Little Evil Bush

"They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying," Kristoff writes, saying that this doesn't make bush a liar.

But that IS lying. Did Clinton lie about Lewinsky? Yes. That is also lying.

But they are not equivalent lies. Lying to defend yourself and your family against investigation into sexual misconduct is a serious offense and worthy of disbarment. Lying about intelligence to stage an invasion of a country is an impeachable offense.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, Kristoff is flat out wrong about this. He conveniently ignores the fact that the Bush administration DID KNOW all along that the CIA REPORTS WERE FALSE. Maybe Bush didn't know (I'm sure he doesn't know anything about a peanut), but Rumsfeld and Cheny did and they run the country. How did they know? 1) Rumsfled directed that they be manufactured. 2) Powell (the only moral person in this whole crowd - I really do feel sorry for him) warned Bush publically that the reports were false and 3)Rumsfeld and Cheney's "stovepiping" of CIA intelligence further allowed them to slant all the reports in the direction they wanted.

Kristoff may be saying that the administration BELIEVED Saddamm really did have weapons and they manufactured the intelligence to support that belief. But if that is not the definition of a lie, what is? If I believe that you are a gold watch and manufacture a report that says you are a gold watch, but in fact you are not and you are demonstrably not, is that not lying? Yes - it is not JUST lying, it is ALSO libel! So I don't know why Kristoff is letting the administration off the hook because they have the gaul to create false intelligence to support an ideological belief in addition to propagating falsehoods. Is that not purely evil?

Again - as I have ALWAYS said - that does not mean I don't think that Saddam should not have been removed from power. Just not on the basis of LIES.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Calling Bush a Liar

This kid turned in his teacher? Now, I'm gay...but I must say, this kid certainly doesn't know a good thing when he has it....

CNN.com - Teacher charged with�having sex with 14-year-old student - Jun 29, 2004

Well, the handoff is here.

Two days early - the first smart thing Bush has done in this war.

Looks like we are headed for scenario 2 (military sticks around). Now the question is - how long will it be until we are disinvited from the party, and the Iraqi government drifts toward religious totalitarianism?

We'll see more of these call-ups until the election. If Bush is re-elected, watch for the beginnings of a draft.

CNN.com - Army to recall former military members - Jun 29, 2004

Now they are desperately trying to find ANY connection at all between Iraq and Al Queda...and this is the best they can come up with?

The New York Times > Washington > The Intelligence: Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says: "American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan. "

What does this prove? It proves nothing - WE WORKED with Bin Laden. In Afghanistan in the '80s. Why, it was Don Rumsfeld who did that! That's a lot more contact than what's being alleged here. Now, even *I* wouldn't suggest that that means Rumsfeld was behind 9/11.....

You know, in relaliation, I think we ought to boycott Catholics.

Oh, wait. I'm married (almost) to one. Well, a lapsed one.

Ok. We ought to boycott *religious* Catholics. No Catholics who advocate Catholic beliefs will be allowed to speak at MY school. Yeah - that'll show them!

The New York Times > National > Catholic Lawmaker Debate Ensnares Colleges

Here's a church that act's like a mob boss. They're not only going after Clementson, they're going to go after all her students as a way to step up the intimidation.

Someone should condemn these people! Boy, won't they be surprised when they find out that hate and intimidation sends them to the wrong latitutude in the afterlife.

The New York Times > National > Church Teacher Banned After Gay Marriage: "The church's letter to Clementson also said that her former students are now considered to have had no primary instruction, and they can no longer advertise their practitioner services in the Christian Science Journal, or take annual refresher courses."

The dripping, startling, craven hypocracy of Bush makes me want to gag!

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > The White House: President Makes a Dual-Purpose Trip to Ohio: "The White House has proposed spending $1.5 billion over five years on training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain what Mr. Bush calls healthy marriages.

The House of Representatives has approved the proposal as part of a bill to reauthorize the 1996 welfare law, but the legislation is bogged down in the Senate.

On Monday afternoon, as Mr. Bush sat like a talk-show moderator on a small stage in front of a backdrop made by the White House that said "Strengthening America's Families," Mr. Groves sat near him and told how Ms. Groves had suddenly lost her job when he was working part time."

Why not be honest, Mr. Bush, and call it "Destroying America's Families with Bigoted Hateful Constitution Tinkering" - that's what you're really doing.

More and more commentators have the courage to make sense on this issue.

North Adams Transcript - Columnists

Imagine if you will a Middle Earth kingdom that suffers a devastating attack from a band of undead warriors that destroys the watch tower and kills hundreds. Plans to rebuild the watchtower are hatched, and an army is sent to vanquish the undead, but is unable the destroy the meanace: foot soldiers report that the undead have teamed with an evil warlock and are intent on taking the castle.

The village elders quickly decide - they must gather stones and weapons to fortify the castle. But as they gather the stones and weapons, several of the neighboring farmers realize how much nicer these stones and weapons are than the ones in their far-away villages. They come to a vote: since there are 100 villagers and 1 tower, and if one villager gets something for themselves then all villagers must get something, the tower will only get one stone or bow for every hundred that is given to the villagers to replace their old, worn-out stones. After the first two hundred stones, they have run out, and the watch tower for the castle is rebuilt with two stones and two bows.

This would be America.

The New York Times > National > House Rejects Effort to Shift Anti-Terror Funds for Cities

This is pretty much like Clinton's famous, "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is."

CNN.com - Russia 'warned U.S. about Saddam' - Jun 18, 2004: "'The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,' Bush said."

Maybe Iyad Allawi can do it, eh? I mean, win the war without the help of the U.S.?

Maybe...we'll see. I have more hope in him than in the Pentagon.

CNN.com - Iraqi official says martial law possible - Jun 18, 2004: "Interim Defense Minister Hazem Shalan al-Khuzaei said that 'in the next few days, we will chase [the insurgents] ... from house to house and from street to street, by all means available.'"

(See my post dated April 14th)

This is my second prediction for the June 30th scenario. When I made my first post two months ago, we were fighting insurgents in Faluja, Abu Garib was a memo on Rumsfeld's desk, and there was no sign that any effective interrum government would ever be found.

Now, June 30th is almost here and The Bushies seem determined to wash their hands of the mess they've made. I think the predictions for the handover need updating. It's a little easier, now that we're closer.

Scenario 1: "The Fall of Bagdad"

It seems that the Bush team is less frightened of an Iraq in chaos than anyone would have thought. They just want to get the hell out. So, as attacks on Iraq's infrustructure are stepped up, as the Kurds pull out of the alliance, and as the military hands over power on the 30th, we are confronted with a sudden "power vacuum." It is essentially the pull-out from Saigon: loss is declared victory, and we are Outta There. In a matter of days, we see an independant Kurdistan inviting U.S. troops to move north to protect their boarders; we see Al Sadre form a political party and effectively replace the U.S. trained forces with his own militia - the U.S. is content to withdraw from Bagdad and head to Kurdistan. Within weeks, the situation seems settled - Iraq is in the hands of Shiite religious hardliners who quickly institute a Taliban-like regeme with ties to Iran. Al Queda is invited to settle down and the non-existent ties are now official. By the end of summer: massive terrorism in the U.S. and Iraq invades Kurdistan.

Scenario 2: "The Bloody Path to Nowhere"

Similar to scenario 1 with two subtle differences: The Interum Government, threatened with immediate execution, pleads for the U.S. to continue protection, while bombs and terrorism increase. In response, the U.S. military sticks around, continues training an ineffective militia, suffers more casualties, while more and more Iraqis join forces with the insurgents. As the months go on, we reduce our troops and hand things over to a diminishingly effective "Iraqi" force (which is really only a private militia of the Interum Government), until key government members are assassinated and the scales finally tip: hardliners insinuate themselves into the government and a final confrontation between U.S./U.S. trained forces and the insurgents lead to a bloody military standoff - with world sympathy turning against further U.S. action, the U.S. negotiatates a "truce" and a stepping down of personnel, until we finally, after a couple years, evacuate entirely - and Iraq becomes, essentially, Lebanon, a fractious, stately entity that is in effect ruled by Al Queda. Al queda unearths the hidden WMDs and celebrates with a massive terrorist attack.

You know, at this point, writing an editorial saying that Bush is a big fat liar is pretty pointless.

The New York Times > Opinion > The Plain Truth

People already know that this administration will lie throught their teeth. They've made up their minds, apparently - a good majority of Americans really don't care.

You know, Nixon was a crook and a liar, but he was a petty crook compared with Bush. This guy is the big deal. It's time to stop editorializing and start criminal prosecutions.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Undecided Voter Is Becoming the Focus of Both Political Parties: "He's [Kerry is] talking about why Bush is bad. His appeal is to his base, but undecided voters are motivated by different ideas and different issues.'"

This quote from Mehlman, one of Bush's campaign advisers, is so interesting. The Times recently ran a piece that said that an independent statistical analysis had shown that 75% of Bush's ads were negative, compared with 25% of Kerry's. So, what is Mehlman doing here? Lying? Projecting? Going negative in a most ironic way? All of the above?

Bush's campaign strategy: go fallaciously negative and stay that way consistently. It drives up Kerry's negatives. It drives up Bush's too. At this point, the strategy doesn't seem to be working, but only time will tell.

Sorry to blather on about this but one more post.

The more I think about it, the more I'm actually starting to feel better: Reagan is dead. It's such a relief.

Read the post below and you'll see what I mean. If this administration has inherited anything, it's Reagan's cavalierness and condescension. But while Reagan mostly had it out for poor people and gays, Bush has it out for the entire world (except a few rich Christian straight Americans).

Reagan really was the originator of much of this vileness and media manipulation. But with his passing...it's like the dawn of a new era. We can finally say goodbye to all that. And maybe these present times will change soon too.

This is excerpted from Andrew Sullivan's (a republican) Website. For those of you who have ANY doubt WHATSOEVER that Reagan caused the AIDS epidemic - for those of you who argued that Reagan spent money on the epidemic - here is the truth of what really happened. And remember, this is already well over a year after previously unknown epidemic had been headlined in the press and many people had died.

: "REAGAN AND AIDS: Sorry to continue about this, but I just got sent the following transcript of a press conference by Larry Speakes, presidential spokesman, on October 15, 1982. It speaks for itself:
Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What's AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as 'gay plague.' (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don't.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President ...
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anyone in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any ...
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping ...
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no - (laughter) - no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is"
Q: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.
Q: Didn't say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you Larry, that's why (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It's too late.

DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER UNCURABLE EPIDEMIC WHERE AN ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE SO CAVALIER?

Reagan WANTED gay people to die. Now Reagan is dead. Good riddance.

I had to search far and wide to find any kind of portrait of the real Reagan that I remember. All this rah-rah eulogizing is making me sick.

Look, every dog deserves his day. Even Reagan had some human points, and one could argue that even some of his simple-minded values were at least better than the arrogance and greed of the current administration. And right-wingers loved him. So fine. But please, where does it say we have to white-wash the truth and turn a horrible past into some sugar-coated Pleasantville? Listen, it was all not so long ago, to me, but what young people are hearing this week about this man is an affront to reality.

Here's something that I think is really not too biased at all and paints a bit more realistitic picture:
Ronald Reagan, De-Mythologized

Does this include the Pentagon, Rummy, Bush, and that gang too?

The New York Times > National > U.S. Is Pursuing Americans Who Commit Sex Crimes Overseas

This may only be up for a week, but you must read it! It is DEAD ON!

The New Yorker: Shouts and Murmurs

I can't tell you how many times in the Eighties that I wished Reagan would drop dead.

Now it's happened - way too late to do any good.

Well, maybe his death will do some good - it might warm the heart of the current Pharoah to allow medical science to research a treatment for Parkinsons. (Actually, the credit for that, once again, goes to Nancy, who is able to occasionally see past the idealogical blinders and I imagine is the only reason Reagan wasn't considered a complete a-hole, like our current George W.)

I'd say it's ironic, but it isn't - Reagan had a full, long life, certainly in comparison to the millions of worhtwhile gays, blacks, Africans etc. whose lives were cut short from AIDS due to his neglegence, bigotry, fear, and innaction. Say what you want about the end of the Cold War and how well Ronnie's advanced Parkinsonism style of Presidency suited our country. All of those millions of untimely deaths still rest squarely on his head; now Ronnie will finally have to pay that debt with his maker.

Meanwhile, yet another era of medical advancement is being blocked by right-wing ideologues.

I guess it's true what Billy Joel says: Only the good die young.

The chickens are coming home to roost. Bush's mob didn't want to be a part of the world criminal court because they wanted complete freedom to avoid the Geneva convention. Now they'd done their abuse and the word is out, and the pressure will mount to put some heads on the block.

Do you think that head will be Bush or Rumsfeld's? No - they'll find some lowly "soldiers" and set them up for the mob hit.....

The New York Times > International > Middle East > U.N. Says Abu Ghraib Abuse Could Constitute War Crime: "He said it was a 'stark reality' that there was no international oversight or accountability for the thousands of detainees, the conditions in which they were held and the manner in which they were treated."

Okay, Mr. Analogy Man. Let's look at this statement:

The New York Times > Washington > The President: Addressing Cadets, Bush Sees Parallel to World War II

The New York Times > Washington > The President: Addressing Cadets, Bush Sees Parallel to World War II: "He compared today's efforts to those in Europe immediately after World War II, noting that two years after the Nazi surrender there was still starvation in Germany and reconstruction appeared to be faltering. In 1948, he added, Stalin blockaded Berlin. In 1949, the Soviet Union exploded a nuclear weapon and the Communists in China won their revolution."

We dealth with the Vietnam analogy a while ago. What's wrong with the WWII reconstruction analogy? Well -

1. We weren't continuing to fight an ongoing insurgency after defeating the Nazi's.
2. Americans didn't take over Auschwitz and Buchenwald and use them to hold and torture innocent German citizens.
3. We didn't enact a policy to re-insurt Nazi's into the re-constructed German government while attempting to marginalize (and fight) pockets of insurgent Communists.
4. We didn't attempt to do all this inside an "unreconstructed" Europe that was still largely pro-Nazi and rabidly anti-American, and also plotting continued infiltration and attacks on American civilians.
5. All the problems we did face in WWII reconstruction weren't largely of our own making, as they are in Iraq.

If we had, I think the situation might have been rather different, don't you?

Maybe Bush's point is that situations have been dire before and what....we continued to plod along without a strategy or a prayer? No, I think in those other situations we had a plan for getting through the muddle, we didn't creat the muddle.

While I don't think Vietnam is a very good analogy for Iraq either (maybe the closest is the French in Algiers), it certainly fits a lot better than Bush's analogy here. Hell, if you're going to fit the facts to your rhetoric that much, why not compare Iraq to a clam bake or a bundt cake? It makes about as much sense.