Scott McClellan's new book What Happened doesn't provide any new information but it does confirm many of our suspicions and beliefs with regard to Bush White House. McClellan says that the administration deliberately misled (lied to) the American people and sold the Iraq War like a product.
Sure, this is stuff we've said over and over but to have it said by McClellan, one of the original Texas insiders, is remarkable. The White house reaction to McClellan's What Happened was predictable: Why's Everybody Always Pickin' On Me? The WH steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing and as usual blames the messenger. But now there have been something like two dozen messengers and all have been labeled 'disgruntled'. No surprise then that they said Scott was disgruntled.
Read More »Dateline - Wed May 07, 2008
I'm sorry but reading the list of posts, too many of which are attacks on one Democratic candidate or the other, just makes me sick. By all means promote your candidate of choice with all the vigor of a true partisan but do not attack other Democrats! Don't boo Democrats...period. Read More »
Suppose, just for a moment suppose that there have not been any mistakes made by the Bush administration. Sure Bush himself may well be a moron and or a clown but that is irrelevant because those around him, Cheney and his Neocons, are neither. Accept, for purposes of this discussion, that Cheney and his buddies are smart, tough and focused and they believe, with the same conviction as a religious fundamentalist, that corporations not governments should and soon will run this country and the world.
What if the only mistake was thinking these folks have made mistakes. Do a Google search for Bush mistakes and you get lots of lists. What if, while we have been focused on the clown OZ, Cheney and the others behind the curtain have been diligently, purposely and successfully executing a plan? Read More »
Leahy says, "I have never seen an administration so willing to operate outside the law and even against the law...at least as long as I've been old enough to vote."
The subpoenas are for documents relating to the warrant-less wiretapping of Americans citizens.
The White House reaction? "Democrats are resorting to confrontation." Well GOOD for them. It is about time that we got confrontational with these criminal bastards!
Well it began in earnest with the election of 1912. Former president Teddy Roosevelt decided to run for president again because Taft*, Roosevelt's hand picked successor, had become a stooge for the powerful big business interests** in the Republican Party. Although Roosevelt won every primary that year, a back room deal gave the Republican nomination to Taft. The U.S. Progressive Party (AKA Bull Moose Party) was formed to support Roosevelt's candidacy in 1912 and many Republicans followed Teddy. Wilson (D) won the 1912 election, Teddy Roosevelt (P) finished second and Howard Taft (R) finished a distant third.
After the 1912 election, what was left of the Republican Party was dominated from top to bottom by Big Business. The Progressive Party dissolved soon after the election and these disgruntled Republicans eventually migrated to the Democratic Party. This resulted in a Democratic Party comprised of Southern states rights (code for segregationists) conservatives and progressive ex-Republicans; strange bedfellows indeed.
The decimated Republican Party was left powerless in the 30s, 40s and early 50s. The impotent Republicans were forced to stand by while Roosevelt created the New Deal, Social Security and was elected 4 times. Truman followed and gave the Party of Lincoln another shove toward oblivion by desegregating the Armed Forces of the United States in 1947.
Outraged states rights advocates (bigots) left the Democratic Party in droves and with Strom Thurman as their leader formed the States Rights Party (AKA Dixiecrats). Thurman ran for president as the States Rights Party candidate in 1948. When this campaign ended in failure, the big business Republicans saw an opportunity and began actively recruiting these disaffected Democrats.
The big business Republicans, many of whom supported the Nazis and financed Hitler, felt much more comfortable with the southern segregationists than they ever did with the former progressive Republicans. They also knew that the lack of education among these Dixiecrats would make them much easier to manipulate. The Party of Lincoln received its final blow in 1964, with President Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act the Solid Democratic South inevitably became staunch Republican territory.
So there you have it. That is why Republicans now talk about states rights and why so many of them are racists and/or court that vote. The big business folks love their new easily manipulated southern friends. If you have doubts about the shift in party affiliation in the south, simply ask a Southern Republican and, depending on their age, you will find that they, their daddy or granddaddy was a Democrat. Read More »
Who voted for this war? Was there a vote to go to war in Iraq?
Every candidate is reminded or reminds us of his or her vote for or against the war in Iraq. The fact is that no member of the House or Senate on either side of the aisle voted on the war.
John Kerry's presidential campaign was constantly attacked for his having "voted for it before he voted against it". He did neither.
Those of you who stayed awake through Kerry's lengthy explanation during the first Kerry/Bush debate may or may not have understood what he was trying to say. He voted to authorize the use of force bla bla bla to be used by the president as a bargain chip etc. etc. etc.
So let's make it perfectly clear.
Based on the president's promise to be careful and responsible, the congress voted to give him the keys to the car. They did not expect him to immediately drive the car off a cliff.
There was never a vote to go to war!
Here endith the lesson.
The document pointed to the possibility that Osama bin Laden had given orders to an al Qaeda leader in Iraq two years ago. This al Qaeda leader was supposedly ordered to recruit and train operatives in Iraq to carry out attacks inside the US.
President Bush says this is proof that we must continue to allow our brave soldiers to die in this misbegotten war in Iraq. I say that this document proves that president Bush has already done Osama's job for him.
Osama bin Laden stated clearly that his strategy was to destabilize and destroy secular governments, especially in the Mid East, and to establish fundamentalist Islamic governments in their place.
Osama's plan had worked in Afghanistan but he was experiencing difficulty in toppling the secular government in Iraq. Enter Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et. all. each with their own motives, who proceeded to do what Osama had failed to do - bring down the Iraqi government.
Now president Bush is telling us that we must stay and fight al Qaeda, who thanks to the Bush administration policies now has a strong presence in Iraq. In other words Bush is saying we must continue to sacrifice our young men and women because his blundering has allowed al Qaeda to establish a foothold in Iraq.
What is even more outrageous is that Mr. Bush previously told us he was "not really that concerned about Osama bin Laden". Of course this was said in an attempt to minimize his failure to fulfill the promise to capture bin Laden "dead or alive". Now that he thinks there is a political advantage Mr. Bush is interested in Osama again.
Here endith the lesson.
Posts
