Bloomberg/Hagel?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/29/hagel-criticizes-arrogant-bush-white-house/


he’s been saying what’s needed to be said for years, but now that he’s not running again he’s really saying what he feels…like every other person that has left this administration.

question about zealotry

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071129/ts_nm/sudan_prophet_dc_21

So, it’s an “insult” to name the bear Mohammed, but aren’t there millions of guys walking around the world of Islamic faith that also have that name? Why isn’t it an insult for a mere mortal/non-prophet to have that name? In fact, isn’t Mohammed the most common name in the world, or maybe that’s just urban legend? If it’s the “most common” wouldn’t it lose its sanctity? Or if its use is honorary, why wouldn’t naming something else also be honorary?

So many questions about religious zealotry…

On the topic of religion, just finished reading a book called “Misquoting Jesus”. Maybe you’ve heard of it, but it’s about how the current version of the bible came to be. Written by Christian biblical scholar, an interesting read telling the story of how the current version went from oral history, through good and bad translations, good and bad copying, and intentional changes supporting various agendas. A little dry in spots, but might be worth a read if you’re so inclined.

Remember this when Fox "News" is losing its mind over "Happy Holidays"

Obviously the degree is different, but the religious zealotry is the same. So, when Gibson and O’Reilly are decrying the end of civilization because the Wal-mart greeter says “Happy Holidays” (which we all know means Thanksgiving, New Years and Christmas and maybe even GOD FORBID, Hanukah) recall what religious zealotry begets.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html?cnn=yes


Or should I just lump this act with those of the Church that goes around to soldiers’ funerals and celebrates their deaths and lump them all together as the “Logical outcome” of Conservative thought?

Bush style Democracy taking hold in Pakistan

A friendly partisan Supreme Court upholds the "election victory" against the will of the people...and I worried that Bush couldn't export his version of Democracy, boy was I wrong:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21925944/

Happy Thanksgiving

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse...fully supported, encouraged and covered up by the Bush WH

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1681265,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Bushies, I would imagine that being former Conservatives, you’d be appalled at this blatant disregard for the effective use of our tax dollars, but your blood should be boiling that those tasked with rooting out this fraud and abuse have been thwarted by the current administration, which leads to even more waste, fraud and abuse.

Shameful

It’s always the guys who never put their own lives in danger by actually entering the military that have such a love for torture and those who’ve actually put their lives on the line for America oppose torture.

I guess it’s easy to support the methods of Stalin, the Gestapo and Pol Pot if you never had to worry about them being used on you. (In 1947, the US tried a Japanese soldier for war crimes for using waterboarding…he was sentenced to 15 years hard labor)

How the hell does Bush claim that America represents democracy, morality and freedom for the world when he directs his minions to behave like a barbarians? The military code still forbids waterboarding explicitly which is why Bush has to make civilians (or goons from other countries who we have on our terrorism list). Oh yeah…and physical torture doesn’t work.

A New Low 07 Nov 2007 09:21 am "Waterboarding is
something of which every American should be proud," - Deroy Murdock, National Review. Have you noticed
that the pro-torture right has gone from saying that torture is abhorrent to
saying that torture isn't occurring to saying that torture is not torture to now
saying that torture is "something of which every American should be proud". And
why not indeed? The Cheney logic is impregnable: the president is not bound by
the law or the Geneva Conventions; torture reveals information that allows the
government to seize individuals who might at some point commit terror attacks;
the president's job is to prevent terror attacks. Torture is thereby a good.
Alas, the American constitution clearly does not say that the president is above
the law; the Geneva Conventions do apply to all captives in wartime and the bar
on mistreatment far less than torture is clear; the only source we have for the
fact that these terror suspects were terrorists is the government that uses
torture against them; torture itself has no way of determining what is true or
what is false and was designed in the first place to produce false confessions.
And the president's first job is to uphold the Constitution.

Then, of course, there is the question of morality. But if you follow
Murdock's reasoning that torture saves lives, and your moral rubric is entirely
utilitarian, then torture itself is obviously an active moral good. I have no
idea why more "conservatives" don't aggressively propose expanding it. And
here's a prediction: after the next terror attack, they will.

More of that Bush restoring ethical behavior to the executive branch

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21589678/

It’s a good thing that Bush was going to restore ethics to the Executive Branch; I can’t imagine how much further they’d extend their unethical behavior if he hadn’t promised to do that.

It’s been lucrative to work for the King in other countries throughout history. Fortunately for the Friends of Bush, he restored Royalty in America (Divine Mandate and being above the law of the land and all) and now all his buddies are really cashing in. It’s not only great to BE the King, it’s great to KNOW the King.

According to our President...this isn't torture

This is not torture, it’s “Aggressive Interrogation” as these techniques would not bring about organ failure or death. So, it’s all good. Nothing illegal here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21659520/

George W. Bush…Bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East since 2001…

George W. Bush…Bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East since 2001…

At least 28 killed in attack on Afghan lawmakers
5 parliamentarians slain; doctor says toll could be much higher
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650763/

Pakistan protests met with violent crackdown
Bush calls on Musharraf to relinquish army position, restore democracy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21609019/

2007 becomes deadliest yet for U.S. in Iraq
Military announces deaths of soldiers and sailor, raising year’s total to 853
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650614/

Oil prices soar past $97, setting new record
Concerns about bombings in Afghanistan , inadequate U.S. supply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/

More Bush Lies?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/25/quds.force/index.html

Considering the Bushies are doing the same thing with Iran that they did with Iraq (ignore the war they are fighting to start another one without finishing the first; Afghanistan) I'm pretty skeptical of anything they say. Now that they have a hard-on to invade Iran, they will say anything, just like they did with Iraq.

Even without the Bush WH's inability to tell the truth about ANYTHING, you must also consider some facts. Iran hates the Taliban, Iran helped the US overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, Afghanistan said they have no evidence that Iran is supplying the Taliban AND 4 months ago the General leading the NATO forces in Afghanistan said there was no evidence that Iran was helping the Taliban.

Oh yeah, and the Bushies lie about everything and they have a hard-on for Iran right now, so let's just say given all the evidence and their pathological aversion to the truth, I would bet this is NOT true. (that's a consequence of lying about everything, even if you are telling the truth NO ONE believes you)

Rudy talking out of his ass

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/giuliani.immigration.ap/index.html

Talk about making promises you can’t keep.

I used to like Rudy, but the more he panders, makes ridiculous claims and continues to run solely on 9/11 the less I like him.

War with Turkey?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/23/turkey.kurds/index.html


If Turkey invades Iraq (Kurdistan), which was predicted 5 years ago, would the US have to defend Iraq against the invasion. Bush DID disband their army and obviously the Iraqi Army that exists today can’t even keep the country from descending into civil war and chaos (as all you Bushies and Neo-Cons continue to tell everyone is the reason we can’t leave), so it SURELY can’t defend itself against a foreign invasion by a well-armed neighbor.

Does America have to go to war with Turkey or does the US let the Iraqis and Kurds go it alone?

Bush ruining "conservatism"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/10/23/conservatism/

Someone asked this question the other day, can’t remember who and it’s probably been said by others: Wouldn’t it be ironic if for all the efforts Bush made (and Bushies whole-heartedly supported) to make the American President above the law and beyond the reach of Congress’s oversight made Hilary Clinton the most powerful President in US history?
Just a thought.

From Esquire

Great (and scary) article from Esquire

This is on Turkey...all of it

It’s well-established that Turkey tried to annihilate the Armenians in the early 20th Century, but Bush doesn’t even want America to acknowledge because of political reasons. Doesn’t that prove that EVERYTHING about his war is political? It’s a meaningless gesture by the Congress, but the WH still opposes it. Turkey opposes it b/c they don’t want to be seen as murderers even if the shoe fits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21221278/

The proclamation is pretty useless, but for Turkey to be threatening to stop supporting the US in the Middle East is so lame. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Also notice how Turkey is working to invade Kurdistan, just as I mentioned here about 5 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21111931/

Of course Bush wouldn’t want to provide medical care for Children, he has to spend all that money trying to keep the Iraq war going until Jan 2009 so Bushies can blame the inevitable civil war on whoever follows him.

$30 Billion to make children healthy or three months of killing people in Iraq ... obvious Choice for the Compassionate Conservative.

And Bushies…no need to comment, we all know what you’re going to say. Something about Germany in 1939, keith hates America , I love children except if it costs me a nickel, yada yada yada.

"Baseless"? I don't think so

A baseless allegation would be me claiming that you kick puppies. Given what the Iraqi Government, Iraqi Police and Congress have shown to be evidence of what Blackwater has done, these allegations seem to have some “BASE”.

The CEO may dispute the allegations, but to say they are “baseless” is just crap.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21095964/

should Bush be helping?

Oh yeah, I forgot. They have the same problem as Sudan .

Sorry citizens, God didn’t bless you with natural resources the West needs, so you’re freedom and democracy is less important to us. (Oh yeah, I said it)

If we stand for democracy and freedom, shouldn’t Bush be doing something to help these people who are taking up arms against one of the most brutal regimes in the world? These people are fighting for their freedom right now, rising up will result in a certain death for them, shouldn’t America help?

Just asking…

Rush hates soldiers

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Where is the President’s condemnation of Rush? He is actually attacking soldiers, attacking them. MoveOn.org attacked the political show man for the Bush war, while maybe not the right thing to do, let’s not pretend that Patreaus is anything but a Bush Spokesman now, as never before has a US Military leader been trotted out for such a dog and pony show. Anyway, this is about Rush attacking soldiers. Disgusting, but typical of all the Chicken Hawks.

The sham that is the "sanctity of marriage"

I was looking for an article that caught my eye when I was browsing some news site. Couldn't find it again, but I came across this story from June where the Vatican REVERSED the annulment of Joe Kennedy Jr.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/21/vatican_reverses_kennedy_ruling/

It's old news, but this goes to the sham that the sanctity of marriage (and all that tradition and Godly grace CB keeps putting on it) is. You can get married by the Church, then if you're rich and/or powerful enough you can get it "annulled", meaning it was flawed in some way and then they wipe the slate clean. Then they can change their minds again. Seems like if it was such a holy union human beings wouldn't be able to break it and unbreak it so easy, not to mention that such a sacred institution could be "flawed" in some way even with the sanction of the Church.