Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Time to get off the fence...
">
After listening to both Sentators Clinton and Obama, reading their websites, and calling their campaigns with my own questions. I have made my choice.
I am supporting Barak Obama for President of the United States.
After listening to both Sentators Clinton and Obama, reading their websites, and calling their campaigns with my own questions. I have made my choice.
I am supporting Barak Obama for President of the United States.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
UPDATED - Thoughts on "Super Tuesday"
">
In the movie "The Sting" part of an elaborate con game involves a staged horse race with a pre-determined outcome. The 'mark', a wealthy gangster is tricked into placing a huge bet "to win" on the horse that will actually come in second.
Lately, it's been hard not to feel like as Democrats we are being conned into betting on a non-existant horse race that the media keeps telling us is a sure thing.
The pundits are loving the Clinton - Obama horse race. Watching CNN, MSNBC or even the un-reality show that is Fox News, you would think the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination was effectively over. All that is left is a super Tuesday coin toss between Hillary or Barak.
There is a two horse race going on. But it is a race to see who can spread the most horse dung out for Democratic primary voters and call it "change".
Now dont get me wrong, I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is brilliant. But to say she is the candidate of change is like buying a Hummer to combat global warming. Senator Clinton is the very embodiment of "establishment". A well-intentioned and accomplished establishment. But establishment never the less.
I will also confess to liking Barak Obama as well. He was my State Senator when I lived in Illinois, and I was thrilled when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. But to be honest, I keep wating for Senator Obama say what he would actually DO if elected. His speeches are stirring, uplifting and almost completely devoid of details.
I come away from listening to Senator Obama inspired, but no better informed than I was before. After nearly eight years of "we're making progress", and "doing hard work", I find Obama's generalities, stirring though they may be, more that a little disturbing.
I guess as a voter I need more than just "trust me, I am ready from day one", or "trust me, I stand for change."
The challenges facing the next President of the United States will be massive. The GOP, slow to come to terms with reality, is still far too invested in their collective denial of the complete failure of the Bush Presidency, to allow for real bipartisan cooperation.
So for any real change to take place, we will need to nominate someone who not only can win the White House, but will have big enough coat tails to give the next adminstration a filibuster proof majority in both houses of Congress.
Meanwhile, surrogates of Hillary Clinton try to quietly suggest support for Obama makes you opposed to a woman President, and surrogates of Barak Obama try to gently assert that support for Clinton makes you uncomfortable with an African American President.
What I want to know is who is going to repair the damage of the last 7 plus years. Who is going to address the impending bankruptcy of our nation due to the costs of health care? Who is going stop writing checks from an overdrawn account and then asking countries with very different agendas than ours, to lend us money to cover the debt?
Guess what? I don't just want "change" I want competence. I don't just want someone with experience, I want someone with courage. I don't just want a nominee with ambition, I want one with vision.
I don't just want to win, I want all of us to move forward.
I don't care what demographic a candidate can claim to be "connected to". I just want a President who is connected to reality. I want a President who can address the root causes of our problems, not just try to affix blame for them.
And I really don't care how you voted on, felt about or expressed yourself regarding the war in Iraq back in 2003. I just care about how you will END this war in 2008, not 2010, 2012 or 2020.
I want to watch a State of the Union Address and feel proud of our democracy, engaged in our Republic's national debate and confident in my President's committment to preserve, protect and defend our nation, our laws and our hopes and dreams.
I have tremendous respect for both Senators Clinton and Obama. But I honesty don't see either of them able to look past their desire to become President, and clearly articulate what they would hope to achieve AS President.
For the last 3 years, I have been listening to all of those who would be our next President. I have read their websites. Heard their stump speeches, and even attended their rallies. The only candidate who was been able to answer my question "What will you do to fix my country?", was John Edwards.
We cannot afford to get stung betting on a false horse race. There is simply too much at stake.
On Tuesday, February 5th I had hoped to vote for the future, I had hoped to vote for solutions, I had hoped to vote for possibilties, not just probabilities.
I had hoped to vote for John Edwards.
That is not going be case next Tuedsday. John Edwards has withdrawn from the race saying it was time for him to "step aside and let history blaze its path."
I honestly don't know who I am going to vote for now. I know friends of mine who are very passionate about Barak Obama, say the natural alternative for an Edwards voter is Obama. I am not so sure.
Part of me worries that the Democratic Party may have just handed the White House to John McCain
In the movie "The Sting" part of an elaborate con game involves a staged horse race with a pre-determined outcome. The 'mark', a wealthy gangster is tricked into placing a huge bet "to win" on the horse that will actually come in second.
Lately, it's been hard not to feel like as Democrats we are being conned into betting on a non-existant horse race that the media keeps telling us is a sure thing.
The pundits are loving the Clinton - Obama horse race. Watching CNN, MSNBC or even the un-reality show that is Fox News, you would think the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination was effectively over. All that is left is a super Tuesday coin toss between Hillary or Barak.
There is a two horse race going on. But it is a race to see who can spread the most horse dung out for Democratic primary voters and call it "change".
Now dont get me wrong, I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is brilliant. But to say she is the candidate of change is like buying a Hummer to combat global warming. Senator Clinton is the very embodiment of "establishment". A well-intentioned and accomplished establishment. But establishment never the less.
I will also confess to liking Barak Obama as well. He was my State Senator when I lived in Illinois, and I was thrilled when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. But to be honest, I keep wating for Senator Obama say what he would actually DO if elected. His speeches are stirring, uplifting and almost completely devoid of details.
I come away from listening to Senator Obama inspired, but no better informed than I was before. After nearly eight years of "we're making progress", and "doing hard work", I find Obama's generalities, stirring though they may be, more that a little disturbing.
I guess as a voter I need more than just "trust me, I am ready from day one", or "trust me, I stand for change."
The challenges facing the next President of the United States will be massive. The GOP, slow to come to terms with reality, is still far too invested in their collective denial of the complete failure of the Bush Presidency, to allow for real bipartisan cooperation.
So for any real change to take place, we will need to nominate someone who not only can win the White House, but will have big enough coat tails to give the next adminstration a filibuster proof majority in both houses of Congress.
Meanwhile, surrogates of Hillary Clinton try to quietly suggest support for Obama makes you opposed to a woman President, and surrogates of Barak Obama try to gently assert that support for Clinton makes you uncomfortable with an African American President.
What I want to know is who is going to repair the damage of the last 7 plus years. Who is going to address the impending bankruptcy of our nation due to the costs of health care? Who is going stop writing checks from an overdrawn account and then asking countries with very different agendas than ours, to lend us money to cover the debt?
Guess what? I don't just want "change" I want competence. I don't just want someone with experience, I want someone with courage. I don't just want a nominee with ambition, I want one with vision.
I don't just want to win, I want all of us to move forward.
I don't care what demographic a candidate can claim to be "connected to". I just want a President who is connected to reality. I want a President who can address the root causes of our problems, not just try to affix blame for them.
And I really don't care how you voted on, felt about or expressed yourself regarding the war in Iraq back in 2003. I just care about how you will END this war in 2008, not 2010, 2012 or 2020.
I want to watch a State of the Union Address and feel proud of our democracy, engaged in our Republic's national debate and confident in my President's committment to preserve, protect and defend our nation, our laws and our hopes and dreams.
I have tremendous respect for both Senators Clinton and Obama. But I honesty don't see either of them able to look past their desire to become President, and clearly articulate what they would hope to achieve AS President.
For the last 3 years, I have been listening to all of those who would be our next President. I have read their websites. Heard their stump speeches, and even attended their rallies. The only candidate who was been able to answer my question "What will you do to fix my country?", was John Edwards.
We cannot afford to get stung betting on a false horse race. There is simply too much at stake.
On Tuesday, February 5th I had hoped to vote for the future, I had hoped to vote for solutions, I had hoped to vote for possibilties, not just probabilities.
I had hoped to vote for John Edwards.
That is not going be case next Tuedsday. John Edwards has withdrawn from the race saying it was time for him to "step aside and let history blaze its path."
I honestly don't know who I am going to vote for now. I know friends of mine who are very passionate about Barak Obama, say the natural alternative for an Edwards voter is Obama. I am not so sure.
Part of me worries that the Democratic Party may have just handed the White House to John McCain
Monday, January 21, 2008
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Parting thoughts on the Iowa Caucus...
"Oh, there's nothing halfway about the Iowa way to treat you,
When we treat you which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without. That we recall.
We can be cold As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time And never see eye-to-eye."
- "Iowa Stubborn" From "The Music Man"
The overall importance of the Iowa Caucus is rightly a matter of some debate. After all, fewer people voted in Iowa in total than live in city of San Francisco. Iowa in general could hardly be considered a demographic representation of , well anything besides mainly white anglo-saxons. The media frenzy that decends on the Hawkeye state every four years not withstanding, the overall importance of who won or who lost in Iowa is largely symbolic.
Having grown up on the other side of the Mississippi River in Wisconsin, I have heard all manner of Iowa jokes and puns. Yet once every four years Iowa in all its Hawkeye wierdness takes center stage in our nation's poltical drama. My Grandmother on my mother's side was a native Iowan, her youngest brother my Great Uncle, still is. Iowans tend to be a slightly cantankerous bunch. If I was running for President, my Uncle Dale, a retired hog farmer from Waterloo, Iowa would frankly be the last voter I would want have to try to win over.
I recall once visiting his farm when I was a young boy. We were going to ride one of his horses. His daughter was having little luck getting the horse to raise his head up out of the grass so the bit and bridle could be put on. Dale, walking by saw this, promptly walked over to the horse and kicked it sqaure in the jaw. the horse jerked its head up and became very cooperative after that. Dale's only explanation was "You hafta get their attention first."
By giving the first primary vote victory of the 2008 election to Barak Obama and second place to John Edwards, Iowa collectively kicked two American politicians square in jaw. With the clear purpose of getting their attention.
The first was George W. Bush. The lopsided turn out of Democrats versus Republicans, including the number of Republicans who changed ranks and caucused for a Democrat is something that, were I a GOP strategist, would have me awake nights with worry. Mike Huckabee can say he "won" Iowa all he wants. But the fact is he simply was the Republican who lost the least. Iowa clearly told the GOP, the next President of the United States will not be from your party, you folks are done for a while.
The second person to get an Iowa footprint to the jaw was Hillary Clinton, and by proxy her husband, former President Bill Clinton. To a certain extent Iowa sent a kick through the national leadership of the Democratic Party. The word "change" is in many ways almost a cliche' in poltics. But with one swift kick, Iowa let it be known that just becuase the next President isn't going be a Republican, it doesn't mean it's going be just any Democrat.
Iowa clearly articulated what is exptected of the next President; Ending the war, sooner rather than later, the beginings of universal heath coverage next year, rather than 4 years from now. Addressing the global climate change crisis now not ten years from now. The recognition that there IS a difference between Free Trade and Fair Trade.
I have come away this week with a new found respect for those cantankerous Iowa voters. The American political horse needed a good swift kick to let it know that 2008 will be a year of change. For the Democrats, you can't run for President, because you think it's your turn. For the Republicans, you can't expect not to be held accountable for mess your party has made over the last 8 years.
But most of all, for both parties you will not be able to ignore the will of the American People, because Iowa has clearly shown the rest of the nation, a great way to get your attention.
When we treat you which we may not do at all.
There's an Iowa kind of special chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.
We've never been without. That we recall.
We can be cold As our falling thermometers in December
If you ask about our weather in July.
And we're so by God stubborn We could stand touchin' noses
For a week at a time And never see eye-to-eye."
- "Iowa Stubborn" From "The Music Man"
The overall importance of the Iowa Caucus is rightly a matter of some debate. After all, fewer people voted in Iowa in total than live in city of San Francisco. Iowa in general could hardly be considered a demographic representation of , well anything besides mainly white anglo-saxons. The media frenzy that decends on the Hawkeye state every four years not withstanding, the overall importance of who won or who lost in Iowa is largely symbolic.
Having grown up on the other side of the Mississippi River in Wisconsin, I have heard all manner of Iowa jokes and puns. Yet once every four years Iowa in all its Hawkeye wierdness takes center stage in our nation's poltical drama. My Grandmother on my mother's side was a native Iowan, her youngest brother my Great Uncle, still is. Iowans tend to be a slightly cantankerous bunch. If I was running for President, my Uncle Dale, a retired hog farmer from Waterloo, Iowa would frankly be the last voter I would want have to try to win over.
I recall once visiting his farm when I was a young boy. We were going to ride one of his horses. His daughter was having little luck getting the horse to raise his head up out of the grass so the bit and bridle could be put on. Dale, walking by saw this, promptly walked over to the horse and kicked it sqaure in the jaw. the horse jerked its head up and became very cooperative after that. Dale's only explanation was "You hafta get their attention first."
By giving the first primary vote victory of the 2008 election to Barak Obama and second place to John Edwards, Iowa collectively kicked two American politicians square in jaw. With the clear purpose of getting their attention.
The first was George W. Bush. The lopsided turn out of Democrats versus Republicans, including the number of Republicans who changed ranks and caucused for a Democrat is something that, were I a GOP strategist, would have me awake nights with worry. Mike Huckabee can say he "won" Iowa all he wants. But the fact is he simply was the Republican who lost the least. Iowa clearly told the GOP, the next President of the United States will not be from your party, you folks are done for a while.
The second person to get an Iowa footprint to the jaw was Hillary Clinton, and by proxy her husband, former President Bill Clinton. To a certain extent Iowa sent a kick through the national leadership of the Democratic Party. The word "change" is in many ways almost a cliche' in poltics. But with one swift kick, Iowa let it be known that just becuase the next President isn't going be a Republican, it doesn't mean it's going be just any Democrat.
Iowa clearly articulated what is exptected of the next President; Ending the war, sooner rather than later, the beginings of universal heath coverage next year, rather than 4 years from now. Addressing the global climate change crisis now not ten years from now. The recognition that there IS a difference between Free Trade and Fair Trade.
I have come away this week with a new found respect for those cantankerous Iowa voters. The American political horse needed a good swift kick to let it know that 2008 will be a year of change. For the Democrats, you can't run for President, because you think it's your turn. For the Republicans, you can't expect not to be held accountable for mess your party has made over the last 8 years.
But most of all, for both parties you will not be able to ignore the will of the American People, because Iowa has clearly shown the rest of the nation, a great way to get your attention.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Candidates by (un) Intelligent Design…
I have to admit, I was kinda waiting for this one… Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul says he doesn’t believe in the Theory of Evolution.
Uh.. ok…
Hearing that from Mike Huckabee, or Tom Tancredo or even hearing several different versions of that from Mitt Romney would not be all that surprising. But I will confess I was secretly rooting for Ron Paul, only because he really isn’t a Republican . He is a Libertarian running as a Republican. A fact that annoys the heck out of the Republican Party. Watching various Fox News talking heads have to ask him questions at the GOP candidates debate is pure fun. For a while there Congressman Paul was the only reason I tuned into the GOP debates. Yet when we look at the Republican Party of 2007-1008 lets be honest, Larry Craig has a better shot at the GOP Presidential Nomination than Ron Paul does. But, over the last few weeks and months Ron Paul had been saying some pretty sensible sounding things. Stuff like;
“Cliché’s about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”
And..
“Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. “
As a result, friends of mine, longing for the days before the Republican Party lost its mind and sold its soul, have flocked to the Ron Paul bandwagon. Ah, but then in one brief moment, perhaps without even meaning to, Ron Paul showed us all exactly what is wrong with the GOP.
">
I have said it before and it still rings true. For the GOP sanity is optional. Now, I don’t want to get into a debate on Evolution versus Creationism. And to be honest I have never seen how the two concepts are incompatible. The bible says “God made…” the bible does not say how exactly. Yet in a frantic quest for the support of a fanatical religious conservative base, GOP candidates have been in a race to prove who is biggest fundamental case in the Republican Party.
Now if you want to reject the Theory of Evolution be my guest, that is entirely your prerogative. My problem with that is, don’t do it half way. The GOP may not like evolution. But they sure love Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Which is how this all relates to health care.
Huh?
That’s right. Health Care.
Here are few facts to consider. In 2008 the United States of America, over 18,000 people between the age of 18-64 will die because they do not have access to affordable health coverage. That is more than the September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina combined. What is the GOP response? “Let the Market decide”
How many times do we hear the great GOP rallying cry; “Let the Market decide!”. Well anybody who has had basic high school economics can tell you the two basic market forces are Supply and Demand. When demand for goods or services exceeds supply the price goes up. When supply for that same good or service exceeds demand the price goes down. Basic economics right? Yet in the case of Health Care, demand will always vastly exceed supply. So the GOP solution to address the deaths of nearly 350 people a week in this country boils down to economic Darwinism. Survival of the richest.
It’s always interesting to see when a healthy well insured Republican says “Health Care is not a right!” Yet claim that the ability to carry a concealed firearm, or enact public policy based on a lopsided misinterpretation of the Bible somehow are. The most basic fundamental American rights, are spelled out in our nation’s founding document.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How is right to life, something all the GOP candidates repeatedly claim to be champions of, not directly connected to access to affordable health care? And to say the Government has no role to play is to deny the next sentence in our Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
When talking about health care, the GOP loves to selectively paint “the Government” as some kind of beast that roams the countryside eating damsels and burning villages. Yet when talking about other issues like, who can or cannot get married, or who should have control over a woman’s body, or the need to invade countries that never attacked us, the Government becomes a warrior angel defending freedom and standing firm for the rights of “families”, (or at least James Dobson’s narrow definition of what constitutes a family.)
The real question that needs to be asked of all the GOP candidates from Ron Paul on down the line is simply this. How many people in the United States this year will have to die, so you can feel ideologically comfortable?
Uh.. ok…
Hearing that from Mike Huckabee, or Tom Tancredo or even hearing several different versions of that from Mitt Romney would not be all that surprising. But I will confess I was secretly rooting for Ron Paul, only because he really isn’t a Republican . He is a Libertarian running as a Republican. A fact that annoys the heck out of the Republican Party. Watching various Fox News talking heads have to ask him questions at the GOP candidates debate is pure fun. For a while there Congressman Paul was the only reason I tuned into the GOP debates. Yet when we look at the Republican Party of 2007-1008 lets be honest, Larry Craig has a better shot at the GOP Presidential Nomination than Ron Paul does. But, over the last few weeks and months Ron Paul had been saying some pretty sensible sounding things. Stuff like;
“Cliché’s about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.”
And..
“Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers. “
As a result, friends of mine, longing for the days before the Republican Party lost its mind and sold its soul, have flocked to the Ron Paul bandwagon. Ah, but then in one brief moment, perhaps without even meaning to, Ron Paul showed us all exactly what is wrong with the GOP.
">
I have said it before and it still rings true. For the GOP sanity is optional. Now, I don’t want to get into a debate on Evolution versus Creationism. And to be honest I have never seen how the two concepts are incompatible. The bible says “God made…” the bible does not say how exactly. Yet in a frantic quest for the support of a fanatical religious conservative base, GOP candidates have been in a race to prove who is biggest fundamental case in the Republican Party.
Now if you want to reject the Theory of Evolution be my guest, that is entirely your prerogative. My problem with that is, don’t do it half way. The GOP may not like evolution. But they sure love Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Which is how this all relates to health care.
Huh?
That’s right. Health Care.
Here are few facts to consider. In 2008 the United States of America, over 18,000 people between the age of 18-64 will die because they do not have access to affordable health coverage. That is more than the September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina combined. What is the GOP response? “Let the Market decide”
How many times do we hear the great GOP rallying cry; “Let the Market decide!”. Well anybody who has had basic high school economics can tell you the two basic market forces are Supply and Demand. When demand for goods or services exceeds supply the price goes up. When supply for that same good or service exceeds demand the price goes down. Basic economics right? Yet in the case of Health Care, demand will always vastly exceed supply. So the GOP solution to address the deaths of nearly 350 people a week in this country boils down to economic Darwinism. Survival of the richest.
It’s always interesting to see when a healthy well insured Republican says “Health Care is not a right!” Yet claim that the ability to carry a concealed firearm, or enact public policy based on a lopsided misinterpretation of the Bible somehow are. The most basic fundamental American rights, are spelled out in our nation’s founding document.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How is right to life, something all the GOP candidates repeatedly claim to be champions of, not directly connected to access to affordable health care? And to say the Government has no role to play is to deny the next sentence in our Declaration of Independence.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
When talking about health care, the GOP loves to selectively paint “the Government” as some kind of beast that roams the countryside eating damsels and burning villages. Yet when talking about other issues like, who can or cannot get married, or who should have control over a woman’s body, or the need to invade countries that never attacked us, the Government becomes a warrior angel defending freedom and standing firm for the rights of “families”, (or at least James Dobson’s narrow definition of what constitutes a family.)
The real question that needs to be asked of all the GOP candidates from Ron Paul on down the line is simply this. How many people in the United States this year will have to die, so you can feel ideologically comfortable?
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Monday, December 03, 2007
We now Join the GOP Debate In Progress...
Welcome to the Republican Presidential Candidates primary debate!
FOX NEWS HOST BRIT HUME: And now let's meet the candidates.
Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas,; and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California.
Here now is the format of this debate. Each candidate will be asked a series of questions on wide range of foreign policy , domestic issues and perhaps others matters. Answers are limited to one minute each. With points being scored by the most effective use of the following:
Global War on Terror or “GWOT” = Ten Points
Islamic Fascism , Islamic Fascist terrorist = Ten Points
Any combination of the words “Hillary” and/ or “Clinton” = Ten points.
“Secular Progressive(s)” = Five points.
(BELL RINGS)
Let's get started. We will cover a number of issues tonight, Let's begin the questioning with my colleague Chris Wallace. Chris?
WALLACE: Thank you, Brit. I just want to say how brave it is for you to be leading this debate while we are in the middle of a Global War on Terror . (BELL RINGS) Wow! Ten points for me! Ok then, Good evening, gentlemen. Let's talk about illegal immigration. A question for you all …. As president, would you continue to protect us from the hordes of Islamic Fascists who see to exploit the weak enforcement of our borders? Mayor Giuliani?
GIULIANI: Chris, ever since 9-11, and by 9-11 I mean September the eleventh , two thousand and one, and by September 11th , 2001 I mean the day we began the global war on terror against the Islamic Fascist Terrorists that the Clintons especially Hillary would appease through secular progressive policies…
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)
OTHER CANDIDATES: Ooooooh! Ahhhhhh!
ROMNEY: Well, Chris, first of all, the Islamic fascists (BELL RINGS) clearly want our borders to be wide open so they can bring the Global War on Terror (BELL RINGS) to our nation’s homes and schools.
WALLACE: Senator McCain...
MCCAIN: GWOT! Vietnam, Victory, Honor, Islamofacists!
HUCKABEE: Secular Progressives! GWOT! Clinton! Jesus!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Congressman Tancredo, Why are you still here?
COLORADO REP. TOM TANCREDO: I am not really sure, but , I listen to my colleagues up here talk about this, and I ask -- uh…. Umm.. … GWOT! GWOT! Hillary wants to invite the Islamofascists to tea with secular progressives! (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)
WALLACE: Nice save Congressman!
TANCREDO: Thanks Chris!
CALIFORNIA REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: FENCE! FENCE! GWOT! GWOT! HILLARY!
FRED THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
GIULIANI: 9-11! September the eleventh! The day after September 10th!
MCCAIN: Vietnam, Hillary, GWOT!
ROMNEY: GWOT! GWOT!
WALLACE: Senator Brownback, I know you're itching to get in this. ; I have one for you. Your colleague, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, is making it difficult for the Republican Party to claim to be the party of family values. Now, I know that as his friend, what do you say to Senator Craig's second thoughts about resigning?
KANSAS SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Hillary Clinton wants Secular Progressives to force our surrender in the Global War on Terror!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)
(APPLAUSE)
WALKLACE : Another e-mail question for all of you "For the sake of the GOP, should Larry Craig resign immediately?"
HUNTER: GWOT!
ROMNEY: HILLARY!
GIULIANI: 9-11!
TANCREDO: ISLAMIC FASCISM!
MCCAIN: VIETMAM!
THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
HUNTER: BUILD A HIGHER FENCE!
HUCKABEE: … ISLAMOFASCISTPROGRESSALISTICCLINTONALLYDOCIOUS!!!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
BRIT HUME: Wow! Thank you, Governor.
BRIT HUME: Congressman Paul, apparently we have to ask you a question…. Why do you hate America?
PAUL: Well, first off, you're making stuff up….
BRIT HUME: I'm sorry time’s up… moving on..
PAUL: Hey! Wait a second!.....
HUME: Senator Brownback, you have a rebuttal to Congressman Paul’s answer?
BROWNBACK: Hillary will lose the GWOT by letting secular progressives force Gay Marriage into our schools!
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
PAUL: You people are nuts….
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
PAUL: Did I mention I really love guns?
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
GIULIANI: I love guns too!
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: Guns are Cool!
MCCAIN: I used guns in Vietnam
THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
TANCREDO: Hello? Is my mike on?
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: GWOT!
PAUL: Can I respond... to what you said before?
HUME : No your time is up…
HUNTER: HILLARY!
TANCREDO: THE TROOPS!!!
(((WILD APPLAUSE))))!!
WALLACE: Another nice save Tom!
ROMNEY: I like Troops!
MCCAIN: In Vietnam I was the Troops!
(APPLAUSE)
GIULIANI: Hate it when he does that…
BROWNBACK: So unfair….
HUNTER: Show off!
HUCKABEE: Jesus, GWOT! Hillary, Troops!
(BELL RINGS)
HUCKABEE: YES! I still got it!
CHRIS WALLACE: Congressman Paul, do you still hate America?
PAUL: That’s crazy! I never said…
HUME: Thank you, Congressman… your time is up The next question is for Gov. Romney,.
PAUL: Oh come on! You have got to be kidding me… !
ROMNEY: Thank you Brit, allow me to answer your question before you ask it…. GWOT!
(BELL RINGS)
GIULIANI: The day before September 12th is 9-11!
TANCREDO: *stomps foot* HILLARYCARE!
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
HUME: Okay Tom, you can come to the next debate.
TANCREDO: Woo hoo!
HUNTER: Secular Progressive Islamo-fascist Homosexual Marriages of Illegal Immigrants!
HUCKABEE: Performed by Hillary!
BROWNBACK: After an Abortion!
GIULIANI: On September the eleventh!
MCCAIN: IRAN!
(CROWD GASPS!)
HUME: All right, Senator good one. That gives you the last word here, sir.
MCCAIN: Hillary Clinton, GWOT, Victory , America.
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
BRIT HUME: That is it for us tonight. Our thanks to the candidates and their staffs, to our Fox News writing staff at the Republican Party. END
FOX NEWS HOST BRIT HUME: And now let's meet the candidates.
Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York City, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Senator John McCain of Arizona, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas,; and Congressman Duncan Hunter of California.
Here now is the format of this debate. Each candidate will be asked a series of questions on wide range of foreign policy , domestic issues and perhaps others matters. Answers are limited to one minute each. With points being scored by the most effective use of the following:
Global War on Terror or “GWOT” = Ten Points
Islamic Fascism , Islamic Fascist terrorist = Ten Points
Any combination of the words “Hillary” and/ or “Clinton” = Ten points.
“Secular Progressive(s)” = Five points.
(BELL RINGS)
Let's get started. We will cover a number of issues tonight, Let's begin the questioning with my colleague Chris Wallace. Chris?
WALLACE: Thank you, Brit. I just want to say how brave it is for you to be leading this debate while we are in the middle of a Global War on Terror . (BELL RINGS) Wow! Ten points for me! Ok then, Good evening, gentlemen. Let's talk about illegal immigration. A question for you all …. As president, would you continue to protect us from the hordes of Islamic Fascists who see to exploit the weak enforcement of our borders? Mayor Giuliani?
GIULIANI: Chris, ever since 9-11, and by 9-11 I mean September the eleventh , two thousand and one, and by September 11th , 2001 I mean the day we began the global war on terror against the Islamic Fascist Terrorists that the Clintons especially Hillary would appease through secular progressive policies…
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)
OTHER CANDIDATES: Ooooooh! Ahhhhhh!
ROMNEY: Well, Chris, first of all, the Islamic fascists (BELL RINGS) clearly want our borders to be wide open so they can bring the Global War on Terror (BELL RINGS) to our nation’s homes and schools.
WALLACE: Senator McCain...
MCCAIN: GWOT! Vietnam, Victory, Honor, Islamofacists!
HUCKABEE: Secular Progressives! GWOT! Clinton! Jesus!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
WALLACE: Congressman Tancredo, Why are you still here?
COLORADO REP. TOM TANCREDO: I am not really sure, but , I listen to my colleagues up here talk about this, and I ask -- uh…. Umm.. … GWOT! GWOT! Hillary wants to invite the Islamofascists to tea with secular progressives! (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)
WALLACE: Nice save Congressman!
TANCREDO: Thanks Chris!
CALIFORNIA REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: FENCE! FENCE! GWOT! GWOT! HILLARY!
FRED THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
GIULIANI: 9-11! September the eleventh! The day after September 10th!
MCCAIN: Vietnam, Hillary, GWOT!
ROMNEY: GWOT! GWOT!
WALLACE: Senator Brownback, I know you're itching to get in this. ; I have one for you. Your colleague, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, is making it difficult for the Republican Party to claim to be the party of family values. Now, I know that as his friend, what do you say to Senator Craig's second thoughts about resigning?
KANSAS SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: Hillary Clinton wants Secular Progressives to force our surrender in the Global War on Terror!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS)
(APPLAUSE)
WALKLACE : Another e-mail question for all of you "For the sake of the GOP, should Larry Craig resign immediately?"
HUNTER: GWOT!
ROMNEY: HILLARY!
GIULIANI: 9-11!
TANCREDO: ISLAMIC FASCISM!
MCCAIN: VIETMAM!
THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
HUNTER: BUILD A HIGHER FENCE!
HUCKABEE: … ISLAMOFASCISTPROGRESSALISTICCLINTONALLYDOCIOUS!!!
(BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
BRIT HUME: Wow! Thank you, Governor.
BRIT HUME: Congressman Paul, apparently we have to ask you a question…. Why do you hate America?
PAUL: Well, first off, you're making stuff up….
BRIT HUME: I'm sorry time’s up… moving on..
PAUL: Hey! Wait a second!.....
HUME: Senator Brownback, you have a rebuttal to Congressman Paul’s answer?
BROWNBACK: Hillary will lose the GWOT by letting secular progressives force Gay Marriage into our schools!
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
PAUL: You people are nuts….
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
PAUL: Did I mention I really love guns?
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
GIULIANI: I love guns too!
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: Guns are Cool!
MCCAIN: I used guns in Vietnam
THOMPSON: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
TANCREDO: Hello? Is my mike on?
(LAUGHTER)
HUCKABEE: GWOT!
PAUL: Can I respond... to what you said before?
HUME : No your time is up…
HUNTER: HILLARY!
TANCREDO:
(((WILD APPLAUSE))))!!
WALLACE: Another nice save Tom!
ROMNEY: I like Troops!
MCCAIN: In Vietnam I was the Troops!
(APPLAUSE)
GIULIANI: Hate it when he does that…
BROWNBACK: So unfair….
HUNTER: Show off!
HUCKABEE: Jesus, GWOT! Hillary, Troops!
(BELL RINGS)
HUCKABEE: YES! I still got it!
CHRIS WALLACE: Congressman Paul, do you still hate America?
PAUL: That’s crazy! I never said…
HUME: Thank you, Congressman… your time is up The next question is for Gov. Romney,.
PAUL: Oh come on! You have got to be kidding me… !
ROMNEY: Thank you Brit, allow me to answer your question before you ask it…. GWOT!
(BELL RINGS)
GIULIANI: The day before September 12th is 9-11!
TANCREDO: *stomps foot* HILLARYCARE!
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
HUME: Okay Tom, you can come to the next debate.
TANCREDO: Woo hoo!
HUNTER: Secular Progressive Islamo-fascist Homosexual Marriages of Illegal Immigrants!
HUCKABEE: Performed by Hillary!
BROWNBACK: After an Abortion!
GIULIANI: On September the eleventh!
MCCAIN: IRAN!
(CROWD GASPS!)
HUME: All right, Senator good one. That gives you the last word here, sir.
MCCAIN: Hillary Clinton, GWOT, Victory , America.
(BELL RINGS) (APPLAUSE)
BRIT HUME: That is it for us tonight. Our thanks to the candidates and their staffs, to our Fox News writing staff at the Republican Party. END
Monday, November 26, 2007
As we move into the Holidays...
We pause to view one of my favorite Holiday TV moments...
Thanks Rolf & John :)
Thanks Rolf & John :)
Monday, November 19, 2007
Doctor Who meet... well, Doctor Who!
A special scene filmed for the British charity telethon "Children in Need"
where Doctor #10 (David Tennant) meets his 5th incarnation (Peter Davison)
Just watch it.. PURE FUN!
where Doctor #10 (David Tennant) meets his 5th incarnation (Peter Davison)
Just watch it.. PURE FUN!
Thursday, November 15, 2007
James Dobson's WORST nightmare!
Oh Dear God!! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!! A normal, well adjusted, talented kid who has (GASP!) TWO FATHERS! AIIIIGHGHHH!!!! Obviously this ISN'T from the United States, where inane bigots like Dobson talk about no child "left behind" but would rather have a kid like Terrence have have NO Family than one that doesn't meet HIS defininitions. This video is great...
">
">
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Autumnal Thoughts...
Here on an Autum night, amidst the grass, and the falling leaves.
Drunk on the crickets and the starry sky.
Oh what fine stories we could tell,
With these stars to tell them by.
How we expected to live in a paradise
Of easy jokes and loving grace.
Then we awoke, and turned on the light
And saw each other’s human face.
I choose hope, I believe in green.
I believe in the contradiction that turns out true.
I believe all that is essential is unseen.
And for this lifetime, I believe in you.
So I will remember a sweet Autumn night.
So lovely, and so full of grace.
Above your head, the universe hung its lights.
And I reached out and touched your face.
All of the lovers and the love they made:
Nothing that was between them was a mistake.
All that was ever done for love’s sake
Was not wasted, and will never fade.
All who have loved shall be forever young
And always walk in grandeur on a clear Fall night.
They live in every song that is ever sung.
In every painting of pure light.
O love that shines in every star
And love reflected in the silver moon.
It is not here, but it’s not far.
Not here yet, but it will be here soon.
- Garrison Keillor
- Garrison Keillor
Friday, October 05, 2007
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Weapons of Mass Distraction
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a stir at a Senate hearing this week when he repeated his view that gay sex is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. Pace, who retires next week, said he was seeking to clarify similar remarks he made in spring, which he said were misreported.
Hmmm, okay... Let me see if I understand this....
Over three thousand American Soldiers have died in the a war under his command, Soldiers have had to scavange scrap metal to armor vehicles, under his command. Wounded veterans have languished neglected and ignored in squalid conditions in VA hospitals, under his command. Billions of dollars of have gone missing from military contracts and inept management, all under his command.
With all that, what do you suppose keeps outgoing Joint Chiefs Chair General Peter Pace awake with worry?
Sex.
Apparently the threat posed by unmarried soldiers having sex, especially gay sex is the reason General Pace was unable secure Iraq, catch Osama Bin Laden or effectively manage the oversight of taxpayer resources.
"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing Wednesday focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.
Wow, . The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sitting before the United States Senate manged to show that he is only slightly less stupid than the President of Iran, who seems to think Homosexuals don't even exist in his country
"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law." Pace said.
Fine, lets talk about "God's Law" for a moment. One of the most basic statutes of God's law is that God doesn't like false witness. Looking at General Pace's testamony over the last three years on the subject of Iraq we see the stark contrast of his words with the reality on the ground. One can only conclude General Pace was either lying or is an idiot wth no clue of the realites of his own command.
God's law clearly commands General Pace to look after the poor. How many soldiers and their families have been forced to pay for body armor, medical treatment and even hospital food. (The pentagon bills wounded soldiers $8.10 a day for their own food in military hospitals.) Yet that doesn't seem to bother General Pace as much as gay sex seems to.
"I would be very willing and able and supportive" to changes to the policy "to continue to allow the homosexual community to contribute to the nation without condoning what I believe to be activity -- whether it to be heterosexual or homosexual -- that in my upbringing is not right," Pace said. Pace noted that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits homosexual activity as well as adultery.
Actually no, adultery is not listed as an offense in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Articles 77 through 134 of the UCMJ detail what are "punitive offenses" (things military personnel can be prosecuted for), and Adultery isn't on the list.
Adultery is covered under Article 134, which is also known as the "General Article." It prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
There is a street in the Itaewon district of Seoul, South Korea just a short walk from the main gate of Yongsan Garrison , one of the largest American Military bases in the world. The street is commonly known as "Hooker Hill." On any given Friday or Saturday night you can see pleanty of American Military personnel, many of them wearing wedding rings, frequenting the impressive concentration of brothels found there.
General Pace never mentioned his outrage over this in his testamony. Yet he expressed at length his deep personal concerns over the danger to the military posed by homosexual conduct.
To hear General Pace tell it, the real threat to good order and dicilpline is not, extended tour after extended tour, or a VA system that is failing wounded soldiers, or contractors getting paid ten times the average salary of enlisted personnel. Not even the continued lack of adequate equipment or an exit strategy from an Iraqi civil war seem to have the same weight on General Pace's moral threat scales as the idea of two men and one cot seems to have.
The obsession by the Bush Adminstration and it's various mouthpieces over all things Gay is not hard to understand. If I were General Pace I too would be looking for something else, anything else to talk about, besides the colossal blunder and lethal quagmire that is the war he has supposedly been in charge of fighting.
To talk about gays, makes for great stock footage on the Fox News Channel. General Pace standing up for his core moral, and religious beliefs , defending the military from the "gay agenda".
A good friend of mine currently serving in Iraq is, as General Pace put it, one of those, "wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military." On his third tour, his "gay agenda" is pretty simple. - Stay alive and come home.
Yet for General Pace, the real danger to the military isn't the civil war raging all around my friend in Iraq, but rather the idea when he does finally come home to his partner of twelve years, they wont be sleeping in twin beds.
Proberbs 3:34 says "God is stern in dealing with the arrogant." It's probably a very good thing for Peter Pace that the United States Military isn't governed by religious law after all.
Ok, this was pretty funny...
Being old enough to remember the original cast of Saturday Night Live (SNL) I will confess that over the past couple of seasons I had pretty much given up on the show. It just hasn't been funny. But even I had to admit THIS was pretty good.
">
">
Friday, September 14, 2007
The End of the Bush Era
I actually marked my calendar. Thursday, September 13th, 2007, George W. Bush's presidency came to an end. Not his term, but his presidency.
Much like the horrific quagmire of war and strategic failure he leaves us with in Iraq, other aspects of this administration will be felt long after this failed president rides off to whatever awaits him when his term expires. But his "Presidency", has ended.
Lyndon Johnson knew it when his Presidency had ended on the fields of the Tet Offensive. Richard Nixon knew it when his Presidency had ended in 18 minutes of silence on an Oval Office tape. One truly wonders if George W. Bush knows his Presidency ended with admission by his surrogate, General David Petreus that he honesty did not know if the billions of dollars and thousands of American lives spent in Iraq had made America safer or not.
It was painful to watch. The American Presidency reduced to a desperate plea to a diminished base consisting of only those Republicans who would support him regardless. Not out of any real affection for him, or belief in his policies, but simply out of hatred for those who disagree with him.
The purpose of the speech to the nation was clear. It was George W. Bush trying to make one last pitch of a multi level marketing scam, to people who has already bought into it, and are now stuck.
The President knew he was not going to convince the American People to support his war. A war begun on lies and fought on ego. The American People have moved on. They know reality carries no weight with George W. Bush. For the vast majority of Americans mislead by their President, failed by their Congress, it is come down to waiting for January 20th 2009.
By cowering in fear of their own electoral mandate, Congressional Democrats have chosen to allow the continued death of American soldiers out of fear of being painted in campaign ads as "soft on terror" or "not supporting the troops. As a result, there is little chance that anything will change before 2009 . The President made it abundantly clear he knows that too, when he spoke not about the reality on the ground in Iraq, but rather spoke of the fantasy-Iraq that he alone sees, and clings to like addict clinging to his fix.
In the long strange trip of George W. Bush, He sees Iraq as a nation of people yearning for democracy, George Bush's democracy. He sees a war against Al-queda where he leads a grand coalition of 36 nations in the battle to save the Iraqi people. A people who really do want to get along, they just are being mislead by "terrorist killers and extremists". And all of Iraq looks with hope to their central government to lead the way , and all we need to do is just stay there long enough and "victory" will happen.
In his speech the President at long last admitted that for him, staying "long enough" is an open ended timeline. In admitting his vision of war beyond his term, George W. Bush finally told the truth.
Beyond the simplistic catch phrases of good versus evil. Beyond the endless repetition of the bold-faced lie that Iraq is somehow connected to the events of 9/11. Beyond the billions of dollars wasted, and yes even beyond the thousands of American, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost , beyond all that, lies the true legacy of George W. Bush.
The desperate need to never allow for the idea that he might not be right. Regardless of the facts and regardless of the costs. The final act of the Bush Presidency was to say to this nation and the world, that George W. Bush will not lose face , regardless of how many people have to die to make sure of it.
In the last 500 or so days of this President's term , we as a nation will have to come to terms with those costs. And the real question to ask anyone who would seek to succeed the sad failed Presidency of George W. Bush , is not just how and when do we bring our troops home, but also how do we restore the nation we would bring them home to.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Thursday, September 06, 2007
The time has come to stop "Playing"
I am always amazed by Keith Olbermann's clear, concise empassioned honesty. He is the heir to Edward R. Morrow, and once again, his "special comment" speaks for us all. Watch it, then send it to everyone you know.
">
Text Transcript:
Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Mr. Bush's trip, and his startling admission of the true motive for this war, which was revealed in his absence.
And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was.
But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.
As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home…
Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying… is lying… will be lying.... about Iraq.
He presumably did not know, that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper's book "Dead Certain."
"I'm playing for October-November," Mr. Bush said to Draper.
That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan.
Which is, to quote him: "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."Comfortable” -- that is -- with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, "stay... longer."
And there it is, Sir.
We've caught you.
Your goal is not to bring some troops home -- maybe -- if we let you have your way now;
Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;
You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.
Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal -- perpetuating this war indefinitely.
War today, war tomorrow, war forever!
And you are playing at it!
Playing!
A man with any self-respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country!
You have no remaining credibility about Iraq, Sir.
And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing -- and this time, using the second of his two faces.
The President told reporters, quote -- "They, (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) "tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."
And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today.
"Bush May Bring Some Troops Home."
While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the President's true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him, will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.
But, to a country dying of thirst, the President seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen -- a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.
Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush.
Again.
But now, we know... why.
You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book…
And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq -- hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.
"If you look at my comments over the past eight months," you told reporters, "it's gone from a security situation -- in the sense that we're either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I'm able to speculate on the hypothetical."
Mr. Bush, the only "hypothetical" here is that you are not now holding our troops... hostage.
You have no intention of withdrawing them.
But that doesn't mean you can't pretend you're thinking about it, does it?
That is your genius, Sir -- as you see it, anyway.
You can deduce what we want -- we, the people, remember us? -- and then use it against us.
You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation.
And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq -- or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq -- they will get the bullet points: 'Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq.'
You can fool some of the people all of the time, can't you, Mr. Bush?
You are playing us!
And as for the most immediate victims of the President's perfidy and shameless manipulation -- those troops, yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base...
Tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death...
The President saved, for them, the most egregious "playing" in the entire trip.
"I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media."
One must compliment Mr. Bush's writer.
That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly crafted phrase of his Presidency.
For depraved indifference to Democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media… for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people -- nothing... could top that.
As if, Sir, you listened to all the "calm assessments" of our military commanders --rather than firing the ones who dared say The Emperor Has No Clothes, and The President, No Judgment;
As if, Sir, your entire presidency was not a "nervous reaction", and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician;
As if, Sir, "the media" does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation's future may depend on the airing of dissent.
And as if, Sir, those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation's agony... and the nation's insistence.
But this President has ceased to listen.
This President has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us, is safety.
And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity... with soldiers... some of whom will... on his orders... be killed before the year... maybe the month... is out.
Just over 500 days remain in this Presidency.
Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield.... in these last 500 days.
Consider the singular fraudulence of this President's trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of The Petraeus Report... in these last 500 days.
Consider how this President has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream... in these last 500 days.
And consider again how this President has spoken to that biographer: that he is "playing for October-November"… the goal in Iraq is "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence"… and consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered... in these last 500 days.
In the context of all that… now, consider… these next 500 days.
Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end.
Even if it means your resignation.
Even if it means your impeachment.
Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term.
Even if it means a Democratic Congress -- and those true Patriots among the Republicans -- standing up and denying you another **penny** for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.
This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country... in the next 500 days…
Not while you, Sir... are playing.
Good night, and good luck.
">
Text Transcript:
Finally tonight, a Special Comment about Mr. Bush's trip, and his startling admission of the true motive for this war, which was revealed in his absence.
And so he is back from his annual surprise gratuitous photo-op in Iraq, and what a sorry spectacle it was.
But it was nothing compared to the spectacle of one unfiltered, unguarded, horrifying quotation in the new biography to which Mr. Bush has consented.
As he deceived the troops at Al-Asad Air Base yesterday with the tantalizing prospect that some of them might not have to risk being killed and might get to go home…
Mr. Bush probably did not know that, with his own words, he had already proved that he had been lying… is lying… will be lying.... about Iraq.
He presumably did not know, that there had already appeared those damning excerpts from Robert Draper's book "Dead Certain."
"I'm playing for October-November," Mr. Bush said to Draper.
That, evidently, is the time during which, he thinks he can sell us the real plan.
Which is, to quote him: "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates, will be comfortable about sustaining a presence."Comfortable” -- that is -- with saying about Iraq, again quoting the President, "stay... longer."
And there it is, Sir.
We've caught you.
Your goal is not to bring some troops home -- maybe -- if we let you have your way now;
Your goal is not to set the stage for eventual withdrawal;
You are, to use your own disrespectful, tone-deaf word, playing at getting the next Republican nominee to agree to jump into this bottomless pit with you, and take us with him, as we stay in Iraq for another year, and another, and another, and anon.
Everything you said about Iraq yesterday, and everything you will say, is a deception, for the purpose of this one cynical, unacceptable, brutal goal -- perpetuating this war indefinitely.
War today, war tomorrow, war forever!
And you are playing at it!
Playing!
A man with any self-respect, having inadvertently revealed such an evil secret, would have already resigned and fled the country!
You have no remaining credibility about Iraq, Sir.
And yet, yesterday at Al-Asad, Mr. Bush kept playing -- and this time, using the second of his two faces.
The President told reporters, quote -- "They, (General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker) "tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."
And so, Mr. Bush got his fraudulent headlines today.
"Bush May Bring Some Troops Home."
While the reality is, we know from what he told Draper, that the President's true hope is that they will not come home; but that they will stay there, because he is keeping them there now, in hope that those from his political party fighting to succeed him, will prolong this unendurable disaster into the next decade.
But, to a country dying of thirst, the President seemed to vaguely promise a drink from a full canteen -- a promise predicated on the assumption that he is not lying.
Yet you are lying, Mr. Bush.
Again.
But now, we know... why.
You gave away more of yourself than you knew in the Draper book…
And you gave away more still, on the arduous trip back out of Iraq -- hours in the air, without so much as a single vacation.
"If you look at my comments over the past eight months," you told reporters, "it's gone from a security situation -- in the sense that we're either going to get out and there will be chaos, or, more troops. Now, the situation has changed, where I'm able to speculate on the hypothetical."
Mr. Bush, the only "hypothetical" here is that you are not now holding our troops... hostage.
You have no intention of withdrawing them.
But that doesn't mean you can't pretend you're thinking about it, does it?
That is your genius, Sir -- as you see it, anyway.
You can deduce what we want -- we, the people, remember us? -- and then use it against us.
You can hold that canteen up and promise it to the parched nation.
And the untold number of Americans whose lives have not been directly blighted by Iraq -- or who do not realize that their safety has been reduced and not increased by Iraq -- they will get the bullet points: 'Bush is thinking about bringing some troops home. Bush even went to Iraq.'
You can fool some of the people all of the time, can't you, Mr. Bush?
You are playing us!
And as for the most immediate victims of the President's perfidy and shameless manipulation -- those troops, yesterday sweating literally as he spoke at Al-Asad Air Base...
Tonight, again sweating figuratively in The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death...
The President saved, for them, the most egregious "playing" in the entire trip.
"I want to tell you this about the decision, about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the conditions on the ground -- not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to poll results in the media."
One must compliment Mr. Bush's writer.
That, perhaps, was the mostly perfectly crafted phrase of his Presidency.
For depraved indifference to Democracy, for the craven projection of political motives onto those trying to save lives and save a nation, for a dismissal of the value of the polls and the importance of the media… for a summary of all he does not hold dear about this nation or its people -- nothing... could top that.
As if, Sir, you listened to all the "calm assessments" of our military commanders --rather than firing the ones who dared say The Emperor Has No Clothes, and The President, No Judgment;
As if, Sir, your entire presidency was not a "nervous reaction", and you yourself, nothing but a Washington politician;
As if, Sir, "the media" does not largely divide into those parts your minions are playing, and those others who unthinkingly and uncritically serve as your echo chamber, at a time when the nation's future may depend on the airing of dissent.
And as if, Sir, those polls were not so overwhelming, and not so clearly reflective of the nation's agony... and the nation's insistence.
But this President has ceased to listen.
This President has decided that night is day, and death is life, and enraging the world against us, is safety.
And this laziest of Presidents, actually interrupted his precious time off to fly to Iraq to play at a photo opportunity... with soldiers... some of whom will... on his orders... be killed before the year... maybe the month... is out.
Just over 500 days remain in this Presidency.
Consider the dead who have piled up on the battlefield.... in these last 500 days.
Consider the singular fraudulence of this President's trip to Iraq yesterday, and the singular fraudulence of the selling of The Petraeus Report... in these last 500 days.
Consider how this President has torn away at the fabric of this nation in a manner of which terrorists can only dream... in these last 500 days.
And consider again how this President has spoken to that biographer: that he is "playing for October-November"… the goal in Iraq is "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence"… and consider how this revelation contradicts every other rationale he has offered... in these last 500 days.
In the context of all that… now, consider… these next 500 days.
Mr. Bush, our presence in Iraq must end.
Even if it means your resignation.
Even if it means your impeachment.
Even if it means a different Republican to serve out your term.
Even if it means a Democratic Congress -- and those true Patriots among the Republicans -- standing up and denying you another **penny** for Iraq, other than for the safety and the safe conduct home of our troops.
This country cannot run the risk of what you can still do to this country... in the next 500 days…
Not while you, Sir... are playing.
Good night, and good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)