- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
AmericaBlog has a story up today about a proposal to funnel more tax money to oil companies using taxpayers as middle-men. Naturally, this proposal does nothing to address the underlying issues or deal with the obscene profits being realized by oil companies. A party that claims itself to be "fiscally responsible" has a lot to answer for.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
By the way, you can't run a war, you can't make decisions based upon polls and focus groups, either."
Loosely translated, "I don't care what the people think, I'm the decider!"
Of course, Bush switches hats with the same regularity that he lies. Recently, depending on the situation, he goes from "decider" to "delegator." When asked about the atrocious Rumsfeld, he's the "decider." When asked about the failed occupation of Iraq, he's the "delegator."
"The fundamental question on the Iraq theater, though, is did we put enough troops in there in the first place. That's the debate in Washington. I'm sure you've heard about it. Let me just tell you what happened. I called Tommy Franks in with Don Rumsfeld and said, Tommy, if we're going in, you design the plan and you got what you need. I said -- I remember the era when politicians were trying to run wars, people trying to fine-tune this or fine-tune that. One the lessons of Vietnam, it seemed like to me -- still does -- is that people tried to make decisions on behalf of the military, which I think is a terrible precedent to make if you're the Commander-in-Chief.
The tortured syntax notwithstanding, he's blaming the "too few troops" on the military and giving Rumsfeld a pass. Not to mention that the "fundamental question" is whether the invasion and occupation of Iraq is the greatest blunder in the history of the United States.
Other recent "delegator" moments:
When asked about the 10,000 trailers sitting in Arkansas and not being used to help victims of Katrina and Rita.
When asked about the "private security" companies operating in Iraq with seeming impunity for criminal activity.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Recently, he said, ""I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other."
Now, I don't know exactly how to take this. Does he mean that since we went to war with Iraq without being attacked or truly threatened that we're not a democracy?
Or, does he mean that if the other country is a democracy and we're a democracy, they're safe from us and we're safe from them. By extension then, is he correct since we went to war (being a democracy) against Iraq ( a dictatorship.) Does this mean that the Palestinian Authority (democratically elected) is safe from attack by us or by Israel?
Damn, I so confused. Of course, if I just take off my hypocritical blinders I can see he just can see the irony of his remarks, or he doesn't care, or he's not bright enough to make the connection.
The other thing he said was that the recent increases in the price of gasoline were like a tax. In California, it's not like a tax, it is a tax. California charges sales tax on gasoline after federal and state excise taxes are added. We pay a tax on a tax. Now with every increase in the price of gas, we pay more sales tax. That, my friend, is an increase in taxes!
He's also said, in the same vein as the democracy crap above, that a democracy in Iraq will help keep us safe from the terrorists. The worst terrorist attack in the U.S. was on 9/11 and carried out by religious extremists. It's hard for me to fathom that they would not have carried out the attacks if Iraq had been a democracy back in 2001. The ever changing rationales for Bush's war should cause outrage.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Tell us again how market forces and supply and demand are to blame when oil companies are making obscene profits! Besides, we heard these same lies when your buddies at Enron and the other energy companies were gouging Californians and putting their lives in danger to increase their profits.
Caught "resting their eyes" during meeting with officials from China, Rice and Cheney squeeze in a little daydream.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.
The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.
Article from the SFGate
How long have the plans for the embassy been on the drawing board? Since most post-war planning seems lacking, it would be interesting to note when the idea for this expansive project was introduced.
Who has the contract or contracts for the construction of the huge embassy. Was the contract awarded to another Bush crony? Was it a bid or no-bid contract? Since it's so "secretive," how do we know the contractors aren't gouging us taxpayers like so many others have done.
Why such a huge embassy in a small country like Iraq. If you connect-the-dots with the construction of permanent military bases, it doesn't appear that we have any plans to leave Iraq in the near future.
WHAT EXACTLY IS GOING ON HERE AND WHY ARE WE BEING KEPT IN THE DARK?
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
The Bush Administration epitomizes the Peter Principle on steroids. Except here, when one is promoted to their level of incompetence, it's no deterrent to being moved further up the organizational chart. In fact, gross incompetence may be rewared with a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, played a key role in the planning of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. As the top military adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Myers serves as a go-between for the field commanders and the leadership in Washington.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Friday, April 14, 2006
And why didn't he know it?
Thursday, April 13, 2006
The answer to this question should not depend upon party affiliation!
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Doesn't it seem odd that the POTUS can't answer questions about mercenaries in Iraq? Doesn't it seem odd that the POTUS can't get the trailers that are stuck in the mud in Arkansas to Katrina victims without "checking with somebody?"
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
You got to listen in my line of work, and I listen a lot. Ours is acomplex organization that requires a management structure that lets people come into the Oval Office and explain their positions. And I think it's to my interest, by the way, that not everybody agree all the time. You can'tmake good decisions unless there's a little -- kind of a little agitation in there.
By the way, if you're studying how to achieve diplomatic ends, it might be worthwhile noting -- I think at least -- with the United States being the sole interlocutor between Iran, it makes it more difficult to achieve the objective of having the Iranians give up their nuclear weapons ambitions.
The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know -- I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy. And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation, which is -- it's kind of a -- happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital.
THE PRESIDENT: Well -- (laughter) -- I take protest seriously. I mean, I -- by the way, I get protested all the time. (Laughter.) And I welcome it. I think this is the great thing about a democracy. There needs to be an outlet. If people feel like their government is not listening to them or doesn't agree with them, there ought to be an outlet for their discontent. And so the protests really don't bother me. I hope that's not viewed as cavalier, but it's just the way I feel. And it's -- in terms of polls, you cannot have a President make decisions based upon the latest political survey. You cannot have a President make decisions based upon the latest political survey. You got to have people making decisions based upon principle. And my attitude is, I'm going to do what I think is right.
I've got to be able to look at myself, by the way -- after the presidency -- in the mirror and say, I didn't come to Washington, D.C. to try to chase political opinion. I came to lead this country in a very historic time.
And so no question the economy is important. In the Palestinian territories, Jim Wolfensohn went over with a plan -- prior to the election, by the way -- with a plan to help the Palestinians develop their economy on the - - on the exact premise that you talk about. Economic development provides hope.
And so, you bet. It's an integral of our policy. We give a lot of aid out, by the way. We give aid to countries that may like us, may not like us, except in few instances. I have changed the development program, however, from -- let me say, I added on to the development programs to what's called the Millennium Challenge Account. And that is a conditional-based aid program. It's condition based upon poverty level, but it's also condition based upon behavior of government.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Rep. John Boehner (R-Asshat), claimed on This Week that one of the prongs of the republican agenda is to "spend taxpayer funds wisely." In fact, he said it with a straight face. Borrow and spend, borrow and spend. Fiscal conservatism run amok.
"I wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth. I thought it made sense for people to see the truth. That's why I declassified the document," he said.
Bush, answering questions from an audience after a speech in Washington, would not comment on the allegation that he authorized Libby to release the information to reporters.
But a senior administration official said Bush did not designate Libby or anyone else to release the information, trying to distance Bush from any tactical decisions made on how to release the information.
Of course they want to distance him from the "tactical decisions" because they call into question the truthfulness of the claim of prior declassification. If the information was declassified, why did Libby ask for an anonymous attribution from Judith Miller? Why did Libby ask the attribution be to a "former Hill staffer." Because they were going for a twofer, a win-win if you will. They defend against potential critics about manipulation of intelligence and they get to blame the leak on someone from Capitol Hill. See, those Congress Critters cannot be trusted with secret information. Too clever by half...
Saturday, April 08, 2006
So why would the Pentagon issue orders that only armor issued by the military is to be used by the troops if in fact privately purchased body armor is superior to that issued by the military. Note: The military is presently disputing as unproven the superiority of the privately purchased armor.
The two most cyncial reasons I can think of are:
1. That the current body armor contract is yet another example of "pay to play" and there is a reward for donating to republican causes. Crony capitalism run amok.
2. The survival rate and/or the severity of injuries would be significantly less for troops wearing the privately-purchased body armor as opposed to that of the troops wearing the gear issued by the military. The PR debacle that would ensue if it's found that the "best equipment available" was not used when it was readily available is too much for the Pentagon to risk. Empirical evidence of fewer deaths and less severe injuries cannot be tolerated.
Bush has insisted from day one that he would not put the troops in harm's way without the best equipment available. It's well-documented that this claim, like so many others, is empty rhetoric.
Go to Daily Kos for more...
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
"I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy," Bush said during an Aug. 13 bike ride with journalists at his ranch.
Too Many FUBARed Policy Decisions Requiring Staff Changes?
‘‘And my needs are to have good, crisp information so I can make decisions on behalf of the American people.’’
I long for the days when I thought the oceans would protect us from Bush's good and crisp decisions.