Saturday, April 17, 2004

The Bush Administration

The more I think of it there are five types of people that make up the Bush Administration. Really there are only four types because Bush is not a real person but a sock puppet controlled at various times by Dick Cheney or Karl Rove.

Of the other types, of course there are the Neo-Conservatives. These are the wackos that got us into war in Iraq (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc.) and basically control the military (which scares the shit out of me). These people are also in bed with the Likud Party in Israel, and somehow seem to think that what is good for Likud is good for the US - or at least the people in the US they care about.

Then there are the Whores. People in this category include Colin Powell, George Tenet, along with most of the Senior people in the State Dept. and CIA. They aren't true believers like the Neo-Cons, but they will do anything to keep their jobs and positions of bureaucratic power.

Fourth, there are the political junkies, of which, Karl Rove is the lead dog. Karen Hughes is back in town to help Karl and she is also a lead dog here. There are many people in the Bush Administration that fall into this category, because their view is that winning the presidency is everything. Governing itself is an after thought.

Lastly, there are the wall flowers. These people make up most of the Cabinet. They are the Cabinet Secretaries you never hear of. They don't really do anything, and they are instructed to never actually get in the news. Really, how many of you can name four Cabinet Secretaries besides Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Powell? I rest my case.

|

Woodward's Book


OK, so there's another book out documenting how decisions were made in the White House and propelled us into war with Iraq. This book is by Bob Woodward of the Washington Post and Watergate fame. This is his 500th book or so about the inner workings of the White House. How he gets access to all of these people is a mystery of the Universe. Presumably for this book he interviewed 75 people close to the President and only Bush himself would go on the record. He was able to interview Bush for 3.5 hours. Hell, the 9/11 Commission doesn't get that long and Cheney has to hold his hand.

Anyway, the point is that all of these books say the same things that most of us have known for a long time if you were paying attention. Cheney is Darth Vader and Bush is his puppet. Powell argued against the war right up until it was time to shit or get off the pot - so he shit all over the American public and the world at the UN on February 5th, 2003 with phony intel that he didn't believe. It was more important for him to keep his job than to save thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars by going public with the con job the administration was putting over on the public.

How many of these books have to be written to convince the American public that the Bush Administration is evil and worse, costing them money. These guys have got to go!!!!!

|

Friday, April 16, 2004

The limp-wristed main stream media is starting to get balls when Bush is called in the Washington Post America's Ayatolla.

|

The political power of Blogs


Gadflyer

|

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Presidential News Conference 2


OK, I guess I should have watched the news conference, mainly because one can't really get a sense of what transpired from the press or reading blogs.

Blogs are like an echo chamber with reverb. The left wing blogs go on an on about how bad Bush did, how stupid he is, how he looked drunk. The right wing blogs (freerepublic.com etc.) seem to have something akin to a born again experience every time this jerk utters a word.

The mainstream media tend to float an idea here and there then wait to see which way the wind blows it. Once the dominant wind direction is established they all set their sails to ride the wind as long as they can.

|

Presidential News Conference


For those of you who weren't able to find the time to watch our Commander in Chief last night on TV (I was helping my son with a school project) and didn't have the TIVO or VCR set to record, Critical Viewer has a decent, shorter summary version of what transpired.

There were a few comments I found astounding. One was "I don't like seeing dead people on TV" (some of us don't like seeing stupid people on TV); another one was the statement "Some people say brown people can't self-rule...I reject that!" The third most astounding statement was the following -


"I wish you'd submitted this as a written question so I could have thought about it"..in response to "what is your biggest mistake since 9-11"...and then the total loss, "I'm sure something will pop into my head"..."I'm just on the spot here, there's a lot of pressure in this press conference.


|

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

Conscripting Soldiers in 2004


Most people think that a military draft in the US ended in 1975 (or there abouts). I was part of the last class to have participated in the draft lottery. I don't remember my draft number, but I know it was high enough that I didn't have to worry about being drafted.

Of course, most of our political leadership never served in the Armed Forces. This is especially true for the "uber hawks" of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, De Lay, Rove, etc. However, this has not prevented the Bush administration of instituting forced conscription (without public discussion) today.

What I am talking about is forcibly keeping soldiers in the military and in Iraq well after their contracted release dates. Now I am sure that the fine print on their contracts with the US government allows the Defense Department to hold these young men and women as long as the powers deem it necessary. But let's call a spade a spade - this is forced conscription by any definition.

We are living large here in the good 'ol US of A, driving our Hummers to Bush Cheney $2000-a-plate fundraisers, listening to Rush on the radio, and flying the flag proudly all over our cars, while we keep the best and most Patriotic youth of this country captive as cannon fodder over in Iraq. The Bush Administration does not have the political will to ask the American Public to openly and publicly sacrifice for its foreign policy goals. It won't ask for more troops, or more money to fight this ill conceived adventure. It certainly won't ask campaign contributors to help in this goal by contributing money (through taxes) or their children to help with this fight. So in the end we just continue to screw those who have contributed so much already.

|

Monday, April 12, 2004

As a followup to Friday's post about the editorial section of the Houston Chronicle, I was surprised to see that the editor of the Chronicle addressed this issue head on today. In an editorial titled "Fair, balanced conservative manifesto", James Gibbons restates what I said on Friday-

"SOME readers have complained that the Chronicle's opinion pages do not adequately express the conservative view. They overlook William Safire, George Will, Charles Krauthammer and the other conservative commentators whose work frequently appears."

I would like to add to some of his statements though. For instance, where Gibbons states - "• Illegal immigrants should be stopped at the border." - I would add "except those willing to work for the weathy as domestic servants, nanny's, lawn service, and other jobs that most native born US citizens won't accept at the price most people are willing to pay."

And where he states - "• When the president sends U.S. troops into battle, it is unpatriotic and possibly treasonous to question his motives, judgment, strategy or tactics. Those who do give aid and comfort to the enemy and erode the popular support our troops on the front lines need and deserve."

I would add - "Except when a Democratic president is the one to send those troops into battle - such as Bill Clinton in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti, FDR in WWII, and Woodrow Wilson in WWI"

And if you don't think FDR and Wilson were criticized by Republicans for their war efforts you need to go back and re-read history.

|