« April 2005 | Main | February 2006 »

May 8, 2005

Belated Bernard Bashing

Boy, he must be running out of material. Now he's taken to aimlessly criticizing his British ideological counterparts in another sad attempt to make fun of Democrats. Even Anne Coulter would think this is pathetic.

I'll assume Bernard wrote this BEFORE the elections since the loss of 47 seats by any political party is anything BUT a political victory. Don't worry folks, if the Conservatives won a coup of the British government, Bernard would just take it as a repudiation of left-of-center politics at the other side of the pond.


On A related note Bryan Freeman's piece where he whines about Democrats filibustering Bush's wingnut would be taken seriously if his claim that "no judicial nominee supported by a simple majority of the U.S. Senate has been filibustered successfully" was actually accurate. Senate Republicans in 1968 successfully filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas to Chief Justice even when Fortas enjoyed a majority of the vote (45-43) in his favor.

If Bryan Freeman was more honest and less evasive, if his only qualifications was that any nominee was "filibustered", he would have faced many instances where judicial nominees were filibustered, including one that was participated by the holder of the nuclear football, Bill Frist. Back in 2000, Republicans unsuccessfully filibustered Clinton nominee Richard Paez. Bill Frist was among the handful of Republicans that voted for the filibuster.

All of this gives credence to this simple truth: Republicanism is a dead ideology fueled by sycopanthy and opportunistic hypocrisy.

May 6, 2005

If Clinton Did This. . .

Posted on Fri, May. 06, 2005 Memo says Bush wanted data to justify Saddam's removal

Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON A classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates President Bush decided by summer 2002 to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The White House has denied accusations that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided military force should be used to overthrow Saddam's regime.

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on the documents.

In July 2002, and for some time afterward, Bush administration advisers insisted "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

And you wonder why Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts reneged on the deal to look into how the Bush administration handled the intelligence in the run-up to the war AFTER the election, instead seeing fit to blame the intelligence failure solely on the CIA. Now we know better, but the public (or the mainstream media that fuels public opinion) seems not to care.

Face it, Republicanism is just a dead ideology fueled by sychopanthy. Whatever they do is just a cold and calculating scheme to keep hold on the levers of power in this country, nothing else. Hypocrisy is not a vice to be avoided but a useful tool for hegemony. I hope this article will be the first among many that will topple the house of cards built by the Republicans and their enablers, but with the media now concentrated on the already resolved "runaway bride" story, I'm not too optimistic.

When Religion And Politics Don't Mix

video of Democrats being excommunicated from a church

I think it's time to disabuse ourselves of the fact that being a conservative, religious fundy automatically makes you "moral". These people are out for power and influence over our very lives, and it makes it even more reprehensible that they use religion, the values so intrinsic in the lives of everyday people, to achieve those ends.

May 4, 2005

U.S. Will Have Trouble Winning Wars

Myers: Iraq, Afghan Wars Strain Military

In Report, Gen. Myers Tells Congress That Iraq, Afghan Wars Have Strained U.S. Fighting Ability


By JOHN J. LUMPKIN Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON May 3, 2005 The U.S. military may not be able to win any new wars as quickly as planned because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained its manpower and resources, the nation's top military officer told Congress in a classified report.

Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described the U.S. military as in a period of increased risk, according to a senior defense official, who described the report Tuesday on the condition of anonymity.

Myers predicted the risk would go down in a year or two, the official said. Myers provided the report to Congress Monday.

Still, the report says the U.S. military is able to win any conflict it becomes involved in, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

"We are at war and that level of operations does have some impact on troops," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. "But the president continues to be confident, as well as his military commanders, that we can meet any threat decisively."

The military's reorganization toward Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's vision of a lean, agile force, should reduce what increased risk it is facing, Whitman said.

Among the most likely conflicts the Pentagon foresees in the near term are with North Korea and Iran, the two remaining members of President Bush's "axis of evil." The Bush administration accuses both of having ambitions to become a nuclear power; North Korea has already claimed it has nuclear weapons.

The U.S. military has timelines in place for defeating its potential adversaries, given enough soldiers, tanks, aircraft and warships to do the job. But with so much of those resources tied up fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, those timelines could slip, Myers said, according to the defense official.

About 138,000 American troops are in Iraq, according to U.S. Central Command. Another 18,000 are in Afghanistan.

Military officials have given no precise estimate when they will be able to significantly draw down the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, but some generals have suggested it could come next year if Iraqi security forces continue to improve in quality and grow in numbers.

So what didja expect invading a country that had no part in attacking us?