I guess she was for the bridge before she was against it. I understand that die-hard Republicans aren't the brightest folks in the basket, but it's hard to understand how even the blindest of the blind can accept Sarah Palin's lies about the Bridge to Nowhere. "If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves," Sarah Palin said, lying through her teeth to the cheering ("Drill, baby, drill!" Oh, wait, that's another story.) and half-crazed audience in Saint Paul.
Sounds cool. McCain and Palin say they don't want to waste taxpayers' money. Trouble is, at least in Palin's case, it's a sham. A lie. A canard. An untruth. Palin continues to make this claim and it's in a GOP TV ad. That doesn't make it any less true.
Let's turn the clock back to 2006 and allow me to quote Sarah Palin: "We need to come to the defense of southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." While running for governor, Palin repeatedly stated her support for the bridge that would have connected a town of 2400 to a town of 870.
"Palin was for the infamous bridge to nowhere before she was against it." (Associated Press)
In September of 2006, Palin (still for the bridge) was quoted by the Ketchikan Daily News: "The money that's been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link. I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project." And when people started referring to the bridge as the "Bridge to Nowhere", Palin was photographed in a pro-bridge shirt with the slogan "Nowhere, Alaska 99901". If this is opposition, I wonder what support is.
Eventually Congress was embarrassed into killing Alaska Pork Senator Ted Stevens' project, but even then Palin didn't return federal money that had been sent. She allocated it to building the approach to the bridge that wouldn't be build to nowhere. So that's the "conservative" approach to safeguarding taxpayers' money.
D'oh!
You may already know the rest of the story. In October 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma, tried to move money for the Bridge to Nowhere to fund a bridge to somewhere — one damaged by Hurricane Katrina. That's the point at which Porky Ted Stevens, the indicted Alaska Republican senator (et, tu), threatened to resign and the Senate then rejected spending the money to fix a real bridge to a real location. Even the Heritage Foundation (about as conservative as you can get) called the Bridge to Nowhere "a national embarrassment", but Palin soldiered on.
In November, Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere, but it was more than a year later that Palin finally decided she should be "against" the bridge.
Although I can understand how the 800 or so people living in the town the bridge would have connected to the nearby metropolis that's about 1/10th the size of the town I live in might have wanted the bridge, I also don't doubt that it would be nice for Congress to approve funding for a heliport near my home so that I could get to work faster. The difference is that I understand why this would be a stupid idea and know that I wouldn't support it even if some yahoo porky congressional critter managed to obtain funding for it.
Now Sarah Palin is against the bridge. According to her, she's always been against the bridge. Except that she was for the bridge before it became embarrassing to be for the bridge. All we have is more lies from the Party of Rove, who learned from the architects of the Third Reich that a big lie, told enough times, becomes the truth in the the feeble minds of the public.
09 September 2008
07 September 2008
Disinformation: What it Is; How it Works
Maybe a couple of quick definitions are in order first. A lot of people confuse "misinformation" and "disinformation", but there's a critical difference. "Misinformation" has been in the language for centuries and was formed from the verb "misinform". "Misinformation" is, quite simply, "incorrect information" and that's it. "Disinformation", on the other hand, entered the language in 1939 and Merriam Webster's 10th Edition defines it this way: "False information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth."
The difference is that disinformation (from the soviet term "disinformatsiya") is "covertly spread" and often started by planting rumors and the goal is to influence public opinion. The soviets became masters of this technique, using small newspapers or radio stations in third-world countries to start a rumor, which might then be picked up (with quite a bit of help from the soviet "news" bureau TASS) by larger news operations.
TASS would carry the initial reports but would fail to issue corrections when the originating newspaper or radio station later issued a correction. The rumors continue to spread to larger and more respected news organizations. Sometimes they managed to hit a home run and their disinformation would show up in major Western media.
Karl Rove and company watched and learned. (Is there an irony here? The "defenders of freedom and democracy", as they like to style themselves, taking to disinformation as a pig takes to mud.) They saw how easy it would be to start a whispering campaign. For example, the one in South Carolina, where the rumor mill spread an unfounded and false story about Senator John McCain so that George W. Bush could win the Republican nomination in 2000. These techniques were repeated four years later by the "Swift Boaters" and Jerome R. Corsi, a hack writer and conspiracy theory nut.
Today, we're seeing yet another tired replay of this hoary old script, this time against Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Will the public fall for this canard yet again?
A Disinformatsiya Case Study
The United States Information Agency (USIA) issued a lengthy report in 1996 describing how a disinformation campaign is waged. The full account is here: (The "Baby Parts" Myth: The Anatomy of a Rumor).
The account summarizes an unfounded, but horrifying, rumor that Americans (or, depending on the source, Europeans, Canadians, or Israelis) adopt infants or kidnap children, murder them, and use their body parts for organ transplants. You know it's false. I know it's false. But this story has been seen by millions of people and many of those who are already predisposed to dislike Americans (or, depending on the source, Europeans, Canadians, or Israelis) undoubtedly believed it.
These baby stealing rumors can be traced back at least as far as ancient Rome and were often used to pit one group against another, just as similar techniques are being used today by the GOP to demonize Democrats.
In January 1987, Leonardo Villeda Bermudez, a former Honduran government official mentioned the rumor in passing during an interview. The reporter felt that Villeda was saying the rumors were true. The official immediately issued a clarification and that clarification was repeated by all top Honduran officials, but the rumor had already been reported by one of the news wire services.
A few months later, in April, the disinformatsiya crew in the USSR began spreading and embellishing the rumor. The story appeared in Pravda (which means "Truth"), citing the Honduran account but ignoring all subsequent clarifications and retractions. The story continued to appear in TASS accounts until late 1988.
This event occurred near the end of the Soviet Union and lasted for less than two years, while some stories from the 1950s and 1960s were repeated for more than a decade. Joe McCarthy disgraced the Republican party in the 1950s and some of his lies continue to be handed down from one generation to the next, as if gospel, in the GOP.
The problem is that people believe what they want to believe. It's easy to vilify "the enemy" as Sarah Palin did at the recent Republican convention, and as she continues to do in her role of attack dog. Those Republicans who believe that only they are patriotic (and this appears not to be a small number) will easily believe that Democrats are enemies of the state.
Perhaps someday Republicans will understand that Democrats share with true Republicans a desire for peace, justice, and prosperity. Perhaps the majority of Republicans may even come to understand that their own party has lied to them about nearly everything it has done for the past eight years.
One can only hope.
The difference is that disinformation (from the soviet term "disinformatsiya") is "covertly spread" and often started by planting rumors and the goal is to influence public opinion. The soviets became masters of this technique, using small newspapers or radio stations in third-world countries to start a rumor, which might then be picked up (with quite a bit of help from the soviet "news" bureau TASS) by larger news operations.
TASS would carry the initial reports but would fail to issue corrections when the originating newspaper or radio station later issued a correction. The rumors continue to spread to larger and more respected news organizations. Sometimes they managed to hit a home run and their disinformation would show up in major Western media.
Karl Rove and company watched and learned. (Is there an irony here? The "defenders of freedom and democracy", as they like to style themselves, taking to disinformation as a pig takes to mud.) They saw how easy it would be to start a whispering campaign. For example, the one in South Carolina, where the rumor mill spread an unfounded and false story about Senator John McCain so that George W. Bush could win the Republican nomination in 2000. These techniques were repeated four years later by the "Swift Boaters" and Jerome R. Corsi, a hack writer and conspiracy theory nut.
Today, we're seeing yet another tired replay of this hoary old script, this time against Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Will the public fall for this canard yet again?
A Disinformatsiya Case Study
The United States Information Agency (USIA) issued a lengthy report in 1996 describing how a disinformation campaign is waged. The full account is here: (The "Baby Parts" Myth: The Anatomy of a Rumor).
The account summarizes an unfounded, but horrifying, rumor that Americans (or, depending on the source, Europeans, Canadians, or Israelis) adopt infants or kidnap children, murder them, and use their body parts for organ transplants. You know it's false. I know it's false. But this story has been seen by millions of people and many of those who are already predisposed to dislike Americans (or, depending on the source, Europeans, Canadians, or Israelis) undoubtedly believed it.
These baby stealing rumors can be traced back at least as far as ancient Rome and were often used to pit one group against another, just as similar techniques are being used today by the GOP to demonize Democrats.
In January 1987, Leonardo Villeda Bermudez, a former Honduran government official mentioned the rumor in passing during an interview. The reporter felt that Villeda was saying the rumors were true. The official immediately issued a clarification and that clarification was repeated by all top Honduran officials, but the rumor had already been reported by one of the news wire services.
A few months later, in April, the disinformatsiya crew in the USSR began spreading and embellishing the rumor. The story appeared in Pravda (which means "Truth"), citing the Honduran account but ignoring all subsequent clarifications and retractions. The story continued to appear in TASS accounts until late 1988.
This event occurred near the end of the Soviet Union and lasted for less than two years, while some stories from the 1950s and 1960s were repeated for more than a decade. Joe McCarthy disgraced the Republican party in the 1950s and some of his lies continue to be handed down from one generation to the next, as if gospel, in the GOP.
The problem is that people believe what they want to believe. It's easy to vilify "the enemy" as Sarah Palin did at the recent Republican convention, and as she continues to do in her role of attack dog. Those Republicans who believe that only they are patriotic (and this appears not to be a small number) will easily believe that Democrats are enemies of the state.
Perhaps someday Republicans will understand that Democrats share with true Republicans a desire for peace, justice, and prosperity. Perhaps the majority of Republicans may even come to understand that their own party has lied to them about nearly everything it has done for the past eight years.
One can only hope.
The Conventions Have Ended
After the Democratic convention, I felt really good. And it was even better when Obama and Biden made Columbus one of their first post-convention stops. I created a couple of designs that I felt were forward looking and optimistic.
and
I really hoped that the campaign would involve a discussion of the issues, but then came the Republican convention. Lies, deceit, innuendo, and smears abounded. And that was just about their own vice presidential candidate. Of course they blamed "the liberal media" for it, even though it was a story planted by neocon bloggers. (This is essentially the same procedure that the soviets perfected using TASS in the 1950s and 1960s.)
So, for therapeutic value, I needed to create some edgier messages. By the way, if you like any of these, I've made them available via CafePress.
then
and
I really hoped that the campaign would involve a discussion of the issues, but then came the Republican convention. Lies, deceit, innuendo, and smears abounded. And that was just about their own vice presidential candidate. Of course they blamed "the liberal media" for it, even though it was a story planted by neocon bloggers. (This is essentially the same procedure that the soviets perfected using TASS in the 1950s and 1960s.)
So, for therapeutic value, I needed to create some edgier messages. By the way, if you like any of these, I've made them available via CafePress.
then
and
Well, the Republican convention is over, so the police in Minneapolis and Saint Paul can stop arresting terrorist nuns and beating demonstrators. They can go back to whatever it is they usually do for amusement. The Republicans are fanning out across the country with their message of fear.
And I needed more therapy. That led to ...
and
along with
and
and
and
and finally
This next election is the most important election in my lifetime. It will help determine the direction this country takes for decades and, possibly, whether this country continues to exist.
along with
and
and
and
and finally
This next election is the most important election in my lifetime. It will help determine the direction this country takes for decades and, possibly, whether this country continues to exist.
Incidentally, I've created some of these bumper stickers as wide-screen (1440x900) desktop wallpaper images. If you'd like to download them, you'll find them in a zip file here. Free.
http://www.blinn.com/desktop/ Just download "Obama.zip", extract the files, and use them.
Enjoy!
And please vote.
And please vote.
Aristotle supposedly said, "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
(Smart guy, that Aristotle.)
(Smart guy, that Aristotle.)
Nasty?
Yeah, I guess you could say that some of these are nasty. Mean spirited. Personal attacks. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of things that Karl Rove and the rest of his politburo would use to blast the opposition. Hack writer Jerome Corsi's Obama Nation book, for example. Clever play on words, but lacking in factual references. Corsi, Rove, and their ilk are professionals when it comes to innuendo, rumor, and half truths.
So, yeah. Nasty. And without apology for being so. It's time to fight back.
05 September 2008
I used to be a Republican
Maybe I'd like to be again someday, but it's not likely. Today the Republicans are the party of intransigence, not the progressives they once were.
It's not so much the Republicans, but the party as it is currently operating. The party has been taken over by what appear to most of the world to be crazy people. We have the neocons who have started one needless war and seem to be itching to start another. We have people who espouse Christian values and morality lying, stealing, and cheating. They pray loudly and publicly, but their actions do not reflect their words.
I once was a Republican. And this morning I heard a Florida GOP congressman on NPR. He made a lot of sense, talking about Congress working together to get things done. That was once the way things happened.
It's not just the GOP, either. Democrats have taken a harder stance, too, and are more confrontational than they were. I know why this is in my own case: As the GOP told me time and time again that I was the enemy, that I was not patriotic, and everything was the fault of people like me, the "big tent" got smaller and smaller. As the GOP hired more and more managers, all the while saying that they were making government smaller, as they outsourced $50,000 per year jobs to $200,000 per year private contractors who were accountable only to their corporations, as they routinely talked about solving problems and only made them worse -- I could see that the elephant was naked.
I just hope that some true conservatives manage to wrest back control of the party.
I really would like to respect the party again even if its values are no longer mine, or maybe the other way around.
It's not so much the Republicans, but the party as it is currently operating. The party has been taken over by what appear to most of the world to be crazy people. We have the neocons who have started one needless war and seem to be itching to start another. We have people who espouse Christian values and morality lying, stealing, and cheating. They pray loudly and publicly, but their actions do not reflect their words.
I once was a Republican. And this morning I heard a Florida GOP congressman on NPR. He made a lot of sense, talking about Congress working together to get things done. That was once the way things happened.
It's not just the GOP, either. Democrats have taken a harder stance, too, and are more confrontational than they were. I know why this is in my own case: As the GOP told me time and time again that I was the enemy, that I was not patriotic, and everything was the fault of people like me, the "big tent" got smaller and smaller. As the GOP hired more and more managers, all the while saying that they were making government smaller, as they outsourced $50,000 per year jobs to $200,000 per year private contractors who were accountable only to their corporations, as they routinely talked about solving problems and only made them worse -- I could see that the elephant was naked.
I just hope that some true conservatives manage to wrest back control of the party.
I really would like to respect the party again even if its values are no longer mine, or maybe the other way around.
Palin: Cheney with a smile
If you think it's been bad having the former president of Halliburton in charge of the government for the past 8 years, just wait until Sarah Palin (who's beholding to the entire state of Alaska) gets her hooks in the federal coffers. Corruption? You ain't seen nothin' like it befo. (I wrote that last part in a way that might be understandable to some "we hate intylektyualz" Republicans.)
You youins iz wundering whut the Reepub big wigz is thinkin' 'bout Palin? Fur yer edddyficakshun (ah, enlightenment) (ur, learnin'), here's a transcript (that means a listing of what words came out of their mouths) of what they said when they thought the microphones and cameras had been turned off:
Mike Murphy, former McCain advisor, and Peggy Noonan, a Reagan speech writer, said when they thought the microphones were OFF:
Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor work. Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all like how you want to (inaudible) this race. You know, just run it up. And it's not gonna work.
Peggy Noonan: It's over.
Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.
NBC's Chuck Todd: Don't you think the Palin pick was insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too (inaudible)
Noonan: I saw Kay this morning.
Murphy: They're all bummed out.
Todd: I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political [B.S.] about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.
Murphy: I totally agree.
Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at and they blow it.
Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.
Todd: And as you called it, gimmicky.
Dis here all leads to de kwesthchun: Why dus Republicans hate dis country so much? Why duz dey want to 'lekt stoopid peeples 'sted of kumpashitate 'murikans what luvs de country?
Translation for Democrats and other thinking people: Why do Republicans hate the country so much? Why do they want to elect uneducated, inexperienced candidates instead of compassionate Americans who love the country?
Say NO to the party of McCarthyism.
Vote SMART.
Vote BLUE.
Intelligent Compassion
You youins iz wundering whut the Reepub big wigz is thinkin' 'bout Palin? Fur yer edddyficakshun (ah, enlightenment) (ur, learnin'), here's a transcript (that means a listing of what words came out of their mouths) of what they said when they thought the microphones and cameras had been turned off:
Mike Murphy, former McCain advisor, and Peggy Noonan, a Reagan speech writer, said when they thought the microphones were OFF:
Mike Murphy: You know, because I come out of the blue swing state governor work. Engler, Whitman, Thompson, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush. And these guys, this is all like how you want to (inaudible) this race. You know, just run it up. And it's not gonna work.
Peggy Noonan: It's over.
Murphy: Still, McCain can give a version of the Lieberman speech to do himself some good.
NBC's Chuck Todd: Don't you think the Palin pick was insulting to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, too (inaudible)
Noonan: I saw Kay this morning.
Murphy: They're all bummed out.
Todd: I mean, is she really the most qualified woman they could have turned to?
Noonan: The most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political [B.S.] about narratives and (inaudible) the picture.
Murphy: I totally agree.
Noonan: Every time the Republicans do that because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at and they blow it.
Murphy: You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism and this is cynical.
Todd: And as you called it, gimmicky.
Dis here all leads to de kwesthchun: Why dus Republicans hate dis country so much? Why duz dey want to 'lekt stoopid peeples 'sted of kumpashitate 'murikans what luvs de country?
Translation for Democrats and other thinking people: Why do Republicans hate the country so much? Why do they want to elect uneducated, inexperienced candidates instead of compassionate Americans who love the country?
Say NO to the party of McCarthyism.
Vote SMART.
Vote BLUE.
Intelligent Compassion
Why Palin is a BAD CHOICE (by Karl Rove)
I've been neglecting this area for a long time, thinking that people of good sense would prevail in 2008. Now I'm not so sure. Given how the rabid right took to Sarah Palin, I'm a bit worried. According to Karl Rove, Palin shouldn't be considered for the vice presidency, though.
Karl Rove, when there was a rumor that Barack Obama was considering Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as vice president: "With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, 'You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with -- is this person capable of being president of the United States?'"
^^ If you don't believe that Karl Rove actually spoke these words in this election cycle, let me know and I will provide a link to the video where you can watch and listen as he says these words.*
Please note that Wasilla, Alaska, would rank no higher than the 10,000th "city" in the nation, by population, and probably closer to 15,000. Also note that the population of Alaska is 47th among the 50 states. Only North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have lower populations.
You already know that Karl Rove flip-flopped so badly on this one that he probably sprained his flip-flopper, which is quite a feat for someone as slippery as Rove.
Rove on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin: "She was mayor of the second largest city in Alaska before she became governor," as if that's some great qualification for being vice president. Except that Wasilla isn't the "second largest city" in Alaska.
Or third.
Or fourth.
For those who are factually challenged, such as Karl Rove, here is a list of the 5 largest cities in Alaska:
Alaska isn't like states where "fifth largest" might actually be a city of some size. The fifth largest city in Ohio is Akron, with 207,000 people. Or Virginia. Richmond is the fifth largest city (200,000+ people), but that's not enough to impress Karl Rove.
West Virginia, a state with few large cities, has more than 5 cities with populations in excess of 30,000 (which would be about 4 times the size of Wasilla) and nearly 20 cities with more than 20,000 residents. (20,000 is more than double the size of Wasilla.) Anybody want to guess what Karl Rove and his minions would have said if Barack Obama had selected as his vice presidential candidate someone who, until two years ago, had been the mayor of Beckley, West Virginia (population 16,830 -- more than 3 times larger than Wasilla)?
So ...
*This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats: The Democrats have proof, not rumor and innuendo.
Karl Rove, when there was a rumor that Barack Obama was considering Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as vice president: "With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, 'You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with -- is this person capable of being president of the United States?'"
^^ If you don't believe that Karl Rove actually spoke these words in this election cycle, let me know and I will provide a link to the video where you can watch and listen as he says these words.*
Please note that Wasilla, Alaska, would rank no higher than the 10,000th "city" in the nation, by population, and probably closer to 15,000. Also note that the population of Alaska is 47th among the 50 states. Only North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming have lower populations.
You already know that Karl Rove flip-flopped so badly on this one that he probably sprained his flip-flopper, which is quite a feat for someone as slippery as Rove.
Rove on Alaska Governor Sarah Palin: "She was mayor of the second largest city in Alaska before she became governor," as if that's some great qualification for being vice president. Except that Wasilla isn't the "second largest city" in Alaska.
Or third.
Or fourth.
For those who are factually challenged, such as Karl Rove, here is a list of the 5 largest cities in Alaska:
- Anchorage, 275,043 (largest, 32 times larger than Wasilla)
- Fairbanks, 31,324 (second largest, 3.7 times larger than Wasilla)
- Juneau, 30,978 (third largest, 3.6 times larger than Wasilla)
- Sitka, 8986 (fourth largest)
- Wasilla, 8431 (fifth largest)
If you use the 2006 government estimates, Wasilla beats Sitka by about 300 people and becomes the fourth largest "city" in Alaska.
Alaska isn't like states where "fifth largest" might actually be a city of some size. The fifth largest city in Ohio is Akron, with 207,000 people. Or Virginia. Richmond is the fifth largest city (200,000+ people), but that's not enough to impress Karl Rove.
West Virginia, a state with few large cities, has more than 5 cities with populations in excess of 30,000 (which would be about 4 times the size of Wasilla) and nearly 20 cities with more than 20,000 residents. (20,000 is more than double the size of Wasilla.) Anybody want to guess what Karl Rove and his minions would have said if Barack Obama had selected as his vice presidential candidate someone who, until two years ago, had been the mayor of Beckley, West Virginia (population 16,830 -- more than 3 times larger than Wasilla)?
So ...
- How do you spell "flip-flop"? Karl Rove.
- How do you spell "hypocrisy"? Karl Rove.
- How do you spell "lying son of a bitch"? Karl Rove.
*This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats: The Democrats have proof, not rumor and innuendo.
08 January 2006
Neocon closed minds
I received a message from a WTVN Radio (Columbus, Ohio) listener following the first program of 2006. "I listend [sic] to you on the way to church Sunday mornings for the Tech help. Keep your Bush bashing to yourself. Then I will like you and listen to you again."
Bush bashing? I don't do that on the air, but the Technology Corner website includes (on the "reference" page) a link to this blog and to Bush Lied Again.
I guess the neocons are all for freedom of speech as long as it's their speech. Or maybe it's this attitude: "I don't have to think because Rush Limbaugh told me what to think, so you shouldn't be thinking, either. Thinking is dangerous. I heard that from Limbaugh, too, and he has a direct line to the guy who has a direct line to God."
As I explained to my little Bush buddy, "I do not bash Bush on the air, but I do believe that I have the right to post my opinions on websites that I pay for personally. Whether you like me or not is immaterial. I happen to like a lot of people with whom I may disagree on one thing or another. This is part of being an adult."
Poor little Bush babies.
Bush bashing? I don't do that on the air, but the Technology Corner website includes (on the "reference" page) a link to this blog and to Bush Lied Again.
I guess the neocons are all for freedom of speech as long as it's their speech. Or maybe it's this attitude: "I don't have to think because Rush Limbaugh told me what to think, so you shouldn't be thinking, either. Thinking is dangerous. I heard that from Limbaugh, too, and he has a direct line to the guy who has a direct line to God."
As I explained to my little Bush buddy, "I do not bash Bush on the air, but I do believe that I have the right to post my opinions on websites that I pay for personally. Whether you like me or not is immaterial. I happen to like a lot of people with whom I may disagree on one thing or another. This is part of being an adult."
Poor little Bush babies.
06 January 2006
What an amazing week!
Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Jack Abramoff, the once-powerful Republican lobbyist at the center of a federal corruption investigation, pleaded guilty to three criminal charges and will cooperate with a Justice Department probe that threatens to ensnare lawmakers.
[Do you suppose there are some "law"makers who will need a little something to help them sleep tonight?]
[Bloomberg continues] Criminal allegations the government filed today also mention an unnamed former chief of staff to Ney, accused of lobbying the lawmaker and his staff without waiting the required one-year period after leaving Capitol Hill. Neil Volz is the only former Ney chief of staff who went to work for Abramoff.
DeLay, the Texas Republican who until September was House majority leader, took a golf trip to the U.K. in 2000 with Abramoff. DeLay also has benefited from Abramoff-related campaign donations, taking in more money directly from the lobbyist -- $17,000 from 2001 to 2004 -- than any other member of Congress, according to Federal Election Commission records.
[We now switch to the Houston Chronicle for this report, already in progress.] WASHINGTON -- The prosecutor in the Texas money laundering case against Rep. Tom DeLay issued subpoenas today looking for links between lobbyist Jack Abramoff and fundraising by the former majority leader.
District Attorney Ronnie Earle issued the subpoenas in Austin the same day that Abramoff pleaded guilty in Washington to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.
[Oh, by the way, sleazinator Tom DeLay called Jack Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends." Maybe they can do a little jail time in the same cell and really become "friends".]
[Do you suppose there are some "law"makers who will need a little something to help them sleep tonight?]
[Bloomberg continues] Criminal allegations the government filed today also mention an unnamed former chief of staff to Ney, accused of lobbying the lawmaker and his staff without waiting the required one-year period after leaving Capitol Hill. Neil Volz is the only former Ney chief of staff who went to work for Abramoff.
DeLay, the Texas Republican who until September was House majority leader, took a golf trip to the U.K. in 2000 with Abramoff. DeLay also has benefited from Abramoff-related campaign donations, taking in more money directly from the lobbyist -- $17,000 from 2001 to 2004 -- than any other member of Congress, according to Federal Election Commission records.
[We now switch to the Houston Chronicle for this report, already in progress.] WASHINGTON -- The prosecutor in the Texas money laundering case against Rep. Tom DeLay issued subpoenas today looking for links between lobbyist Jack Abramoff and fundraising by the former majority leader.
District Attorney Ronnie Earle issued the subpoenas in Austin the same day that Abramoff pleaded guilty in Washington to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud.
[Oh, by the way, sleazinator Tom DeLay called Jack Abramoff "one of my closest and dearest friends." Maybe they can do a little jail time in the same cell and really become "friends".]
Pat Robertson: World's biggest asshole
Pat Robertson says that Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's retribution for giving up land to the Palestinians.
According to Robertson, this happened before when God offed Yitzhak Rabin. Apparently God is getting better at this killing stuff because now He can just cause a stroke instead of having to use the services of a hired gun.
Robertson says that little bit of land is God's and woe be to anyone who wants to give it away. I guess that means God doesn't care about the Grand Canyon. And we already know that God will turn His back on Dover, Pennsylvania. So either of those can be safely given away to Palestinians, I suppose.
"God save me from your believers," comes to mind. Not all your believers, though. Just the nut cases like Rat Bopertson.
According to Robertson, this happened before when God offed Yitzhak Rabin. Apparently God is getting better at this killing stuff because now He can just cause a stroke instead of having to use the services of a hired gun.
Robertson says that little bit of land is God's and woe be to anyone who wants to give it away. I guess that means God doesn't care about the Grand Canyon. And we already know that God will turn His back on Dover, Pennsylvania. So either of those can be safely given away to Palestinians, I suppose.
"God save me from your believers," comes to mind. Not all your believers, though. Just the nut cases like Rat Bopertson.
Neocons: Crazy or just stupid?
The neocons say it's OK for Dictator Bush to ignore any laws he wants to as long as he says it's because he's "fighting terrorists". At the same time, they justify Bush's illegal acts based on the (incorrect) assumption that "Clinton did it" and "Carter did it."
So should Bush invite Monica Lewinsky to the Oval Office for a little evening fun?
What the neocons don't seem to understand is that George Bush and his ilk will not always be in power. Eventually Democrats will find someone popular enough to get so many votes that not even widespread fraud will be able to steal the election. And where will the neocons be then? They'll find that the crooked Democrats are just as bad as the crooked Republicans. They'll find that the Dems will be more than willing to use Herr Bush's precedents.
Do these guys ever look at history? Johnson misused the IRS. So did Nixon. Neither party is immune from this crap.
Allowing Bush & Company to take us down this path is wrong for conservatives, wrong for liberals, and wrong for America.
What is it that neocons don't understand about "unconstitutional"?
So should Bush invite Monica Lewinsky to the Oval Office for a little evening fun?
What the neocons don't seem to understand is that George Bush and his ilk will not always be in power. Eventually Democrats will find someone popular enough to get so many votes that not even widespread fraud will be able to steal the election. And where will the neocons be then? They'll find that the crooked Democrats are just as bad as the crooked Republicans. They'll find that the Dems will be more than willing to use Herr Bush's precedents.
Do these guys ever look at history? Johnson misused the IRS. So did Nixon. Neither party is immune from this crap.
Allowing Bush & Company to take us down this path is wrong for conservatives, wrong for liberals, and wrong for America.
What is it that neocons don't understand about "unconstitutional"?
28 December 2005
Spying on Americans
The neocons tell me it's wrong to question the government's spying. "Anything they do to fight terrorism is OK," they tell me. The Bush administration has concluded that the FISA Court isn't sufficient. Even though the court has approved virtually every wiretap request it has received (the court was created in 1978) and even though the court's rules allow a president to order an emergency wiretap on his authority and then to present supporting evidence to the court within 72 hours, Bush and his cronies felt that wasn't adequate.
That frightens me. It should frighten you, even if you're a Bush supporter.
The problem is that Bush is creating precedent. If this is allowed to continue, then Bush and any future president will be allowed to order wiretaps at will. Would those who support today's excesses by the Bush camp be happy to see these procedures used by President Kerry, President Gore, or President Clinton? I suspect that they would not. The difference between them and me is that I would oppose this kind of activity by President Gore, President Kerry, or President Clinton ("my" presidents) while they feel that anything "their" president does is moral, ethical, legal, and approved by the one true God.
The FISA Court was established to create minimal safeguards for Americans to avoid the abuses the Nixon administration perpetrated. Why does George War Bush feel that he can trample even these minimal safeguards? If he's unwilling to provide the FISA Court with justifications for his wiretap orders, might that justification be missing? Is it possible that Bush, his brain (Rove), and his keeper (Cheney) have created a Nixonian enemies list? (If so, I'm certainly on it.)
Why can't this administration, which claims to be for strict interpretation of the Constitution, abide by the Constitution?
Oh, by the way – if you believe that I think wiretaps and spying should be eliminated entirely, you're absolutely and completely wrong. The government has the right and the duty to protect Americans. But is also has the duty to abide by the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.
We have a president, not a king, and presidents are not above the law.
That frightens me. It should frighten you, even if you're a Bush supporter.
The problem is that Bush is creating precedent. If this is allowed to continue, then Bush and any future president will be allowed to order wiretaps at will. Would those who support today's excesses by the Bush camp be happy to see these procedures used by President Kerry, President Gore, or President Clinton? I suspect that they would not. The difference between them and me is that I would oppose this kind of activity by President Gore, President Kerry, or President Clinton ("my" presidents) while they feel that anything "their" president does is moral, ethical, legal, and approved by the one true God.
The FISA Court was established to create minimal safeguards for Americans to avoid the abuses the Nixon administration perpetrated. Why does George War Bush feel that he can trample even these minimal safeguards? If he's unwilling to provide the FISA Court with justifications for his wiretap orders, might that justification be missing? Is it possible that Bush, his brain (Rove), and his keeper (Cheney) have created a Nixonian enemies list? (If so, I'm certainly on it.)
Why can't this administration, which claims to be for strict interpretation of the Constitution, abide by the Constitution?
Oh, by the way – if you believe that I think wiretaps and spying should be eliminated entirely, you're absolutely and completely wrong. The government has the right and the duty to protect Americans. But is also has the duty to abide by the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress.
We have a president, not a king, and presidents are not above the law.
25 December 2005
The blown presidency
I've seen bumper stickers recently that suggest someone should give George W. Bush a blow job so that he can be impeached. This is absurd, of course, a simple blow job in the Oval Office would never be enough to get Mister Bush impeached. To be impeached, the president would have to do something politically foolish and fiscally reckless such as reducing tax cuts for the wealthy and restoring funding cuts for the neediest US citizens. Or he might propose a national health insurance program. Or suggest gun control.
Simply lying to congress, the people who elected him, and the world isn't sufficient.
But just for my own amusement, I wondered ...
And ...
I wanted to upload these to CafePress, but I knew it would be rejected because they won't allow pictures of celebrities. The photo of the Liar and Thief would be OK, but not the young lady. So this morning (26 December) it occurred to me that there's a way I can make this sentiment acceptable to CafePress:
And ...
These are currently at Bush Remover on CafePress.com.
Simply lying to congress, the people who elected him, and the world isn't sufficient.
But just for my own amusement, I wondered ...
And ...
I wanted to upload these to CafePress, but I knew it would be rejected because they won't allow pictures of celebrities. The photo of the Liar and Thief would be OK, but not the young lady. So this morning (26 December) it occurred to me that there's a way I can make this sentiment acceptable to CafePress:
And ...
These are currently at Bush Remover on CafePress.com.
Notice an increase in the use of "impeach"?
[A]fter former Nixon White House counsel John Dean suggested that the NSA spying was an impeachable offense, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., sent a letter Monday to some legal scholars seeking opinions.
"This is a country founded on the rule of law," [Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Kentucky], "and (Bush) goes around talking about establishing the rule of law around the world, then he flouts the rule of law here on grounds that he's got to do it to fight terror. We're giving away some of our basic freedoms if we continue to flout the law."
Louisville Courier-Journal (25 Dec 2005)
The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.
Bush argues that his powers as a president in “times of war” are plenary – that is, full, complete, without limit. Yet the very soul of a democracy is the equal powers that the three branches of government share, each serving as a counterweight to the messianic impulses that any one of the other branches might dare assume.
How can President Bush claim to want to instill a working democracy in Iraq, while at the same time violating our own U.S. laws, our own system of checks and balances? Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but a far greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.
The Santiago (Chile) Times (21 Dec 2005)
Some adults in the United States believe legal charges should be sought against their president, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports for AfterDowningStreet.org. 32 per cent of respondents believe George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office, while 58 per cent disagree.
Rasmussen Reports based on telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Dec. 9 and Dec. 10, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter (19 Dec 2005)
Even some of the conservative press -- the ones that understand honor and rule of law -- are talking about impeachment:
Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.
Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Editoral in Barrons (Dec 2005)
"This is a country founded on the rule of law," [Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Kentucky], "and (Bush) goes around talking about establishing the rule of law around the world, then he flouts the rule of law here on grounds that he's got to do it to fight terror. We're giving away some of our basic freedoms if we continue to flout the law."
Louisville Courier-Journal (25 Dec 2005)
The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.
Bush argues that his powers as a president in “times of war” are plenary – that is, full, complete, without limit. Yet the very soul of a democracy is the equal powers that the three branches of government share, each serving as a counterweight to the messianic impulses that any one of the other branches might dare assume.
How can President Bush claim to want to instill a working democracy in Iraq, while at the same time violating our own U.S. laws, our own system of checks and balances? Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but a far greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.
The Santiago (Chile) Times (21 Dec 2005)
Some adults in the United States believe legal charges should be sought against their president, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports for AfterDowningStreet.org. 32 per cent of respondents believe George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office, while 58 per cent disagree.
Rasmussen Reports based on telephone interviews with 1,000 American adults, conducted on Dec. 9 and Dec. 10, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter (19 Dec 2005)
Even some of the conservative press -- the ones that understand honor and rule of law -- are talking about impeachment:
Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.
Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Editoral in Barrons (Dec 2005)
18 December 2005
Truth at last?
The Bushwhacker admits that his administration plays fast and loose with our privacy. (Isn't this what got Nixon busted?) And, of course, his supporters (the same folks who went ballistic when Clinton did anything that threatened their privacy) will now look at him and say, "Look! He always levels with the American people, even when he has to lie to do it."
And they will fucking believe it!
And they will fucking believe it!
29 November 2005
The party of honesty and ethics?
Yesterday Republican Representative Duke Cunningham (San Diego) admitted that he's a war profiteer who engaged in bribery, fraud, and tax evasion -- profiting from the war in Iraq. Classy, eh?
Republican Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, has been indicted by a grand jury for treason.
Republican Tom DeLay, former majority leader of the House of Representatives has been arrested after a Texas grand jury indicted him.
Republican Senator Bill Frist, still the majority leader in the Senate, is under investigation on civil and criminal charges.
White House chief of staff Karl Rove is still under investigtaion for treason.
Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is probably going to be charged with several ethics violations now that Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Tom DeLay (see above) has admitted to crimimal acts.
"Ethical Repubican"? What a fucking oxymoron!
Republican Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, has been indicted by a grand jury for treason.
Republican Tom DeLay, former majority leader of the House of Representatives has been arrested after a Texas grand jury indicted him.
Republican Senator Bill Frist, still the majority leader in the Senate, is under investigation on civil and criminal charges.
White House chief of staff Karl Rove is still under investigtaion for treason.
Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is probably going to be charged with several ethics violations now that Michael Scanlon, a former aide to Tom DeLay (see above) has admitted to crimimal acts.
"Ethical Repubican"? What a fucking oxymoron!
21 November 2005
Absurdities & Atrocities
On The Writer's Almanac today, Garrison Keillor quoted François-Marie Arouet (aka "Voltaire") who said, "People who believe in absurdities will eventually commit atrocities."
"George Bush!" was my first thought. And I found myself wishing that John Kerry had quoted Voltaire during the election. Oh, sure, that would be good. Quote a heathen Frog! That'd go over well, wouldn't it! But several of Voltaire's statements are so appropriate to today's United States:
Voltaire also said, "An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination," but I would abhor that if for no reason other than it would leave the country in the hands of the vice president.
FBI, CIA, & Secret Service please note: I hereby expressly state that I do not support assassination of government leaders -- ours or anybody else's despite what that great man of God, Pat Robertson, says.
"George Bush!" was my first thought. And I found myself wishing that John Kerry had quoted Voltaire during the election. Oh, sure, that would be good. Quote a heathen Frog! That'd go over well, wouldn't it! But several of Voltaire's statements are so appropriate to today's United States:
- "All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
- "As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." (A variant of what Keillor quoted.)
- "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
- "It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind."
- "Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them."
Voltaire also said, "An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination," but I would abhor that if for no reason other than it would leave the country in the hands of the vice president.
FBI, CIA, & Secret Service please note: I hereby expressly state that I do not support assassination of government leaders -- ours or anybody else's despite what that great man of God, Pat Robertson, says.
20 November 2005
Am I asking for too much?
Dwight David Eisenhower issued a strong warning about the military-industrial complex. He was speaking from the perspective of seeing what government by big business did to Europe -- specifically Germany -- in the 1940s. With the Bush II administration, we have finally achieved government of, by, and for Halliburton.
Many Americans were terribly shocked when Eisenhower was caught in a big lie: He had flatly denied that the US was operating planes over the USSR only to have the Soviets produce not only the plane, but also the pilot in 1959.
The government can't always tell the truth. In time of war, deception is an important ally. The War Magician, a book I read many years ago, recounted some of the tricks a magician designed to help the Allies misdirect the Germans. Even during peacetime, the government can't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
But the government can't always lie, either.
Bill Clinton lied about sex in the Oval Office, but was generally straight with the American people when it came to his political agenda. George Bush, on the other hand, has probably never told the American people a lie about his sex life, but has lied about, twisted, or spun nearly every point of public policy put forward by his administration.
I would be delighted for my country to once again be respected for its principles, but even a cursory examination of the world press and the current administration suggest that this will not happen in my lifetime.
Many Americans were terribly shocked when Eisenhower was caught in a big lie: He had flatly denied that the US was operating planes over the USSR only to have the Soviets produce not only the plane, but also the pilot in 1959.
The government can't always tell the truth. In time of war, deception is an important ally. The War Magician, a book I read many years ago, recounted some of the tricks a magician designed to help the Allies misdirect the Germans. Even during peacetime, the government can't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
But the government can't always lie, either.
Bill Clinton lied about sex in the Oval Office, but was generally straight with the American people when it came to his political agenda. George Bush, on the other hand, has probably never told the American people a lie about his sex life, but has lied about, twisted, or spun nearly every point of public policy put forward by his administration.
I would be delighted for my country to once again be respected for its principles, but even a cursory examination of the world press and the current administration suggest that this will not happen in my lifetime.
15 November 2005
A disturbing thought
Yesterday I ran across a quotation from Herman Goering following the end of World War II. During the time he was at Nuremburg for his war crimes trial, Goering commented on the ease with which the Nazis were able to convince Germans that the war was just.
“Of course the people don’t want war,” Goering said. “But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
You won't find these words in the transcript of the trial at which Goering was found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death. He did not speak them when he was on the witness stand. But he did speak them. Goering’s comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess.
(Source: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm)
Is it possible that the United States will be considerd to be guilty of war crimes because of the war in Iraq? If so, will George Bush, Richard Cheney, et al., be tried for their behavior?
For many decades we’ve said “It can’t happen here!” How sure are we?
The graphic shown above is available as a mouse pad or a wall poster at: http://www.cafepress.com/bushremover/417451
“Of course the people don’t want war,” Goering said. “But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
You won't find these words in the transcript of the trial at which Goering was found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death. He did not speak them when he was on the witness stand. But he did speak them. Goering’s comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert kept a journal of his observations of the proceedings and his conversations with the prisoners, which he later published in the book Nuremberg Diary. The quote offered above was part of a conversation Gilbert held with a dejected Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946, as the trials were halted for a three-day Easter recess.
(Source: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm)
Is it possible that the United States will be considerd to be guilty of war crimes because of the war in Iraq? If so, will George Bush, Richard Cheney, et al., be tried for their behavior?
For many decades we’ve said “It can’t happen here!” How sure are we?
The graphic shown above is available as a mouse pad or a wall poster at: http://www.cafepress.com/bushremover/417451
11 November 2005
05 November 2005
Remember Teapot Dome?
An open letter to George W. Bush:
Mister President, I know you're not much of a student of history. That much is clear from your foreign policy. But I wanted to call to your attention an event that came to light early in the 20th Century. That's the 1900s, Mister Bush. The century number is always one higher than the first two digits of the year (excepting the years ending in 00, of course.) I point that out because you clearly weren't much of a math student, either. Just look at the budget!
But I'm writing today about history. Because of what came to be known as the Teapot Dome Scandal, the Warren Harding administration earned the reputation as the most corrupt administration in the history of the country. That record has held up pretty well over the years. Lyndon Johnson challenged Harding with the bogus Tonkin Gulf Incident, Richard Nixon nearly claimed the prize with Watergate and the follow-up stonewalling, and Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra deals certainly made him a contender.
Compared to you, sir, they're all pikers.
It's really clever of you to be elected on a platform of compassion and ethics and then to stand both compassion and ethics on their heads.
Teapot Dome was largely about oil and ethics. Your administration is all about oil and ethics. Some of the members of Warren Harding's administration learned that being federal officials didn't mean that they were above the law. They paid large fines and a few of Harding's Ohio Gang went to prison. It's beginning to appear that some of your little Texas gang of thugs and thieves could end up there, too.
You really should have paid attention in school, Mister Bush. You would have learned that people in high places can get away with crimes for a long time, but eventually they bring themselves down.
Do you think that you and Mister Cheney will have adjoining cells?
Mister President, I know you're not much of a student of history. That much is clear from your foreign policy. But I wanted to call to your attention an event that came to light early in the 20th Century. That's the 1900s, Mister Bush. The century number is always one higher than the first two digits of the year (excepting the years ending in 00, of course.) I point that out because you clearly weren't much of a math student, either. Just look at the budget!
But I'm writing today about history. Because of what came to be known as the Teapot Dome Scandal, the Warren Harding administration earned the reputation as the most corrupt administration in the history of the country. That record has held up pretty well over the years. Lyndon Johnson challenged Harding with the bogus Tonkin Gulf Incident, Richard Nixon nearly claimed the prize with Watergate and the follow-up stonewalling, and Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra deals certainly made him a contender.
Compared to you, sir, they're all pikers.
It's really clever of you to be elected on a platform of compassion and ethics and then to stand both compassion and ethics on their heads.
Teapot Dome was largely about oil and ethics. Your administration is all about oil and ethics. Some of the members of Warren Harding's administration learned that being federal officials didn't mean that they were above the law. They paid large fines and a few of Harding's Ohio Gang went to prison. It's beginning to appear that some of your little Texas gang of thugs and thieves could end up there, too.
You really should have paid attention in school, Mister Bush. You would have learned that people in high places can get away with crimes for a long time, but eventually they bring themselves down.
Do you think that you and Mister Cheney will have adjoining cells?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
