Viagra: If you don't stop it, you'll go blind!

So, can I do it till I need glasses?

The FDA is looking into the possibility that Viagra might be causing blindness. Oboy... what aging men won't risk for one more roll in the hay...

The cost of anti-terrorism just got higher.

According to this story, police are finding that when we buy cheap knock-offs or pirated goods we may be funding terrorist groups.

Okay, I'm behind this. No more buying DVDs from Malaysia. (I wonder if Grokster will argue that file-sharing is defeating terrorism because downloading is taking money away from the knock-off/pirated copy sellers.)

But will America put its money where its mouth is? I doubt it.

We saw this line of thinking in play back in the 1970s when American unions and factories begged consumers to "buy American" or risk losing jobs. Consumers spoke with their wallets and now most of our factories are overseas, and the Japanese took over the electronics industry and part of the auto industry. Oops. It's funny how we can all pretty much agree what's best for us, but then not follow through because it just costs too much...

Checks and balances preserved, for the time being.

A brief respite for the Constitution.

Certain members of the GOP and Dems have signed a deal agreeing that the filibuster will not be eliminated, at least during this session of congress. What a relief.

GOP pundits are soiling themselves (for samples, check here), but they're too shortsighted for their own good. The GOP won't have control forever. The Dems would be furious that the GOP had done what the Dems never did in all their decades of running the Senate: throw away checks and balances. And paybacks can be hell.

For the moment, the Republic remains intact. I guess Karl Rove isn't as powerful a Sith as we thought. This is a major blow (if temporary) for the right-wingers who want to throw out democracy for one-party rule.

GOP lowers bar for "treason"; now it includes simple joke-telling.

It's funny how two-faced members of the GOP can get. Allowing Saddam oil-for-food kickbacks which allegedly funded the building of nukes to be used to attack the United States doesn't qualify as "treason" to anyone in the GOP. However, poking fun at the military's recruiting troubles IS treason--to at least one Alabama congressman. (Maher responds here.)

If Bill Maher's jokes amount to treason, where does that place Bush's "crusade" comment? Where does that place lying about Iraq to invade it? Where does that place willfully underfunding border patrols, etc? If anybody is guilty of "undermine the effort or national security of our country," it's Bush.

But none of that is really the point. Bill Maher's HBO show is one of the very few places where people can really say what they think about Bush--and the Republicans are shitting their pants they can't stomp Maher like they've done about everybody else on TV. They want HBO to cower the same way ABC did.

GOP: love the State; hate your neighbor. This is what they're pushing next.

Sometimes the Republicans try to push agendas that I can't tell which evil totalitarian state they remind me of most. I think this time it's Stalin's Soviet Union. Bush already insists on loyalty oaths and relying on paid propagandists, and the GOP is doing everything to establish one-party rule in Congress. Now if this story is accurate, the GOP is intending to pass a law that would COMPEL every citizen to spy on their family and neighbors or face jail time.

What the Hell are Republicans trying to turn America into??? We won the Cold War just to BECOME the Soviets? Screw that.

And in perfect Orwellian language, the bill is titled: "H.R. 1528, Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005." Not even Palpatine could have cooked up a steamier pile of horseshit for a title.

This bill is ostensibly aimed at drug related crimes. And there are some direct benefits from that, particularly filling up our prisons with innocent people (which makes them look "tough on crime" and creates a density crisis that would help reinvigorate the previously disasterous plan of privatization). Given that hardly a family in this country is without at least one drug user, that pretty much gives Dubya the right to put us all in jail.

This, coming from the party that bitched to high Heaven about Parental Control chips in televisions...

Senate report shows Bush guilty of giving 'aid and comfort' to the enemy. But impeachment not likely.

RULE: If the Republicans claim something is wrong, you can bet they're doing it themselves. From illicit sex to being on the take, they do it all behind closed doors. (The Dems do it too, but they seldom pose as champions of virtue.)

That said, the Bush family tradition continues...

We now know why the Bush administration became silent on its harsh criticisms of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan being implicated in the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal. The reasons? One, Dem senators have discovered that Bush KNEW about it long ago and turned a blind eye to it. (If it was so evil, doesn't that make Bush evil too for letting it continue?)

But second, over HALF of the kickbacks paid to Saddam were by US--that's right, US--corporations! That's more than the rest of the world combined.

From the Senate report: "The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

Now, doesn't that make these corporations and the Bush administration TRAITORS to America--since the war was justified because Saddam was an enemy and threat to the U.S.???

It wouldn't be new ground for the Bush family, considering Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush happily profited from illegal trading with Nazi Germany DURING the second World War. (This was ended by FDR in 1942 because it, obviously, violated the Trading With The Enemy Act. Grandson, just like grandpa, will likely never be jailed for this treason.)

At the very least, this scandal makes Bush a money-grubbing hypocrite. But we already knew that. Still, how could this NOT be treason since it is CLEARLY giving aid and comfort to an enemy, an enemy that posed such an imminent threat to America that we had to invade them and replace their government.

Has there EVER been a president more deserving of impeachment and removal?

(Now let's see if this even gets the same TV news coverage as when Kofi Annan, a foreigner, was implicated. You'd think it would merit more. But I doubt it. The media's just too liberal to say bad things about Republicans...)

Get ready for some of the worst porn ever...

I'm as paranoid about Big Brother as anybody. But I'm not really bothered by the possibility of x-ray strip search machines being put in airports. I do have a problem if this is all paid for with tax dollars. Let the airlines pay for their own security. If their product isn't safe enough, then maybe it's time to go back to trains and buses.

I just can't wait for these images to turn up online. Eeeww!

Star Wars III is NOT a bash on Bush.

Oh geez. Talk about reading too much into something... Europeans who saw the new Star Wars film "Revenge of the Sith" have drawn strong parallels between the Emperor's seizure of power (and Anakin's final corruption) with the pattern of behavior in the Bush administration.

As much as I agree that the general themes of the Star Wars prequels are disturbingly familiar to current events, there is no way to say Episode 3 is an "anti-Bush diatribe." The basic events of the Prequels were put on paper 28 years ago. They're in the introduction to the novelization of Star Wars in 1977. Those details that were introduced in the first two prequels were filmed before Bush started drumming up excuses to invade Iraq.

In fact, the fall of Lucas's Galactic Senate echoes such transitions going back at least as far as the Roman Senate. And the cycle of government progressing towards democracy only to abruptly turn tyrannical were philosophized about even before Rome, when Plato wrote his "Republic."

I don't doubt that Bush supporters will see this movie as a rant against Bush, completely ignoring any of the facts that it really COULDN'T be. (I guess we should give them credit for recognizing the Bush/Palpatine resemblance, but at the same time they are still supporting him.) What a shame.

This is the one prequel expected to actually be a great film. Too bad a bunch of Europeans make it a political issue. Oh well, at least it should do very well overseas...

Source reverses, embarasses Newsweek--but the Koran incidents are old news.

Newsweek is saying the source of the Koran desecration at Gitmo turned around and said he could not confirm that information. "Oops, sorry! Can't confirm that explosive accusation I made!" It doesn't look like a case of fabrication on the part of Newsweek, but that won't stop the scandal. No doubt the rest of the media will swoop in to bring Newsweek down (as far as they can push them, just like CBS).

That said, this online news site lists many other published stories that make similar reports about desecration of the Koran. From the looks of it, Newsweek didn't report anything that had not been reported before. So the big question is why the Muslims only got upset NOW?

You can bet your retirement money that Newsweek will be crucified for the credibility of the source and not the facts of the story.

Iraq: everything going well, or a chaos pit?

Bush wants everone to believe that everything is going well in Iraq. Democracy is established, he says. It seems no one outside his administration can substantiate his claims.

A sobering assessment, found here, illustrates the no-win scenario Bush has put us into. It's the same scenario, by the way, that every middle east expert--not to mention Bill Clinton and the first Bush--said would happen if the U.S. tried regime-change in Iraq. So this isn't exactly a surprise to anyone.

Of particular value in the article are all the quotes of informed officials. Here's my favorite: "Even inside the Green Zone you are not safe, because of indirect fire. And if you were to venture outside at night, they'd probably find your headless body the next morning" (Col. Patrick Lang, former Middle East chief for the Defense Intelligence Agency).

They all add up to a string of cures that kill the patient. For example, the only way for the Iraqi gov't to be legitimate is to reject the U.S. occupation, but without the U.S. forces it would be easily overthrown.

The disparity between reality and Bush's spin is amazingly similar to the same disparity between reality and Lyndon Johnson's spin about Vietnam. Will we need John Kerry to speak again, asking who's to be the last soldier to die for a lost cause?

Rumsfeld's base plans could suggest attacks on Iran.

There's a debate whether Bush is intending to invade Iran this year over its nuclear program. Rumsfeld's recent visits to Azerbaijan might be evidence the U.S. military is being prepared for that possibility. Looks like Rummy is laying foundations for setting up mobile military bases in that undemocratic country, which borders Iran. If the U.S. is going to invade Iran, it needs another place close by for launching airplanes since Iraq is in a state of chaos. (Don't want insurgents blowing them up.) Azerbaijan satisfies that need.

Is Bush going to invade Cuba?

Somebody in Bulgaria thinks so. Says Cuba is currently training to repel a U.S. invasion.

Religious freaks target school girl.

In Kansas, an anti-gay hate group has targeted a school girl because of an essay she wrote featuring Ellen Degeneres that won an award. The group issued "invective-laden" fliers calling the school staff a "homo-fascist regime."

It's easy to guess why. Even little girls must come under the boot heel of religious oppression. And it's easy to bully the young and weak. But these people are just friggin' nuts. Kansas should be shut down, it's borders closed, quarantined until this epidemic of sheer idiocy can be treated. The state's whacked.

Is the military TRYING to make things worse in the Middle East?

In a shocking turn of events, Afghanis are rioting in the streets this week. They are protesting vehemently against the U.S. because U.S. interrogators at Gitmo were allegedly desecrating the Koran as a means to break the spirits of prisoners. Okay, if this has been happening, did the military expect this to not get out?

Because if they thought they could do that with impunity, they’re nuts. Who do they think these prisoners are, Americans? Those people don’t cotton to that kind of religious tolerance. You can desecrate the Bible here, call it art, and possibly get an NEA grant for it. Not over there.

This is precisely what critics of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are talking about. We can only win the war on terrorism if we win the hearts and minds of Arab fence-straddlers, those who can swing either for peace or for war against the U.S. It doesn't matter whether the military has a written policy of reverence for the Koran if even one interrogator can be shown to have ignored it. This kind of debacle will definitely be used to push those undecided people against us.

According to the story, the mood in Afghanistan is sour against the U.S. installed Kharzai's government. One commentator on NPR suggested that remnant Taliban supporters might be behind the protests (or at least fanning the flames). Afghanis are already upset that rebuilding has slowed to a glacial pace. So there is a growing opportunity for Afghanistan to return, possibly by violent revolution, back precisely where it was pre-9/11--a haven for anti-American terrorists. All because the country (and the war on terrorism) is being grossly mishandled.

NY Times caves in to right-wingers.

Does anybody have any courage anymore? The NY Times is saying it will bow to right-wing whiners who think the paper doesn't give them enough good press. Which in this day and age, means they're not licking Bush's boot heels.

You'd think "the paper of record" would be proud it's not a lapdog organization like Rupert Murdoch's FoxNews and NY Post. But alas, the Times is tossing out its integrity so it can be better liked. (Note to NYT: this ploy never works.)

Outlawing PETA and the ASPCA? For who, and why?

Conservatives are pushing legislation in many states that would pretty much label any animal rights activist a "terrorist." At least, given the nature of American politics, that's the effect of it.

Cons have tried to push "anti-ecoterrorism" laws is many states with some success. There's no question that some animal rights extremists have resorted to destroying property to get their message across. But we already have laws against destroying other people's property, so this isn't just about property.

This is meant to open the door for labeling anybody who protests on behalf of animals as "terrorists" and label any such organization as a "terrorist organization." They might not get arrested for their peaceful protests, but their names will be on lists and they'll be vulnerable to Bush's unconstitutional Patriot Act abuses. (Gitmo's not just for Arabs, y'know.) And the political damage of being put on U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations is no little thing.

The real pushers of this legislation are probably a bunch of meat packing corporations. They're tired of bad publicity over their cruel treatment of animals. CNN's posted AP story on this is fairly long, but I notice the pushers of the legislation are only vaguely described as "a national group of conservative state lawmakers." Why hide their identity? Why does the author only want us to think about the "ecoterrorists" and not the Big Money behind the "push"?

Bush joins 'Blame America First' crowd; blames own dad for Iraqi suffering!

In a startling character reversal, Bush told eastern European Latvians to Blame America First for Soviet domination. It’s the first time a right-wing extremist, and a neocon at that, publicly blamed American foreign policy for the suffering of another country.

Not unexpectedly, right-wing media hacks have held their tongues regarding the Bush administration’s 180 turnabout. Back in 2001, some people queried if the 9/11 attacks might be “blowback” from aggressive U.S. foreign policy. Those people were labeled the “Blame America First” crowd. As usual, such criticisms only get applied to Democrats, never Republicans--even though the argumentation is identical.

What’s worse, Bush’s comments simply expose the depths of his hypocrisy. Bush laid this comment at FDR’s feet: "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability."

Does this mean Dubya hates his own dad? Bush the Elder is guilty of EXACTLY what Bush the Lesser is saying by running Saddam out of Kuwait but letting him keep power because that kept the middle east and Iraq stable (and from turning into another Iran). If Dubya doesn't want to travel all the way to Saudi Arabia to say this stuff to his dad, he can walk down the hall (push aside the Big Oil pigs) and say it to Cheney who was the Secretary of Defense at that time.

"Secret deals to determine somebody else's fate - I think that's what we're lamenting here today, one of those secret deals among large powers that consigns people to a way of government," Bush said. This could fit both his AND his dad’s handling of Iraq. What’s Dubya doing in Iraq if not using a coalition to consign the Iraqi people to a western-style government? And given the new revealing documents about 2002 Bush-Blair meetings, Dubya's deals were VERY secret!

Does this also mean Bush hates Eisenhower? General Ike bailed out of North Korea in 1953, consigning all those Koreans to suffer decades of communist oppression and tyranny.

Does this mean Bush hates Nixon? Nixon spent years trying to negotiate "peace with honor" with the North Vietnamese. What this really meant was Nixon was going to bail and consign all those Vietnamese to a communist government--but in a way it didn't LOOK like that's what he was doing.

Does this also mean Bush hates EVERY president since WW2, since not one of them attacked the USSR to run them out of the satellite states they controlled? What did Reagan do, except spend billions on unnecessary nukes and beg the Soviets to play nice with Berlin?

Does this also mean Bush hates the Founding Fathers? They all made a bloody pact to allow slavery to exist when they wrote the Constitution--all to keep the colonies “stable.”

Does this mean Bush hates every president before 1925, when the Indians became citizens? Every U.S. president through the 1800s aided or permitted the wholesale slaughter of innocent Indians and the blatant theft of their land--all to keep the land-hungry white people happy.

"We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability depend on the freedom of others."

I like that last quote. He’s saying we won’t do it anymore! Even as he is supporting, allowing, or ignoring the continuation of tyranny across the globe. What’s Bush done about Darfur, where thousands die every day? And what about the unfree people in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China? Nothing for any of them. They’re either already in Dubya’s pockets, too powerful to fight, or have no resources to steal.

It’s funny how Dubya conveniently singles out the one president who created Social Security--the very program Dubya is right now hell-bent to destroy.

But none of all that really exposes the complete ignorance of Bush's comments. In May, 1945, there was NOTHING the U.S. could do about Soviet presense in eastern European nations. NOTHING. America was still at war in the Pacific, and the Red Army was supposed to join the fight that fall. Does stupid-ass Bush think the U.S. could have fought both the Japanese and our ally at the time? There's no way the U.S. could have defeated a Soviet-Japanese alliance at that time. To divert attention away from winning a World War to fuss about the form of government would have been a minor detail at the time.

And Bush is WRONG that FDR never bothered with that small detail. FDR managed to squeeze out of Stalin his signature on the Declaration of Liberated Europe, which said eastern European nations had "the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live." This meant Stalin had to BETRAY the Yalta Agreement to take over of any satellite nations. FDR did everything within America's power to limit the USSR's presence in places like Latvia. It's truly amazing what a GOOD President can accomplish when he tries to make the world better. (Unlike Dubya, who acts only for GOP power and profit.)

Here’s a suggestion for you, Dubya: shut up before you look even more stupid. Compared to FDR, you're a dingleberry on a donkey's ass. FDR won a war against the biggest war machine in history; you can't whip a bunch of thugs hiding in alleyways. FDR saved the world from fascism; you saved Iraq’s oil from Saddam. FDR used the gov't coffers to help millions of people; you just help yourself to millions from the gov't's coffers. FDR was honestly elected four times; you've had to steal the two you got. FDR died early in his last term...

...and I bet you probably won't do us that same courtesy.

Preacher kicks out 9 for not loving Bush.

I've said many times before that America's churches are throwing out G-O-D for G-O-P. If you don't believe me, read this.

A North Carolina Baptist preacher threw nine people out of church (in Baptist-speak, that means they're no longer members) because they did not support Bush! I kid you not.

(Note: This is the fourth version of the AP story that the NY Times has posted. Why this story merits so many quick revisions is anybody's guess. The more it gets revised, the more it begins favorably to the preacher. This one begins far too kindly, and kinder than the other three. It allows the preacher his say first, which downplays the reality of the event. He kicked them out, and then bowed to national public exposure and begged them back in. There is no "misunderstanding." There are no "two sides." The guy poses as a promoter for Jesus, but really is only promoting Bush.)

PBS undergoing hostile makeover

The Republican chairman running PBS is tired of his channel airing comments that criticize anything to do with Republicans or conservative agendas. So he's putting an end to it.

Last November, Mr. Tomlinson told members of PBS and other public TV stations "they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican mandate." He claims the comment was in jest. Uh-huh. Much truth is told in jest.

Tomlinson was public about his vehemence for the PBS show "Now with Bill Moyers," essentially saying Moyers wasn't fair and balanced. (Which as we know, to Republicans means "all-GOP all the time.") And we saw what happened to Moyers: he's gone.

Tomlinson's GOP buddies are still sore over a PBS show where a bunny rabbit visited some gay people. If, as Tomlinson claims, the programming is to be "objective" shouldn't this be exactly what he wants? These people are real, they exist in society. It would be the reverse of objectivity to pretend they don't exist.

Ah, we all know what's going on. More right-wing control of the media. Squelch anything but the GOP agenda. All is well here in Orwell's Oceana.

Social Security brings out Americans' smarts.

I admit that America looked to be at an intellectual nadir when they voted ol' George back in office. For a time, I had lost faith that this country had enough sense to sustain a democracy. But there is a glimmer of hope, and it's coming from Social Security.

According to USAToday's assessment of recent polls, Americans are rejecting Bush's plan to loot the system and drain millions into buckets on Wall Street. They don't want privitization and--by a wide margin--they'd rather see taxes raised than benefits lost. That's about the worst news the GOP could ever hear on this subject.

It shows that Americans understand the word "security." Security doesn't mean gambling with the stock market. It means a guarantee that it will be there. And even if all we have right now are I.0.U.s, they're still official promises from our government. The only reason for those promises to not be kept will be the direct decisions by future politicians. And nobody wants to be the guy who reneged on THAT promise.

Maybe America knows what I've been saying all along, and that few pundits will say: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH SOCIAL SECURITY. That's right, I said it. Somebody had to say it. There is no need to "fix" it because it ain't broke.

The problem we will face in the 2040s is an anomaly, a glitch, a unique (but unfortunate) circumstance of a bubble in the population's age demographics. There will be a span of time where we have way too many people drawing Social Security compared to the people paying it in. But as gruesome as it sounds, those people won't live forever. They will eventually die off and the worker-to-retiree ratio will return to normal.

The Republicans are being dishonest by saying SS is a broken system that needs overhauled. It's a scheme they've concocted to undo the biggest, most successful social program in human history. (And we all know how much the GOP hates the gov't helping anybody but the rich.) If they can undo SS, they can erase the whole New Deal and destroy political liberalism.

The proper view of SS right now is that we have a storm we need to weather. It'll take some effort, and not a little bit of money. But we need to think not just of ourselves but of the future generations that SS will help. Given the current trending of workers' benefits (smaller every day) granted by businesses, we cannot put ourselves or our children in the position of relying on corporate America for our old age.

If there's one institution that workers would be foolish to trust, it's the corporations. The corporations have never operated with the worker in mind, and they never will. I have personally seen people's retirement benefits cut in half just because of the company's whim. There's no security in company-provided retirement. Just ask the good workers at Enron...

America is being very smart by not buying into Bush's scheme. And it's about time they told him "no."

Bush's buddy dealt with Saddam under the table.

Well, well, well...looky who ELSE was dipping into the treasure trove otherwise known as the U.N./Saddam oil-for-food scandal...

None other than Bush's best buddy, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia. I guess that means Dubya is cavorting with a funder of terrorism. I wonder if Bandar's recent visit gave the two of them a chance to chortle at their own hypocrisy--

--or just laugh at the idiots who voted Bush back in.

More ignorance and hate speech from the Right...

Limbaugh recently said: "The religious left in this country hates and despises the God of Christianity and Catholicism."

Just more evidence Limbaugh (and/or his listeners) are too stupid to be taken seriously. I'd take on his argument, and prove that leftist politics is FAR more in line with Jesus's teachings than anything the right-wingers offer, but that would assume Limbaugh wasn't stoned when he said it or even knew what he was talking about.

Somebody should inform Mr. Limbaugh that Catholicism IS Christianity, it is the ORIGINAL Christianity. The Catholics INVENTED Christianity as an established religion from its roots as a middle eastern cult.

Lay off the pills, Rush, they make you an even bigger liar. The left doesn't hate God. They hate posers like you who exploit God for your own personal power and financial gain. But maybe in your own drug-induced hysteria you think YOU are God, and that any criticism of you is criticism of God.

Jeez, we're gonna need another Protestant Reformation just to get rid of lunatics like you...

Oh, those 'activist' judges.

Bet your money that the right-wingers don't use the word "activist" to describe THIS judge.

Florida's at it again. This time it's the anti-abortion crusade. This time, a judge as ordered a ban against a 13-year-old girl getting an abortion even though it is her legal right to get one.

That, folks, is the prime definition of an "activist" judge. This guy is rewriting the law to suit his personal opinions. In this case, the judge agreed with the state officials who argued the girl lacks the maturity to decide for herself--even though the care home where she lived says she's mentally competent (if not very responsible). I'm curious if the state would have made the same argument if the girl had decided to keep the pregnancy. If she's too immature to decide for herself, then whichever decision she chooses is irrelevant.

What happens if she decides to keep it? No 13 year old can raise a baby, particularly not a 13 year old being raised in a care home. Will a Florida judge then step in and take the baby away? And what happens when this girl turns 18 and wants her baby back?

One thing is certain, both sides will exploit this for their own gain. And nobody really cares about the 13 year old girl or her fetus. She's just a means to a political end.

Bush flip-flops on stance against state sponsors of terrorism.

Anyone else remember all Bush's blather about zero tolerance towards states who sponsor terrorism? Imagine, then, if such a nation was also guilty of harboring international terrorists (particularly Osama bin Laden) and committing genocide against its own people. Boy, that should REALLY get Bush's "invasion" engines running, right? If Saddam's 15-year-old crimes are enough to justify an invasion, then fresher blood should count even more, right?

So how can Bush declare that the Sudan is now a "key ally" in the war against terror? How can Bush claim as ally a country that is so perfectly guilty of DOUBLE everything that justified invading Iraq?

Hell, even that "terrorism-slacker" Bill Clinton bombed the Sudan!

But since Sudan has decided to help the U.S. against terrorist camps, all is forgiven. Sure, they provide information about terrorists (and who would know better than a bunch of terrorists themselves?). But that's a cheap price for letting a government stay in power that is far more guilty of anything Saddam ever did. At least when Saddam killed "his own people" it was a region that was in open rebellion. What Sudan is doing in Darfur is pure cold-blooded murder. And Bush just signed the death warrant for untold thousands more.

I thought I was going to choke when Clinton gave China "most favored nation" status and sold them satellite equipment. But once again Bush outdoes Clinton by a mile.

Just goes to show that Bush's foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism at all. It's all about grabbing the oil. "Freedom isn't free," as Bush likes to say. So if those poor Darfur people want to be saved by Bush, they better be finding some huge oil reserves somewhere. Cause freedom isn't free, y'know.

At least Britian cares about the integrity of their government...

Prime Minister Tony Blair can only dream he was the head of America instead of the UK. He must fantasize often about our obedient corporate media and its eagerness to never say anything really critical of Bush. No, Blair actually has to face the fact that he took Britian to war based on a sack of lies.

And new documents are making matters worse for him. The Sunday Times has reported that Blair and Bush held a very secret meeting in July, 2002 where they had ALREADY agreed to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. The invasion was already a done deal at that point. All that was left was throwing enough shit against the wall and hoping something, anything, would stick.

That's eight months before the attack, at a time when Bush and Blair were claiming there were no plans. Of course, it's not really a surprise that they'd lie about it. Both make Clinton look like a saint when it comes to fessing up to the truth.

Saddam was a bad guy, but what Bush and Blair did was equally despicable. Manufacturing a bunch of lies to start an unprovoked war for the sake of looting another country's resources--while letting the corporations profit freely by making the working class pay for it all--is not the standard of integrity and decency most Americans and Brits expect of their respective goverments.

As a disappointed American, I can at least draw some satisfaction that our parent country (Britiain) still has some semblance of accountability in its politics.

The last thing either country's people can afford to do is turn a blind eye to the gross abuse of power by Bush and Blair. Even if ousting Saddam is good in the long term, a message must be sent to politicians that they must act within the law not outside of it. In both cases, the heads of state broke their own laws and they must pay.

For if they are not held accountable for the lies, then that opens the door for future schemes. Casting aside the shackles of checks and balances within a government has always been the critical step to an autocratic takeover. At least the British have enough sense to understand this.