Little Boys and Their Swiftboats

Chis Wallace/Clinton

Wallace had to clean up afterwards because he had soiled himself, that's after he soaked his pants and the chair he was sitting in. Clinton was a man with a little boy. A little boy who forgot whom he was dealing with. You see, Wallace, the punk stenographer for the White House, is so used to neo-con lackeys and Republican Rubber Stampers, he was taken by surprise when Clinton set this silly boy's ass straight about truth. By God he at least tried to get OBL and Bush never did anything. Big Bill made Chrissy Wallace wet himself when he exposed Wallace's attempted set up of a former president for swift boat purposes. It was a very timely reminder of the leadership and communication skills this former president has that are completely lacking in the president presently occupying the White House.



What Clinton said was all true. How he delivered it was a not so subtle reminder to Democrats that there is nothing to be afraid of in confronting hollow neo-cons head on. Bush has not made anyone safer, just the opposite. His Iraq war is criminal and almost nihilistic in it's utter chaos creation. He and Rove have done it all with smoke and mirrors, but mostly through television news. Rove is a master in the art of deception through the use of TV. Clinton's interview was refreshing for the single reason of hearing the truth spoken on television news. It's a rare sighting indeed.

How Would Jesus Torture?

Georgia congressman Lynn Westmoreland discusses torture:

"Pressed on whether that means he supports torture, he said, "What's torture? Torture is many things to many people ... people have different breaking points."

Asked whether he would support using electric shocks, he said, "Electric shocks are given to people during initiations to different clubs ... Is that torture? I don't know."

Asked about beatings, he said, "Are you talking about tying his hands behind his back and beating him in the head? No, I'm not for that."

Westmoreland criticized the handful of GOP senators, including former Vietnam prisoner of war John McCain, R-Ariz., who are blocking President Bush's effort to reinterpret Geneva Convention protections on detainees. He said he supports the White House position, which calls for a narrower interpretation of the protections, allowing more aggressive interrogation tactics."

Bluester: I'm going to love watching, reading and listening to all those famous moral values people deconstruct torture for all of us over the next few days,if not weeks. I'll have to stock up on snack items because I sure as hell do not want to miss seeing great Christians, some of the very best. Like Ann Coulter and Bill Bennett, perhaps Tom DeLay could weigh in and what about Ralph Reed? Jerry Falwell and Pat (I'm not crazy) Robertson will intrepret all of it into Jesus language for us so our dissonance levels don't exceed their spontaneous combustion points.

I can see it now. Everybody sitting at what they call a roundtable discussion and defining the very exquisite details of good "interrogation" versus the real thing, torture. It will be such an uplifting time, especially for neo-cons. They can be caught up in the Spirit as they hear their Lord speak to them through his messengers as in the time of old.

What great moral questions can be explained! Questions like, how would Jesus torture? That's the real question anyway, isn't it? Would ol' Jesus say, "Blessed are the interrogators for our sake, blessed are those who torture others in our name, for such are the kingdom of America"? What do you REALLY think about that?

Do you think Jesus would give a big thumbs up to waterboarding? I mean it's not like the guy is really drowning, he just thinks he's drowning, so it's kind of like baptism by immersion anyway so maybe Jesus would call this "tool" the cleansing ritual of confession, whattya' really think about that?

Would the Saviour have to draw the line at crucifixion, or maybe not, huh? I mean, what's a few nails through the hands and feet if there is no organ failure. A little blood maybe but if done strategically through intervals of on again, off again, I can see why the crucifixee would want to confess stuff pretty quickly, so death could be avoided in most cases. The lambs must be protected. If we know a bad terr'ist knows something about harming the lambs then I think, yes, let's go ahead and crucify.

See where we're headed? What fun.

Once Bitten

The IAEA report on Iran:

"U.N. inspectors investigating Iran's nuclear program angrily complained to the Bush administration and to a Republican congressman yesterday about a recent House committee report on Iran's capabilities, calling parts of the document "outrageous and dishonest" and offering evidence to refute its central claims."

Bluester: Who needs evidence? Certainly not the Chimp. Evidence, facts, honesty, transparency are words and concepts alien to this White House. Missile launching into Iran before Nov.7? In high likelihood, R's are still down badly in polls. Reason for imminent attack on Iran? WMD. What WMD? W's Majority Demise. Wag that dog Chimpy, kill more people Chimpy, start more pre-emptive wars Chimp.

This lawless Republican majority in Congress, so falling down drunk with power, simply slips to it's knees to fellate this administration everytime Karl, the Dick or the Chimp unzip their political, military flies. Clinton and his heterosexual tryst with a willing young woman threatened the free world, according to these same oral sex masters in Congress. But unilateral attacks on non-threatening nations, occupations with no apparent end, Constitutional shredding right and left, total corruption, and thievery of all monies in the U.S. treasury are all responded to by this worthless Congressional bunch with a trip to the closet to get on their knee pads. Moral values? I got your moral value right here.

Root Tugging

OK, I've been busy. Now on to the torture stuff. Let's see what I can make of this apparently new Judeo-Christian self-defense moral value.

The "compromise" (they have got to be tugging my root here) is nothing of the sort. Bush gets to keep "the program" and at the same time make legal all the illegal stuff the "interrogators"(they have my root again) were doing. And the amnesty goes back to the beginning of this "war president's" tenure.

Remember what I've said in the past about Rove? I would like nothing better than to have ol' Karl on a jobsite for just one day but there is no one better at what he does. He almost does better under pressure. He creates the "reality" I've written about. He creates the illusions.

The Republicans McCain, Warner, and Graham were sly weren't they? They were going to force W. to back down from the torture stuff. Then presto, elfoldo, they weren't anymore. Now you see torture, now you don't, you see interrogations. Orwellian Karl,when it all comes out in the wash, I predict, will have changed the word interrogation to actually mean torture.

All this hocus pocus by Republicans to strengthen their numbers for the election. Bush could care less, he's not going to abide by anything the Congress passes anyway. He's got his signing statements and his shredded Constitution to keep him warm. Bush was only interested in the amnesty part. He needed Congressional consent of the program, making them responsible, just like before Iraq, for the atrocity he ordered committed. Bush is looking at the very strong possibility of Democrats taking over the House and he's looking for some insurance. George, himself, has the most, oh, what do they call it?, ..exposure..yeah, that's it.

So in essence, if a multiple felon president is coming in at say 37% approval rating and his party is down 12-15% at 6 weeks out from a crucial election, what would you do? Hell yes. Get Congress to start printing "Get out of jail free" cards now before it's too late.

Bush Speak Deciphered

From AP writer Merrill Hartson, Bush says:

"Bin laden and his terrorist's allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?'"

I wasn't going to point out the irony but I can't help myself. This is how I read the lines.

George Bush and his neo-con allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is, will Americans listen to Bush? Will Americans pay attention to what George and his evil allies say?

Bush goes on:

"The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they're not madmen," he said. "They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane."

How I interpret it: These criminals who did not prevent an attack on us 9-11-01 are conscienceless men, but they're not madmen. These enemies kill in the name of neo-con idealology, both clear and focused. The neo-con enemy have a set of beliefs (see Project for the New American Century, Office of Special Plans) that are evil and secretive but not insane.

Then this quote from the White House:

"the enemy we face today in the war on terror is not the same enemy we faced on Sept. 11. Our effective counterterrorist efforts in part have forced the terrorists to evolve and modify their ways of doing business"

And here I thought it wasn't the same enemy because we are now in Iraq killing Iraqis and Osama and his guys are in Afghanistan somewhere. But no, the enemy has evolved. They must look different than they used to look. Who did we face as the enemy on 9-11? It was 19 guys, mostly Saudis with boxcutters. Now they have evolved into what? Iraqi militias? No wonder conservative water carriers can't keep it all straight.

Karl Rove rolling out his triumvirate of deception team. The Don and the Dick worked their muddying magic a few days ago and now The Chimp does his circus act and voila, the substance and intent were identical.

Recently, Bush said when asked about 9-11 and Iraq that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Today, with every deceptive word he uttered, tried again to conflate the two. For the next 60 days, there will be nothing but these deceptive and subtle lies attempting to conflate a non-existant "war on terror" with a very real and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The use of "projection" with these criminals is reaching new and alarming heights. It could be that these highly dysfunctional multi-millionaire neo-con leaders are about to snap. Snap because accountability looms over their heads and all signs point to judgment day being Nov 7.

Pause.


Then on top of the double-Bush-speak we find ABC(All Bush Cheerleading) about to air a fifth year anniversary remake of the original 9-11 TV spectacular that was broadcast on all networks. ABC being the corporate shills to Republicans like they faithfully have been blames Clinton for 9-11 falsely in their new "docu-drama" Path to 9/11.

Here's Roger Cressy, a former anti-terror agent for the Bush administration:

CRESSY: "Joe, it’s amazing, based on what I’ve seen so far is how much they’ve gotten wrong. They got the small stuff wrong such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed instructing Ahmed Rassam to carry out the millenium attacks. Then they got the big stuff wrong, this fantasy about how we had a CIA officer and the Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud looking at Bin Laden and they breathlessly call the White House to say we need to take him out and the White House said no. I mean it’s sheer fantasy. So, if they want to critique the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, based on fact, I think that’s fine. But what ABC has done here is something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It’s factually wrong. And that’s shameful."

Here's some of the new "docu-drama's" storyline from an ABC/Disney spokesman who admits one key scene was simply made up.

"Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.....

So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.

"Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”

That is not likely to prevent the film from being embraced far and wide among Bush supporters. Even before its airdate, the show is being hailed as a breakthrough in the conservative blogosphere. One blogger marveled in an interview with scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh that “one unbelievable sequence shows how . . . Sandy Berger . . . actually hung up the phone on the CIA agent on the ground.”


And if you click on this link, you'll see a letter to ABC/Disney from Democratic representatives John Conyers, John Dingell, Jane Harman and Louise Slaughter challenging the accuracy of ABC's new film.

The film is just part of a broader campaign by Republican operatives to scare us. That is, scare us from voting Democratic.


Glenn Greenwald gets it right here:

"The notion that Republicans wanted a stronger and more aggressive approach to terrorism than the Clinton administration took is pure fantasy. During Clinton's second term, Republicans were focused on Monica Lewinsky, not Osama bin Laden. When Clinton was President, and during the Bush presidency prior to the 9/11 attacks, Bush supporters couldn't have cared any less about Islamic terrorism. Even Clinton's attacks on Al Qaeda were immediately used as a tool to focus more attention on Ken Starr's investigation.

George Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of reining in the use of military force, not expanding it. He wanted a more "humble" and restrained foreign policy, not a more aggressive one. If all one knew about the world came from listening to the Bush campaign in 2000 -- or Republicans during the 1990s -- one would barely have known that terrorism existed. The notion that Republicans wanted a more aggressive posture against Al Qaeda and terrorism during the Clinton administration is pure, unadulterated fantasy. And any narrative which lends support to that myth -- as Bush supporters claim Path to 9/11 does -- is, by definition, pure fiction."


Fiction is the name of the Republican game.

Larry, Curly and Moe on Fear

Look at how absolutely insane America is acting now because of Karl's relentless dealing of the fear card. Just a few more years of this and ANY threatening group will just be able to walk in and take the place over from a bunch of whimpering scarded idiots. It's embarassing to see America acting like whining babies who have lost their "pacifier".

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Air passengers from Charlotte to Little Rock, Arkansas, had to hurry off their plane Friday after someone found a suspicious liquid on board.

The flight landed at Little Rock as scheduled Friday afternoon. But about seven miles before it landed, a crew member reported two passengers with two bottles of liquid. Police, firefighters and the bomb squad were called in, but the liquid turned out to be water.

Eegads, a water bottle, ohmigod a mascara tube, please help us, we're scared of the baby formula...Christ.

Try Not to Catch This

There's a relatively new viral disease being reported from around the U.S. and doctors are comparing it to the new viruses that keep evolving rendering current anti-viral medicine impotent.

This apparently incurable disease is called Neo-conitis. Symptoms are obsessive, compulsive feverish acts of deception and outbreaks of lies with the accompanying vomiting of previously swallowed deception and lies. In addition, many diagnosed with this illness have been reported to have been seen, oddly enough, "spinning". When interviewed by nurses, some patients who are infected give misleading information. Doctors used to recommend a strong dose of empirical evidence and some mental exercise once a day, but now this virus appears to be morphing into a stronger strain immune to truth and the past remedies are not working.

This is a serious viral disease that threatens all Americans and strangely enough it crops up with intensity a couple months prior to November in every even numbered year. Be careful because a handful of patients on this forum have been infected with what appears to be fatal cases of this disease. Doctors first reported cases of Neo-conitis in the U.S. around Sept.11, 2001 although others point out the breeding ground for the disease existed much earlier.

Results vary on treatment. Citing the liberal use of empirical evidence, some doctors have reported a few patients who were able to heal, though slowly, but still other doctors report increased head spinning when facts are used and a tendency to want to change the subject. Hopefully, soon there will be a scientific breakthrough for this painful malady that currently affects close to one third of the U.S. population over 18.

So, if you suspect any of your friends or acquaintances might have this 21st century sickness please tell them to see a doctor as soon as possible.

This has bee a public service announcement.