Bush gave his last State of the Union. And by the judgment of a case of even advanced Bush Hate Derangement Syndrome it was a yawner. Even Bush looked bored. Hell, the only time he came alive was when he looked downright annoyed he was kept up late for this shit.
So among all the talk of his legacy we will hear over the next (LAST) 12 months of his bushiness here is the real question that will test the nation for the remainder of the Bush Presidency.
That is of course exactly how soon after January 20, 2009 12:00 noon will President Brush Cutter unload his Crawford fantasy ranch (at a significant profit).
Extra points if you guess which department of the Wingnut Welfare Administration buys it.
My pick is the Presidential Library Committee by May 2009. Bush will move to Southern CA. San Diego off chance Palm Springs.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Friday, November 02, 2007
George Bush's Successful Administration
It is time to concede this simple fact. The Bush Administration has been a successful presidency. I think at this point seven years into his incumbency there can be little doubt.
Granted for the first six years he had a rubber stamp Congress only too eager to hitch their own stunning corruption to his wild brand of success.
The gains he made in destroying the public commonweal from the surplus to public education to Medicare prescription benefits to almost but not quite Social Security were astonishing.
But even since 2006 in the true test of adversity George Bush has been almost singularly successful.
He turned the Department of Justice from an institution internationally admired for its impartial adherence to the rule of law to – excuse me, words fail me here – the closest I can come to it is stalinesque,
Evisceration of Constitutional guarantees of Habeas Corpus? Ditto.
A feeble FEMA? enough said.
A mercenary military? Blackwater - aka Hessians R us.
Not to mention the implicit but oft constitutionally upheld right to privacy. He has been singularly successful there. George Bush turned your telephone into his earphone and your Congress can barely stifle a yawn.
Now that is success.
But it is was ability to make torture the official policy of the United States that has been simply elegant.
I admire the man. Really, I do.
Poll after poll says that George Bush is a President as despised as Richard Nixon was at the nadir of the Watergate scandal. A majority of our fellow citizens say this country is on the wrong track. Measure after measure. Issue after issue.
But does Congress act to compel this man to actually honor his oath to “protect and defend the Constitution”?
Nahhh! To actually believe that stuff is for the simple people like you and me. Not those we elect to office. They know better. I sometimes forget my place in this democratic ecosystem and wonder why.
But surely it is not meant for people like our senators. Mine are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. They like to be called moderates. They must be. They certainly use their Constitutional office to hold a lawless and outright criminal administration to account pretty moderately. I don't expect your's do any better, But I do wish mine would decide to spend more time with their families.
No, our Congress has become bi-partisan. That means giving your telephone company immunity for illegally giving George Bush illegal information he was not legally entitled too is reasonable. Even though they all had a way to do it legally if it was necessary. That was a law called FISA. But you can forget I said it because that will be an obsolete acronym soon enough.
Why is it that “reasonable” with these people always ends up meaning selling out the Constitution?
Ahh but then there is torture.
That is George Bush's crowning glory - so to speak. Since the very founding of our nation torture has been the one area that we have steadily held to be the very the definition of Scum of Humanity. If you do it you are Scum. It really was that simple. For hundreds of years our civilization the one that bore this nation held torture beyond contempt becoming more and more certain in its determination that that was so. Even when that belief was breached it was eventually corrected. Often by hanging.
We hung Nazis to prove we meant it.
In those times the United States – our country- drove the efforts to outlaw torture forever everywhere no matter what. These efforts became the third and fourth Geneva conventions. We created the international institutions that recognized torture as the abomination that it is.
We even explicitly made those conventions our laws.
These days our government still can criticize those governments we don't like that do torture but how George Bush keeps a straight face, I don't know. The man is a genius. And certainly the world only laughs at us.
Somehow George turned it all around. We torture.
You and me and the guy next to you – we all do it. We do it in Guantanamo. We do it in the CIA's black sites. We have Syrians and Egyptians do it for us and wherever else we can KlubMed those we want beaten to within a heartbeat of their lives without the rule of law getting in the way.
Because George Bush made it OK. Need more proof?
The likely next Attorney General will be just like the last Attorney General – Fredo - in being completely happy to let you and your country torture people.
Senate Question: Waterboarding?
Nominee Answer: That's personally abhorrent.
Senate Question: “Is it torture? “
Nominee Answer: Wink Wink...
Senators Diane Feinstein and George Schumer: “Well, that's enough for me.”
And your Congress will happily go along.
Oh sure they will make long faces and talk about the rule of law before they vote to approve his nomination but that is talk for the simple people like you and me.
Chalk another win up for President Bush.
Granted for the first six years he had a rubber stamp Congress only too eager to hitch their own stunning corruption to his wild brand of success.
The gains he made in destroying the public commonweal from the surplus to public education to Medicare prescription benefits to almost but not quite Social Security were astonishing.
But even since 2006 in the true test of adversity George Bush has been almost singularly successful.
He turned the Department of Justice from an institution internationally admired for its impartial adherence to the rule of law to – excuse me, words fail me here – the closest I can come to it is stalinesque,
Evisceration of Constitutional guarantees of Habeas Corpus? Ditto.
A feeble FEMA? enough said.
A mercenary military? Blackwater - aka Hessians R us.
Not to mention the implicit but oft constitutionally upheld right to privacy. He has been singularly successful there. George Bush turned your telephone into his earphone and your Congress can barely stifle a yawn.
Now that is success.
But it is was ability to make torture the official policy of the United States that has been simply elegant.
I admire the man. Really, I do.
Poll after poll says that George Bush is a President as despised as Richard Nixon was at the nadir of the Watergate scandal. A majority of our fellow citizens say this country is on the wrong track. Measure after measure. Issue after issue.
But does Congress act to compel this man to actually honor his oath to “protect and defend the Constitution”?
Nahhh! To actually believe that stuff is for the simple people like you and me. Not those we elect to office. They know better. I sometimes forget my place in this democratic ecosystem and wonder why.
But surely it is not meant for people like our senators. Mine are Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. They like to be called moderates. They must be. They certainly use their Constitutional office to hold a lawless and outright criminal administration to account pretty moderately. I don't expect your's do any better, But I do wish mine would decide to spend more time with their families.
No, our Congress has become bi-partisan. That means giving your telephone company immunity for illegally giving George Bush illegal information he was not legally entitled too is reasonable. Even though they all had a way to do it legally if it was necessary. That was a law called FISA. But you can forget I said it because that will be an obsolete acronym soon enough.
Why is it that “reasonable” with these people always ends up meaning selling out the Constitution?
Ahh but then there is torture.
That is George Bush's crowning glory - so to speak. Since the very founding of our nation torture has been the one area that we have steadily held to be the very the definition of Scum of Humanity. If you do it you are Scum. It really was that simple. For hundreds of years our civilization the one that bore this nation held torture beyond contempt becoming more and more certain in its determination that that was so. Even when that belief was breached it was eventually corrected. Often by hanging.
We hung Nazis to prove we meant it.
In those times the United States – our country- drove the efforts to outlaw torture forever everywhere no matter what. These efforts became the third and fourth Geneva conventions. We created the international institutions that recognized torture as the abomination that it is.
We even explicitly made those conventions our laws.
These days our government still can criticize those governments we don't like that do torture but how George Bush keeps a straight face, I don't know. The man is a genius. And certainly the world only laughs at us.
Somehow George turned it all around. We torture.
You and me and the guy next to you – we all do it. We do it in Guantanamo. We do it in the CIA's black sites. We have Syrians and Egyptians do it for us and wherever else we can KlubMed those we want beaten to within a heartbeat of their lives without the rule of law getting in the way.
Because George Bush made it OK. Need more proof?
The likely next Attorney General will be just like the last Attorney General – Fredo - in being completely happy to let you and your country torture people.
Senate Question: Waterboarding?
Nominee Answer: That's personally abhorrent.
Senate Question: “Is it torture? “
Nominee Answer: Wink Wink...
Senators Diane Feinstein and George Schumer: “Well, that's enough for me.”
And your Congress will happily go along.
Oh sure they will make long faces and talk about the rule of law before they vote to approve his nomination but that is talk for the simple people like you and me.
Chalk another win up for President Bush.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sometimes a useless fuck is a ...
The "Hitler comparison" should be shouted from the rooftops, as should the Goebbels comparison, the Himmler comparison, the Mengele, Stalin, Torquemada, Beelzebub comparisons and all the rest. If it struts like a Nazi, talks like Nazi, tortures like a Nazi and wages aggressive and illegal war like a Nazi... it's not a duck.
Press kit: Watch til you get it. Criminy what does it take?
Press kit: Watch til you get it. Criminy what does it take?
Who is this national self?
Josh Marshal say this: "Tancredo doesn't cut much of a figure in the progressive blogosphere. But in the mainstream media circles he's treated as a respectable if rather outlandish figure. But it's worth pausing play for a moment and recognizing the guy as we would if read about him in the history books: a hate-peddler and huckster, the dark side of our national selves.
But I am developing a problem with this kind of observation.
Yeah Tancredo is a cretin.
Yeah his supporters are cretins.
But how exactly does he represent some (implicitly ) dark side of our national selves?
Our national selves have acquiesced in building a virtual fence along the border to keep out "those people".
Our nation selves have allowed a war criminal president and his war criminal minions to torture whomever he likes. And Our national selves do not stop him.
Our national selves have stripped a millennium old rule of Habeus Corpus from our national protections. And our national selves do not stop it from happening or correct it.
Our national selves are about to allow the telecoms to walk away from abetting a lawless, unconstitutional and criminal regime from commandeering information that they were constitutionally and legally required to protect. And our national selves do not demand that they stand up to their obligations.
Our national selves have allowed the rule of law to become the rule of fiat by the ruling party. And our national selves yawn.
Sure we have had able assistance from a Republican party whose members seemingly in every office and every position of responsibility have chosen a Stalinist one-party system over the Constitution. But our national selves tune into their prurient lies.
And sure we have had the miserable assistance of the Democratic majority in the House and Senate who have chosen - frankly I don't know what they have chosen but whatever it is, it superseded their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
SO no, I don't understand what "dark side" Josh Marshal is referring to. As near as I can figure. Tancredo and the rest are representing us pretty faithfully.
But I am developing a problem with this kind of observation.
Yeah Tancredo is a cretin.
Yeah his supporters are cretins.
But how exactly does he represent some (implicitly ) dark side of our national selves?
Our national selves have acquiesced in building a virtual fence along the border to keep out "those people".
Our nation selves have allowed a war criminal president and his war criminal minions to torture whomever he likes. And Our national selves do not stop him.
Our national selves have stripped a millennium old rule of Habeus Corpus from our national protections. And our national selves do not stop it from happening or correct it.
Our national selves are about to allow the telecoms to walk away from abetting a lawless, unconstitutional and criminal regime from commandeering information that they were constitutionally and legally required to protect. And our national selves do not demand that they stand up to their obligations.
Our national selves have allowed the rule of law to become the rule of fiat by the ruling party. And our national selves yawn.
Sure we have had able assistance from a Republican party whose members seemingly in every office and every position of responsibility have chosen a Stalinist one-party system over the Constitution. But our national selves tune into their prurient lies.
And sure we have had the miserable assistance of the Democratic majority in the House and Senate who have chosen - frankly I don't know what they have chosen but whatever it is, it superseded their oath to support and defend the Constitution.
SO no, I don't understand what "dark side" Josh Marshal is referring to. As near as I can figure. Tancredo and the rest are representing us pretty faithfully.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
irony 101
From the AP
"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.
I just don't know what to freakin say. Has she even seen the Daily Show - let alone Saturday Night Live over the last million years - and she can't even see the irony in her stupidity? The AP didn't say anything about Rice struggling to keep a straight face. But I guess that's why she's the Secretary of State. Ask Colin.
And yes I know that Gawfabid there is a hint here that I am comparing our Perfect Republic(tm) to the horrible bunch-o-ruskie bastards but still.
Has she never talked to Alberto in the last 6 years?
This is exactly the kind of thing that the criminal Bushism opens us to. Who the fuck is going to take any criticism we say seriously (I can't even do it for crissakes and I think Putin is a major creep) when since 9-11-changed-everything we can't even say that we AREN'T ourselves doing exactly what Rice says Russia is.
Seriously in the quote above change "Kremlin" to White House" and "the Russians" to "President Bush". Is there a note of cognitive dissonance?
No.
Secretary Rice, all I can say to you is get bent.
"I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin. I have told the Russians that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma," said Rice, referring to the Russian parliament.
I just don't know what to freakin say. Has she even seen the Daily Show - let alone Saturday Night Live over the last million years - and she can't even see the irony in her stupidity? The AP didn't say anything about Rice struggling to keep a straight face. But I guess that's why she's the Secretary of State. Ask Colin.
And yes I know that Gawfabid there is a hint here that I am comparing our Perfect Republic(tm) to the horrible bunch-o-ruskie bastards but still.
Has she never talked to Alberto in the last 6 years?
This is exactly the kind of thing that the criminal Bushism opens us to. Who the fuck is going to take any criticism we say seriously (I can't even do it for crissakes and I think Putin is a major creep) when since 9-11-changed-everything we can't even say that we AREN'T ourselves doing exactly what Rice says Russia is.
Seriously in the quote above change "Kremlin" to White House" and "the Russians" to "President Bush". Is there a note of cognitive dissonance?
No.
Secretary Rice, all I can say to you is get bent.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
What a dope
What deserves congressional attention?
Well, none other than the Move On scandal of course. Like Terry Schiavo I guess.
Here is GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. He sent a letter to Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman demanding a probe into the "scandal."
It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct," Davis writes. "You have repeatedly challenged the public statements of administration and private industry officials and sought testimony under oath. It is time for you to give equal treatment to The New York Times.
He of course neglected to mention the times that Attorney General, and various other military and executive employees weren't sworn in. I guess because they are of the better sort. You can tell him
he's a dope - in a nice way of course - here
Tom Davis, you are a dope
Well, none other than the Move On scandal of course. Like Terry Schiavo I guess.
Here is GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia. He sent a letter to Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman demanding a probe into the "scandal."
It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct," Davis writes. "You have repeatedly challenged the public statements of administration and private industry officials and sought testimony under oath. It is time for you to give equal treatment to The New York Times.
He of course neglected to mention the times that Attorney General, and various other military and executive employees weren't sworn in. I guess because they are of the better sort. You can tell him
he's a dope - in a nice way of course - here
Tom Davis, you are a dope
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Dear Harry Reid
Below is text of email to the Senator:
I've been thinking about the stupid censure of Move ON that you and your leadership team allowed the Republicans to pull. And I think turn about is fair play.
Here is a link from a blog - http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/rulz-by-digby-village-rule-number-one.html
It's ok it won't hurt you. You can click on it and read it and everything.
It's from Digby's blog Hullabaloo. In this post she lists a number of times when the right played the Obama/Osama name game.
Now this is just a small selection of things that if it had been aimed at a Republican would have made you allow a censure motion to show the dastardly culprit.
But instead you can use these as a starting point. Here's the idea: each day offer a censure motion to be you know just to be fair and balanced.
With a little thought you could add to the list I am sure. Pull some Swift Boat quotes and slurs aimed at Max Cleland - shucks just read Ann Coulter for a week and you would have a mother load (no pun intended).
That way you can cave to the Republicans and avoid making them actually have to filibuster whenever they threaten to and you with each (update: edited because the actual note had gibberish here) vote you lose you will still carry a message more potent than whatever pointless Iraq resolution you come up with to please Republican Moderates (ha-ha-ha) to plead with President Bush to please like uphold his oath to the Constitution.
Just trying to be helpful here,
I've been thinking about the stupid censure of Move ON that you and your leadership team allowed the Republicans to pull. And I think turn about is fair play.
Here is a link from a blog - http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/09/rulz-by-digby-village-rule-number-one.html
It's ok it won't hurt you. You can click on it and read it and everything.
It's from Digby's blog Hullabaloo. In this post she lists a number of times when the right played the Obama/Osama name game.
Now this is just a small selection of things that if it had been aimed at a Republican would have made you allow a censure motion to show the dastardly culprit.
But instead you can use these as a starting point. Here's the idea: each day offer a censure motion to be you know just to be fair and balanced.
With a little thought you could add to the list I am sure. Pull some Swift Boat quotes and slurs aimed at Max Cleland - shucks just read Ann Coulter for a week and you would have a mother load (no pun intended).
That way you can cave to the Republicans and avoid making them actually have to filibuster whenever they threaten to and you with each (update: edited because the actual note had gibberish here) vote you lose you will still carry a message more potent than whatever pointless Iraq resolution you come up with to please Republican Moderates (ha-ha-ha) to plead with President Bush to please like uphold his oath to the Constitution.
Just trying to be helpful here,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
