Thursday, April 29, 2004
Memory Failure
Wow.
No video recording.
No audio recording.
No transcript.
No oath or promise to be truthful.
Just a handler to nudge you if you don't stay on message.
No credibility.
Bush agreed under pressure from victims' families and the commission to answer questions from all panel members, but only on condition he have Cheney at his side and they meet in private, with no recording of the session. They were not under oath.
|
No video recording.
No audio recording.
No transcript.
No oath or promise to be truthful.
Just a handler to nudge you if you don't stay on message.
No credibility.
Bush agreed under pressure from victims' families and the commission to answer questions from all panel members, but only on condition he have Cheney at his side and they meet in private, with no recording of the session. They were not under oath.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
No Justice, No Peace, No Sense
What in the world was that pea brained mythologist snorting before he met with Sharon?
In what way is recognizing "realities on the ground" going to:
a) increase peace in the Mideast
b) increase US prestige and respect abroad
c) increase US security at home and/or abroad
d) support the "war on terrorism"?
Bush also defended his decision to support Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, claiming Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a major concession to the Palestinians.
"The whole world should have said, 'Thank you Ariel,' " Bush said. Instead, he said, "there was kind of silence, wasn't there."
Bush's move on Israel drew angry responses throughout the Arab world, including from moderate U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt.
|
In what way is recognizing "realities on the ground" going to:
a) increase peace in the Mideast
b) increase US prestige and respect abroad
c) increase US security at home and/or abroad
d) support the "war on terrorism"?
Bush also defended his decision to support Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, claiming Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a major concession to the Palestinians.
"The whole world should have said, 'Thank you Ariel,' " Bush said. Instead, he said, "there was kind of silence, wasn't there."
Bush's move on Israel drew angry responses throughout the Arab world, including from moderate U.S. allies Jordan and Egypt.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Level of Fear
Not a wonder that Rove wants Cheney close at hand when MPG testifies to the 9/11 Commission.
I mean, we are going to have Mr. Undisclosed Location, and the MPG in the same place at the same time, simply to keep their stories synchronized. Somebody(s) want to be sure ol' Dancing Wit does not stray off into the tall grass when confronted with an unrehearsed question.
And it seems absolutely necessary... forgetting what the Team Position was, MPG admitted he had decided, and informed Colin Powell, the last to know, of his decision to invade... informed Colin in January. But according to Condo Rice and other loyal lickers, the Team Position was the decision was made in March.
This information comes indirectly, from Bob Woodward via CNN.
Woodward said Bush made up his mind that war would be necessary in early January 2003 and then began telling his top advisers.
Both national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card have said that the final decision to launch military action did not come until March, after Powell went to the U.N. Security Council in early February to make the administration's case for military action.
Woodward said he agrees with Card that the decision to go to war was not absolutely final until it became irrevocable as the March 19 invasion approached. But he told King that the source for his assertion that the actual decision was made earlier was the president himself.
Woodward said Bush told him that when he met in the Oval Office with Powell on January 13, 2003, it was "not a meeting to have a discussion. This was a meeting to tell Colin Powell that a decision had been made and that the president wanted his support."
|
I mean, we are going to have Mr. Undisclosed Location, and the MPG in the same place at the same time, simply to keep their stories synchronized. Somebody(s) want to be sure ol' Dancing Wit does not stray off into the tall grass when confronted with an unrehearsed question.
And it seems absolutely necessary... forgetting what the Team Position was, MPG admitted he had decided, and informed Colin Powell, the last to know, of his decision to invade... informed Colin in January. But according to Condo Rice and other loyal lickers, the Team Position was the decision was made in March.
This information comes indirectly, from Bob Woodward via CNN.
Woodward said Bush made up his mind that war would be necessary in early January 2003 and then began telling his top advisers.
Both national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card have said that the final decision to launch military action did not come until March, after Powell went to the U.N. Security Council in early February to make the administration's case for military action.
Woodward said he agrees with Card that the decision to go to war was not absolutely final until it became irrevocable as the March 19 invasion approached. But he told King that the source for his assertion that the actual decision was made earlier was the president himself.
Woodward said Bush told him that when he met in the Oval Office with Powell on January 13, 2003, it was "not a meeting to have a discussion. This was a meeting to tell Colin Powell that a decision had been made and that the president wanted his support."
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Where Are They Now?
Appears the Bushholes are softening us up... Party line now includes possible extended extended (no typo) tours, and possible increases in troop strength.
Anyone remember Eric Shinseki? General Eric Shinseki? Ex-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki? He took point a little over a year ago, arguing that troops in theatre were not sufficient... and is now retired. He accurately assessed the situation, but was more honest than his CiC, and paid the price. Gone and Forgotten.
Some suspected that the cost of holding Iraq, in blood and coin, was being intentionally obscured. After $140 billion in special funding for Iraq, perhaps it is true? Then and now?
Much like the Medicare Prescription Benefits of 2003? Where the "real" numbers were withheld from Congress, suppressed by intimidation... who wants to be jobless in a Bush economy. How many events to establish a pattern?
Addendum: In trying to fit a posting transparently into what the Man is paying for, some bits fall on the floor. Omitted today, the gang mentality applied to loyalty in the MPG administration. It matters not what loyal roles you played in days gone by. Step out of line today, and you will be savaged.
It is telling that Rummy and Whiff-no-wits played attack dog on Shinseki. Eric was once Rummy's golden boy, developing the Stryker brigade concept, supporting the Army evolution to a faster, more mobile, and still lethal force. But when he stepped too far ahead, he was slain.
A more malleable Chief has now been installed. Certainly, he is better attuned to his responsibilities to his CiC.
I was pleased to see that Thomas White, relieved of his explicit obligation to the Clown in Chief, hold to his guns in the face of the smear dogs.
Which brings to mind that fawning putz, John Snow. I did not agree with everything his predecessor Paul O'Neill had to say, but at least Paul had a defensible position. Snow, apparently overcome by r@ctal fumes associated with hyper-brown nosing, has not yet noticed that his spine has been removed. Nothing else would explain his ability to turn 180 degrees without moving his feet. Deficits are good, the bigger the better. Off-shore jobs, the more the merrier. Good for the economy, ya know.
|
Anyone remember Eric Shinseki? General Eric Shinseki? Ex-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki? He took point a little over a year ago, arguing that troops in theatre were not sufficient... and is now retired. He accurately assessed the situation, but was more honest than his CiC, and paid the price. Gone and Forgotten.
Some suspected that the cost of holding Iraq, in blood and coin, was being intentionally obscured. After $140 billion in special funding for Iraq, perhaps it is true? Then and now?
Much like the Medicare Prescription Benefits of 2003? Where the "real" numbers were withheld from Congress, suppressed by intimidation... who wants to be jobless in a Bush economy. How many events to establish a pattern?
Addendum: In trying to fit a posting transparently into what the Man is paying for, some bits fall on the floor. Omitted today, the gang mentality applied to loyalty in the MPG administration. It matters not what loyal roles you played in days gone by. Step out of line today, and you will be savaged.
It is telling that Rummy and Whiff-no-wits played attack dog on Shinseki. Eric was once Rummy's golden boy, developing the Stryker brigade concept, supporting the Army evolution to a faster, more mobile, and still lethal force. But when he stepped too far ahead, he was slain.
A more malleable Chief has now been installed. Certainly, he is better attuned to his responsibilities to his CiC.
I was pleased to see that Thomas White, relieved of his explicit obligation to the Clown in Chief, hold to his guns in the face of the smear dogs.
Which brings to mind that fawning putz, John Snow. I did not agree with everything his predecessor Paul O'Neill had to say, but at least Paul had a defensible position. Snow, apparently overcome by r@ctal fumes associated with hyper-brown nosing, has not yet noticed that his spine has been removed. Nothing else would explain his ability to turn 180 degrees without moving his feet. Deficits are good, the bigger the better. Off-shore jobs, the more the merrier. Good for the economy, ya know.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
In The Interest Of Fairness - Pandering USA
And to reinforce my pragmatic position, I will point out that John Kerry is in a frantic race to the bottom with Mad Prince George (MPG). In response to OPEC's decision to follow through on their planning to reduce production, John Kerry chose to accost MPG for being soft on the Saudis.
Wrong Answer.
It was, and is, appropriate to accost MPG, but the issue here is an "energy policy" that does nothing to encourage conservation, and only encourages consumption.
Sad, really. When you expect the Dem's to take and hold the high ground, use reason and fact to establish and defend their position, and they start whoring with partial truths just like the Bushholes... OK, in addition to being pragmatic, I may suffer the romantic idealist. Incompatible?
|
Wrong Answer.
It was, and is, appropriate to accost MPG, but the issue here is an "energy policy" that does nothing to encourage conservation, and only encourages consumption.
Sad, really. When you expect the Dem's to take and hold the high ground, use reason and fact to establish and defend their position, and they start whoring with partial truths just like the Bushholes... OK, in addition to being pragmatic, I may suffer the romantic idealist. Incompatible?
