Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Democrats are running full steam ahead with trying to cut off our troops in Iraq and ensure failure and surrender in Iraq. Their latest plan is to push through a piece of legislation revoking Bush's authority to wage war in Iraq. You mean the same authority those same Democrats voted to give George W. Bush in 2002? Yeah..that's the one. So what does this latest legislation do? Read on to find out.
This isn't like the other non-binding resolutions that just disapprove of the war in Iraq or the way it is being handled. No, this one would have teeth. So far, one draft would restrict the troops in Iraq to fighting Al-Qaeda only. Are they kidding? Guess not. So now we have 100 commanders in chief in the United States Senate that are going to decide who the troops can fight and who they can't. Unbelievable...this is what the left calls "limiting the mission."
Instead of trying to tie the hands of our troops in Iraq, the Democrats need to either cut off funding for the war or sit down and shut up. It really makes you wonder just whose payroll these politicians are on these days. The Islamic fascists who want us dead must be partying BIG TIME!
Halliburton Dick Cheney recently made the wild accusation that by calling for the immediate redeployment of our troops away from the battlefield, Democratic leaders only encourage the so-called “enemy”.
Let’s pretend for a moment that he’s right. Does he really need to blab the plan to every terrorist and his Uncle? In his rush to attack Nancy Pelosi’s patriotism, did Cheney even bother to consider that maybe emboldening the so-called terrorists with the illusion of victory is part of a cunning plan to lure them here, to our soil, where they can be easily apprehended and given the kind of emotional counseling they truly need? The idiot cons like to say that it’s better to fight them “over there” than “over here”, but in all honesty where would you rather Bush’s silly war be waged – on the terrorists’ turf where they are familiar with the terrain, or here in the streets of America where our troops have the home field advantage?
The answer is obvious, but it won’t happen until neocons like Cheney learn to keep their big yaps shut and let the Democrats do their business.
Goofing around on Yahoo! Answers for the past week or so, I've noticed that one question which repeatedly comes up is why has Bush never attended a single funeral for a fallen soldier.
I’ve been to a few such festivals myself and I’ve never seen him at any of them. It's downright shameful. In fact, I was recently commenting to some of my fellow Support Our Babykilling Troops* members that an appearance by Bush, as much as we hate his guts, might actually be a good thing. It would certainly boost attendance, and perhaps draw a little extra business to our Dessert for Deserters® cupcake stand, or maybe even sell a few extra “Impeach Chimpy McBushitler” t-shirts. With thousands of peace activists coming together to protest against the Shrub’s illegal and immoral war, we also wouldn’t have to worry about our anti-Bush chants beings drowned out by 21 gun salutes or the incessant crying of neocon family members. There’d be safety in numbers, as well. I doubt any deranged jingoist will make a move on our “Babykiller Had it Coming” banner with 8,000 angry pacifists ready to scratch his eyes out if he tries. Most importantly, the large media presence that a Bush appearance always draws would open our cause to a lot of much-needed publicity.
That’s exactly why Bush will never grace one military funeral with his presence. He only cares about our troops as long as it furthers his political agenda.
** Supporting our babykilling troops must not be mistaken for support for Bush's illegal and immoral war.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Much like the Living, Breathing Constitution and the Clinton marriage, Friday's House vote to denounce Bush’s illegal and immoral troop surge was non-binding and largely symbolic. At the very worse, it will serve to give Iraqi freedom fighters a glimmer of hope that victory is finally at hand. Is that really so bad – giving hope to the hopeless? The Senate repugs obviously think so, for they refused to even allow the measure to be debated. So much for democracy. So much for supporting our troops.
Righteously outraged democrats won't be silenced, however, and vow to take new, more “drastic” steps to end the war and bring our troops home - steps that even the Iraqi freedom fighters haven't thought of yet. They may include showboating, bloviation and, if the Republicans refuse to play ball, Senator Kennedy vomitting a gallon of gin and shrimp scampi all over the floor of Congress in the name of Peace.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
My childhood dream of living life as a Vietnamese woman was a phase I unfortunately outgrew. Barack Obama, on the other hand, has stuck by his decision to be a Black man in an Anglocentric society even despite all the obvious dangers - dangers that are likely to increase as he draws closer to winning the presidency and becomes more of a threat to the White establishment. It's a harsh reality that must be especially troubling to his family.
Yet when asked in a 60 Minutes interview on Sunday if she feared that he would become the target of racist violence, Osama's wife, Yomama, replied:
"The realities are that, you know, as a black man, you know, Barack can get shot going to the gas station."
Indeed he can, and most likely by his own chaffeur. Yomama's composure notwithstanding, only a thin sheet of glass protects Obama from whatever White Republican Klansman sits up front behind the wheel.
It's a shame, isn't it, that even in this day and age an educated Black man like Obama is still forced to ride in the back of the limo? America, it appears, is still far away from realizing Dr. King's dream. That's all Yomama was trying to say, you racist bastards.
The wingnut, pope-loving Christofascists are having a grand old time yukking it up over John Edwards’ new residence – a sprawling 102 acre estate in the hills of North Carolina. It’s hypocrisy, they claim, for Edwards to call himself a champion of the poor while living in the Taj Mahal. But like typical uneducated cons, they miss the point entirely. You see, when Edwards becomes president, he will be moving into a much smaller residence in a less desirable neighborhood. It will be rough not having an indoor basketball court or heated toilet seats at the White House, but it’s a sacrifice Edwards is willing to make for the honor to do the People’s Work.
He will of course retain his Chapel Hill plantation as a summer hideway – or perhaps a place to enjoy a much-deserved rest after tirelessly fighting for the poor and downtrodden folks he waves to from his limousine. But for 8 long years, a tiny little shack on Pennsylvania Avenue will be his primary home.
Don’t worry about ol’ John though, he’s no stranger to living humble surroundings. I’m not supposed to say anything, but it’s bound to come out eventually: Edwards grew up the son of poor textile workers.
ANNA--We'll Surely Misss Ya
Marilyn Monroe. Princess Diana. Molly Ivins. Now, Anna Nicole Smith joins the exclusive sorority of Bush's victims. Another goddess cut down in her prime by a twisted Shrub who simply can't tolerate a little bit of grace and beauty in this world.
If I were Tonya Harding, I'd be calling up Jeff Gilooly for a little protection right about now.
Go into the light, Anna! J. Howard is waiting for you.
Go! Join him in eternity, and be at peace.
And it seems to me you lived your life
Like a candle in the wind
Never knowing who to cling to
When the rain set in
I would have liked to have known you
And though I never did
I've probably seen your hooters more
Than your doctor ever did.<
Contradictions Come to Define Libby Trial
Just off the top of my head, and in no particular order:
- Former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer testified that he told John Dickerson (then with TIME magazine) about Valerie Plame. Dickerson denies this.
- Fleischer also testified that he told NBC’s David Gregory about Valerie Plame. NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert later denied that Gregory ever received the leak.
- Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus testified that Fleischer told him about Valerie Plame. Fleischer denies this.
- Bob Woodward testified that he had discussions with Pincus about Valerie Plame. Pincus denies this.
- Russert first told the FBI that he couldn’t rule out the possibility that he discussed Valerie Plame with Scooter Libby. He later testified that he could.
- NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has yet to testify, but she first said publicly that everyone knew about Valerie Plame prior to Robert Novak’s column. She now denies that she herself knew (and successfully resisted a subpoena).
And now, today, this:
On Tuesday, Jill Abramson, now The New York Times' managing editor, was called first by the defense [...]
Abramson was asked about former Times' reporter Judith Miller's testimony (she had claimed this for a long time) that she had asked Abramson in 2003, when the latter was Washington bureau chief, if she could write a story related to WMD and her recent talks with Libby.
Abramson, as she has done in the past, denied it.
Remind me: Why is Libby the only one on trial for perjury?
Campaign '08: Takin' It to the Street...And Elsewhere
The state has ordered 500 talking urinal cakes that will deliver a recorded anti-DWI message to bar and restaurant patrons who make one last pit stop before getting behind the wheel.
Whew! Man, do I have to...
Remember, drinking and driving don't mix!
Who said that?
Sorry, that was me, sir.
But you're a...
We're just doing our part to cut down on the number alcohol-related fatalities in this country.
That's right - thousands of people are killed by drunk drivers every year, so please be careful.
Oh, well, uh...I will.
Yes, if you're going to be drinking, please make sure you have a designated driver.
Or you can always call a cab.
In short, don't drink and drive.
Thanks, I appreciate the advice.
And remember to vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming primary.
Hillary? Are you serious?
Of course I am - who are you voting for, Edwards?
Yes, as a matter of fact I am.
Oh, please! The guy's an empty suit!
Well, at least he's not a Washington insider like Hillary.
Hey, that's a great selling point - lack of experience! Just what we need in a president.
At least he's going to bring the troops home!
That's what he says now - he's still got time to flip-flop like his buddy Kerry.
What does any of this have to do with drunk driving?
Hey, do you mind? We're kind of in the middle of something here.
Yeah, butt out, boozehound.
Fine, I'll just take my business elsewhere.
Man, I can't believe those two. I'll just go in this stall - at least I'll have some peace and quiet.
O-ba-MA! O-ba-MA! O-ba-MA!
On second thought, I'll just hold it till I get home.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, is complaining about "sticker shock" when it comes to President Bush's new almost-$3 trillion budget. Yet there should be absolutely no sticker shock at all....Bush is the biggest spender in the modern era. He makes Bill Clinton look like a miser... and that's one of the reasons the Republicans no longer control the congress.
And yet the media will focus on the wrong things. Just to debunk a few media myths here...the first is the deficit. Bush is pushing the idea of eliminating the deficit in 5 years, parroting the Democrats' plan. For the uninformed, the deficit is how much more the government spends each year than it takes in. The deficit should be eliminated in one year. But somehow taking 5 years to stop overspending is an achievement. Will the trillions flowing into the U.S. Treasury thanks to a booming economy, balancing the budget should be a piece of cake. It should be said, however, that the deficit is a much smaller percentage of our overall budget than it was during much of the last thirty years ... but we're still spending more than we take in.
Second, this nonsense about "paying for" tax cuts is another liberal media fantasy. Tax cuts don't "cost" money. The proof is clear -- the numbers are there -- tax cuts actually lead to increased federal revenues. The left knows, however, that raising taxes on the rich sounds wonderful to their core constituency ... thus the rhetoric.
And lastly, don't believe for a minute that there are any cuts in the federal budget. There is no such thing as a cut in a federal program...only a reduction in the spending growth. So if you planned on spending $10 billion more on a federal program next year, but decide to only spend $8 billion more, that's somehow seen as a $2 billion "cut." Welcome to the fuzzy math of Washington D.C., but somehow they get away with it.
But don't worry....if you're concerned about the deficit or the size of the federal budget, Democrats want to help. In order to "pay for" Bush's tax cuts, they're all too happy to raise your taxes. Remember...in 2007 when it comes to politicians, there is no difference in spending between Republicans and Democrats. The difference is in how they finance their spending binges. Democrats tax and Republicans borrow. So basically either you pay or your kids will pay. Some choice.
One Democratic presidential candidate has made it very clear how he would pay for his spending: taxes, taxes and more taxes -- but only on the rich. Speaking on the issue, John Edwards...who was The Poodle's running made in 2004 (not to be confused with The Poodle's keeper,) says he would tax the rich to pay for his spending proposals, including a grandiose plan for socialized medicine The Trial Lawyer says to cover his health care plan, he'd repeal George W. Bush's tax cuts for people over $200,000.
Then, he'd tax capital gains. Edwards complains that brokerage houses aren't accurately reporting people's capital gains. This is a ripe area for class warfare rhetoric. Democrats can convince their followers that only the rich have enough money to invest, and thus only the rich have capital gains ... so let's tax 'em more!
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Dems Reveal Detailed Iraq Strategy
Democrat strategists have just revealed a detailed plan that they believe will ensure victory in Iraq. Democrats have come under fire from conservatives in general, and President Bush in particular, over their constant complaining about the situation in Iraq while offering no solution of their own.
"I think the American people are really going to get behind my party's new initiative," said Senator Joe Biden. "President Bush has called us irresponsible for not putting forth a plan for Iraq. Well, if he doesn't okay this logically sound plan, then I think we all know who is being irresponsible.'"
Biden scoffed at those who call the idea "unrealistic" and "out of touch with reality."
"The plan calls for genetically engineering an army of miniature diplomats and placing them inside of hollowed-out robotic tuna," said Biden. "The 'Trojan Tuna' will then be left at the home or PO Box (if it happens to be a jihadist away on a weekend retreat at his cabin) of the freedom fighter in question. Once the recipient is asleep, the miniature diplomats will extricate themselves from the tuna and strike up a conversation with the freedom fighter. After a rapport has been established, the diplomat will explain carefully to the freedom fighter that we mean them no harm, and that we are working hard against our common enemy- the Christian right. However, we will make it clear that things must be done in a less violent manner. Perhaps a Supreme Court nominee can be found among the insurgents so they will have a chance to make their voices heard on U.S. policy issues. Then they will be less likely to blow things up. Pretty impressive plan, huh? Who's 'out of touch' now?"
Thursday, February 01, 2007
HOW TO HANDLE IRRITATING SEATMATES
If you are sitting next to someone who irritates you on a plane follow these instructions: (and maybe say goodbye!).
- Quietly and calmly open up your laptop case.
- Remove your laptop.
- Start up
- Make sure the guy who is annoying you, can see the screen.
- Close your eyes and tilt your head up to the sky repeating the words Allah Akbar very softly but loud enough for your annoying seatmate to hear.
- Then hit this link
Really: Could Specter please show us where in our Constitution it says that the Senate shall share responsibility with the President as Commander in Chief of our armed forces?
The decision of whether or not to go to war in Iraq was already decided as a shared and joint responsibility, Senator Specter. Perhaps you don't remember when the United States Senate voted to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Small detail most in Congress now want swept under the rug. As to whether or not the president is the sole decider....well, it's always been that way. The president is the commander-in-chief. That's what the Constitution says, as much as Democrats hate the whole idea.
So what can the Congress do? The Congress does have the power of the purse. To that end, that makes them somewhat of a decider in the whole matter. But they know they don't have the votes to pull the funding for the war, nor would that sit well with the American people. There's not much they can do.
All they can do is sit around and pass non-binding resolutions against the war. That's not much of a decider, now is it?
John Kerry’s announcement last week that he was bowing out of the 2008 Presidential race came as a shock to those of us who had completely forgotten he was running. Indeed, there wasn’t a dry eye in Congress as the esteemed Senator from Massachusetts gave his tearful concession speech in that long, meandering monotone that has made many a weak-kneed political adversary wish they had a cyanide capsule to chomp down on.
I had planned to watch Kerry's historical speech in its entirety and post a written transcript as a service to my readers, but I ran out of coffee and No-Doz about ten minutes into it. There was something about Vietnam, something about voting for the Iraq war before voting against it, and possibly something about hamsters - but I may have just been dreaming that part. Suffice it to say that John Kerry has proven that he's a true statesman, certainly undeserving of the shoddy treatment he received from a few stupid troops who couldn’t take a joke. But rest assured that while Sen. Kerry’s presidential campaign is finished, he will continue his illustrious career of kicking America in the balls for many years to come.