More unholy shit from ABC and the radical wrong

I've been hearing a ton about this upcoming "documentary" from ABC, "The Path to 9/11," and I've been awakened from my birdwatching slumber to write on this blog today. Sorry I've been remiss and have been ignoring Impeachment and other dreams to play around on my bird site, beginning to bird.

Okay--first off, I realize that the idiots who made and are airing this film think they have a valid point when they answer critics with the "watch the movie first!" line of bs. The thing is, once the movie is out on their national airwaves, it'll be too late to criticize it! Many Americans will believe ANYTHING they see on TV! They'll take all this as fact and before you know it, the Chimp's poll ratings will be up.

Just yesterday, I listened as a co-worker claimed to be a Clinton supporter, then proceeded to parrot some of the EXACT POINTS argued in the film (courtesy of the Blue State blog) that "too bad Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden when he had the chance" and "I didn't vote for him second term, because I thought he was too distracted by the Lewinsky thing to do his job." I couldn't believe that an intelligent person could buy into this bullshit. The film hasn't even aired yet, but people already know the talking points of the right. Ridiculous.

The only hope is that there are enough Americans who are tired of this campaign of fear, tired of the lies, tired of the imperialistic actions of this regime. Enough Americans who will NOT buy into the bullshit. Otherwise, it's another November of stolen elections, republican "victories," and perpetual war.

Do what you can to get the truth out about this film and its messages. Hit the blogs, especially the rethuglican ones, and make your voices heard. Make sure people know the film offers a patently FALSE version of history, masquerading as truth.

We've got to get this country back, folks. VOTE! Speak truth to power! Speak truth.

HOLY SHIT

from The Seattle Times' David Postman:

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so. In an interview in Bellevue this morning Gingrich said Bush should call a joint session of Congress the first week of September and talk about global military conflicts in much starker terms than have been heard from the president.

"We need to have the militancy that says 'We're not going to lose a city,' " Gingrich said. He talks about the need to recognize World War III as important for military strategy and political strategy.

Great. Yeah. Let's have MORE militancy. That's what we need, all right. And of course, talking about these wars and declaring that we are "not going to lose a city" will DEFINITELY make it all better! Just like saying "mission accomplished!" did, right?

Is WWIII starting?

It's possible that this conflict between Lebanon and Israel will eventually become World War III. It wouldn't surprise me, as the Chimp has successfully bankrupted and ruined every company he ever ran, the formerly great state of Texas, and the once-decent United States, that the Chimp would kick it up another notch and just go ahead and work his "magic" on the whole freakin' world. Why not? If there's one thing GW knows how to do, it's fucking things up royally.

I don't believe in god. As such, I don't believe in an "anti-christ." But if I did, and if there were an anti-christ, I think we all know who'd emerge in that role. Though I always got the sense from those "Omen" movies that he'd be sexier. And smarter.

Why Oedipus stabbed his eyes out

Sometimes, when I've gotten bleary-eyed from looking at web site after web site---truthout, common dreams, liberal oasis, daily kos, project for the old american century---you know the sites we liberals feed on---sometimes when I've been reading everything I possibly can for the last few hours, I get this desire to just shut it all out. I see people around me at work, all happily going to walmart, buying their SUVs, voting republican, ignorantly and blissfully talking about how they're glad GW's up there "talking tough to them Iran people." I sometimes wish I could be so blissfully ignorant. But alas, having a brain precludes me from floating around in a little bubble of ignorance. Being aware of the truth, seeking the truth, needing the truth, even though it makes me miserable.

I read that Bobby Kennedy said, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."

I just hope he's right. But I haven't felt any hope since about November 2000. We're an empire in decline. I learned in history that every empire falls--the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Romans, the British. What will it be like when the American Empire falls? Will it come down in a crashing heap, crushing us all? Or will it continue as it has, sinking slowly like a dead fish in the water, until it finally hits the bottom?

It's been a while since I've posted; I've been trying to just stay positive, keep hope alive that things will change in November. We'll see. We'll see.

"The Case for Impeachment" by Dave Lindorff and Barbara Olshansky

I will soon be posting a review of this book, but I wanted to hype it already because anything Dave Lindorff writes is bound to be good.

Greg Palast's new book---Buy it!

Greg says:
Just wanted to let you know my new book hits the street on June 6, Armed Madhouse: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal 2008, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War, the longest subtitle in publishing history. It's out July 7 in the UK. Do me a favor -- buy it right now. You can order it on my site, through Amazon, at www.GregPalast.com <http://www.GregPalast.com>, your local book store, whatever.

Anne Coulter's out that day too, 06-06-06, in honor of her father's birthday, and I'll be damned if she takes our spot on the Times list.

This is my best journalism yet, worst jokes, a full-color Secret History of the War over Oil in Iraq, Republican Party caging lists (say what?) and a killer recipe for shrimp curry.

It launches in NYC on June 13 at Ethical Culture Society 7pm -- joined by Amy Goodman, Paul Krugman and Randi Rhodes. Find another 20 US/UK cities at my website.

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy helped kick off a national discussion of the racial jiggering of elections. Maybe this book can bust the media omerta over The Topic which dare not speak its name: Class War.

Why are rich people rich?

Dave the Nazi (from my work) told me that it's unfair to tax rich people more than poor people. He said that they're rich because they "worked harder and made smarter decisions."

I had two words for him: Paris Hilton.

The sad part is that, as well off as Dave the Nazi may be as he approaches early retirement, the new tax cuts are not even going to touch him. He's not THAT rich. And yet, in his tiny little republican heart, he really believes this shit. Amazing.

Gross me out, totally, to the max

From a speech Bush made in CA to some "business leaders," courtesy of Editor & Publisher:

Bush said he'd sat in a California church on Sunday near a mother and stepfather grieving for their son who had been killed in Iraq. "I also want to let you know that before you commit troops that you must do everything that you can to solve the problem diplomatically," he commented. "And I can look you in the eye and tell you I feel I tried to solve the problem diplomatically to the max and would have committed troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing what I know today."

Well, hey, as long as he tried diplomacy "to the max"--I know I feel better.

Why does he even PRETEND to know what the hell he's saying? I mean, just read the cue cards, listen to what Cheney is telling you to say through your hidden earpiece, and then get the hell out. Is that so f-ing hard? Do you really HAVE to show the world what a freaking moron you are, every single time you open your mouth???

The spread of democracy

Remember, kids: "Freedom is on the march!"
. . . only it's wearing big black jack-boots and it's goose-stepping along and you'd better get the hell out of its way or it'll crush you.

courtesy of truthout.org and The New York Times:

Editor's Note: One stated objective that Mr. Bush has repeatedly pointed to, in justifying the continued US occupation of Iraq, is helping Iraq to become a "Democracy." Today Mr. Bush asked the man who - US authorities say - was duly elected by the Iraqi people as their prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, to resign. To date, 2,315 US soldiers and Marines and an estimated fifty to one hundred thousand Iraqis have died as a result of the Bush administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. -- ma/TO

Shiites Say US Is Pressuring Iraqi Leader to Step Aside
By Edward Wong
The New York Times
Tuesday 28 March 2006
Senior Shiite politicians said today that the American ambassador has told Shiite officials to inform the Iraqi prime minister that President Bush does not want him to remain the country's leader in the next government.
It is the first time the Americans have directly intervened in the furious debate over the country's top job, the politicians said, and it is inflaming tensions between the Americans and some Shiite leaders.
The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the head of the main Shiite political bloc at a meeting last Saturday to pass a "personal message from President Bush" on to the prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who the Shiites insist should stay in his post for four more years, said Redha Jowad Taki, a Shiite politician and member of Parliament who was at the meeting.
Ambassador Khalilzad said that President Bush "doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" Mr. Jaafari to be the next prime minister, according to Mr. Taki, a senior aide to Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite bloc. It was the first "clear and direct message" from the Americans on the issue of the candidate for prime minister, Mr. Taki said.

So let me see if I've got this straight: First we get to hear all about how great it was that they had elections in Iraq---but now those elections shouldn't count because the Iraqis voted for someone that Baby Hitler doesn't like.
Holy shit. This guy really IS the antichrist.

News of the Day

Iraq Told To Rebuild Itself
By William Fisher
28 March, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Last week’s announcement that Iraq will now have to pay for its own reconstruction has left some observers wondering whether the yet-to-be-formed government there will be up to the task.
Iraq's deputy finance minister, Kamal Field al-Basri, said it was "reasonable" for the United States to sharply cut back its reconstruction efforts after spending about $21 billion. "We should be very much dependent on ourselves," al-Basri said in an interview the American newspaper, USA Today.

"REASONABLE"????? How deep in Bush's pockets is THIS guy?!

Now I guess Bush will just wash his hands of the whole mess and think he can come out smelling like a rose. The sad part is that these idiot bush-backers will probably be all for cutting funding---wouldn't want to throw good money after bad, of course!--without a thought to what will happen when the Iraqis say 'enough is enough--you can't come in here, wreck the place, then leave and expect us to fix it.' Bush's popularity will surge upward again, because he's so "tough" and "fiscally responsible."

I feel like a really bad time is coming--where Iraq will simply implode under its own weight. I mean, no one over there even has reliable electricity, water, etc.--how in the world are they supposed to make all this happen? Of course we can't keep pouring money in there, but why did we pay Halliburton/KBR all those millions? They couldn't even get clean water for our own soldiers, for pete's sake, much less for the whole country! And they've rebuilt NOTHING. I think all they did was build our new military bases. Obviously, William Rivers Pitt was right--mission accomplished--permanent bases completed.

A really bad time is coming. Bush is just going to begin pulling out and saying they've got to stand on their own---"oh, what a smart guy, showing them some 'tough love'! way to go, georgie!" --and the whole area will succumb to radical theocracy in no time. God knows what that will do to oil prices--but Bush et al. won't care, as they'll be making record profits from now on. As for the anger we've fomented with this war, I fear every day will be like 9/11.

Man, I'm so sick to my stomach I could puke.

News of the Absurd

From carpetbaggerreport.com:

Tying immigration to abortion
Posted 10:40 am Printer Friendly
The award for the most bizarre policy connection of the day goes to Georgia State Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R), who connected immigration and abortion in a way I hadn't thought possible. (thanks to Carpetbagger regular J.C. for the tip)
"Guest-worker amnesty must be defeated in Washington, too. If it is not defeated, millions of illegal aliens who violated our laws will remain in American and bring their families here.
"Big employers may get the benefit of cheap labor, but the U.S. taxpayer will pay for their health care, food stamps, schooling for children, and income tax credits.
"I am convinced it is a consequence [of] the almost 50 million children we have put to death in their mother's womb through abortion. The large, unfilled job market in Georgia would not be a problem if the almost 50 million Americans were here, filling many of those jobs."
I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic, but it's too early on a Monday for such absurdity.
- - - -

Wow.
I don't know why anyone with a brain supports these "pro-life" people. I mean, it's one thing to have the opinion that abortion is not for you. That's fine--it's your body, it's your call. However, it's a whole other idea to think that you can force this opinion on other people and make it the law of the land--that's just insanity.

I don't know why in the world people are so intent on legislating their own version of morality. And yet, they don't ever seem to get around legislating the morality of raising the freaking minimum wage so people can actually FEED their kids! How about legislating the morality of HELPING the Katrina victims in a meaningful way, instead of just paying your pals billions of dollars to do nothing?
Yeah, those "moralities" just never seem to get to the top of the priorities list. Guess they're too busy allowing the president to spy on all of us and stopping abortions that eliminate our future minimum-wage workers. Nice.

Our Top National Priority

Just read the transcript of Russ Feingold's speech to the Senate re the president's lies and lawbreaking with the wiretaps. I was reading along, nodding my head in agreement, and then I came to this line:

Defeating the terrorists should be our top national priority. . . .

Why? Why should that misguided impossibility be our "top national priority"? What about education? Ending hunger? Lowering the deficit? Creating new jobs? Assuring equal rights for ALL Americans? Why isn't any of these critical issues our "top national priority"?

Since when did we buy this republican-driven campaign of fear so completely that even an outspoken opponent of the war is parroting lines from the republican propanganda machines? Since when did anyone of sound mind believe that it's even possible to defeat every person on the planet who's practicing terrorist tactics, let alone pondering doing so?

When defense/war spending is increasing but programs to directly help all Americans are being cut, there's something wrong. This isn't Sparta. This isn't the Roman Empire. The hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending in Iraq (so that people can steal it out of unlocked file cabinets or gamble it away in the Phillipines, and so that Halliburton/KBR can reap huge profits) should be spent here--on causes that directly affect every American, every day.

That should be our top national priority.

Today's hypocrisy

posted on freemarketnews.com:

BUSH REMARK MOST GRAVE?
Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
Allegations about President Bush, and his "just a goddamned piece of paper" dismissal of the US Constitution, continue to be made by Doug Thompson, the publisher of Capitol Hill Blue. Thompson wrote his initial story over the weekend, defended it on Sunday and points out, in a radio interview with alternative press reporter Steve Watson, that the story has been corroborated by three separate sources. In an article about the interview, Watson presents quotes from Thompson's story about President Bush's comments as follows:
---------
“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”
----------
The President must swear to uphold the US Constitution before taking office. Thus Bush's assertion, if publicly corroborated, constitutes grounds for impeachment. An additional complication is that anyone in public office hearing such a remark - deeming it serious - and not revealing it is then complicit with the president and thus must be seen in sympathy with the sentiment. In this case, as Thompson tells it, the Republican leadership sat with the Bush.

Having reported this most grave charge, Thompson would perform a great service by placing someone on the record. This would not constitute proof for those inclined to doubt, but would help substantiate the gravity of the allegations. - ST
staff reports - Free-Market News Network

So how will defenders of Bush, supposed patriots, react to this news? Or will they even hear about it? Spread the news that the American president has no respect for the U.S. Constitution, the document that guarantees the freedoms he claims his armed forces fight to protect. It's the ultimate hypocrisy if Bush claims to be spreading freedom and democracy but doesn't respect the document that granted us those things.

What to say

You know that look on my face, the one you interpret as anger/fear/general response or interest in what you're saying? It's actually the expression of my amazement at the fact that you continue to rant at me about your silly self-involved opinions. Your feelings, for instance—there's one subject you go on about all the time, little noticing that I stopped even pretending to listen long ago.

Rejected Names for Purell

1. Sniff this stuff and feel the hairs in your nose burn into ash
2. No more germs or bacteria, even the beneficial kind
3. Pure L new and improved with fortified L
4. Clear junk with a ton of alcohol in it for germophobic suckers who can't resist picking it up and putting it in their cart while waiting in line at the Target checkout
5. Sterile goop

From Fred Francis

"Deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history"? What does that even mean? It doesn’t mean anything. Really. Nonsensical phraseology spewed by a deeply irresponsible and quite entrenched governmental PR department. The problem is, advertising works.

If the public ever got hold of a dictionary and brushed up on the subtleties of rhetoric, they’d finally understand what’s going on ... and they’d also know exactly how best to express their fresh shock (and awe) of nauseated horror at all the events of this century.

And then they’d go back to playing Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

Today's Bushspeak

From cnn.com:
"President Bush next hour will respond to accusations that his administration manipulated intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to justify the war, a senior administration official says. The president will "directly take on some of these false attacks that have been recently brought up by some Democratic leaders," the official said."

How did Bush handle "directly taking on" the issue? He said it's "deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

So that whole inquiry into whether the administration trumped up pre-war intelligence and basically lied to the American people to promote the war, and now over 2000 soldiers are dead? That's over. Case closed.

Long live the Imperial Emperor.

Whew, I know I feel better.

There's nothing like a good commercial jingle to make your day

I've made a career decision. I'm going to write commercial jingles now. I don't live or work in Hollywood, and most of the jingle ideas I've had are for products that don't actually exist, but I still think I could make it work.

If I could figure out how to record and post these little jingles onto this blog, you could hear these bits of my -- well, my genius, really. That's the only word for it.

So far, I've come up with one for Decker Hot Dogs. Yes, I know I'm a vegetarian. But the little tune I came up with just went with "Decker" not "Smart Dogs." Although I suppose they have the same number of syllables, so I could just substitute. Maybe I'll work on that.

I'll have to work on a lot of things.

Maybe tomorrow I'll start on that. Yeah.

From Boston.com

The 'I' word
By Ralph Nader and Kevin Zeese May 31, 2005
THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse.
Minutes from a summer 2002 meeting involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveal that the Bush administration was ''fixing" the intelligence to justify invading Iraq. US intelligence used to justify the war demonstrates repeatedly the truth of the meeting minutes -- evidence was thin and needed fixing.
President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.
Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any imminent threat to the United States:
The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq inspection team reported in 1998, ''there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable material." A 2003 update by the IAEA reached the same conclusions.
The CIA told the White House in February 2001: ''We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has . . . reconstitute[d] its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein ''has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
The CIA told the White House in two Fall 2002 memos not to make claims of Iraq uranium purchases. CIA Director George Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use that claim as proof of an Iraq nuclear threat.
Regarding unmanned bombers highlighted by Bush, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded they could not carry weapons spray devices. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the president in June 2002 that the unmanned aerial bombers were unproven. Further, there was no reliable information showing Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether it had established chemical agent production facilities.
When discussing WMD the CIA used words like ''might" and ''could." The case was always circumstantial with equivocations, unlike the president and vice president, e.g., Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002: ''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
The State Department in 2003 said: ''The activities we have detected do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."
The National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 said ''We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."
The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." And, just before the invasion, President Bush said: ''Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"
If this is answered affirmatively Bush and Cheney have committed ''high crimes and misdemeanors." It is time for Congress to investigate the illegal Iraq war as we move toward the third year of the endless quagmire that many security experts believe jeopardizes US safety by recruiting and training more terrorists. A Resolution of Impeachment would be a first step. Based on the mountains of fabrications, deceptions, and lies, it is time to debate the ''I" word.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. Kevin Zeese is director of DemocracyRising.US.

T-shirts for everyone

It's enough to just eat away my soul, sitting next to these republicans every day. Perhaps I could wear a t-shirt that says "if you voted for Bush, DON'T TALK TO ME." Then every day, I could wear a new t-shirt:

MONDAY: If you voted for Bush--congratulations! your guy's approval rating is lower than Nixon's at the height of the Watergate scandal!
TUESDAY: If you voted for Bush--perhaps you could donate to Scooter, Rove and Cheney's bail bond money?
WEDNESDAY: If you voted for Bush--you have two choices: some people cheating on welfare vs. STARVING CHILDREN. You decide!
THURSDAY: If you voted for Bush--Freedom really IS "on the march"--it's marching right out of America!
FRIDAY: If you voted for Bush--oh, just kiss my ass, you moron.