Bush on Iran: from firm to flacid.

After years of a lot of tough talk, Bush has gone limp as a dishrag. It's hard to believe that Bush's hard line attitude about nuclear proliferation has completely petered out. Well, if you ever actually believed anything Bush said, that is.

Was the "axis of evil" just a smokescreen? When Bush first mentioned the membership--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--experts shook their head. These three nations have no ties to each other and almost nothing in common except past antagonisms with the U.S.

Bush knew he couldn't just target Iraq. That would be too obvious. Even his blind followers might catch on. So he assembled three names that he could easily sell as "evil." Iraq was easy. Americans already knew the "evil leader's" name. Iran was almost as easy. People still remember the hostage crisis. And North Korea wasn't difficult either. Everyone knows we were at war with them once, and that they have a repressive government. Where Bush's scheme took off is that America panicked over the idea of "bad countries" could get nukes and destroy our cities. And Bush could easily imply--with some help from the countries themselves--that they could do so at any moment.

So Bush got his invasion of Iraq and now his oil buddies have control of Iraq's oil industry. But what to do about his other axis members? Bush had already invested a lot of propaganda in the dangers of Iran and North Korea arming themselves with nukes. North Korea has since shown it has nukes and (allegedly) isn't afraid to use them. And now Iran is a step away from its own nuclear arsenal.

You'd think anybody who bought into Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric would now be in dire need of a diaper change. Or at the very least would be demanding Bush finish the job of protecting America by disarming the second and third axes. But nope. Not a peep.

Bush has only confronted North Korea with verbage and the mindboggling promise of REMOVING American troops from South Korea. Eh? How's that any kind of firm stance against nuclear proliferation?

As for Iran, inspectors have already found traces of weapons grade uranium in one Iranian facility (in 2003). And now, Iran has inked a deal with Russia to supply them with nuclear material for non-military use. Any diplomat knows that Iran is now on the verge of being able to arm itself with a nuclear arsenal. And what is Bush doing about it? Nothing. Bush has offered some verbal protests plus the--again, mindboggling--promise that a U.S. military option is "ludicrous".

So here we have three alleged threats to American national security. And we have two countries who have aggressively increased that threat by seeking and/or gaining nuclear capabilities--the very threat Bush was allegedly so eager to prevent. And we have one country that was NOT aggressively increasing its alleged threat against the U.S.

Guess which one Bush invaded, and which ones Bush is trying to ignore?

This looks so very very obvious to me. And I don't understand why it's not so very very obvious to those Americans who believed whole-heartedly in the "axis of evil" threat. National security is NOT BUSH'S AGENDA.

Oil is his agenda. And he GOT IT. So now he's working overtime to diffuse the emergency he created. Iran with potential nukes isn't a threat to America anymore. Just as North Korea isn't a threat to America anymore.

Hey, Republicans, doesn't this bother you? Aren't you outraged at how you were played like a piano? If the country with the least ability to harm us must be immediately invaded and toppled, what's that say about the other two countries who are significantly more able to harm us? Because you either have to admit Bush suckered you, or that Bush is willfully leaving America exposed to nukes exploding in our cities.

And we know what happened the LAST time he willfully ignored a threat.... (9/11 ring a bell?)

GOP resorts to smearing old people, and brainwashing young people.

Since old folks know enough about social security to be adamantly against Bush's scheme to ruin it, the GOP has sought to smear the old-folks lobbyist group (the AARP) by launching an ad that inexplicably associates them with--get this--the "homosexual agenda."

Is the "gay card" such a trump that it works for anything? What next, either you support invading Iran or you're a gay-lover?

But this (obviously idiotic) ploy has failed miserably. Now the ad maker, one of those mysterious funded and vaguely named right-wing groups named "USA Next", is trying to weasel out of the hole they put the GOP in. They're saying--with a straight face--that the ad was a "test" to see if "left wing bloggers" would "explode about it."

If you believe THAT bullshit, I have some property for sale...

That's like saying they threw a baby into the river to see if it would get wet.

What's most offensive is that they know the GOP supporters will believe that statement, or at least accept it and repeat it as a defense of the smear job. Fighting for justice in America isn't just fighting evil, it's fight the friggin' stupidity of the public. If I were a Republican and my party had to habitually rely on mental retardation as its base, I'd switch parties.

Oh wait, I already did that.

On another note, there's a Texas 9 year old who thinks Bush's social security plan is a good thing. Supposedly, the kid's actually pretty smart. Book smart, that is. He retains a lot of trivia. And he's a staunch Republican.

And a good parrot. Apparently his expertise about Social Security does not extend beyond propaganda. He said he wants to run for president in 2032, and that social security will be "bankrupt by then." Oops. Sorry, kid, the facts don't bear that out. Maybe you should give the encyclopedia a rest and start working on your internal bullshit detector.

So the GOP's not just relying on ignorance and retardation for its support. Brainwashing is a time-honored method as well. All groups in power try it one way or another. But there's just something sad about a smart kid being led down a dark path...

Bush's education plan is a bust.

Think I'm too harsh on Bush's "No Child Left Behind" baloney? A bi-partisan panel of legislators, who used nicer language in their 77-page report, pretty much agree with me. The program's goals are widely agreed upon, but it's methods are nothing but trouble. Goals are easy. It's turning those goals into policy that matters. And NCLB is good rhetoric, but lousy policy. Just like every other time the GOP tries to steal Dems' key issues.

Germans reject Bush propaganda scheme

If anyone knows about propaganda, it's the Germans. So it's very telling that the Germans rejected Bush's attempt to hold a staged "town hall" meeting in Mainz, a small town on the Rhein River. They told Bush that he can't script an "unscripted" discussion, at least not in their country. A "free" discussion must actually be a FREE discussion.

This was supposed to be a "cornerstone" of Bush's trip to Europe. Oops.

Looks like Bush can't speak with ANYONE without his handlers writing or approving every word of the conversation. Is Bush such an incompetent speaker that he dare not let one syllable go unscripted lest he let his REAL agenda sneak out?

At least we know there IS an example of what a free and open democracy looks like. How sad that it comes from a country that tried to take over the frickin' WORLD 65 years ago...

More snake oil from Bush

Okay, how many bottles of snake oil does America need to buy before they get a clue? Bush’s social security “plan” looks a whole lot like all his other plans: another false crisis with another false cure.

To review. (1) Bush’s education plan (No Child Left Behind) was supposed to “fix” America’s crisis in education (it’s had virtually no impact), and he never funded it. States are bleeding millions with nothing to show for it.

(2) Bush’s invasion of Iraq was supposed to thwart the crisis of an imminent (no, growing, no, gathering, no...) threat of a nuclear explosion in our cities. Except, there was no link to Al Qaida, no weapons AT ALL, and it is costing taxpayers lives and hundreds of billions (which pretty much go directly into the pockets of rich buddies like Halliburton).

(3) Bush’s prescription drug bill was supposed to fix the crisis old people face in trying to pay for the mushrooming costs of medication. The plan did virtually nothing for the consumers but put more millions in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies--and it cost HUNDREDS of billions MORE than Bush said it would.

(4) Now Bush wants to fix the crisis of Social Security going broke. Except, SS will be perfectly fine for decades if left alone. But Bush wants to fix it anyway, and fix it for good. His plan is to take money out and give it to Wall Street (a plan destined to do massive harm and no good). And he’s hiding the numbers once again. Now if THAT isn’t a warning bell, what is?

Okay... so how many times are we going to let Bush tell us there’s a “crisis” before we wise up? All but the prescription drug problem are PROVEN to be pure fabrication or excessively gross overstatement.

Time and again, Bush INVENTS a crisis then sells a snake oil cure. And in every case, it’s turns out to be nothing more than just a sleight-of-hand trick to get taxpayer money into the pockets of already bloated corporations.

Bush’s spousal abuse syndrome

Relationships are about trust. They become dysfunctional when that trust breaks down.

Bush is now traipsing across Europe stroking their egos and telling them what wonderful people they are. This, after telling them how worthless they were back in 2002.

This is the political version of the cycle of spousal abuse. First, the arrogant self-centered husband beats the crap out of his wife and tells her how utterly worthless she is and how she’d never survive without him (with multiple meanings implied). Then later he goes back and pets on her, telling her how much he loves her and that he’s really just doing what he thinks is best. He may or may not say he's 'sorry.'

Classic wife beater syndrome. But will Europe fall for it?

What’s really at play here is Bush has figured out that his little adventure in the Middle East turned out to be more shit than he can scrape off his shoe. The GOP would not politically survive a draft. And the U.S. doesn’t have enough current military manpower to subjugate the whole region at once.

So Bush is trying to get the Europeans more involved in slapping Iran into line. Bush’s new coalition efforts is once again a coalition of the willing (which is great for P.R.) but not a coalition of the ABLE (meaning America will still do all the work).

It won’t matter how many Euros cry about Iran’s nuclear programs. History has taught the world one thing: America won’t bother you if you have nukes. Since WW2, America has sent troops a lot of places, none of which had nuclear weapons. Iran has two clear examples before it: Iraq and North Korea. One had nukes, the other got invaded. No amount of diplomacy can outweigh those facts. Iran no doubt believes it's own freedom and independence require them to have nukes.

Plus, there’s the whole issue of NATO. The European Union is currently looking into an alternative military alliance that does not include the U.S. Since Bush made it clear in 2002 he didn’t give a crap what the Euros thought about anything, they are wising up that they better get their own ducks in a row. They don’t know how much they can trust America in this age of Bush.

I think Europe will go along with Bush diplomatically for now. They’ll smile and pretend everything’s alright. But in the back of their minds, they know. They know they’re getting the velvet palm right now. But they’re also watching for the iron fist. They’re playing the game, but do they really trust us? I doubt it.

Bush and Iraqi elections

The elections happened, despite all the cries that they couldn’t or shouldn’t occur. Bush is getting a lot of praise for this. He’s a leader, he has courage, etc. Well, maybe.

But let’s be realistic. Bush had nothing to lose by insisting on the immediacy of the elections. If they pull it off, then Bush looks like a man of determination and vision. If they fail, then he can easily blame it on the insurgents and take no blame at all. And it’s not like he had to do any of the heavy lifting to make it happen. It was a win-win for Bush. He had nothing to lose.

The elections were a big public relations victory. But will installing a democratic process to a bunch of religious fanatics make the region more stable? Or America any safer? Will it keep our oil prices down? That all remains to be seen.

But for the time being, America has done a good thing. Even though the invasion was illegal, and based entirely on lies and more lies. Even though Bush's only real motivation was freeing that Iraqi oil for U.S. corporations, and dominating the region for geo-political reasons. This will all ultimately be for the better if (1) we pull ALL of the soldiers out, (2) American taxpayers are paid back through Iraqi oil profits, (3) the Iraqi constitution protects the civil rights of all its citizens, (4) and American voters NEVER FORGET how they can be hoodwinked by ridiculous deceptions into a war-for-profit under the guise of helping someone else, and will NEVER let it happen again. Hopefully, the next president who's hot for adventurism will have to tell us the REAL reasons for war, so we can debate the issue on those merits--instead of dividing the country into two angry partisan-blind groups. A fella can hope, anyway...

“Liberal media” gives Bush admin a pass on White House ties to gay prostitution

If this had happened under Clinton, there would be church groups with friggin’ TORCHES marching in Washington already. I guess they’re too busy spazzing over Spongebob cartoons...

And the “liberal media”--which means they’re supposed to report unfavorably towards the GOP/cons--have AGAIN laid down on a story that would have exploded during Clinton’s administration. When are Americans gonna wake up from their brainwashing and realize that the media is going FAR out of its way to make this Bush admin look as good as possible?

GOPs were crying all during the last election that the Dems were “for the gays” and if Kerry were elected that “the gays would take over” and all that nonsense. Well, guess what. Bush won and the gays are more closely tied to his White House than any Democrat WH in history!

Propaganda? Or major security leak?

This story just keeps getting bigger. A fake journalist with a fake name got White House press credentials (which means he got to ask direct questions of the WH press secretary and even the president). He purported to work for a fake internet news site (it was nothing but republished Republican press releases), and regularly asked such hard-hitting-but-fair questions in the vein of “why are the Democrats evil?” (or somesuch). This went on for two years.

What’s more, this “Jeff Gannon”--who is really James D. Guckert--is linked to a gay military website called hotmilitarystud.com where his photo and description exposed him as the fake WH reporter. Not that that is critical to his phony propagandizing, but it’s interesting how many Republicans are turning out to be “evil homosexuals.” (This is actually in keeping with the GOP mentality. Pretend to be against something, then overlook your own members who do it. Hypocrisy, thy initials are GOP.)

The White House is fervently denying that it knew anything about “Gannon” being a fake. To believe that, we must believe that the White House has the worst background checking methods in history. A simple glance at his “employer”, Talon News, would show this guy is no more a reporter than any blogger. Talk about a gaping hole in White House security. What if a member of Al Qaida had gotten in?

It’s ridiculous to believe that not even the WH press secretary Scott McClellan knew who this guy was. They knew, and they wanted him there. There can never be enough propagandizing stooges for this administration.

As Frank Rich points out for the NY Times, the WH press room is no more a real-news situation than any episode of The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. You get a phony host with a phony journalist having phony Q&A sessions. Only this time it’s not funny. These Republican pukes are destroying our democracy.

Bush finally does what Khomeini never could

The votes are in. The 14-year old prediction that a removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq would result in a Shia takeover has been proven true. (Not that any informed person would have expected otherwise.) The democratically-elected Shia theocracy has been put in place.

I laugh because it’s so damn funny. America crapped its pants when the 1979 Shi’ite rebellion in Iran threw out the U.S.-puppet Shah for the fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini. The Ayatollah then said the revolution would sweep across the region, beginning with Iraq (which has a Shi’ite majority). America became afraid, but did not rush to Saddam’s side because of Saddam’s ties with the U.S.S.R.

In a “pre-emptive act of self-defense,” Saddam attacked Iran (using trumped up excuses as ostensible rationale) hoping to topple the young government. The U.S. wanted to, but could not, help Saddam--until the Soviet-Iraqi ties were broken (the Soviets were having their own trouble in Afghanistan at the time) by 1983. That’s when the photo of Saddam and Rumsfeld was taken. With U.S. and European help, which included chemical and biological weapons, Saddam fought Iran to a standstill which ended in 1987. Iran’s Shi’ite revolution was halted.

Fast forward 18 years and see that the neocon Republicans (Bush and company) have done for Iran what Iran could not do for itself. The Shi’ites control Iraq.

I don’t know if this was part of Iran’s long term plan--their strong ties to Bush’s #1 source of Iraq info, Ahmed Chalabi, makes me suspicious--but it worked out for them anyway. The party is spoiled only because Dubya may have his eyes on Iran next.

If Bush comes off looking like a stooge, it’s his own fault. He has given Osama bin Laden the holy war he desperately wanted (we’ll be fighting them for generations), and has given the Shi’ites control of Iraq like they wanted. What’s next? Maybe he should go ahead and give North Korea control of the whole peninsula.

Bush to punish "blue" voters

Bush's budget proposal conspicuously cuts money away from states that went for Kerry in the last election. Sure, GOPs say they don't think it's intentional or punitive, but nothing in Washington happens by accident.

And it has nothing to do with "pork." If you cut pork from blue states but not red states, then it's still a politically-biased choice. But this isn't just pork being cut. Some folks are going to have a harder time heating their homes because of this budget.

Yes, Virginia, there is a draft plan.

First off, it should be no surprise that Bush and Rumsfeld are lousy stinking liars. Last year they both denied the draft had been discussed. What Bush refered to as “rumored on the internets” (yes, the moron said “internetS”) has been discovered in Selective Service memos dating back to 2003. So yes, they’ve been working on a draft plan for a long time.

So how do you get Americans to accept a draft? First, you slip in a version that nobody can argue against. Then once it’s in place, you go for the full extended version.

The current status of the draft is discussed here.

Step one is to draft professional and skilled services, such as doctors, nurses, electricians, etc. It’s brilliant. There is no counter-argument to this. What fool would stand up and argue that our military should be denied such important sevices? It’s not like these folks will be serving in a war zone, right?

And what blue-collar guy wouldn’t like seeing an uppity, overpaid physician getting HIS butt drafted?

But that’s just the starting point. Once folks get used to the limited version, then comes the regular draft. Other military sources are quite frank about the dire need for “grunts.” If Bush starts any more elective wars, there is no avoiding a draft.

The catch-22 is that the only hope of rejecting a full-scale draft is to first reject the specialist draft. And I don’t see that happening.

French Canadians defeat Wal-Mart!

Well, sort of.

Wal-Mart has decided to shut down its store in Quebec that voted last year to unionize. Rather than reach a labor agreement with the union, Wal-Mart closed its doors. It is the only Wal-Mart so far to go union.

Many small towns across America resisted Walmartization but few could prevent it. They tried everything they could think of in terms of legal obstacles. But they never thought of the ONE THING Wal-Mart fears most of all. A union vote.

Now, towns across America that still have the will to fight have a shining example of how to win. All they need to do is have one single vote amongst the employees and Wal-Mart is guaranteed to skeedaddle out of town. It's all so terrifyingly simple. You'd think the towns that fought to protect the small, local business owners would now push hard for Wal-Mart employees to vote union.

We'll have to wait and see. (Not that I think it'll happen. But it might.)

Ann Coulter: queen of trailer trash news.

As a rule, I ignore Ann Coulter. She is nothing more than a right-wing hack who found a way around her gross lack of education and shallow political insight by screaming her nonsense long and loud enough until somebody had to step up and tell her just how stupid she is. Which, sadly, only encourages her.

She’s like the child who no one would listen to. So to get attention she started saying off-the-wall gibberish. In third grade, she no doubt made statements like “there are two Tuesdays every week.” Few can resist correcting such an obvious mistake, so they fall into her trap. By correcting her they are acknowledging her. And from there the perpetual arguing begins.

If you ever see her on TV or read her columns, you’ll immediately notice she says things that require correcting. Polite commentators will simply disagree, or try to form their correction in the form of a question (“what makes you think gravity is a liberal myth...?”). This only encourages her bullying style. Which is also a bit of carnival, a petite (probably fake) blonde with big doe eyes arguing aggressively. (I think Bill Maher puts up with her only because she turns him on.)

Recently, Coulter went to Canada and tried to bully an interviewer by insisting the blatantly false claim that Canada fought with the U.S. in Vietnam but refused to help invade Iraq. The interviewer would have none of it. Canada not only didn't join the Vietnam War, it so opposed the war that it granted U.S. draft dodgers asylum! I just wish he would’ve called her the liar she is. (Here’s a blog with links on this.) You'd think someone so often wrong would occassionally admit it. But that's the right-wing way: lie and deny, never let the truth get in the way.

But this is how right-wing punditry is done these days (see Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh). Speak aggressively and tell lots of lies and gross distortions and rely on the general ignorance of the public that they won’t know the truth.

It is becoming clear that “red-state” news is echoing other red state (i.e. trailer trash) entertainment. Just like pro wrestling and Jerry Springer, sensationalism triumphs over substance. As long as somebody’s yelling nonsense, it must be good!

I just weep for the intelligent people between the coasts. We’re not all as ignorant or as gullible as FoxNews and right-wing radio thinks/hopes we are.

'Just say no' is just plain stupid.

This article has to be fully read to be fully enjoyed. Basically, Dubya's big abstinance-only program is a big waste of money. Kids are MORE likely to have sex after being taught abstinance-only.

(I wish I still had the link to an older story showing that abstinance-only actually leads to higher STDs and pregnancies...)

If Bush were actually a human being, he'd be really embarassed at how stupid his policies are.

What's this medical malpractice "tort reform" about anyway...?

Short and sweet: Bush (and his corporate masters) wants to drastically undercut your ability to hold anyone in the medical industry (or any industry, really) accountable for their errors.

Reckless and irresponsible businesses are bleeding money through the court system because the ONE GROUP they can't buy off (so far)--the JURORS.

Through campaign contributions, corporations buy congresspeople to write laws in their favor, administators to execute (i.e. ignore) laws in their favor, and indirectly get pro-business judges appointed to rule in their favor. It's very close to a completely rigged system, and all to the tune of billions of dollars every election cycle.

But there is a kink in their plan. They still don't control the juries. And as long as juries are randomly selected from society, these corporations face a dozen or so people who are not beholden to them. And man, do the companies pay when they screw up!

So "tort reform" is Bush's effort to plug this loophole in the system. Justice is happening despite all those millions trying to subvert it. And they want it fixed.

They want such limitations that would allow companies to work their losses into their business plans. If damages are limited to, say, $50,000, and the company averages, say, five lost cases per year, they can simply budget add $250,000 to their yearly costs and then pass those costs right on to YOU the consumer.

End result: They NEVER suffer for any wrong doing. YOU get hurt, and YOU pay the damages. Convenient, eh?

Anti-Bush ads denied by ‘liberal media’

Advocacy ads criticizing Bush’s proposals regarding medical malpractice suits were rejected by all four major broadcast networks. NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox refused to run the ads because they were “controversial.” The ads were to run before the State of the Union on Wednesday.

Advocacy ads BY DEFINITION are “controversial” because they advocate one side of an issue. If there wasn’t a controversy, why would anyone pay to express their view? (Have you EVER seen an ad that SOMEONE didn't disagree with? You think Coke agrees with Pepsi ads?)

So, if some advocacy ads are accepted and others rejected, exactly what are the standards based on?

Well, it sure looks like the cut-off point is anything that isn’t sanctioned by the GOP or its supporters.

(Note: networks are owned by bloated corporations who just luuuuv ol’ Dubya’s pro-corporate/anti-people policies.)