What Strikes Me

Isn't this LABOR Day?

2007-09-03T14:58:00.001-07:00

The Escalation

2007-08-27T06:57:00.001-07:00

Bush Escalates War on Congress

2007-01-13T10:19:00.000-08:00

This week, we're seeing Bush carry out escalations on all fronts. He is asserting his authority by ordering a 15% increase in troops (or, as Jon Stewart calls it, a "gratuity"). But I think the more important escalation was what happened immediately after his escalation speech: American troops attacked an Iranian Embassy in Iraq.

What's he doing here? First, he's saying and doing explicitly the opposite of what the Iraq Study Group recommended. Instead of engaging Iran with diplomacy, he's saying he'll engage them with fire power.

Second, he's saying to Congress that he's the Commander in Chief, and it doesn't really matter what they think because they granted him broad authority. Unless Congress cuts off funding, which he knows they'll never do, he's going to continue to conduct his war any way he's sees fit.

What Bush/Cheney might really want is to escalate their War with Congress--to push them into rescinding their declaration of war against Iraq. Then we really have a constitutional crisis, as Bush wouldn't have any authority to conduct the war, yet it would go on and on (presumably) until Congress actually did shut off the flow of money or the Supreme Court stepped in somehow.

If Congress didn't stop the flow of money, and it simultaneously rescinded the declaration, then we would have a situation when Bush/Cheney are acting explicitly illegally. Not that this has really stopped them in the past. But what happens then?

I think their brinkmanship with Congress is designed specifically to find out. Would there be an impeachment? A coup? A revolt? Who knows, maybe Bush thinks that's when the Second Coming will occur.

Bush has asserted that he has absolute power to do what he wants. Just because Congress, the American voting public, common sense, and everything else is against him, why should it be any different? That, to Bush and Cheney, is what power is all about. Forget about strengthening the presidency. This is about absolute power just for them.

Webb's the Divider?

2006-12-02T10:11:00.000-08:00

Remark By Webb Arouses Passions - washingtonpost.com

This is hard to believe. Webb is the one being criticized? He won't be able to be a "good old boy" part of the Senate club? It's about time! When has Bush been civil toward the Democrats? Once now? After six years of calling them unpatriotic? You go, Webb!

Maybe the President, and maybe even the entrenched Democrats who voted for this war will wake up to the reality of war. Bodies are being blown to bits.

It's not a parlor game.

Downrounding Outrage

2006-10-13T08:01:00.000-07:00

Report Says Nonprofits Sold Influence to Abramoff - washingtonpost.com

Every time one scandal seems ready to completely destroy the Republicans, another one pops up to take away the media's attention. With Foley simply killing Republicans, we get more Abramoff scandal news.

In terms of outrage, Abramoff doesn't compare to Foley. "So," some may say, "they wrote some articles for Abramoff's clients. Who cares? Isn't that just PR 101?" And all of the sudden, Republicans are off the hook in terms of thinking about Foley on the top of pages--literally and figuratively.

It's an interesting strategy, and the only one Republicans seem to have available right now. Instead of doing something good and touting that, they are only in a position to do something a little less bad and try to get us to focus on that.

It just might work, I'm afraid.

Cheney'd

2006-10-08T10:18:00.000-07:00

Cheney Back Delivering the Grim Campaign Speech - washingtonpost.com

With American military deaths and injuries in Iraq far exceeding the toll on 9/11, when are Americans going to realize we have indeed been "hit again" by the terrorists?

Maybe the reason we haven't been hit here is that they don't need such elaborate plans to kill us anymore. They just go to Iraq, get hooked up with some explosives or a gun and wait for Americans to drive by. It may not be the blockbuster of 9/11 as far as publicity goes, but it sure seems to get the job done. Terrorism has just been industrialized, commoditized. Like McDonald's: 100,000 terrorist attacks served.

Just a Comma

2006-10-05T07:57:00.000-07:00

'Just a Comma' Becomes Part of Iraq Debate

There's one simple reason that it seems like Bush doesn't care: he doesn't care!

Bush loves blood. He feels he should cause his serfs shed it, as divine right provided to monarchs. Monarchs don't care about the average citizen. Only their own power. Why this isn't clear by now is hard to understand.

Is Clinton Off-Limits Now?

2006-10-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

After Foley, New Fears For the GOP

Now that Republicans have an even bigger scandal with Foley, is Clinton permanently off the hook? The time to stop talking about how Bill Clinton screwed up the whole world with Monica has long since past, but Republicans still mention him whenever they need to deflect criticism from themselves.

"Haven't gotten bin Laden? Must be Clinton's fault!"

"Corruption in government? Let's just remember Clinton!"

"Americans dying in Iraq? Don't forget Clinton's penis!"

Now, every time Clinton's penis is interjected, we may very well be reminded of the "over-friendly" Foley and the Republicans' failure to do anything about it. Does that mean they all have to shift to finding another culprit?

This week has been the first time I've seen the Republicans truly on the defensive about everything. Iraq sucks, Condi wasn't paying attention to Tenet/Woodward's new book, the Clinton smack-down on Fox News, and now Foley?

The Ultimate Brush-Off

2006-10-02T08:54:00.000-07:00

Rice doesn’t recall CIA terror warning

Rice's admission that she doesn't recall the Tenet warning about 9/11 strikes me as the ultimate brush-off. She was apparently so disengaged that she didn't even listen to what they were saying.

Now, we all have times when we're not listening, despite the fact that we're nodding and looking the speaker in the eye on occasion. However, when certain key words come up--something like "disastrous catastrophe with thousands of Americans killed"--we start paying attention again.

Perhaps if Tenet had said "disastrous political ramifications", Rice would have listened. Maybe she was doing some shoe shopping online.

Isn't this just more evidence that the major players were completely asleep at the wheel?

High School Essay from Bush Lover

2006-09-29T11:00:00.000-07:00

Check this out. It's an essay from a kid in high school, or maybe junior high.

Why I love Bush!

Why I love Bush!

Americans love power—at least, REAL Americans love power. And Bush is all about power. He doesn’t take any stuff from anyone or anything—including the so-called “real world” or the so-called “facts”. This guy’s above all that, and that’s one of the things I love about him.

I started loving him when I learned about the Texas death penalty cases. Some guys killed some other guys, and they were going to get the death penalty. Now, some of them might have actually been innocent. But Bush doesn’t even care about that. Somebody’s gotta get killed when someone else gets killed. Otherwise we look bad. Yes, it’d be nice if they had the right guy, but even the “innocent” ones are people I’d be happy to get rid of. Just look at ‘em. They’re all pathetic anyway. And Bush is the only one out there who truly doesn’t care about that stuff.

Now, when it comes to Iraq, I love Bush even more. When stuff started blowing up, that shock and awe stuff, I was glued to the TV. I just wish we would have nuked those guys. Except then the small explosions, which are pretty big if you see one up close, wouldn’t happen as much. I know Bush would nuke those Iraqis if he didn’t like seeing those guys get ripped up so bad. I bet he gets all the best clips. I’ve seen some on the internet, but I bet they don’t release the real good stuff. I’d love to sit and watch that stuff with him someday.

Here’s the thing that I love the most. Bush knows he’s set for life. He always knew that. And when you’re set for life, you don’t have to worry about what other people think. I bet that’s awesome. Even if it got real bad for him with his ratings, you know he just doesn’t care. What can they do to him after all? What, they’re going to execute the president? I don’t think so. And even if the global warming and the terrorists and the economy blows up, you know he’s still going to be OK. That’s freedom! That’s what this county is all about.

I used to think it would be impossible to be President. Everybody’s always watching you and judging you. It’s like gym class or something. But Bush changed all that for me. Now I know you don’t have to care what people think at all. It’s kind of fun now when liberals are all pissed off. When I screw up in kick ball now, I just laugh at them when they get mad about it. Then I flip them the bird and laugh some more.

I know that when I’m set like that someday, I’m going to just say screw it and be just like Bush. My mom and dad don’t have any money like Bush does. They got laid off and all and that sucks cause their jobs went to India. We should nuke them too. But I’m going to make it. I know it. Cause Bush made it somehow. And now I got me a role model for how to succeed.

The only thing I don’t love about Bush, which I have to say since this is supposed to be a “critical” essay, is that he shouldn’t have given up drinking. I’d party all the time. I don’t know, maybe he still does, but I think he should just go ahead and say it.

That’s another thing I’d like to do. I’d like to party with Bush. We’d be in front of one of those huge TVs, watching stuff get blown up, and I’d pick his brain about how it is to just be able to waste those dudes and not even care. That’s what I’d love the most.

Scary stuff.

Big Thanks to War Journalists

2006-05-29T09:21:00.000-07:00

2 CBS News crew members die in Iraq

Thanks so much to all the journalists who have put their lives on the line--or given them up completely--to get the story out on Iraq. Without them, we might not know the horrors of war that our brave soldiers and the civilians they're protecting put up with. War is an ugly, ugly business. I hope Bush and his band of merry men understand the sacrifice they have forced upon so many people, but I doubt they do.

Gracias for Telling Us...

2006-05-25T07:14:00.000-07:00

What's Really Important! To George Will, being an American voter means understanding political discourse, especially that of the pallorous, be-spectacled white men living in the swamp-land of Washington DC. Yes, he and others writing for the Washington Post are the ones who will set the agenda of important issues for all people. Just this week, David Broder told us that Hillary's sex life was more important politically than her energy policy. And who are we to argue?

The white, English-only population was knocked for a loop in the past month when our Spanish-speaking future citizenry rose up and took to the streets to tell us they love America just as much as the longer-established immigrants. It was a political movement that really got going on Spanish-speaking radio stations, and it was one of the most impressive set of political demonstrations this country has seen in years.

The main stream media had to play catch up, being totally ignorant of what happens on Spanish radio. It just wasn't on their radar, and it probably would have remained a complete surprise if the demonstrations weren't going to mess up traffic.

In other words, real politics were happening, with real consequences for real people, and we were almost completely ignorant of it. How dare those people try to tell us what's important to this country! That's what George Will is saying. He'll tell us what matters, thank you very much. And, to George, if it doesn't happen in English on MSM outlets, it must not matter.

That he has no idea that his arguments are blatantly racist is appalling.

Over My Indicted Body!

2006-05-24T20:40:00.000-07:00

The Congress will allow this President to walk all over the Constitution...as long as he doesn't leave footprints on their rugs: Return of Jefferson Files Is Sought

Gore Campaign Up to the Media

2006-05-24T14:43:00.000-07:00

Here we have Fineman on Gore, a nice piece about a guy who would have done a great job for our country. Unfortunately for Gore and the country, he won in 2000--but a variety of evil forces conspired to turn that victory into utter disaster for the world.

Terrorism, global warming, economic strife, massive corruption--those are just a few of the things that come to mind.

Gore danced around the truth in 2000, knowning that Carter, who did force us to look at the truth, made for a disastrous President. Gore knew that was a way to lose. Reagan showed that Americans didn't want the truth. They wanted to feel good about themselves.

But Gore was also wary of talking up his own accomplishments, largely because the media wouldn't give him any room to be right about things. The internet is something that, in many ways, he did "invent", at least through shepherding the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the internet boom. For that, he was roasted to a crisp. So, not wanting to talk about the depressing realities of global warming, trying to distance himself from Clinton, and being "discouraged" from talking about his own accomplishments, he was reduced to listening to his advisors on earth tones and other minutiae.

Now, we all adore Gore because of the crappy alternative we ended up with. We all want Gore to run in 2008. But when it comes down to it, would his run be any different than it was in 2000? Wouldn't Chris Matthews continue to roast him instead of admitting he was wrong about the whole thing? Wouldn't the media remember how much it disliked him?

Gore is about to reach the status that Carter has established since his presidency ended. Of course, Gore can be remembered even more fondly than Carter, because he doesn't have gas lines or Iranian hostages to haunt him. What's not to like about that?

When it comes right down to it, he's not dumb and he won't want to live through the hell that was his 2000 campaign again. Only people like Fineman can tell us if it's going to be different this time around. It's up to the media to make him run again, as only they can decide how they'll treat him. Perhaps we'll get a glimpse of this in the coming weeks.

Great Analysis Irrelevant, Again

2006-05-24T07:33:00.000-07:00

This David Ignatius op-ed makes some great points about things that don't really matter in the Bush Administration. No matter how great the analysis or the analysts, if the guys at the top don't listen or try to re-shape it, we'll get bunked up results.

Tenet famously said to Bush the Iraqi WMD issue was a "slam dunk". Those two words are about the only mitigating evidence that Bush cared one way or the other about whether Iraq posed any threat. His due diligence, in this case, took about one second, and that's if we assume Rove didn't make up the whole conversation in exchange for the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

In the case of Iran, we're a lot more sure that there are nuclear ambitions, because the IAEA has actually seen the evidence. But whether it exists or not is hardly the issue. The issue is whether this administration will really make war a "last resort". Everything we have seen is that it won't. Direct negotiation is off the table, warships are moving into position, and the rhetoric is stepping up. None of this has to do with the CIA getting it right. Instead of taking up precious newspaper print with analyzing the analyzers, we should instead be analyzing (or maybe psychoanalyzing) the Decider in Chief.

bin Laden Addicted to Court TV

2006-05-23T14:00:00.000-07:00

I guess bin Laden is posting a message that Massaoui wasn't part of the 9/11 attacks. He must not be that deep underground that he can't get the latest news. I can just see him on the edge of his lounge chair's ottoman in a cave, yelling at his big-screen HDTV. Like we were before the OJ Simpson verdict.

What Might Have Been

2006-05-22T07:18:00.000-07:00

Every time I hear about the Taliban rising again in Afghanistan, I think back to the run up to the war in Iraq. We shifted resources away from finding bin Laden, and we largely left Afghanistan to its own on forming a stable democracy free of the the Taliban.

What if we had completed the mission there and allowed the UN inspectors until about now in order to figure out if Saddam was really a threat? My predictions:

bin Laden would have been caught by now.
Afghanistan would be increasingly stable.
Iran's elections wouldn't have put the nutcases back in power--nor would Palestinian elections have done the same, by the way.
The Middle East wouldn't hate us.
Neither would our European friends.
We wouldn't be spending $10 billion a month on Iraq.
And, lest we forget, we wouldn't have 2,500 US military and 10s of thousands of Iraqis dead.

Hmmm.

Don't Just Build a Wall

2006-05-21T08:35:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite sequences in SlingBlade has Billy Bob Thornton's mentally impaired character diagnosing the problem with a lawnmower. Everyone else who's looked at it can't figure out what's wrong. After about a minute, though, he looks and says, "It's outta gas." His boss says something to the effect of "he always thinks of the simiplest solutions first." Of course, it turns out that the simplest solution he comes to in a lot of cases is to hack up a perpetrator. This Washington Post article about the border reminds me of that sequence.

The border is a complex eco-system, not a line in the sand. People live and work there, crossing back and forth to make a living. Our culture and economy is helped by this.

But when conservatives look at the problem, they don't see the complexities. They just want to build a wall so they can get back to watching the 700 Club.

When a lawnmower is out of gas, fill it. When a border is "broken", don't build a wall. The toll on human life doesn't warrant it, even if it's the best way to make the stupid among us feel better. We need some nuance here. We need some compassion, and we need local solutions to this problem. And we need it before people start getting hacked up over the issue.

Right Wingnuts Emboldened

2006-05-21T07:53:00.000-07:00

Through re-districting, we are seeing the emboldenment of the hard core right-wingers. This article about Bush's personal problems with criminalizing illegals is a case in point. Check it out here.

Usually, when the party is losing credibility, the politicians make a mad dash for the center. That's not happening with the immigration debate, at least in the House. There, members are mostly protected through Tom Delay's gerrymandering fixes.

It's actually making for some interesting politics right now. The real whack-jobs are doing their Hitler routine in order to make sure their 30% base of similarly inclined constituents are motivated enough to beat the small minority of centrists in their districts.

This will split the Republican party even more, as some of the Northeastern Republicans will have a hard time watching their party's media dominated by hatred. It will be interesting to see how McCain reacts to all this, as he tries to figure out his strategy for winning the WH.

Stay tuned...

Bush Redefines Poll Numbers

2006-05-19T14:52:00.000-07:00

You thought you knew what you were feeling about Bush. As he says, though, your disapproval is merely a case of being unsettled--like having an upset stomach.

Bush also said that his current approval ratings of 29% are an indication of his work effort, not the total number of "settlers--the ones who are settled." Bush continued, "If you add my 29% now to the 90% I got after 9/11, the American public thinks I'm putting in 119% effort. That' a lot of hard work. When some people see me working so hard on the war, they get unsettled. But the other side of disapproval is effort."

Gregory didn't include that part of the interview, saying Bush's logic was over the head of most Americans and didn't make for a good soundbite. He also cut out the Bush equation about Hurricane Katrina, which he is widely believed to have mishandled. Bush said, "Mishandled? That means the people are constipated. These are nervous times."

Will Starts Making Sense, then Abandons It

2006-05-18T07:40:00.000-07:00

Who Isn't A 'Values Voter'?

George Will doesn't want to be known as a conservative without values. He values the pragmatic, the common sense, instead of the Old Testament moral hatred that social conservatives value. (Most economists would think that people with common sense values should vote for Democrats. I guess George Will values his pragmatic stupidity, then.) He hates that the media labels only social conservatives as "values voters".

That part makes sense. Then, he gives examples of how different groups vote their values. For liberals, he says,

"Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values."

Uhh, no. Not quite, George. (But I do like how you tried to slip the common media label "welfare state" into the piece that's against media labels. Clever, man. Clever!)

We don't value equality indiscriminately. We do believe in the "all men are created equal." We'll separate ourselves from the social conservatives by putting women in there, too. We do believe that all should have an equal chance--through education, medical care, and decent housing, for instance. We do believe that that all should share a responsibility to keeping the republic functioning through taxes. If you're in a position to pay more, you should pay more. (That fourth yacht may have to wait.) That's not valuing equality indiscriminately. That's valuing common sense.

WH to Lie to Congress...Again

2006-05-17T07:45:00.000-07:00

Briefings Scheduled for Lawmakers

OK, so now the WH will brief members of the intelligence committees on the NSA wiretapping program. I would imagine this a mostly a PR ploy. I believe Congress has been briefed on this stuff before, but then they read the newspapers about a month later, and they find out that Gonzales or Hayden only told them the tiniest little bit about it--you know, the things they already knew from reading the NY Times or USA Today.

If they want to find out what's really happening, they need to go beyond the administration officials that have proven their capacity to lie directly to them. Why don't they subpoena 20 random NSA employees, give them whistleblower protection and anonymity, put them under oath, and actually get the truth about the program? Oh, I forgot, to do that they would actually have to want to know what's happening, and the Chairman of those committees really don't want to know.

The WH considers Congress subordinate. It's not going to reveal anything it doesn't want to. And judging from the Rubber Stamp coalition on the Hill, they are right about their assumptions.

Breaking: Wal-Mart, Mexico Joint Venture

2006-05-16T13:02:00.000-07:00

Bush Rules Out Large-Scale Deportation of Immigrants. Check below for initial details of the Wal-Mexico Sovereign Country Joint Venture.

Wal-Mart, Mexico Exploring Sovereign Country Joint Venture

2006-05-16T12:43:00.000-07:00

Deal May Grant Wal-Mexico "Ambassadors" Diplomatic Immunity

With President Bush’s announcement that he will send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico, Wal-Mart was forced into “desperation creativity”, according to top executives. Fearing the supply of low-wage workers would dry up, Wal-Mart entered into high-level talks with Mexican President Vicente Fox about establishing a joint venture country on the Texas/Mexico border.

Under leaked terms of the deal, Wal-Mart would buy a 50,000 acre plot of desert from Mexico for an undisclosed sum. The new country, dubbed Wal-Mexico, would consist primarily of airport runways, which would shuttle its citizens to Wal-Mexico embassies—large tent cities baring the Wal-Mexican State Emblem—adjacent to Wal-Mart Supercenters once a month.

“This proposal is a win/win/win situation that could avert a huge disaster for us,” said a Wal-Mart spokesman. “We get the labor we need without the burdensome worker regulations, Mexico will get a small cash payment for useless land its citizens would be welcomed to Wal-Mexico, and Americans no longer have to worry about immigration issues.”

“The 11 million undocumented U.S. workers will be able to apply for instant citizenship at a nearby Supercenter, and they’ll be welcomed into the Wal-Mexico Embassy immediately,” the spokesman continued.

Wal-Mart executives say the benefits to its investors and customers won’t stop there. Wal-Mexico will reportedly tax its citizens a 40% income tax on the $10 per 16-hour day wage it expects to pay its ambassadors. The wage, considered low in the U.S. but comparatively high in the future Wal-Mexico, will result in significant cost savings for Wal-Mart customers. “We’re talking handmade sweaters for $2.49, frozen breakfast burritos at 10 for a dollar” said the Wal-Mart spokesman.

President Bush said the plan had merit. “The guest worker program I proposed isn’t going over so well, so I’m open to alternatives that will satisfy all parties. I’ll be meeting with Vicente at the proposed site near Laredo next week. I’ll be looking into his heart to see if he’s serious about it.”

A sticking point will be whether Wal-Mexicans will be granted diplomatic immunity. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO), is against the plan. “The Mexicans got here by breaking the laws of the United States. Now, we’re going to give them diplomatic amnesty, too? If they don’t have to follow our traffic laws, for instance, you’ll see 10 ambassadors driving down the road in a beat-up Celica all the time. It sounds like a disaster.”

Wal-Mart executives were cautiously optimistic. "We haven't drawn up a Constitution yet, but we do have an order from China for some very large tents," said one Wal-Mart source who refused to be identified.

Rove Makes Border Policy, Also Approves of It

2006-05-15T14:44:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post covered a story today saying that Rove approved of the WH border control policy to be announced tonight. The fact that he made up the policy had nothing to do with this approval, Rove said.

Rove is expected to issue the details of his plea agreement in the CIA leak scandal at approximately the same time as the President's speech tonight, but he said that this would be purely coincidental timing.

Rove also said that he would resign his post when he was indicted tonight but that his hand would stay inside the President Bush dummy in order to animate its every move until the end of its term.

Update...Washington Post Changes Headline, Ruins Joke. The headline had said "Rove Approves of" the policy. They changed it to "Rove Defends" the policy. They're quick, those guys...real quick.

Who Are "People"?

2006-05-15T10:32:00.000-07:00

People like this President I guess likability will be key. Maybe he'll crack a few one-liners during his primetime tonight. I'm sure that would make us like him even more.

Our Fearless Despot

2006-05-15T07:21:00.000-07:00

Tonight Bush will announce his plan to send the National Guard to the border to protect us from hard-working folks who long for nothing more than to be locked in a Wal-Mart overnight to work for less than minimum wage. And the entire reason for it? To shore up political support from the whack-jobs who represent the very tip of the right wing.

Here's what gets me. Dubya likely went AWOL during his service in the easiest of the National Guard units, but he seems to have absolutely no shame in sending the overburdened military into action again and again for purely political reasons. Every time I see a local human interest story about a family that is barely making it due to the breadwinner's deployment, I think, "Wow, what a sacrifice for such stupid idea."

You've got to give it to Bush. He's perfectly comfortable as an emporor with arbitrary power. He feels no shame about making others do what he never would. He feels different than the average American serf--more deserving, more special, and even divinely elevated. He feels we're here to serve his every whim, and he doesn't have any problem demanding that we do so. In other words, he's a completely shameless ruler.

Nazis Weren't Timid Either

2006-05-13T09:13:00.000-07:00

According to Richard A. Falkenrath (The Right Call on Phone Records), the best qualifier for Hayden to head the CIA is that he's not too timid and bureaucratic to fight the war on terror. That argument in support of the NSA data mining project kind of reminds me of how the Nazis were bold enough to require the Jews to register in order to better understand the internal movements of the "enemy".

Falkengrath goes through a six degrees of separation game with Mohamed Atta to make his point. Say he calls one guy who knows another guy who knows another. That other guy calls another and another, and one of them is a terrorist. I bet that's happened to millions of Americans just by talking with a telemarketer. In fact, any scientist would tell you that finding a terrorist this way is absurd--no matter how bold and independent.

Boldness and independence are not good qualifiers for running important agencies unless that Will to Act is coupled with an intelligence to know what works and what doesn't. Understanding of right and wrong, along with the vetting ideas with, say, the Constitution might be another variable to throw in the mix.

NSA Expresses Concern Over Pattern of Calls to Domino's Pizza

2006-05-12T10:22:00.000-07:00

Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts

Check below for first big NSA data mining success!

NSA Expresses Concerns Over Pattern of Calls to Domino's Pizza

2006-05-12T09:42:00.000-07:00

As part of the warrantless surveillance program, the NSA has been mining data on the number of calls to Domino’s by some demographic populations. The calls are concentrated in mostly liberal cities that are known as college towns.

Conservative commentators, putting the pieces together, are calling for investigations. They believe that such a high concentration of calls could indicate that the liberal 18-22 year old demographic is supporting terrorist causes.

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-show host, chimed in on the issue on his show yesterday. “Have you ever called a Domino’s? You know,” he said, “I’ve been calling them for years, sometimes twice in one day, and I’ve yet to speak with one American.”

Limbaugh continued, “The NSA says a lot of these calls are going out just before midnight straight from college campuses. Let’s see if we can make a connection here. Liberals calling foreigners at astonishingly high rates at odd hours? You do the math, folks.”

The NSA said its data mining project has turned up high-value information in the fight against terror, but it was very concerned about the data missing from the area dominated by Qwest, which refused to hand over the phone records.

An NSA spokesman said, “Qwest, headquartered in Denver, CO, is the carrier for the University of Colorado at Boulder. CU Boulder is known for its party atmosphere and occasional rioting after football games. We can only assume the pattern of late night calls to Domino’s is present there, but we don’t know who is doing it. To be without this data about calling patterns there is cause for grave national security concern.”

“We know they hire males of Middle East descent,” the spokesman continued, “and we’re concerned that the transactions they do, which are usually all in cash and sometimes involve tips of up to two dollars, may be going to fund terrorists. This money is untraceable”

Another NSA official, speaking to us on the condition of anonymity, said, “We called a Domino’s in Boulder, trying to get the information any way we could. There was a guy named Muhammad answering the phone. We asked for call recordings, but he insisted on getting our delivery phone number first, and we had to abort the operation.”

President Bush, speaking in the Rose Garden, said, “Just this one patternistic finding justifies the whole program, and I think the American people realize that we’re doing everything in our power to protect them from the evil-doers—no matter where they’re hiding.”

Outrage Today, Under Oath Tomorrow?

2006-05-11T14:54:00.000-07:00

This article (NSA Call-Tracking Program Sparks Alarm) about the newly discovered NSA database building program sparked a question in me: will Arlen Specter finally put someone under oath?

ure, he thinks it's illegal. He thought the same thing about the warrantless spying, too. When it came time for the hearings, though, he didn't think it was necessary to put anyone under oath during the proceedings. Not much truth came out of that, and it's mostly been brushed under the rug since then--except in late night comedy jokes.

Will the same thing happen again? Probably. I don't know if he'd put anyone under oath if he found an NSA branded spy camera on his toilet seat. Dubya would assure him he's only looking at terrorists asses, and Specter would be satisfied.

Straw Man Made of Brass

2006-05-09T11:44:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems that the true issues surrounding General Hayden have been replaced successfully by ones that no one, in the end, will care about. Note this Washington Post piece, which goes over the strategy of having a military man versus a civilian at the helm of the CIA: Experts See a Strategy Behind CIA Shuffle.

That’s hardly what Americans should care about. I doubt that 1% of the public cares whether he wears an Air Force uniform or a grey suit. The serious policy wonks can dig in and get mighty indignant about it, but that “liberal elite” won’t sway many. And that’s why the issue made for a perfect straw man. By focusing on something that will be rebutted easily, we fail to see how getting Hayden will be like baring our teeth to the force of a brass knuckle punch.

Hayden was the architect of the warrantless surveillance program that Bush should probably be impeached for. When he was asked about the fourth amendment issues about undue search, he delivered a lecture to the reporter about constitutional law that was, well, completely wrong.

What Americans have to ask themselves is whether they should let this unpopular President have his way with our civil liberties one last time. Will this fix anything? Or will it simply get someone at the CIA who Bush can “strategerize” with while fishing around for the giant perch story that will make his presidency immortal—if only in his own eyes?

Rush Got What Everyone Deserves

2006-05-01T16:36:00.000-07:00

"Don't mention oxycontin. Don't mention coke or freebase either, unless you got some." I guess I have to agree with the deal Limbotomy got to end his addiction scandal. All along, I really wanted to see him locked up, to get the same harsh jail-time treatment that he himself says should be harsher. If there's anyone who should be required to walk the talk, he's the one. We all knew that would never happen.

Instead, Limbotomy got the treatment that most drug addicts should get--drug treatment without jail time.

Of course, Rush thinks that he's different from the common drug addict. He is. Some drug addicts are killers--sometimes it's four or five people they've knocked off trying to get their drugs. Rush, on the other hand, is at least partially responsible for at least 50,000 killings throughout the world through his incessant sponsorship of any war Republicans can think up and the army of idiot voters who make sure they get the chance.

Cool, Man! The CIA Discovers the Blogosphere

2006-04-28T08:37:00.000-07:00

ABC News: Silicon Insider: The CIA Discovers the Blogosphere

I always thought it would be cool to be watched by the CIA or the FBI. Call it a need for attention. I don't want the dark powers of government actually coming to get me or anything. If I don't post for a while, you'll know what happened. But the idea that the government is worried enough about activities to watch over someone is a clear indication that the person being watched is probably up to something good.

So, to the FBI or CIA: "if you're watching or listening to me, Thanks! Keep up the good work. I'll let you know through this if I have any good ideas about how to take down the military-industrial-Fox News-complex. And feel free to drop a note if you've got the time!"

Every Little Bit Doesn't Help Us Much

2006-04-25T12:13:00.000-07:00

This morning, the "Breaking News" bars on the front-pages of our internet magazines held the pronouncement that Bush was stopping deposits to the national reserve. This was his PR ploy to make it look like he was do something besides laughing his ass off about the profits his buddies were going to be making. Shortly after came the analysis that it won't dent prices at all: Bush plan will do little to ease pain at the pump.

What would make a difference? Four little words: direct negotiations with Iran. Bush declares that and prices would be down 25 cents per gallon by the end of the week.

Core White House Changes Negligible

2006-04-23T14:42:00.000-07:00

This story (Will White House Spring Cleaning Matter?) runs a little longer than most. It should have been even longer, so we can get some real analysis of the core changes, which are negligible.

Having Scotty quit? Yes, he's overwhelmed. Who's not going to be overwhelmed when they have to deal with a media that's somewhat wakened itself to face this disastrous presidency. It's not Scotty's fault. It's the President's fault.

Have Karl move to elections? That means two things. First, Karl is expecting to be indicted. Second, they need him to find a live rabbit to pull out a hat in November. He's the only one who could possibly figure out how to win while they stay on the course they have. As far as we can tell, then, the course won't change.

Having Andy leave? Another person who was overwhelmed by having to deal with the truth of this travesty.

Harriet Myers? Not relevant to anything going on. The others mentioned in this story? Who cares. Dubya and Bolten are swatting flies instead of figuring out that the shadow looming ever larger over them is the foot of Truth and Justice coming down to squash them.

Bush has given up on his term. He'll put up a show for now about making progress. Then, after he leaves office, he's going to hope that history proves him right before he's saved by the Second Coming. I wouldn't place a cent on either of those outcomes--even if the Second Coming does happen.

Talking to Kids About Smoking: Only dumbasses do it.

2006-04-23T11:11:00.000-07:00

The ads I see touting the benefits of talking to your kids about smoking always put me off. They say to talk to kids about smoking. They go through role playing. They go through when and how to bring it up. I would imagine, since they are put out by the purveyors of the products themselves, that the ads are proven not to work very well.

I'll tell you what would work. I'll never take up smoking, and I never considered doing it as a teenager either. Why? Because of the way my parents talked to me about it.

It wasn't based on the relative health risks or dealing with peer pressure. It *was* about how smoking was stupid and evil and anyone who did it or was associated with it was an absolute dumbass. That was repeated over and over again at the dinner table.

We had contextual conversations about politics in general, and whenever the topic of the dumbass Republicans came up, we went large on the topic. It related to religious hypocrisy, praying on the poor, the evil of corporate greed, the marketing of poisons to Americans--the whole gamut of apropos topics when discussing the Right. Inevitably, smoking, which met all the criteria, was associated with this, and to this day I have a moral repulsion to smoking.

If we really wanted our kids to stop smoking, we'd have our parents talking in moral terms, not health terms. I don't suppose that will happen--especially associated with the idiot Rupublicans--but it sure would make a difference.

Bush chooses Portman as next budget director - Stocks & Economy - MSNBC.com

2006-04-18T08:43:00.000-07:00

Bush surprised, disappointed when it wasn't Natalie: Bush chooses Portman as next budget director - Stocks & Economy - MSNBC.com

Bush noted in passing that he was surprised that Ms. Portman was not the new trade representative, as she had the "kind of inter-galactic travel experience that would, you know, be perfect for this job as we move into the century of interdependiary space trade."

Please don't walk here

2006-04-15T15:18:00.000-07:00

Woman, 82, fined for jaywalking Just as we're trying to encourage everyone to get out more, to exercise and take responsibility for our health, we find that we have major populations with nowhere to walk. The granny crossing the street too slowly is one indication of this. In Europe, walking is a major form of transportation, and it's likely one of the reasons that they suffer from a lot fewer lifestyle-related health problems.

If we want to cut down on pedestrians getting hit, why don't we focus more on the cars that hit them.

He Sure Did Push a Big Pile of...

2006-04-12T15:43:00.000-07:00

You think you knew how I was going to finish that one, didn't you? But Fineman tells us it's a big pile of...political capital! Fineman: Iran holds Bush, GOP hostage

Yes, he did push a big pile of political capital on the table, and we're all suffering from the stench of that gamble. (OK, I guess I couldn't resist the mixed pile metaphor.) But the reason he lost, and that we're all losing, is not because he had a bad hand. Indeed, if the President had been honest with Americans about his neo-conservative wet dream strategy, if he had played down the imminent threat, and if he had actually conducted any part of the war correctly--he would likely be sitting on top of an even bigger pile, so to speak.

I like what Fineman does, but he's overlooking some very important parts of the Iran/Bush problem. First, Americans know Bush and Cheney are going to be dishonest about the threat because they cried wolf(owitz) once before. But more importantly, Americans don't trust Bush and Cheney to be able to get anything right. We want him to sit out this deal, to fold his hand and go back to the ranch. He's not a player we trust our chips with.

That's the most dangerous part of this Iranian nuclear nightmare.

Framing quote

2006-04-11T11:49:00.000-07:00

I don't remember the media talking about how Republicans frame issues. They just report that Republicans are pushing for tax "relief", or are against "partial birth abortion." But if a Democrat mentions values, it must be a political ploy.

Observe in this AP story: Clinton, Gore on same stage, almost - Politics - MSNBC.com: "In recent weeks, Clinton and other party leaders have sought to frame Democratic concerns in religious language."

Palm Sunday: A Passion for Violence

2006-04-11T11:03:00.000-07:00

I almost rushed my young daughters out of the sanctuary of our liberal Presbyterian church in downtown Denver last Sunday. Our pastor had the kids up at the front and was leading them through the paces of the Passion scene. "And what did they say when Pilate asked what to do with Jesus?" And all the kids, in unison, yelled, "Crucify him!"

The only reason I didn't rush them out was that they don't know what crucify means, as they're not yet old enough for Sunday school, and that's a word we haven't added to their vocabulary list just yet. I'm not ready for them to know about violence. I want to let them learn more about peace first.

The news just a few days before was about Dubya & Dick's desire to rain nukes down on the Iranians. It seems to me, these reports and the Passion story aren't entirely unrelated. Indeed, it seems that we "church" our children in violence from their earliest years. Christians seem absolutely unable to resist thoughts and acts of violence. We have a religion in which the chief event started from horrific violence, and teaching kids the power of Jesus through this story leads to a permanent association of wondrous accomplishment with violence.

Has Dubya's brain been soaked too much in a fascination with violence? Does it have to do with his devotion to his religion? Does he secretly, or not secretly, desire to spill as much blood as possible during the one point in his life when he can do so without repercussions?

People who believe in the imminence of a biblical Rapture shouldn't be anywhere close to the controls. They are too much obsessed with the ways in which violence brings about magical occurrences.

Leaker in Chief? Also, Ignoramus in Chief!

2006-04-10T16:17:00.000-07:00

Isikoff and Thomas have the most choice anonymous quote to come from a "Republican aide": "Leaker in Chief could stick." Well, I'm all for letting it stick: Leaker in Chief? Scooter Libby and George Bush - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

Bush has always been known as a loyalty enforcer, as is also mentioned in the article. To the Bush family dynasty, little else has mattered in their rise to the top. They know that sticking by people with money and power, and demanding the same in return, nets good results. When someone goes against Bush, we see brutal attacks that do and don't lead to deadly situations (think of Saddam for the former and Plame and Shinseki for the latter).

The only problem for Bush is that while this is a great way to gain power, it turns out to be a terrible way to run a country, and he must be realizing this as his poll numbers sink into the muck. If we mix this loyalty enforcement with another media flop that came to light today, we see a very disturbing picture of what Bush does and does not spend time on. Check out this video to see what I mean: Ignoramus in Chief.

Here we see that Bush hasn't really thought through some very basic issues of how the war in Iraq is proceeding. He has absolutely no idea what this woman is talking about when she mentions that private contractors aren't subject to U.S. military law. (Really, if you didn't check out the video, you'll want to at this point so I don't have to continue explaining how stupid he is in this particular situation.) This is something that should be have been "vetted" (as Bush likes to say) in any number of meetings with the President during the (alleged) planning of the war. If he doesn't know anything about this, and if he isn't curious and if he doesn't watch the news or read the papers, what the hell is he doing with his time in Office besides exercising, vacationing and making sure he gets to bed early?

Seriously, it seems that Bush is not just one level removed from the average pundit. It's as if he's in a different universe altogether and can't be bothered to come back to reality to actually participate in the governance of the country. Unless, of course, there's a question of loyalty or political maneuvering. Then, he seems to be all there.)

If Bush wants to be known as the CEO of the government, then it only seems right to make sure he becomes the Ken Lay/Enron President, because that seems to be about as clued in as this guy gets.

Good childcare a safety issue

2006-03-24T12:01:00.000-08:00

Stories like the article below just absolutely break my heart: Soldier, wife accused of staging kids fight - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

I'm a father of two young daughters, and I can attest first-hand that childcare issues are always high on my mind. My wife or I have stayed home with the children almost the whole time. Since I work at home, when they've had nannies, I'm still around. We feel a lot safer that way. Not everyone has this option, and reputable childcare is financially out of reach for probably 75% of Americans.

What options are they left with? Family, friends, acquaintances, and sometimes total strangers who conduct non-accredited businesses on the side. Clearly, most people take very good care of the children in their keep. There are exceptions to this, and we just shouldn't allow that in this richest of all countries for all time. Subsidizing childcare would be a huge step in the right direction. I bet if we counted up the number of baby-sitter child abuse cases in the country, we'd be absolutely horrified.

Of course, we also have to make childcare a professional pursuit that pays more than minimum wage. I'm outraged when Republicans kill bills that include childcare subsidies. When it comes down to safety or money, they side with money every time.

Framing Idea: The War on Congress

2006-03-23T08:17:00.000-08:00

I was just listening to Jon Stewart interviewing Russ Feingold on the censure resolution. Russ was great, but they played a segment by Boehner that was frightening, and it shows just how much we need to get on top of framing the issues better. Boehner essentially said that Feingold was trying to protect terrorists by trying to tie the hands of Bush in fighting the War on Terror. It also reminds me of the Clift column I blogged about last week.

The NSA wiretapping transgressions are hardly bad for terrorists. If there's a terrorist out there who doesn't know that we're tapping into their phone records, I would imagine this is the same terrorist who is going to blow himself up while putting the bomb together in his apartment. He's not smart enough to do any damage to others.

What if we put together a campaign to talk about "The Bush/Cheney War on Constitutional Democracy"? That wraps up all the little presidential power grabs into one phrase that can be repeated over and over in the MSM. Don't talk about the NSA warrantless spying affair without first saying "The War on Constitutional Democracy." Or, better yet, let's just call it the "War on Congress".

That serves even more purposes, as it forces the Rubuplican puppets in Congress to decide whether they are for or against the War on Congress. Are you with the President when he treats Congress like his bitch? Or do you have the spine to stand up to this guy? This could split the GOP wide open if used effectively.

Here are some of the places we could insert War on Congress:
1. NSA Spying.
2. Lying to Congress about Iraq.
3. Signing an bill that didn't pass Congress.
4. Right-wing judiciary.
5. No-bid contracts.
6. Recess Appointments.

Some things we could start talking about to our elected officials...Are you weak on the War on Congress? Will you win the War on Congress? Is this part of the President's War on Congress? Has the President ever asked you, "Who's Your Daddy?" And so on.

Car Accidents vs. My Non-Lost Hiker Friend

2006-03-20T20:20:00.000-08:00

I'm always amazed that local news makes such little fuss about deadly car accidents--treating them mostly as traffic problems. Yes, they cover them all. Every single one. Every day. And especially if there was a fire involved.

Compare that with their investigative reports or other human drama stories, where they spare no effort to make sure you know just how dramatic it was. My friend made the news last week as a lost hiker stuck on a dangerous mountain in near white out conditions. They made it sound like he was in imminent danger. But, as he explained it to me, he was just a little late getting done with a technical climb and was quite surprised to meet the rescue crew on his way down.

The local news had him suffering imminent death from dehydration. They don't mention that my friend offered to give his "rescuers" some of the water out his still-full cannister. The news channel spent 10 minutes interviewing, 9.9 of which he told them it was no big deal. Which clip do you think they showed?

I would imagine that putting drama back into the car crashes would have a little better public safety value for us than focusing on non-stories such as my friend's. But it's always a pretty sober description: "the car crossed the median and hit another car." Could that have anything to do with half the ads on the local news being for cars?

They Made Their Deathbed

2006-03-19T08:47:00.000-08:00

Now we must make them lie in it. This Newsweek Article talks about the Republicans who are slowly walking away from Dubya. They must not be allowed to do so. This isn't just some political changing of the winds. Real damage has been done to America.

Iraq is an impossible situation, and it didn't have to be. The debt will reach up to $9 trillion, and that definitely didn't have to happen.

The problem with them trying to escape from this unpopular president is that the deathbed they made is not just theirs. The whole country is going to have to lie in it.

Cower to Power Strategy

2006-03-18T10:04:00.000-08:00

Clift: Dem Feingold Tosses GOP a Life Raft - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com: 'Republicans will rally round him if they think it's a personal attack just like we did with Clinton,'warns the strategist."

Let's look at the quote above and put it into context. Yes, liberals did rally around Clinton. A few years later, we lost the White House to an idiot. Without Lewinsky, Gore rolls through the election without a scratch, no matter how badly he screwed up the campaign. With Lewinskly, Scalia got to decide the winner.

Democrats have been pussy-footing their way through the last five years, hoping that poll numbers would take the place of actually putting forth a strong front. They don't have a Will to Power strategy. They have a Cower to Power strategy. As in, let's just stay out of the way, here in the shadows, waiting to be last people standing.

Hey, centrist Democrats! Have you noticed that this isn't working? Yes, Bush's numbers are down. But if you don't rise up to seize the moment, people might forget that you even exist.

Let's get it together to sink the Bush battleship instead of hoping it hits a few more iceburgs. Go Feingold!

Bowing to the King

2006-03-15T20:14:00.000-08:00

Fineman: Maverick McCain Changes Tactics - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

OK, Bush is struggling, but he's still got a core of ridiculously wealthy and ridiculously uninformed Repugnants who will stick with him no matter how imcompetent he is. (To the monied, he gave more of the same. To the uninformed, he just has to lie and look as stupid as they are.) With all the money and stupidity, the two things the modern GOP is built on, still sticking with Bush, he is the King. The nomination goes through him. He whom Bush knights gets the money, the stupidity, and the nomination all in one. That's what McCain wants more than anything, so he's going to go after it by kissing the ring--and probably anything else he can get his lips on.

McCain probably won't get the nod no matter how much he kisses up, as Mr. Fineman points out in the article. You cross Bush once, you're an enemy forever. That's the way it is with Bush. He is the King, after all.

What a sad end to McCain's career. Knowing what we know now, anyone in his or her right mind would have picked McCain over Bush five years ago. What McCain knows, though, is that it's not those in their right mind that matter when you're a Republican these days.

If they can't serve one way, maybe they'll serve another

2006-03-14T15:55:00.000-08:00

Alter: Bush Hypocrisy on National Service - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com

Ah, the photo-op kiss of death again! If Dubya comes out to lift a shovel with you, it means he's also going to hammer a nail in your program. Because when he's done getting his picture taken, he'll put down the shovel, climb back into Air Force One, and figure the government (his personal property) has gotten all it needs out of that program.

The larger story, though, is that Bush really seems to have it in for those who actually make a difference for our country. If you serve in the military, you get stuck with lower benefits, for example. And, lest I forget, your one weekend a month and two weeks a year may very well turn into the rest of your natural life. Same goes for people who serve as volunteers, perhaps without the part about getting killed.

Or maybe he just has to cut these types of programs so he can help recruitment efforts for the military. If you cut off enough opportunities to peacefully serve for very little money, then maybe becoming cannon fodder is the best option.

Former Bush Aide Charged in Felony Theft - Claude Allen had recently resigned as White House domestic-policy adviser. By Rachel�Shteir

2006-03-11T09:02:00.000-08:00

Former Bush Aide Charged in Felony Theft - Claude Allen had recently resigned as White House domestic-policy adviser. By Rachel�Shteir

I'm never surprised anymore when an ultra-right winger gets arrested for some "random" felony. I've always thought the people who are so against others are actually suffering from at least three common mental perturbations.

1. Insecurity. Most of the time, guys who are gay-bashers really hate to be around gay guys. Why? They're afraid somehow that they're going to be hit on. But why are they afraid of this? Maybe because they'll "break down" and say yes.

2. Hate. This one seems obvious. Of course, they usually use the Bible to say that it's really "Love" they are acting on. But, come on, who doesn't think these right-wingers are acting on hate. When Love is around, you can do nothing but accept the moment and feel good.

3. Entitled Superiority. They do the right things in their moral life, or so they think, so they are entitled to things "Others" don't deserve. Therefore, the rules don't really apply to them, and they are constantly trying to figure out ways go around the norms that apply to everyone else.

Put these three together, and you've got the amalgam for a Shakespearean fatal flaw, which takes various form due to the conclusions of a disturbed stream of consciousness.

We're just lucky they don't all become serial killers. Oh wait, maybe they have. They just prefer to call it a War on Terror. That they have so many going along with them on it is pretty frightening.

What Inspires You?

2006-03-10T15:50:00.000-08:00

Bin Laden�s niece to star in reality show - REALITY TV - MSNBC.com

OK, I'm fine with the young bin Laden being in a reality show. What made me nearly lose my lunch were her picks of musical influenes: U2, Depeche Mode, The Cure and The Cranberries. Combine those together and you've got some major suck. It was a visceral reaction.

Are they just making it up?

2006-03-06T12:35:00.000-08:00

Administration asks Congress to up debt limit - Stocks & Economy - MSNBC.com

I noticed that the new federal debt limit is going to be increased. Oh, wait. I guess the President is actually asking that it be increased, as if that won't happen or something. This story mentions that it might go to...oh, let's just say $8.99...trillion. Not a penny more and surely not a penny less, like a K-Mart special. Less than 9 trillion? Sign me up!

Is the President Easy to Dupe?

2006-03-04T09:07:00.000-08:00

Following up on the theme of Bush doing business with a handshake, we have today's visit to Pakistan. The situation is highly tense, as it's clear that al Queda has made its base of operations on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and is widely supported by many people in this highly anti-American country. To effectively govern his people, then, Musharraf has to appear not to be too pro-American while simultaneously saying he is against the war on terror.

This morning on NPR, Don Gonyeah said the President acknowledged that he went to Pakistan to determine "whether or not Musharraf was as committed as he was in the past to bringing terrorist to justice." Bush also said he was satisfied that Musharraf was indeed doing his best.

Here we have another example of Bush thinking he can just stare down someone and know their convictions, almost like he's psychic or touched by God with the ability to discern the Truth of All Things. Bush seems more reliant on this method than he is with facts.

Is it possible that everyone knows this and actively dupes him? If he doesn't rely on facts, then actions don't actually speak louder than words with him. Instead, it's the actual words that make the most difference. We seem to know about where bin Laden is, but if Musharraf says he can't find him, well, that must be the truth of the matter.

We seem to have ineffective national security preparation (Katrina, 9/11), but since someone has told Bush they're truly committed to a safer America, it will all be OK.

We know that Bush himself is comfortable with lying through his teeth, but he also seems either comfortable with, or at least not willing to investigate, others doing the same thing right to his face. He feels better after a meeting with Musharraf, but should anybody else?

Bushness As Usual

2006-03-03T07:09:00.000-08:00

With the Dubai Ports deal, we see a typical Bush response. It's all about who he feels he can do business with. The Bushes have always had ties with Arabs in the Middle East. Bush senior has used his relationships with them to build a nice portfolio through the Carlyle Group--likely to the tune of $100 million. It's hard not to feel comfortable when that kind of money is on the line.

The way the Bushes do business is not with due diligence. It's with a handshake, a wink, and the willingness to exact precise, forceful revenge on anyone who isn't loyal to them. If the Dubai sheiks tell the Bushes they don't support terrorist regimes, that's all that matters. If the facts are different, they assume that the sheiks will value the business relationship over the politics in the future, and they're OK with that.

The reason we attacked Iraq was clearly not because of a threat to the U.S. Saddam was in no position to do that. The reason we attacked them was because the Bushes could no longer do business with Saddam. (They had been able to in the 80s.) Something about an assassination attempt on Bush I seems to have been the breaking point.

And the Bushes want to do business everywhere they can. By getting rid of Saddam, they will feel comfortable doing business again in a place with vast proven oil reserves. And oil reserves eventually translate into business dollars, even if it takes a couple of decades to get them going. They take the long view on these matters.

Bush's Assurances

2006-03-02T18:11:00.000-08:00

Bush is fond of saying something to the effect of, "We'll be sending you everything we've got to make sure you're going to be OK." That should be a sure sign to start worrying even more than you have before. Why? Because it means he's already checked out on the issue at hand.

The most recent example, of course, is his videotaped response to the threat of Katrina. He heard the evidence that there was going to be a major disaster, and when he had heard enough, he rattled off the same old "please know that the federal government is fully prepared to help." What is the evidence he makes these statements on? It seems like he just says it because he's done listening and has to say *something*.

Bush has delegated his entire presidency this way. With the Dubai Ports sale, he wasn't even aware of the deal before he said that his administration had fully vetted it. When Bremer briefed him about what was going on in Iraq, he said "We will not fail", or some such idiocy.

The problem is that everybody in the Bush administration thinks somewhere down the line is someone who is going to take responsibility and actually get the job done. But since he's replaced qualified people with cronies, it's now cronies all the way down.

What Strikes Me...

2006-03-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

will be a blog dedicated to my take on the important points of current events. It will probably focus on the strikingly abhorrent behavior of our current Bush Administration, as I'm constantly knocked off my feet by the small and big things that brush off him.