Saturday, April 15, 2006
Happy talk
This report of the effect of Bush's spate of optimistic speeches on Iraq upon his poll numbers (no effect, by the way) is good reporting. Sometimes USA Today comes up with decent summaries of the news, even if it's not known for investigative reporting.
The arrogance of power
This example of egregious in-your-face federal spending is enough to make me pause over my check to the IRS and seriously consider tax protesting. I mean, my likely destination upon conviction would be Lompoc Correctional Facility, just fifty miles up the coast.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Ugly Americans
Why do they hate us? This "apology" by the US military for destroying the ruins of the city of Babylon surely is one reason. Check out, especially, the last two sentences. Straight out of VietNam's famous "We destroyed the village in order to save it."
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Here's what's wrong with the Democrats
This post, offering a Democratic response to the Iran "crisis" is so wrong, so stupid, that I had to leave a comment--scroll way down on the many comments--to this effect: The post makes the classic blunder of adopting the Republicans' frame: of attacking Iran or not. That's not the issue. The issue is how to create a Middle East that doesn't adopt weapons as the only dialog. The Democrats should be demanding that Bush engage in face-to-face dealings with Iran to avert further escalation. We know Bush won't do it, but having failed to he won't be on the high ground anymore, and the Democrats will have seized the moment.
Update: Somebody's listening to me about having direct negotiations with Iran. A Republican, that's who. And not just any Republican. A heavy hitter.
Update: Somebody's listening to me about having direct negotiations with Iran. A Republican, that's who. And not just any Republican. A heavy hitter.
A thought about despair
So many things are amiss in the world--not just the many things caused by the Bush/Cheney administration (although many are attributable to them)--that I'm inclined simply to give up, to quit the battle. Would you miss me?
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
No October surprise
It's not that Bush isn't going to attack Iran in October. He surely will. However, it won't be a surprise. By now, everybody on this side of the pond expects it, and Iran's latest actions are ensuring it. Indeed, Iran's systematic, trumpeted defiance of international approbrium leads one to wonder whether Karl Rove has a direct line to President Ahmadinejad and is dictating his script.
Do we have to do everything for them?
Can't the Iraqis even solve this problem ? I mean, why don't they just siphon it out of the gutters?
Monday, April 10, 2006
More than fifty million Americans voted
to put this idiot into office. Check out this video and, if you can, laugh at us.
Don't believe me
about the iffy state of affairs in Iraq, in Baghdad in particular. Believe this article in The Army Times.
I don't want to be a spoilsport, but
will somebody tell me where in this resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq there's any authority granted by Congress allowing him to attack Iran? I mean, doesn't our president at least have to consult Congress before launching missles against a foreign power?
If you've stumbled onto a different constitution from mine, let me know what it says. But then again, maybe I'm just a silly strict-constructionist. A conservative, you might say.
If you've stumbled onto a different constitution from mine, let me know what it says. But then again, maybe I'm just a silly strict-constructionist. A conservative, you might say.
Lying leaks
This WaPo article is long, but its gist is this: The supposed "declassification" that Bush supposedly "authorized" was supposedly the justification of Libby's statements to reporters (Woodward, Miller) to buttress the Niger-uranium claim in the face of Ambassador Wilson's revelation that it was bogus. But the leaks of the Niger-uranium claim were themselves bogus, because the Niger-uranium claim had already been discounted. So, even as leakers Bush/Cheney are liars.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
I'm ambivalent
about this remark by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that an attack on Iran would be "completely nuts." On the one hand, I figure such a statement by our strongest ally when we attacked Iraq would operate to inhibit us from using military force against Iran; on the other hand, Straw's comment might merely be descriptive of Bush/Cheney, goading them to action, since they are indeed completely nuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)