The US gov't made the Americans evacuated from Lebanon sign waivers individually agreeing to assume the bill for air fare should the US gov't decide to charge them. (Golfing at St Andrews not included)
John Mark Karr gets a plane ticket out of an arrest as a child molester and a date with an Indonesian prison by claiming an involvement in the Benet murder in the US. Is this a get out of jail free card? Will we ship him back to Indonesia to face charges? Will we at least charge him air fare?
US media role in this stupidity? hook line and sinker. Did anyone in the US press ever even raise a question that maybe just maybe his let's say opportune claim was maybe suspect? Just because he was a known child porn fan, with an ex who had an alibi for him and a known obsession with the Benet murder case.
What suspicions about his veracity (and worthiness for even a newsnote) could there possibly be?
And I wonder why these Bozos in the news media give Bush and his RICO pals a pass wile they walk away with the Constitution and most of the wealth in this country. But then again why should I be mean to Bozos.
This - yet another instance of media vacuity - is too ridiculous to be sad and too important to be ridiculous and so ridiculous that it is funny so how can it be sad?
It's a wonder in this madness that more heads don't explode like so many summertime New York manholes.
Excuse me I must tighten my brain truss.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Rules of engagement?
Is it just me or has George Bush's people gone out of their way to describe the President as being "engaged"? It seems to me if you are engaged you don't need to remind folks that you are but I could be wrong. But anyway:
White House officials said Wednesday night that the transcripts and video obtained by AP show only a few moments in time and don't reflect that Bush was engaged before, during and after the hurricane hit.
"He issued emergency disaster declarations ahead of the storm. He told people in the region to listen to the warnings of state and local officials," said Blair Jones, a White House spokesman. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials. ... He was engaged."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13994512.htm
Brown described the president throughout the crisis this way: "I think he was engaged, but I think there was an overconfidence that FEMA had handled Sept. 11, we had handled the California wildfires, we had handled the 2004 hurricanes right in the middle of the presidential elections. Hey, we could do this, too."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186546,00.html
Here are two...
In August 29th Videoconference, Former FEMA Director Michael Brown Said The President Was "Asking A Lot Of Really Good Questions I Would Expect Him To Ask." BROWN: "The President remains very, very interested in this situation. ... He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches. He's asking about hospitals. He's very engaged, and he's asking a lot of really good questions I would expect him to ask." (Bill Walsh, "The Day Storm Hit, Bush Was Worried About Levees," The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/1/06)
The President Was Engaged In The Katrina Response And Mobilized Federal Resources.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060302-17.html
(AP) WASHINGTON President Bush remained engaged during Hurricane Katrina but was overconfident that the Federal Emergency Management Agency could handle the destructive aftermath based on its record in previous disasters, former federal disaster chief Michael Brown said Wednesday.
http://cbs4boston.com/hurricanes/hurricanekatrina_story_060210802.html
White House officials said the footage reinforces what they have said to critics: that the president, at his Texas vacation home, was fully engaged from the opening hours of the emergency, while leaving operational decisions to the agencies in charge.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=1934
Oh yeah, and there's the fact that those unnamed White House sources tell Bumiller that Bush was "engaged in the fighting in Falluja," which is sort of like saying Bush was engaged in the fighting in Vietnam (on the other hand, it does help explain why things went to hell there.)
http://gadflyer.com/articles/print.php?ArticleID=117
As Cardinal Pio Laghi, perhaps the last opponent of war President Bush will meet face-to-face prior to a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, made the case for peace, the president was engaged and attentive.
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403d.htm
"If you saw the President's press conference today there was no doubt that Mr. Bush fervently believes he is doing the right thing in Iraq and effectively fighting terrorism. The President was engaged and challenging, especially to critics who have questioned his motives, like White House reporter Helen Thomas.
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=725
That is a quick perusal of the result of the first 5 pages of this Google search: "President Bush" "was engaged"
I picked the obvious stuff and Katrina seems to be the source of a lot of the need to show that Bush "is engaged" but after a bit the weight builds. It is as though everyone knows that there is a lack of gravitas that his own handlers know must be addressed.
But really... Have there been other Leaders of the Free World for whom the need to be described as "ENGAGED" has been so great?
White House officials said Wednesday night that the transcripts and video obtained by AP show only a few moments in time and don't reflect that Bush was engaged before, during and after the hurricane hit.
"He issued emergency disaster declarations ahead of the storm. He told people in the region to listen to the warnings of state and local officials," said Blair Jones, a White House spokesman. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials. ... He was engaged."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13994512.htm
Brown described the president throughout the crisis this way: "I think he was engaged, but I think there was an overconfidence that FEMA had handled Sept. 11, we had handled the California wildfires, we had handled the 2004 hurricanes right in the middle of the presidential elections. Hey, we could do this, too."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186546,00.html
Here are two...
In August 29th Videoconference, Former FEMA Director Michael Brown Said The President Was "Asking A Lot Of Really Good Questions I Would Expect Him To Ask." BROWN: "The President remains very, very interested in this situation. ... He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches. He's asking about hospitals. He's very engaged, and he's asking a lot of really good questions I would expect him to ask." (Bill Walsh, "The Day Storm Hit, Bush Was Worried About Levees," The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/1/06)
The President Was Engaged In The Katrina Response And Mobilized Federal Resources.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060302-17.html
(AP) WASHINGTON President Bush remained engaged during Hurricane Katrina but was overconfident that the Federal Emergency Management Agency could handle the destructive aftermath based on its record in previous disasters, former federal disaster chief Michael Brown said Wednesday.
http://cbs4boston.com/hurricanes/hurricanekatrina_story_060210802.html
White House officials said the footage reinforces what they have said to critics: that the president, at his Texas vacation home, was fully engaged from the opening hours of the emergency, while leaving operational decisions to the agencies in charge.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=1934
Oh yeah, and there's the fact that those unnamed White House sources tell Bumiller that Bush was "engaged in the fighting in Falluja," which is sort of like saying Bush was engaged in the fighting in Vietnam (on the other hand, it does help explain why things went to hell there.)
http://gadflyer.com/articles/print.php?ArticleID=117
As Cardinal Pio Laghi, perhaps the last opponent of war President Bush will meet face-to-face prior to a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, made the case for peace, the president was engaged and attentive.
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403d.htm
"If you saw the President's press conference today there was no doubt that Mr. Bush fervently believes he is doing the right thing in Iraq and effectively fighting terrorism. The President was engaged and challenging, especially to critics who have questioned his motives, like White House reporter Helen Thomas.
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=725
That is a quick perusal of the result of the first 5 pages of this Google search: "President Bush" "was engaged"
I picked the obvious stuff and Katrina seems to be the source of a lot of the need to show that Bush "is engaged" but after a bit the weight builds. It is as though everyone knows that there is a lack of gravitas that his own handlers know must be addressed.
But really... Have there been other Leaders of the Free World for whom the need to be described as "ENGAGED" has been so great?
Rules of engagement?
Is it just me or has George Bush's people gone out of their way to describe the President as being "engaged"? It seems to me if you are engaged you don't need to remind folks that you are but I could be wrong. But anyway:
White House officials said Wednesday night that the transcripts and video obtained by AP show only a few moments in time and don't reflect that Bush was engaged before, during and after the hurricane hit.
"He issued emergency disaster declarations ahead of the storm. He told people in the region to listen to the warnings of state and local officials," said Blair Jones, a White House spokesman. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials. ... He was engaged."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13994512.htm
Brown described the president throughout the crisis this way: "I think he was engaged, but I think there was an overconfidence that FEMA had handled Sept. 11, we had handled the California wildfires, we had handled the 2004 hurricanes right in the middle of the presidential elections. Hey, we could do this, too."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186546,00.html
Here are two...
In August 29th Videoconference, Former FEMA Director Michael Brown Said The President Was "Asking A Lot Of Really Good Questions I Would Expect Him To Ask." BROWN: "The President remains very, very interested in this situation. ... He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches. He's asking about hospitals. He's very engaged, and he's asking a lot of really good questions I would expect him to ask." (Bill Walsh, "The Day Storm Hit, Bush Was Worried About Levees," The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/1/06)
The President Was Engaged In The Katrina Response And Mobilized Federal Resources.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060302-17.html
(AP) WASHINGTON President Bush remained engaged during Hurricane Katrina but was overconfident that the Federal Emergency Management Agency could handle the destructive aftermath based on its record in previous disasters, former federal disaster chief Michael Brown said Wednesday.
http://cbs4boston.com/hurricanes/hurricanekatrina_story_060210802.html
Oh yeah, and there's the fact that those unnamed White House sources tell Bumiller that Bush was "engaged in the fighting in Falluja," which is sort of like saying Bush was engaged in the fighting in Vietnam (on the other hand, it does help explain why things went to hell there.)
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=117
White House officials said the footage reinforces what they have said to critics: that the president, at his Texas vacation home, was fully engaged from the opening hours of the emergency, while leaving operational decisions to the agencies in charge.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=1934
Oh yeah, and there's the fact that those unnamed White House sources tell Bumiller that Bush was "engaged in the fighting in Falluja," which is sort of like saying Bush was engaged in the fighting in Vietnam (on the other hand, it does help explain why things went to hell there.)
http://gadflyer.com/articles/print.php?ArticleID=117
As Cardinal Pio Laghi, perhaps the last opponent of war President Bush will meet face-to-face prior to a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, made the case for peace, the president was engaged and attentive.
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403d.htm
"If you saw the President's press conference today there was no doubt that Mr. Bush fervently believes he is doing the right thing in Iraq and effectively fighting terrorism. The President was engaged and challenging, especially to critics who have questioned his motives, like White House reporter Helen Thomas.
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=725
All that is a quick perusal of the result of the first 5 pages of this Google search: "President Bush" "was engaged"
I picked the obvious stuff and Katrina seems to be the source of a lot of the need to show that Bust "is engaged" but after a bit the weight builds. It is as though everyone knows that there is a lack of gravitas that his own handlers know must be addressed.
But really... Have there been other Leaders of the Free World for whom the need to be described as "ENGAGED" has been sp great?
White House officials said Wednesday night that the transcripts and video obtained by AP show only a few moments in time and don't reflect that Bush was engaged before, during and after the hurricane hit.
"He issued emergency disaster declarations ahead of the storm. He told people in the region to listen to the warnings of state and local officials," said Blair Jones, a White House spokesman. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials. ... He was engaged."
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13994512.htm
Brown described the president throughout the crisis this way: "I think he was engaged, but I think there was an overconfidence that FEMA had handled Sept. 11, we had handled the California wildfires, we had handled the 2004 hurricanes right in the middle of the presidential elections. Hey, we could do this, too."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186546,00.html
Here are two...
In August 29th Videoconference, Former FEMA Director Michael Brown Said The President Was "Asking A Lot Of Really Good Questions I Would Expect Him To Ask." BROWN: "The President remains very, very interested in this situation. ... He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches. He's asking about hospitals. He's very engaged, and he's asking a lot of really good questions I would expect him to ask." (Bill Walsh, "The Day Storm Hit, Bush Was Worried About Levees," The New Orleans Times-Picayune, 3/1/06)
The President Was Engaged In The Katrina Response And Mobilized Federal Resources.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060302-17.html
(AP) WASHINGTON President Bush remained engaged during Hurricane Katrina but was overconfident that the Federal Emergency Management Agency could handle the destructive aftermath based on its record in previous disasters, former federal disaster chief Michael Brown said Wednesday.
http://cbs4boston.com/hurricanes/hurricanekatrina_story_060210802.html
Oh yeah, and there's the fact that those unnamed White House sources tell Bumiller that Bush was "engaged in the fighting in Falluja," which is sort of like saying Bush was engaged in the fighting in Vietnam (on the other hand, it does help explain why things went to hell there.)
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=117
White House officials said the footage reinforces what they have said to critics: that the president, at his Texas vacation home, was fully engaged from the opening hours of the emergency, while leaving operational decisions to the agencies in charge.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip.php?view=1934
Oh yeah, and there's the fact that those unnamed White House sources tell Bumiller that Bush was "engaged in the fighting in Falluja," which is sort of like saying Bush was engaged in the fighting in Vietnam (on the other hand, it does help explain why things went to hell there.)
http://gadflyer.com/articles/print.php?ArticleID=117
As Cardinal Pio Laghi, perhaps the last opponent of war President Bush will meet face-to-face prior to a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, made the case for peace, the president was engaged and attentive.
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403d.htm
"If you saw the President's press conference today there was no doubt that Mr. Bush fervently believes he is doing the right thing in Iraq and effectively fighting terrorism. The President was engaged and challenging, especially to critics who have questioned his motives, like White House reporter Helen Thomas.
http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=725
All that is a quick perusal of the result of the first 5 pages of this Google search: "President Bush" "was engaged"
I picked the obvious stuff and Katrina seems to be the source of a lot of the need to show that Bust "is engaged" but after a bit the weight builds. It is as though everyone knows that there is a lack of gravitas that his own handlers know must be addressed.
But really... Have there been other Leaders of the Free World for whom the need to be described as "ENGAGED" has been sp great?
Saturday, August 05, 2006
a future maybe?
I dunno. The Cook report says that the RICO in action squad that runs this national government is through come November.
"Time is running out for Republicans. Unless something dramatic happens before Election Day, Democrats will take control of the House. And the chances that they’ll seize the Senate are rising toward 50-50."
We can dream. But I have a rule: never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to fuck it up.
We saw it in Gore's statesman-like cave-in in 2000. It was to save the Republic a crisis or some such bullshit. Like this country has never survived a crisis. And we have seen the bullshit that decision and the elevation of the boy-king has given us.
Then we saw the Kerry campaign. Always a lackluster overambitious politician, Kerry lost an election he should have won. Ohio? Yeah probably stolen. But still. The fact that it was that close shows how bad his campaign was run.
We see it even now in CT. Thank the ever loving God that maybe just maybe Joe will get creamed. I truly hope he finds solace and comfort in his future lobbying career. But my point is that even now the Democratic establishment is trying to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory by supporting the guy who can be counted on to stick his thumb in his colleagues eyes when they need it least. The guys he caucuses with no less.
Now I am at this point I suppose a fair weather Democrat. More exactly I have become a Democrat out of desperation.
I left my hereditary democratness in 72. McGovern lost Nixon won and the Democratic establishment stopped thinking.
They decided the very next day that their very ideals we wrong.
Rather than draw the conclusion that the power of incumbency beat them. And even later that the vicious shit that was Richard Nixon got his ass handed to him because there were still people that realized that ideals were worth fighting over, they internalized the meme that they were on the wrong side of the majority of the American people.
In a single thrust, they gave everything that the RICO wing of the Republican party needed to craft a generation of power. Kevin Phillips the reformed architect of the Southern Strategy has decided that his progeny are a bunch of assholes. I agree - may God burn him in hell. But the establishment Democrats have as much blame to shoulder.
So here I am. I really want a multi-party system in the this country. But now I would settle for merely two parties.
The first thing that must happen is that the Democratic party must be forced to become something other than Republican-lite.
And possibly - just even maybe - we will have CT next week to thank for making that happen.
"Time is running out for Republicans. Unless something dramatic happens before Election Day, Democrats will take control of the House. And the chances that they’ll seize the Senate are rising toward 50-50."
We can dream. But I have a rule: never underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to fuck it up.
We saw it in Gore's statesman-like cave-in in 2000. It was to save the Republic a crisis or some such bullshit. Like this country has never survived a crisis. And we have seen the bullshit that decision and the elevation of the boy-king has given us.
Then we saw the Kerry campaign. Always a lackluster overambitious politician, Kerry lost an election he should have won. Ohio? Yeah probably stolen. But still. The fact that it was that close shows how bad his campaign was run.
We see it even now in CT. Thank the ever loving God that maybe just maybe Joe will get creamed. I truly hope he finds solace and comfort in his future lobbying career. But my point is that even now the Democratic establishment is trying to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory by supporting the guy who can be counted on to stick his thumb in his colleagues eyes when they need it least. The guys he caucuses with no less.
Now I am at this point I suppose a fair weather Democrat. More exactly I have become a Democrat out of desperation.
I left my hereditary democratness in 72. McGovern lost Nixon won and the Democratic establishment stopped thinking.
They decided the very next day that their very ideals we wrong.
Rather than draw the conclusion that the power of incumbency beat them. And even later that the vicious shit that was Richard Nixon got his ass handed to him because there were still people that realized that ideals were worth fighting over, they internalized the meme that they were on the wrong side of the majority of the American people.
In a single thrust, they gave everything that the RICO wing of the Republican party needed to craft a generation of power. Kevin Phillips the reformed architect of the Southern Strategy has decided that his progeny are a bunch of assholes. I agree - may God burn him in hell. But the establishment Democrats have as much blame to shoulder.
So here I am. I really want a multi-party system in the this country. But now I would settle for merely two parties.
The first thing that must happen is that the Democratic party must be forced to become something other than Republican-lite.
And possibly - just even maybe - we will have CT next week to thank for making that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)