and unconstitutional amendment.

What this does is essentially say that the prisoners held at Guantanamo have no right to appeal their plight. That is, they can be held forever with no charges against them, no lawyers to defend them, all at the whim of the President of the United States. He, and he alone, has the power to incarcerate whoever he wishes and they are to have no recourse whatsoever. In other words he is to have absolute imperial power such that he could, if he wished, order them to be executed. They would have no right to appeal, no right to a lawyer, nothing.

What in the hell are these Senators thinking? The right to habeas corpus goes all the way back to the Magna Carta in 12l5! It is one of the most basic of principles of English and American justice. It has served us well for almost 800 years. The Supreme Court has already defended it in the case of Guantanamo prisoners. So what on earth are these Senators doing? Can they really believe that the President has the power and the right to incarcerate anyone he designates as an "enemy" for the rest of their life with absolutely no recourse to justice? None? Are these Senators actually sentient human beings or people placed on earth from other planets with no sense of justice or fair play whatsoever? If this manages to become law or precedent or whatever it will be the darkest day of our democracy. This is an absolutely vile and disgusting and unprincipled act. It simply cannot be allowed. Quite frankly, those who voted for this should be ostracized and certainly never re-elected.

And what can be their motives? What is the point of this? Why would anyone support such a terrible and unprecedented amendment? What do they gain by it? It strikes me as nothing short of ghoulish. It is well known that many, if not most, of the prisoners being held were not terrorists in the first place but simply people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, some of them accused simply for money. There are no charges. There is no reason they should be there. No one knows if any of them are guilty or not. So we are supposed to keep them in prison forever with no chance whatsoever of trying to clear themselves? If you think this is the "American way" there is something terribly wrong with you. And there is something terribly wrong with these Senators. Maybe they can plead stupidity. But I fear this goes far beyond stupidity. I simply cannot understand it, see no reason for it, know that it is entirely unfair, violates our constitution, overrides our Supreme Court, and is, in short, completely disgusting. Maybe Graham, having failed to bring down Clinton, has decided to take it out on the helpless.

Cloud cuckoo land

The world of the Bush administration clearly is cloud cuckoo land. We are now told by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley that while we do not torture we may employ "enhanced interrogation techniques." Is it really necessary to comment further on this?

This ongoing argument about torture, if it were not so grimly serious, would have to be seen as nothing short of hilarious. We do not torture but we use enhanced interrogation techniques? We do not torture but Bush will veto for the first time an important bill if it contains restrictions on torture? McCain and others insist that torture doesn't work but at least a few others (with much less experience) insist that it does. The vote in the Senate was 90 to 9 against but Bush/Cheney insist on it anyway. The evidence is overwhelming that they lied and distorted intelligence but they continue to insist they did not. Scandals exist in this administration as far as the eye can see but they carry on as if they actually have a mandate. And, as there are apparently no honest or decent Republicans in the House, impeachment seems to be out of the question. I guess Republicans are proud to protect war criminals and liars. The fact that Bush/Cheney and the neocons are going to destroy the Republican party for years to come doesn't bother them as long as they get their obscene short term profits. They sleep comfortably at night only because they have no shame, no guilt, no concern for their country, and no shred of decency whatsoever. So Mr. and Mrs. Middle America, continue to support them as they will protect you from homosexuals and a woman't right to choose. Of course at the same time they will have their hands in your pockets driving you further and further into poverty and ill health. Gangsterism has become much more sophisticated since the days of John Dillinger and Al Capone. By the way, does anyone remember Ken Lay and Enron? And oh, have you looked at your gas and energy bills lately? Have you kept up with developments in Iraq? Stay the course. We're going to "win." Is it not obvious to everyone by now that "winning" is completely out of the question? Winning is not an option. Getting out is apparently also not an option. So wow! We'll stay the course forever. It's good for business. And what's good for business is good for Bush and Cheney. Rest assured, everything is going well.

Enough!

How is it that the discussion of Intelligent Design continues on and on even though it is an idea so lacking in merit it should be laughed out of existence? The other day we were told that even the Catholic Church had agreed about evolution. Today, however, we are told that the Pope himself has contradicted this position and come out in favor of what he describes as an "Intelligent Project." Everything was apparently created as a result of an intelligent project. As evidence for this he quotes Saint Basil the Great from the 4th century. The 4th century! I am really pleased to know that this issue was actually settled back then. And if it was settled why does it continue to occupy people now?

I guess if one wants to believe in creationism of some kind (there are literally hundreds of different creation myths to choose from) they are entitled to do so. But whatever one they choose I assure you it has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution. And I would also argue that discussing it endlessly is nothing less than an absolute waste of time and energy. You might as well go back to medieval times and argue about how many angels can dance on the heard of a pin. I wouldn't care even if they agreed that the intelligent whatsis invented evolution and then let it run its course thereafter, randomly or not.

When it comes to such things as claims that the earth is only 6000 years or so old, or that the Grand Canyon was caused by the flood, or that humans existed contemporaneously with dinosaurs, or even that dinosaurs never really existed, or there was an ark which preserved all the animals of the earth (except, maybe, the dinosaurs), or someone parted the Red Sea, was swallowed by a whale, or whatever, I have to say NONSENSE. Utter and complete nonsense. Not even worth considering. And, in fact, a danger to human beings in general. People who believe such nonsense should not be allowed to vote. I guess I wouldn't go so far as to argue they ought to be committed to asylums but I'm not so sure. And anyone who believes some notion of Intelligent Design is the equivalent of the theory of evolution is doing a great disservice to the human community. We in the modern world live by science and the scientific method. To abandon this for 4th century beliefs in unknown supernaturals is simply not acceptable. To teach children that the theory of evolution is wrong will do terrible damage to society. Of course there is nothing wrong with pointing out there are gaps and problems and unsolved mysteries with the theory, indeed, that is what we should be doing and is, in fact, what scientists are doing continually. But that is what science is about. To try to replace it with utter poppycock is a dangerous business. So please, can't we follow the example of the good citizens of Dover, Pennsylvania, and tell these fundamentalists to retreat back into the 15th century where they belong? And tell them to take Bush, Frist, and the other morons with them. Oh, happy day!

How much longer?

How much longer can this go on? Bush's favorable ratings have now fallen to 37% and seem to be still falling. Cheney's favorable ratings have reached an unbelievable 19%. It seems to me that with ratings this low and perhaps falling farther the decent thing to do would be to admit failure and resign. But, of course, Bush/Cheney have no sense of decency, no sense of shame, and apparently no sense of guilt whatsoever about having started an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, and unnecessary war in which thousands have been killed and wounded. There is, of course, the little problem of war crimes that would probably come up if they were to resign. So what choice do they have but to go on pretending everything is going well, we are going to "win" (an absolute impossibility), they didn't lie, it's really all Clinton's fault, and etc., etc. By now virtually anyone with a brain larger than half a pea knows what happened, knows they lied us into this terrible "war," knows they stole two elections, knows they are the most corrupt and incompetent bunch of thieves ever hatched on American soil, knows they are war criminals, knows they are covering all this up shamelessly, and knows it is well past time for them to go. But as Republicans control everything and apparently are more interested in party than in justice or truth or the constitution, nothing happens. They block any and all attempts to disclose the truth even though it probably involves treason. I repeat, how much longer can this go on? Everywhere you look there is scandal: DeLay, Frist, Abramhoff, Libby, Rove, Brown, and so many others I can't even keep up. And as most of the democrats are unwilling to take any serious responsibility we can get absolutely nowhere. In all of my many years things have never been so grim and apparently hopeless. There are faint glimmerings of hope. Keep the faith. Never give up.

The miserable have no other medicine
But only hope.
Shakespeare

Proud Republicans?

Dennis Kucinich attempted to have a bipartisan investigation of WHIG (the White House Iraq Group) to see what, in fact, they might have been up to vis-a-vis bringing about the illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and unnecessary "war" with Iraq. This was voted down by a vote of 25 to 23. All Republicans were present and all voted together. A few others, mostly Democrats, were temporarily absent when the vote was called. This was apparently scheduled to take advantage of that fact. So what is it with Republicans? Are they really so proud of Bush/Cheney and the neocons lies that they wish to protect them? What are they afraid of? Are they so fearful of losing power they are willing to cover up what are probably war crimes? If the WHIG did, in fact, manufacture lies to bring about this "war" why would they not want the American people to know about it? Can they really have fallen so low? I fear the answer is yes.

Now we can apparently add still another war crime to the Bush/Cheney bunch. It appears that our troops have used white phosphorus against civilians. They claim that white phosphorus is not against the rules because it can be used to light up an area or destroy buildings and such. But it cannot be used against humans as such. But it apparently was. Although this is denied by some American military personnel it has been claimed by other military personnel. In fact, the Italians have a video that demonstrates that it was in fact used on civilians. That is, they have actual videotape of bodies destroyed by this chemical. While one Marine Lt. Colonel is testifying that it didn't happen there are actual photos showing that it did. This will do even more to enhance the U.S. image as totally dishonest and criminal in the extreme. It will certainly go a long way to "spread democracy in the Middle East."

However horrible our behavior has been in Iraq it still does not excuse further acts of humanicide (see morialekafa of 8-26-04 for a discussion of humanicide). One of the bombings in Jordan targeted a marriage party of some 300 guests. Obviously these were innocent civilians who had nothing whatsoever to do with the "war." The suicide bomber who blew them and himself up had no idea who they were or why they should be targeted. He/she could not have known precisely who was attending, whether or not they were all locals, whether or not they were somehow "enemies," and so on. It was a blatant act of humanicide that can only cause them to ultimately lose any support they may have had for such inhumane, irrelevant, and dastardly mindless behavior. This was not an example of patriots trying to defend their country from foreign occupation, but, rather, a cowardly and totally unjustified murderous attack on innocent civilians for no reasonable purpose other than that they were apparently not well protected and therefore an easy target. If I were not familiar with human history I would not believe that human beings could have fallen so low.

Doesn't it make you proud to realize you are at the apex of Intelligent design?

Gobbledy-gook

Gobbledy-gook - wordy and generally unintelligible jargon. Webster's.

I confess I was doubtful that such a word would actually be in the dictionary. My wife insisted it would. As usual she was right. I am very happy because what better word could one find to describe the Bush/Cheney/McClellan discourse on torture?

Bush says something like, we are fighting terrorists and we will do whatever is required to fight terrorists and whatever we do to to fight terrorists is within the law law and we do not torture. I guess he is unaware of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, the first-hand testimony of now quite a large number of witnesses, the existence of torture centers in Poland and Romania, and the existence of memos signed by Rumsfeld and himself that basically attempt to justify torture (torture by any other name is still torture). And of course there is the professional judgment of his Attorney General that torture is basically okay because the Geneva convention is "quaint." Then, of course, there is his threat to veto a massive defense budget if it includes a statement against torture (the only bill he has ever even threatened to veto). He will do this to support his vice-president, Dick the Slimy, who has actively been lobbying to exempt the CIA from any anti-torturing position such as the one sponsored by McCain and signed by 90 Senators. So, as we do not torture, we need the flexibility to do it if necessary except that we do not do it, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. McClellan's attempt to deal with this cannot be said to have clarified the matter (indeed, McClellan has an uncany ability to convert any question whatsoever into marvelous gobbledy-gook. I guess it must be a gift). If this question about torture is not total gobbledy-gook I am a monkey's uncle. Actually I probably am a monkey's uncle in spite of what Kansas thinks about it.

Speaking of such things I hope you all noticed that all eight Republican members of the Pennsylvania school board who voted for intelligent design in science classes were defeated and replaced by Democrats who are not in favor of such nonsense. Perhaps there is justice after all, at least in Pennsylvania. I don't hold out much hope for Kansas.

Democrats did well yesterday. We captured the governerships of New Jersey and Virginia and all four of the Gropenfuehrer's pet initiatives went down to ignominous defeat. Bloomberg was re-elected Mayor of New York but mainly because Democrats voted for him (he was actually a Democrat and probably still is "in his heart" as they say). Republican spin wants you to believe this had nothing to do with Bush's dismal ratings but was just local politics. They never give up trying to put lipstick on their pigs.

It was apparently announced the other day that (l) the UN has agreed to extend the U.S. occupation of Iraq by another year and (2) the U.S. intends to keep 92,000 troops in Iraq at least until 2008. Does that make sense? Of course not, nothing this administration does make sense unless you realize that they have no intention of ever withdrawing from Iraq unless some day in the remote future Iraq runs out of oil. Even I, as stupid and out of the loop as I am, know this is true. Although it has been suggested several times they should announce plain and simply there is no U.S. intention to remain permanently in Iraq, have you ever heard them say so? Of course not. And you won't as long as Bush/Cheney and the neocons are in charge. The solution is really quite simple -- get rid of this cancer that infects our body politic and do it soon before it is too late.

The scandals of this administration are now breeding like rabbits. There may be hope. They will be roviating Reid and Fitzgerald pretty heavily but I think roviation may have peaked and will no longer be effective, especially if Rove is himself finally brought to justice.

Travel is educational - essay

Don't forget to buy and read The Cham Stones! Indeed, buy dozens of copies and give them to your friends.

Hardly anyone ever comments on this blog except for an occasional spammer. I assume this is because:
1. No one reads this blog.
2. Everyone who does read it recognizes my complete infallibility.
3. Readers think it would be beneath their dignity.

I absolutely cannot understand this so-called controversy over evolution vs utter nonsense. The only thing I can think of that even remotely hints at intelligent design is the banana. I repeat: there is no way any intelligent designer could have designed human beings as we know them. Of course he/she/it could have designed them better and they have simply degenerated because of sex and age. But if that were true they couldn't have been very well designed in the first place. What a total waste of time and effort.

But back to travel as educational:


Having just returned from a long automobile trip I want to report that I learned quite a lot. For example, did you know that the usual fine in the state of Idaho for driving without your seat belt is $10. However, if you are caught without the belt, and you have children under 18 in the car, the fine is $51.50. If you are caught driving with a child who is not safely buckled into a car seat the fine is $69. I just received these figures from our local Sheriff’s office. Why did I want to know this? Because I think the fines for seat belt violations are just plain weird. In the state of Washington the fine for driving without your seat belt is $101. Not $100, but precisely $101. In Oregon the fine is $94, precisely. In California the fine ranges from $80 to $91. I don’t know what circumstances make up the difference.
I’m not a big fan of state’s rights, believing as I do that if we push state’s rights too far we’d still be hanging black people, prohibiting abortions no matter what, jailing homosexuals, and even permitting death with dignity, legal marihuana and who knows what all else. I confess to not having strong feelings about states being able to enforce their own seat belt regulations. But why do they have to be so weird? How, for example, did the state of Washington decide the fine should be $101 instead of the much simpler $100? It would probably be more in the tradition of American culture if the fine was $99.99. How did they arrive at the figure of $101? Does anything over $100 make it a felony rather than merely a misdemeanor? Do you lose your right to drive or vote for a year if it’s more than $100? I confess this is beyond my comprehension. And the same thing is true for Oregon. Why $94? Why not $90 or $100 or even $95? How could they have arrived at precisely $94? Of course we all know how weird the state of California is, $80 to $91 indeed. Who makes up these rules? What kind of deliberations go into these momentous decisions? What is the process whereby these rules are invented? I have no doubt I could find out all about this but, frankly, I don’t think it would be worth the effort.
Here is one more example that probably won’t help a bit. Somewhere near San Jose there are signs that say violating the rules of the diamond lane, that is, driving with only yourself in the car and no others, the fine is $271. Wow! There’s that extra dollar again. Why on earth would they tack on an extra dollar to a fine like $270? And what is the reason or logic behind that figure in the first place? I can only imagine that after several days of serious deliberation they narrowed things down to somewhere around $270. But one of the officials involved probably wanted $270.50 and another $271.50, although why either of them would want these figures is not clear to me. Anyway, I assume that after each of them pontificated sufficiently to satisfy their egos they agreed to compromise at $271. It’s the democratic way. However, recently a man was caught with a dummy sitting in the passenger seat, not a very good dummy. He was fined $371 and no doubt deserved it. He seemed not too upset about the fine but, rather, that other motorists were laughing at him. Trying to understand the Idaho rules is far beyond my expertise but I do think $10 is quite enough, except, of course, for the $51.50 and $69 which mystifies me no end. I guess at least in the state of Idaho there is a kind of underlying logic. If you are merely risking your own life $10 is probably reasonable. If you are risking the lives of children it should cost more. But $51.50? Apparently these states have secret formulas for determining these things. I am afraid to even ask.

Privatization

I believe it was Herman Goering (sp?) who said something to the effect of "when I hear the word culture I reach for my pistol." That is precisely the way I feel when I hear the word privatization. When you hear anyone talk about privatization you should immediately check to see if your wallet is safe, because it is going to cost you money. We have somehow been sold on this ridiculous idea that the private sector can do things better than the government. So now we have allowed corporations to take over virtually all aspects of our lives - for profit. The idea of the public good has simply disappeared from our lives. So oil and gas has been privatized and California has suffered immeasurabley. Pharmaceuticals have been privatized and it is obvious what they are doing to us. Health care, likewise. In the Bush/Cheney administration even things like air and water quality are being privatized, along with national parks, the military, and just about everything else. Even the food industry has been privatized so we are at the mercy of gigantic corporations who are determined to feed us genetically modified crops whether we want them or not. Transportation is also privatized and they are doing everything they can to privatize education. Perhaps the most egregious example of privatization has to do with prisons. If you have private prisons that exist to make a profit what does that mean? It means you have to keep the prisons full in order for the profit to be realized. That, in turn, means you have to make sure you have enough lawbreakers to fill the prisons. And that, in its turn, means you have to have laws that will insure enough lawbreakers as, for example, absurd laws about marihuana possession. If, for example, we were to exonerate prisoners who are incarcerated for marihuana infractions, even minor ones, the prisons would no doubt fail to produce enough profit and would then inevitably have to revert back to government control (governments, conveniently, do not have to produce profits). We are told repeatedly, daily, that privatization is good. In fact, privatization is good only if you are a corporation that is going to benefit from it. From a human point of view privatization (capitalism) is absolutely terrible. Do you really want your access to clean air and water controlled by corporations who are in it for profit? Your health care? Well, think about it. That's what you have. And of course socialism is a truly bad word here in "the greatest country on earth." Universal health care is socialism we are told every time the subject comes up. So fine, I say, let's have it as soon as possible. There is a really fine book on the subject of privatization, The Fox is in the Henhouse, by Kahn and Minnich. I highly recommend it.

Need I really comment on the absurdity of absurdities: Bush has now ordered that everyone in his administration has to have a mandatory refresher course in ethics. Closing the barn door after the horse has gone. It's not as if anyone in his administration had any ethics to begin with - if they had they wouldn't be in his administration. Oh, I forgot, Karl Rove, that paragon of ethical behavior is still in charge of the White House. I can sleep easier now.

Stuff and nonsense

Morialekafa is back! In all its (glory?). I have learned that travel is most educational. But I will tell you about that later. For the moment I wish to simply consider some of the current stuff and nonsense.

Someone wrote a piece claiming that Condi's bubble will burst before the 2008 election. This is clearly nonsense. If there even is a bubble it has to be tiny indeed. The idea that Condi could be nominated for the presidency and actually become a candidate is beyond nonsense. First of all, she might actually be in jail by then as she was/is a charter member of the White House Iraqi Group (WHIG) that lied us into this totally dreadful and unnecessary "war." Not only that, she was an abject failure as Security Advisor and as Secretary of State little more than a bad joke. If the people behind this movement (if, indeed, it seriously exists) are serious they clearly need help, psychiatric would probably be the most apt.

Someone else wrote something about how the Republicans have "lost their moral compass." This is about as nonsensical as the above. The Republicans never had any moral compass to begin with, unless, perhaps, morality is measured by the amount of money you can take from the poor and give to the rich. It is very clear that morals are not a concern of Republicans. If they were we would not be in Iraq and would certainly not be torturing people (Cheney is doing everything he can to allow the CIA to engage in this totally illegal and unconstitutional behavior). So far he has not won over McCain, but don't bet that he won't. McCain seems willing to put up with most anything in his quest for the presidency.

Now there are rumors that Washington insiders think Bush will get rid of Rove, Rumsfeld, and McClellan within a year. I can't imagine this happening unless Rove is indicted and Rumsfeld has a heart attack or something. McClellan may go as he has lost all credibiliy and can no longer function as Press Secretary. And he probably misses his pal Gannon/Guckert who seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

The DeLay saga continues with his lawyers doing everything possible to slime the prosecutor and select a judge that is likely to sell out. There can be no doubt that DeLay is guilty of far more malfeasance that he is charged with. I'd bet that if you look up corruption in a recent dictionary you would see his picture. But you have to admit, he does have chutzpa (in excess).

It appears that some members of the GOP are not entirely happy with Bush's recent nominee for the Supreme Court. I guess they will never be satisfied until Bush nominates Attila the Hun. I think they are put off by recent claims that Alito might actually be serious and fair-minded. We certainly couldn't have that!

I continue to be entertained by those who are saying "if Bush lied he should be impeached." What do they mean, "if." It is perfectly obvious that he and the neocons lied. They knew there were no WMD's and used that as an excuse for going to war anyway. They knew their sources of information were flawed and used them anyway. One of them admitted that they settled on the threat of WMD's because that was the one thing that would work to convince the American people to go to war. They knew the item about Sadam trying to get yellowcake was not true but used it anyway. They knew there was no evidence the aluminum tubes were to be used for nuclear purposes but used that anyway. They knew that Sadam was not a threat to the United States, and not even to his neighbors but claimed otherwise. What questions could possibly remain about whether or not they lied? Cheney, of course, has never done anything but lie.

Finally, I continue to be amazed by those who talk about withdrawing American troops from Iraq. Of course I think they should be withdrawn. Immediately if not sooner. But as long as the Bush/Cheney administration is in charge they will never be withdrawn. That is simply not part of the plan and never has been. Of course if they could they might withdraw a few. But an American military presence in Iraq, from their point of view, is an absolute necessity. If anyone is serious about withdrawing from Iraq they had better start by impeaching Bush/Cheney and sending them to the Hague.

"Human beings are perhaps never more frightening than when they are convinced beyond doubt that they are right."
Laurens van der Post, The Lost World of the Kalahari.

There's more to come

Please note: Morialekafa will not appear again until November 6th.

Finally! Something! Libby indicted on 5 counts. Rove escapes at least for the moment. I confess to feeling excited now that at least one indictment has occurred. But then, as I listened to some of the comments, mostly by lawyers, that seemed to indicate that this would be all there was to it, I became temporarily depressed. Then I realized that I was watching CNN. There is no way this is going to be the end of it all. Indeed, this is merely the beginning. If Libby is indicted that means Cheney is also vulnerable. Libby would not have even gone to the bathroom without Cheney's knowledge. And it is clear that Libby got Plame's name from Cheney long before she was outed by Novak. They keep insisting there was nothing wrong about Cheney, Libby and others in the administration discussing Wilson and Plame. But they have not offered any explanation as to why they were doing this. Do they just sit around discussing CIA operatives and their husbands as part of their daily routine? Why were they interested in Wilson and his wife at this time?

Rove is not off the hook either. Might he be "person A" that was mentioned by Fitzgerald? And what about possible charges of conspiracy? There is no doubt there was in fact a White House Iraq Group that was involved in selling the war on Iraq. The people involved are well known. It is alwo well known that lies were told to lead us into this dreadful and unnecessary "war." Is all this simply to be dismissed? I don't think so. I don't believe that like the Gannon/Guckert business they will just be able to ignore this until everyone forgets about it. We are talking major war crimes here, not just homosexual hanky-panky in the White House.

They tried to distract us with the Miers business. And they will no doubt try to do the same by naming another controversial candidate for the Supreme Court. And, of course they will attempt to roviate Fitzgerald:

Morialekafa - Sunday, September 18, 2005
How about a new word?
Most, if not all of those who sometimes read this blog are probably unfamiliar with the name Vidkun Quisling. He was a Norwegian traitor who collaborated with the Nazis in Norway and became part of a puppet Norwegian government. Thus a new word was added to the English language - quisling. I suggest we add another new word to our language:

roviate v. to smear, slime, malign, denigrate, and attempt to destroy an opponent through the use of innuendo, rumor, slander, outright lies and any other despicable means available. Roviation works more effectively when done in collaboration with the major media.

They have already started on this but so far have had no success. Fitzgerald is 44 years old, unmarried, and no doubt fair game for their slanderous and outrageous attacks. Most say he is so clean they can't possibly get away with this. Frankly, I can't see why it would matter. If the bastards are guilty as hell (which I am personally sure they are) what difference does it make what Fitzgerald is or does? I think roviating has peaked and will no longer be as effective as it has in the past. The jig is up for Rove and the neocons. It just remains to be seen and Fitzgerald seems to be the right man for the job.

Downhill from now on

The Bush/Cheney administration is finished, over, kaput. Oh, it might linger on for a time, struggling against one scandal after another, and then another, and another, but it is all downhill from now on. There is just no way they can ever possibly recover from the depths to which they have now sunk. This will be true no matter what Fitzgerald does tomorrow. There is a point of diminishing returns and Bush/Cheney have now more than passed it. I suggested in last night's blog that if the Republican party knew what was good for it, it would itself lead impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney. It is very doubtful they would accept any advice from the likes of me but that is their problem, not mine. The only way the United States can ever recover from what has happened in the last five years (if, indeed, we can recover even in the next 50 years) is if Bush/Cheney are impeached and then tried for war crimes. We would have to make clear to the rest of the world that we did not, and do not, sanction this criminal behavior. Of course this is not likely to happen.

Failing that scenario (impeachment) there is one other possibility, an even more unlikely happening. Bush/Cheney should resign. Immediately. Spare us all the legal and other hassles that are inevitably going to ensue. The country is going to be effectively paralyzed for the remainder of the Bush/Cheney presidency (and this is true no matter what Fitzgerald does tomorrow or in the future). Of course we can wait until the 2006 elections, and even until 2008, but what would be the point? Just three more years of utter chaos. The obvious solution, short of impeachment, would be for Bush/Cheney to resign. If they had any sense of either decency or shame they would do this for the good of the country. But, of course, they have neither decency nor shame, and could care less about the good of the country. They have already demonstrated their contempt for the country and its people by their every action since being in office. They have mercilessly attacked the middle and lower classes, the unions, the environment, the constitution, and, indeed, virtually everything our country has traditionally tried to honor. They have dishonored us on the world stage, plunged us into endless debt, and robbed our treasury to put more obscene wealth into the hands of those who have so much already they can't possibly use any more. They are determined to destroy the very fabric of our society and turn things back to the 18th century when the filthy wealthy few lorded it over their peasants and serfs. Make no mistake about it, this is what they are doing. So in the future explain to your hungry children they are hungry because they are protecting us from abortion and homosexuals.

The Bush/Cheney administration is a national disgrace. The "war" in Iraq is the saddest and worst mistake ever made in American history. The United States at the moment is best described as pathetic. Truly something sent by the gods to humiliate the animals.

End of the party?

Somewhere today I read a piece that claimed Bush was unimpeachable. The author based this claim on the fact that the House is controlled by Republicans and therefore it can be assumed they would not impeach the President. I might suggest another scenario, based upon reality.

It is quite likely the case that if nothing is done soon the Republican party is simply going to implode and may well be rendered totally irrelevant for a very long time. They are in very deep trouble. There is the almost unsolvable problem of Iraq where the killing just continues endlessly. There is the CIA leak scandal. DeLay is in trouble. Frist is in trouble. The economy is in trouble (in spite of their claims to the contrary). New Orleans and Florida are in trouble. Bush's poll ratings are plummeting day by day. Abramhoff may bring down many in the administration. The torture business won't go away and Cheney is trying to insure that torture can continue. Cheney is potentially in big trouble himself over the Plame case and where that seems to be leading. The Miers nomination is splitting the party. In short, the Republicans are about to self-destruct. How might they avoid this?

Well, they could try to start another war, with Syria or Iran. But given the nature of our armed forces at the moment that would not seem prudent. Of course they could just start dropping bombs again but at this point I don't think that would be well received by the rest of the world. Whatever positive steps they might take, like curbing Israel's greedy land grab and demanding a viable Palestinian state seems to be, for them, unthinkable.

In my opinion (I must warn you that my opinions are not worth very much) the only real possibility they have to remain a major player in the American scene is to jettison Bush/Cheney. They should themselves cleanse their party of this cancer, make it clear that the Bush/Cheney administration is leading them to disaster, and take steps to save themselves before it is too late. They should begin impeachment proceedings forthwith and hope that the Bush/Cheney sacrifice will be enough to save the rest of them (it shouldn't be, but it might work). I see no other reasonable option for them at the moment. If they think that somehow Bush's ratings are going to go back up they are clearly deluding themselves. And while it is true that the Democrats are giving them every conceivable break and benefit of the doubt this cannot continue indefinitely.

I think the choice is quite clear for Republicans: either abandon Bush/Cheney or enter the dustbin of history for a long, long time.

The Cabal

There was no Morialekafa last night because our server was down. Not that it matters much.

I hate to tell you that I told you so. But I told you so. I have said from the very beginning that this CIA leak scandal would lead to Dick the Slimy. And it has/is. Can there be any doubt at this point that there was in fact a cabal (the WHIG) that conspired to lie and deceive the Congress and the American people into an illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, and unnecessary "war" against Iraq? It seems to me this is perfectly obvious and there is no dearth of facts to support this conclusion. There is also no doubt about who the major players were: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hughes, Matalan, Hannah, and others, probably including Bolton. Judy Miller seems to have been used by them to their advantage, if she was not, in fact, in it up to her eyeballs. Whether Bush was aware of this is questionable. As he has so little interest in foreign relations (or anything else as near as I can tell) perhaps he was out of the loop. If he was not, then obviously he should be in as much or more trouble than all the rest. While this seems perfectly obvious to me it remains to be seen what Fitzgerald can do with it. I have seen some who say there will be no indictments at all (John Dean, for example) and others who claim thre will be multiple indictments, and still others who seem to think it will only be Libby, and still others who think both Rove and Libby. Rumors, rumors, rumors, that's all we have at the moment. The latest rumor is that Fitzgerald will announce tomorrow what he is going to do. I certainly hope so as I don't think I can stand the suspense much longer.

Brent Scowcroft has written a blistering critique of the present administration's foreign policy, in spite of the fact that he is a long term close friend of Bush Sr. It seems to me this is long overdue. Where was Scowcroft and others who are now coming out against this criminal administration when it could have made a difference a long time ago? But better late than never I guess. The one thing that puzzles me is Scowcroft's statement about Cheney. They have been close friends for years and now Scowcroft says "I don't know Cheney now." What does this mean? Does it mean he never truly knew him in the first place or does it mean Cheney has somehow changed? And if he has changed, why, and in what way? I find this not only mysterious but also vaguely frightening.

Please Mr. Fitzgerald, do something soon. Save us from this absoluely dreadful nightmarish situation.