a serious strategic blunder

Scott McClelland: "...a serious strategic blunder."

that's what the asshole says Iraq was.

A. Serious. Strategic. Blunder.

Shows me how far from humane these fuckers really are... even the ones like little scottie who are having a little difficulty sneaking up on the mirror.

well, scottie, it seems to me that you are still scooping a little shallow when you attribute these things to strategic blunders -- and not the huge criminal conspiracy that it has been for 8 years of murder, robbery, treason and crimes against humanity. further, iraq is just the most blatant, most obvious, most exposed-to-the-light-of-day horror that you and your friends have perpetrated on the world.

we are poised here over a void, and have been now for some time. the big crimes of george w bush & co have been laid on a foundation of complete disregard and neglect -- not to mention theft and exploitation -- of all the many societal and global ills we are suffering.

we are heading into some long dark time and i just hope we can find our way out the other side of it.

iraq is the speeded-up version, a microcosmic simulation.
so was katrina,
so is the food crisis.
the credit crisis.
the oil crisis.

if you listen to the teevee, the election, all the serious people... you dont really hear much that makes sense of all these crises and how they keep growing and growing. not much that can be said in front of such a void, in the midst of such a chaos, in such nihilistic times.

and besides, the "medium" just isnt right for such a discourse. harumph, koff koff.

i think most people are getting nervous, and can feel somewhere "deep inside," see something happening "in their peripheral vision," and have some ominous thoughts about the future "in the back of their minds" that things are starting to get really, really bad. (the other side of those feelings and visions and flickering thoughts is that shameful understanding that we are now less human than we were eight years ago. we are certainly less caring and less compassionate, and as a people, more full of fear anger and hate. we have devolved.)

i think the opposition points to an Obama cult because they sense that there are a lot of people who are clinging to our man Barack for hope in desperate times. i sometimes wonder if he really has any idea -- more than me -- what he is trying to get himself into...

certainly mccain and clinton dont, i dont think. mccain is very very insane. hillary is too confidently brilliant.

whether it is a full-blown dramatic crashing depression, or just the ongoing and consuming death by the thousand cuts of greed and greed's wars, the earth and the people and the life and beauty of the planet are suffering and will continue to suffer for a long time, a whole bunch of these "serious strategic blunders."

Obama on the Bush-McCain Middle East train wreck

keith olbermann tells all... and tells bush to eat shit

god damn fred hiatt's scummy shit-filled soul to hell

a k a
"what Glenn sez" -- viz...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/03/hiatt/index.html


"... It's hard to recall a more incoherent argument than this. Self-evidently, every problem that Hiatt argues is created by "mere" air strikes against other countries is magnified by many magnitudes by the types of invasions and long-term occupations which Hiatt cheers on for Iraq. Unlike the handful of civilians killed by the Somalian air strike, Hiatt's Glorious War in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians (though the exact number is debated because we don't really bother to count).

While 700,000 people are displaced in Somalia due to internal strife, Hiatt's Glorious Invasion and Occupation of Iraq has resulted in the displacement of 4 million Iraqis. While continuous U.S. bombing of countries in the Middle East and North Africa obviously inflames anti-American sentiment around the world, thus aiding Al Qaeda's recruitment, Hiatt's desired endless occupation of Iraq does more for that cause than any other policy. Citing the harms from air strikes on Somalia as a reason to continue to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq is the height of incoherent self-justification from a desperate and disgraced war cheerleader."

"...and it still wont"... yeah especially on your goddam lapel, assholes

trailer for "amerikan reich" -- coming in nov!

thanks pandagon... i guess

Heath Shuler and Telecom Immunity

Heath Shuler is the one Bush Dog in North Carolina that has signed a letter calling for Telecom Immunity and threatening to vote against a Protect America Act extension if it does not contain Telecom Immunity.

Now, I am against extending the Protect America Act because I believe it gives unconstitutional power to law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizen's without a warrant. But, if it is going to be extended it damn well better not include Telecom Immunity. Currently, law suits brought against the Telecom companies are the only active means we have to find out who the Bush Administration has been spying on, what information has been collected, and how has it been used. Congress is doing nothing and the Justice Department will not investigate, so that leaves the law suits brought by citizen's rights groups against the Telecoms. If Telecoms are granted immunity then the fact finding parts of these law suits will be shut down and we will never know what has been done under this illegal program.

But back to Heath Shuler. Mr. Shuler, as most Bush dogs, claims that because he is from a conservative district they must vote with the Republicans on National Security issues. I believe the 2006 election and the primaries this year offer many examples of where standing strong against the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration overreach for executive power has helped Democrats in conservative as well as liberal districts.

The latest example is the special election for IL-14 which was held yesterday, March 8th. IL-14 is Denny Hassert’s old district and has been a firmly republican district for many years. But, yesterday Bill Foster (D) won that seat. He did it not by running away from Democratic ideals and trying to be tougher on National Security Issues, but by proudly stating he was a Democrat, we should pull out of Iraq ASAP, and he ran against telecom immunity. Consider this statement by Bill Foster

"The President and his allies in Congress are playing politics with national security, and that's wrong. Nobody is above the law and telecom companies who engaged in illegal surveillance should be held accountable, not given retroactive immunity. I flatly oppose giving these companies an out for cooperating with Alberto Gonzalez on short-circuiting the FISA courts and the rule of law" (quote copied from Open Left)

People who live in Mr. Shuler's district need to confront him on his stand on Telecom Immunity and ask to him follow the example Mr. Bill Foster. He needs to know that defending the constitution is more important to the voters than protecting the Telephone Companies. I have read that Mr. Shuler has a very good voting record on the environment and having him in the Congress is certainly better than having his predecessor. I tend to think that his political calculus is wrong on this issue. If he studies the way voters respond to strong Democrats standing up to the abuses of the Bush Administration he may be swayed from his unwavering support for Bush's National Security policy.