Archive for August, 2007

Bin Laden in Hell

I wish people would just get over 9/11. 3,000 people died. Compare this to the 40,000 Americans who die every year from traffic accidents. Tens of thousands of people are estimated to have died because Clinton bombed Sudan’s Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant on flimsy evidence that it was making nerve gas for Bin Laden. Hundreds of thousands have died in Latin America from brutal dictators who received support from the Reagan Administration. Around 1,700 died from Hurricane Katrina and another 200,000 people lost their homes. Over 30,000 people have died in the Iraq war, 3,700 of them Coalition troops. Far more people have died because of the American alliance with the Baath party that went long past the Cold War, the Iraq-Iran War, and even the Gulf War, after which Bush Sr. authorized Saddam to put down a Shi’ite rebellion that may have otherwise toppled him. Mispoken words by Bush Sr. also triggered a Kurdish rebellion, one in which he also allowed Saddam to put down, killing somewhere around 50,000 to 100,000. The U.N. Estimates that 450,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict, perpetuated by a country that gave Bin Laden sanctuary in the early 90’s (something Saddam never did) until we bribed them to send him to Afghanistan.

All that gets forgotten until we got hit and then suddenlly its we, the poor disenfranchized Americans who need “Infinite Justice.” The same slaughters that we bankrolled are now used as proof that we’re good and he’s evil. Almost half of Americans think that the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans should be restricted. We seem to talk about going after Muslim leader in the Middle East, except of course Bin Laden.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6729916/

McCain got cheers at the Jack Bauer-Ronald Reagan commemeration ceremony known as the Republican debate after saying he would “follow Bin Laden into hell,” but when Obama said he would follow Bin Laden to where he actually resides, Pakistan, both Hillary and the Republicans jumped all over him! How dare he actually suggest that he might go after the perpetrator of 9/11 if he received “actionable intelligence”! Doesn’t he know that Bin Laden’s name can only be used with empty rhetoric? I mean, following Bin Laden into HELL is one thing, but Pakistan??

Now, I realize it’s not all that easy. Pakistan does have the bomb, and invading might indeed cause enough instability to depose Musharraf and put some Islamic radical up in his place, but this is the kind of debate that we should have had 6 years ago. Back then we had an army that wasn’t completely broken and could have done something about it.

Now we’re debating over whether we should stay in Iraq for an unmentionable amount of time. And yes, I realize that the Bush Administration should not themselves be discussing time tables, but that gives absolutely no excuse for all Neo-Cons to follow suit and refuse to even talk about the future. I would have a lot more respect for people who think we should stay in Iraq if they just gave some kind of number, like, Iraq is worth x number of years and y amount of dollars, and base these ideas off of what we can realistically do.

After hearing Cheney talk about America getting into a “quagmire” if it invaded Iraq in ‘94, I started to have the sneaking suspicion that the Bush Administration knew all along that the war would go on a lot longer than “six weeks,” as Rumsfeld suggested. That would explain why Bush, almost at the same time, finally brought out the Vietnam comparison that people had been using so long. (His take on it? We should have stayed. “We” being those who didn’t dodge the draft by joining the National Guard and then going AWOL.) But if that was the case — if they knew the war was going to be 5+ years in the making — why did they pay so little attention to important details like disbanding the Iraqi army?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/21/wcheney121.xml

http://www.forbes.com/leadership/managing/2007/08/28/iraq-vietnam-nato-biz-cz_0828oxford.html

But the truth is, the people defending the war are pure idealists. They don’t want to even consider things like troop levels or time tables. To even suggest we should have benchmarks and accountability is cowardly. They just want to “win” as if one day everything will change and we can leave. This simplistic worldview has ensured that the soliders dying for us in Iraq have not died in vain, but rather, have died to help bring Al Qaida into Iraq and provide a diversion for the war on the Afghanistan/Pakistan front.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/washington/18intel.html?ei=5090&en=88f5f1a45c8422d5&ex=1342411200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1186087111-DZ7zdk25uBS4RUKo0CYnHA

YouTube May Call Stewart and Colbert to Testify

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401771.html

Are More Americans Liberal or Conservative?

Media Matters has a pretty interesting report that compares polls of liberal and conservative issues.

http://mediamatters.org/progmaj/report

The Islamofascists are Coming!

This is an interesting article on how Conservatives tend to think that Islamic terrorists like Osama Bin Laden are somehow going to invade America and turn it into a Muslim state. I myself have noticed how frequently I have to remind conservatives that even the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Soviets were never able to build up enough resources to even attempt such a concept, and they had, you know, an army. And a navy. And an air force. Yes, I know it’s all shocking, but those sorts of things are necessary to even attempt to completely conquer a global superpower like the U.S. The terrorists are in for a long walk if they’re really going to “follow us home” as Bush insinuates.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/13/simon/index.html

Britain Allows Sell of Iced Marijuana Tea

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060626181645.qbytv4cc&show_article=1

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

“An acre of the best ground for hemp, is to be selected and sewn in hemp and be kept for a permanent hemp patch.” – Thomas Jefferson’s Garden book 1849

“The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.” -Albert Einstein, My First Impression of the U.S.A., 1921

http://www.fiberjet.net/hemp/quotes.html

Three More Years, and some time off

“Four more years” is a bit of a misnomer. Notwithstanding the question as to whether he’s really “the Decider” when he is actually in the White House, Bush has spent over a year on vacation. At 418 days, he’s set to beat Regean’s vacation time record of 436 days in the next year. One might think that excess vacation would be a trait of a non-wartime president, but Clinton took 152 days off and Carter, “the worst president ever,” took only 79 days off, about 1 week per year longer than the average American’s paid time off.

I’ve heard it been said that even when the president is “on vacation” he’s still working. That may be so, but was Bush elected President in order to work on clearing brush out of his ranch? But seriously, I think it would be truthful to question whether he is really working as president when he’s not on vacation. I take it as indicative of our never-ending campaign culture that Bush was reading to kindegardners when America were attacked on 9/11. Setting aside the fact that he continued to sit there and do nothing for 7 minutes even after he heard the words, “The country is under attack,” can it really be said he was “working” as “president” that day? Of course not, he was campaigning for women’s votes that day.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/mason/5042364.html

Jimmy Carter: Worst President?

Carter is normally seen my the Republcians as the worst president in modern history. Why? Because Radical Islam suppossedly “began” with the ousting of the Shah and the hostage crisis and this happened on his watch. Funny how the Bush Administration failing to act on reports before 9/11 allowed him to reap a second term rather than receiving any blame for that Islamic plot unfolding “on his watch.” Or was it that Carter didn’t “back the Shah.”? Actually, he did allow that brutal dictator to come to the U.S. to receive the best medical treatment that money can buy. That’s actually what caused the hostage crisis in the first place. There was also the failed mission to rescue the hostages in which 8 servicemen died, but one failed mission hardly compares to a failed war. It seems more like the real reason was Carter didn’t declare war on Iran for daring to overthrow the tyrannical dictator than the U.S. had installed over their Prime Minister because he had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company (which today we call BP). Sure, the Shah was dying, but maybe Carter should have continued the suppression of Democracy in Iran and install another Big Oil puppet with the title of an ancient Persian dictator. Or maybe Eisenhower should not have allowed anti-Communist sentiment to ally with British to bring about the deposition of a democratically elected official of a foreign country for the sake of western oil companies?

My Anti-Clinton Bias

I voted Libertarian in 2000. I’ve never much liked the two party system that America has caught itself up into, but in 2004 I felt that Bush had so polarized the nation that voting for NotBush was an absolute necessity. When Conservatives started talking about Hilary running some a couple of years ago, I didn’t believe them. How could Democrats even think about running under the name Clinton after the absolute hell the media had put them through with his sex scandal? Clinton killed 16 civilians when he destroyed the headquarters of Radio Television Serbia in central Belgrade for distributing propaganda. He also killed 6 Iraqi civilians, including a famous artist, in a “retaliation” attack after the suppossed assassination attempt of Bush Sr. in Kuwait. He destroyed an important pharmaseutical plant in the Sudan that had meant the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He had been accussed by multiple women of being a rapist. Then there was the questionable last-minute pardon of Mark Rich and the disgraceful exit from the White House. Although none of these had any direct tie to Hillary, I always pictured them as a single political unit, and her re-entry into White House reflected a kind of tag-team mentality reminiscent of the Bush Dynasty. There are a lot of good, smart people out there who aren’t related to the former bad presidents we have had.

The YouTube debates were absolute crap and the snowman asking about global warming did not exactly help Conservatives take the issue more seriously. The AFL-CIO debate was a little better, but one person stood out as a question dodger and slogan beater and that was Hilary. And all the news comentators absolutely loved her for it. Chris Matthews referred to her “I’m your girl” comment as “post-feminist.” The other candidates made the usual number of bloopers and disputable claims. But by comparing the two using FactCheck.org, one can see that they rise the kind of lies and exaggerations normally found in a Republican debate.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/afl-cio_democratic_forum.html

http://www.factcheck.org/sunday_morning_missteps.html

I am just as determined to vote NotBush in 2008 as I was in 2004, but I’m not sure the complete catastrophe that was these last 7 years would make me want to vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils.

Chomsky and Hitchens

Here’s an interview of Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens from back in ‘92.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ysQPtAOJjY&mode=related&search=

Hitchens wrote a defense of Chomsky…

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

…But after 9/11 the two crossed swords:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/hitchens

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyhitch.html

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/hitchens20011004

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200112/hitchens

News Links

Republican statesman explains fear made him offer oral sex to an undercover male cop

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allentape0307aug03,0,1892734.story?coll=orl_tab01_layout

First Ron Reagan votes for Kerry, now this…

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/06/politics/p105545D85.DTL&type=politics

Next Page »