Thursday, August 31, 2006

Quote of the Week

"I read three Shakespeares!"

--Pres. George W. Bush during an interview with MSNBC.
Click the link. that's one of the times he did pretty well. my favorite. he's lied so much about Iraq and 9/11 that he's started confusing himself. here's a gem:
"I didn't think about going to Iraq until after we were attacked!...he war came to our shores, remember that. We had a foreign policy that basically said, let’s hope calm works. And we were attacked."
The problem is, of course, that he's talking about 9/11 and we retaliated against the country that wasn't involved. He's made this blur a LOT lately. more than, say...a month ago. The press, to some degree, isn't letting him run with this anymore and started to question him on it. the sad part is that Bush seems truly stumped when pressed. I mean, what's going on here?? they aren't buying every line he casts anymore.

...just maybe 1/2 of 'em.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

A World Gone too Far...?

Perhaps the Brits have gone too far when liking AC/DC gets you stabbed in the eye by other teenaged thugs. Should she have said she dug BB Mak?

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

This is Pretty Funny

I guess a CNN anchor left her mic on in the bathroom?

Thursday, August 24, 2006

OK, I'm Glad I Don't Believe It...

Supposedly Bush has read SIXTY (60) books this year alone. that's roughly 2 a week while he's a "War President". I know of only a handful of people that can pull off this feat, (not the reading but reading and living their normal lives) and even THEY tend not to do this. Bush somehow finds this much time along WITH being president?? hardly. i'd fear MORE for our country if this was true. talk about having no one at the wheel!!

Of course he could mean 'audio books'. the man DOES a lot of traveling.

Ask Someon Who Knows?

Maybe this indicates nothing...but...

Is it a sign when the majority of the Iraqi War vets that have come home to run for office are Democrats? maybe. click above. see the video from one of the best out there.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

New Twist on Survivor!

This time the tribes will be grouped by race. Finally, TV will let people compete openly, solely on the basis of race. supposedly this was in response to complaints of 'too few' minorities on the show. now they get on the show, segregated into their own tribes.

we've come so far.

Best Bumper Sticker

The wand sent me this one:


Monday, August 21, 2006

Like a Drunk Waking Up to See His House Afire...

UPDATE: Bush is now calling for UN peacekeepers to come into The Lebanon ASAP because there's a danger that fighting will break out again. Israel has been bombing Hezbollah's attempt to re-supply itself. One must wonder how they'd take a similar action from Hezbollah. Anyway, it's good to see bush calling for immediate action. I actually agree with him. Too bad he took so long to have a policy. the question perhaps is when do the most people die: When our government does or does not have a policy?

Sunday, August 20, 2006

The Lebanon

The comments in the Pakistan post below started to drift off into the current other war going on right now (the one in The Lebanon). My understanding that (much of) all of this started because Hezbollah kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers with the plan/hope to do a prisoner trade (this isn't exactly uncommon). I'm not in the position to equivocate here, but many would claim that the women and children that Israel has imprisoned (supposedly that's who they wanted to free with the trade). So, if Israel holds a woman prisoner without charges, conviction, or sentencing, is THAT kidnapping too? If not, why?

Ok. So, regardless of all this, Israel strikes The Lebanon in the South. This is where Hezbollah has control of the country. The attacks are overwhelming. They strike a the civilian infrastructure relentlessly and this creates an outcry that the Israeli government over-reacted.

You know all this. One thing that seems to repeatedly claimed: these attacks are also about ending hezbollah's repeated attacks (over the last year(s)) in northern Israel. The argument goes that Hezbollah keeps on sending rockets over the border and this crackdown is ALSO to put an end to that as well. The first thing I don't understand is how half hearted this argument has been made by Israeli supporters. Second is how little press this has gotten. It makes me wonder. Real or bogus?

If it's bogus, then they better come up with something better.

If it's real, then I have a few questions:
How often were these rockets hitting THINGS in Israel?
Were they just hitting patches of dirt?
You know, I don't want to downplay the fear rockets coming into your land can be, but I have to wonder how serious the threat was considering the small press it was getting beforehand.

As this war has progressed, much has been made about the indiscriminate way the Hezbollah rockets have killed in Israel. The Israel's have done MUCH more to eliminate civilian deaths. The problem is that--despite best efforts--the Israelis have been killing an awful lot of civilians. This fact has erased the best intentions for many watchers around the globe.

All-in-all, I think this war has been a disaster for the Israelis. They've made themselves (somehow) less sympathetic in the immediate world in which they live. They, in some cases, have managed to unite normally unfriendly Shiite and Sunni Muslims. I cannot stress how dangerous and foolish this has been.

The Israelis have acted without a view to even their own interests beyond the immediate future. (perhaps not even that). The root problem is that their goal is solved by one of two means--diplomacy or LOTS of dead soldiers house to house military action. Neither are ideal, but one should not fool themselves that lobbing missiles into cities and highways would somehow fix it.

Tell me the OTHER time that ever worked out. Yeah. Exactly.

(originally drafted 8/6. sorry for the delay)

Monday, August 14, 2006

Maybe I Don't Know What I'm Talking About...

I'm tired of people asking whether these foiled UK terrorist attacks will change people's minds about candidates like Ned Lamont who are against the war in Iraq. Ned (and the rest of us) aren't against the war on terror. He/We're against the made up war we're fighting in iraq INSTEAD of fighting the real war on terror. one has nothing to do with the other.

Why on earth would being against a phoney war on terror in iraq mean you are against the REAL war on terrorism? every credible politician out there that has been against Iraq has also been FOR increased security and FOR the war in afganistan. The problem is that the press has taken the war in Iraq as ALSO being a war on terror as a starting point PREMISE. it is not. any politician that doesn't confront this directly EVERY time it comes up does us all a dis-service. Particularly Lamont when Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman are saying you support Al Qaeda if you support Lamont (since he claims the Iraqi war was a bogus mistake). i'm tired of people (particularly on the left) feeling all hurt about this language hurled at them. it isn't simply enough to say "hey that's not right" or "that goes to far". You have to hit that it not only is wrong but shows a lack of understanding of the wars we face. If you, today, see the war in Iraq as a central front of the war on terror and that THAT is where Al Qaeda is, then you are not just wrong you are incompetent. you are willfully ignoring our own intelligence and you should resign. these people deal with us in the HARSHEST terms possible. EVERY comment must be met with not only a counter point but a demand for accountability and an identification of fabrication. this doesn't go just for the pundits on TV. it goes for you and me at the barbershop. We HAVE to be done with this business or we will never be done. We'll STILL be fighting the PR battle of whether 9/11 was tied to iraq.


Saturday, August 12, 2006

Never too busy to Dodge the Press

GREEN BAY, Wis. -- On one of the scariest days yet in the five-year battle with terrorists, President Bush prepared to make a speech to reassure the American people. But the White House press corps was 1,000 miles away in Texas.

Bush had left his ranch vacation and jetted north for a scheduled closed-door fundraiser. No press plane accompanied him. And so when news broke that Britain had broken up a major terrorist plot, the only ones there to convey the president's reaction were a handful of local reporters and a few pool journalists who ride in the back of Air Force One.

The idea that Bush could travel across the country without a full contingent of reporters, especially in the middle of a war, highlights a major cultural shift in the presidency and the news media. In the four decades since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, presidents traditionally have taken journalists with them wherever they traveled on the theory that when it comes to the most powerful leader on the planet, anything can happen at any time.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Joe Lieberman--True Democrat...Rove man!

well what do you know. Joe Lieberman was such a good dem that he's meeting with Karl Rove for campaign advice/help. You know you're a worthless democrat if Karl Rove is trying to get you re-elected!

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Joe Lieberman --Loyal Democrat...?

Yeah. So loyal that he's gonna try to spoil the Conneticutt Senate race as an independent. Joe Lieberman lost the CT Democratic primary tonight. Ned Lamont (the upset winner) ran a VERY hard race against Lieberman and still pledge to support him in the general election if he (Lamont) lost.

Lieberman, the loyal dem wouldn't agree to that. Instead, he moved to run as a 3rd party independent if he lost. Who cares what the dems wanted? who cares what the voters say? It's the Joe Show, don't you know!

on two different days this week I've heard two different die-hard republicans bemoan Mr. Lieberman's plight. whoa is he! A principled man and the 'radical left' kick him to the curb. BULL I say. I questioned both of them at their sincerity, that they'd ever just had their heart on their sleeve for a democrat! Let me put it to you how I put it to them:

How can anyone in Lieberman's position keep digging himself into this hole? How unwilling to see the mess he's in? You have other Senators that voted for the war (Kerry, Edwards). That's not the problem. You have other senators that haven't said they regretted their vote (Clinton). Even that's not the problem. Lieberman has cheered on the president's Iraq policy. It's one thing to keep silent or complain. Its another thing to cheer it on. He's done this up until this very week. We're talking about an Iraq policy that even Republican senators have called a disaster (Hegel). He's said THIS WEEK that things are going WELL in Iraq.

Even the GOP pals I spoke to would agree that Iraq is going poorly! So then I asked them: how the hell can you think he should win a DEMOCRATIC primary when even YOU think he's full of crap on how he sees Iraq? Now look where he's at! Maybe you can get away with that crap if you were the democratic senator from Alabama, but he's not. He's from CONNETICUTT! You think THOSE democrats want to put up with the crap you as a Mississippi Republican would call BS?! please!

the usual response is 'well, I guess so...' and to sorta trail off.

I've never liked Lieberman. I thought he was a poor choice as VP in 2000 on EVERY possible level. He's rarely used his seniority to help the party. His bridge building efforts would be welcomed by moderates like me if he were not completely out to lunch on foreign policy.

Now its the Joe Show. In his unwillingness to accept the votes of the democrats he claims to be, he's gonna run a 3 way race, split the ticket, and maybe give it to the GOP. Why? Because it isn't about Conneticutt. It isn't about the voters wishes. It's about Joe Lieberman, the first and only consideration.