Either Bush/Rumsfeld is lying or Colin Powell is. I'll let you decide.
w/ Brad & Desi
w/ Brad & Desi
w/ Brad & Desi
NATIONWIDE STUDY FINDS ALMOST NO VOTER FRAUD
Just 10 cases of in-person impersonation in all 50 states since 2000...
VIDEO: 'Rise of the Tea Bags'
Brad interviews American patriots...
'Democracy's Gold Standard'
Hand-marked, hand-counted ballots...
GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal 2012...
The Secret Koch Brothers Tapes...
|MORE BRAD BLOG 'SPECIAL COVERAGE' PAGES...|
While Rush squirms like a worm defending his latest reprehensible statements of last week, today he as much as admitted that the Bush policy for "The War on Terror" is a disastrous failure.
An "irate" caller phoned in to tell Rush how angry he is at the way things are going in Iraq, and that he's beginning to think "the only way to defeat these animals once and for all" may just have to be "complete and total annihaltion".
Of course, Rush was pleased with the call, and agreed with the sentiments. Which would imply, of course, that even Rush agrees Bush's "War on Terror" is not working. On which Rush and I would agree.
Let's just hope when the current strategy to "rid the world of evil-doers" is abandoned for a plan that may actually have a chance of working, that's it's not Rush or his caller who's advice is heeded.
Have I mentioned lately what a dangerous man Rush Limbaugh is? How long did it take before McCarthy's assault on America was actually recognized for what it was? How long will it take America to realize the same about Rush?
All day long Hannity was yammering on --- "Where's the outrage?!...They were so angry about the abuses by our guys, but where's the outrage now that terrorists have beheaded an American?!"
I got your outrage right here, Sean.
I'm outraged that you find any moral equivalence in comparing those hoodlum thugs to what should be the squeaky clean symbols of goodwill, peace, democracy and fair play that should be the Servicemen and Women of the United States Armed Forces.
I'm outraged that you are using this tragic event to demonstrate how "our Army isn't nearly as bad" as Saddam and the rest of the terrorists goons who are now attacking and killing our men and women in Iraq everyday thanks to the backwards policies of your "President".
I'm outraged that you are unable to see the clear systematic failure of the command structure in Iraq.
I'm outraged that you haven't demanded that your "President" and his Department of Defense stop cutting corners, stop lying about how it's going and how much money, troops and resources we really need to be sending over there to make this work and keep our people safe.
I'm outraged that you seem to imply that we should all shut up and stop criticizing those like Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush who are accountable for this mess...or that you would support the words of a Vice-President who deplorably tells Americans that we "should all get off his case".
I'm outraged that you can't see that unless actions are taken to correct these failures, such attacks by our enemies --- growing in size everyday, again thanks to your "President" --- will most likely become the regular course of events for decades to come. Even after your boy has long ago moved back to Crawford in shame.
I'm outraged that you would do what you accuse us of doing --- putting Party before Country --- as you and your fake conservative cronies have done every single day since 9/11/2001.
I'm outraged that you --- after criticizing CBS for releasing the pictures of abuse at Abu Ghraib --- have posted links to a live beheading on your own website.
I'm outraged that you continue to stand by a "President" that spends $200 Billion to under-fund an unnecessary war instead of spending on the needs of our own country, so that a 26 year-old boy from Pennsylvania would choose to take a job in the most dangerous place in the world, where he has no business even being, to do the work that your newly "privatized" military should be doing.
I'm outraged that you stand behind arrogant and pointless and self-destructive world-wide aggression and a "President" with an inability to heed any single piece of advice that doesn't tell him what he already wanted to believe before he even started.
And I'm outraged that you, Sean Hannity, can't seem to tell the difference between a bunch of backwards unaccountable bandits and a chain of command in a (theoretically) civilized country where behavior such as rape, murder, torture and sodomy with broken chemical lightbulbs is not supposed to happen. Not ever. And when it does --- somebody --- even if they happen to be your political friends --- must be held accountable.
I'm outraged, but I'm hardly surprised.
UPDATE: The next day after posting this entry, Sean Hannity began playing the uncut audio from the Nick Berg beheading live on his national radio show. And on his many Disney owned affiliate stations to boot! God Bless America.
The Conservatives, clearly an important pillar of Bush support if he is to still have a chance of winning in November, seem to be going rather wobbly on the old boy.
I'm talking about real Conservatives here, not the Hannity's, Limbaugh's and other ersatz armchair faux "conservatives" who wouldn't know real Conservatism if it came up and bit them on their Goldwaters. Yes, there are still a few of them left in America. And yes, they will have to grease up their walkers and get to the polling place if Bush hopes to have a chance of winning the Presidency for the first time again this year.
Another critical article from The Weekly Standard (hardly a card-carrying member of the "Liberal Media", senior-edited by Bill Kristol whose own critical Bush article I discussed a day or two ago), nicely enumerates many (if not all) of the issues on which Bush is failing to make the grade by (true) Conservative standards.
Irwin M. Stelzer's Standard piece aptly entitled "All Hat and No Cattle", spends the bulk of it's ink outlining where Bush has gone entirely off the Conservative reservation. And then, as if prodded by a Standard editor, somehow shoehorns all of those arguments to make them fit the article's paradoxical sub-title, "Why, despite everything, Bush should win". Go figure.
Anyway, in case any of those ersatz armchair faux "conservatives" (several of whom troll this Blog regularly) are wondering what real Conservatives think of Dubya, here's a short list of just a few of their, or at least Stelzer's, critiques:
Much disappointment in the "breakdown of civilian control over the military" and "chain of command that is in disarray" as seen via the US retreat from Fallujah and promotion of two anti-Shiite Generals from Saddam's former army left behind to keep "peace" in the city, while "Saddam sits comfortably in prison...awaiting an eventual return to power, which is just what happened the last time he was thrown into prison by a legitimate Iraqi government." Toss into the mix what is seen as broken pledges "not to allow a few thugs and remnants of the old regime to recapture Falluja" and the failure to kill or capture Moktada al-Sadr. All of that just the latest in a series of similar examples where Bush has failed to deliver in Iraq.
On the budget front, they are none to happy with Bush "presiding over the largest expansion of the welfare state since the glory days of Lyndon Johnson." From exploding "non-military non-homeland-security expenditures" such as the prescription drug program "likely to end up claiming 2 percent of GDP" to the stalled energy bill which "to anyone who knows anything about energy markets says will do nothing to reduce our reliance on oil imported from the Bush family friends in Saudi Arabia."
Then there's the fiscal sitch. Stelzer's happy that Bush's tax cuts have seen us out of "the recession he inherited from Clinton", but "that was then and this is now" and the deficit is out of control even while Bush "continues to increase spending and press for still more tax cuts...The time is long past when anyone believed that the tax cuts would be self-financing...his talk about cutting the deficit in half is nothing more than that--the talk of a man with a large hat and a very small herd."
Which brings it all back to Iraq...The Generals calling for more troops were right, and Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz were wrong about what would be needed in both numbers and dollars. Furthermore, Bush has drained resources and man power from other places around the world to fight this battle, leaving us "vulnerable to the lunatics who run North Korea, and to any other regime that, sensing our lack of resolve in Iraq, decides that now is the time to strike against American interests." Add to that a beauracratic mess on the ground which has lead to a "reconstruction program [that] languishes." And the final blow: Bush's plan to "hand off power to some version of a sovereign Iraqi government cobbled together by the U.N.'s Israel-hating Lakhdar Brahimi."
Wow...and I thought that Kerry's core supporters were pretty tepid. He'll really have to work to screw this one up! Or...he could choose Dick Gephardt as his running mate.
Josh Marshall can turn a phrase...
Heh...And in re: Bush's over-praising of Rummy at the Pentagon today...
The 24-page report...says abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers was broad and "not individual acts," contrary to President Bush's contention that the mistreatment "was the wrongdoing of a few."
Red Cross delegates saw U.S. military intelligence officers mistreating prisoners under interrogation at Abu Ghraib and collected allegations of abuse at more than 10 other detention facilities...
Once again, giving the lie to the "Who cares, these were bad guys who deserved it" theory, the "It was just a few bad apples" theory and "It was just one prison out of control" theory. In just three short paragraphs.
Then there's this:
...And so much for the "We acted decisively and immediately as soon as we heard about it" theory as well.
There's more in the full article about the fact that this was all "systematic" and "part of the process" as issued from the chain of command above. As of now, however, only a coupla low-level privates and lieutenants have lost their job. As of now...
BRAD BLOG readers will know that I don't put too much stock in most polls. But when it comes to Zogby, one must sit up and take notice as he's been the only one to have called the last 3 or 4 major elections almost entirely correctly (even while all the other pollsters had gotten it entirely wrong).
Based on his latest poll, John Zogby puts forth four arguments to back up his prediction now that "Kerry will win the election", or at the very least "it's John Kerry's to lose". His arguments for why this is so, are worth taking a look at. Particularly considering his excellent track record. (It's also worth noting that his article is based on polls taken before the Prison Abuse Scandal broke.)
Here's just one of his four arguments:
The more you actually bother to learn about this mess (and I'm referring to the whole Iraq Mess, not just the Prison Abuse Mess), the harder it is to like any part of it. Perhaps that's why the information was kept from Bush for so long.
Here's a graf or two posted after the prison pictures story broke...the last one certainly caught my attention, as well - apparently - as many others in the Blogosphere...
I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We'll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go. [emphasis added]
So if the Battle for Hearts & Minds has been lost --- and I don't know that it is, but it certainly doesn't look good --- can we possibly win the War?
A letter writer cuts through the clutter, in this weekend's LA Times:
"As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan 20, 2004
"It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
-George W. Bush, Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000
Something fun to ponder from LA Weekly while the rest of the world crumbles...
“So this May 16 isn't going to be exactly like [Andy's infamous show at] Carnegie Hall,” Zmuda concludes...“But it's gonna be in the ballpark.”
“Is this a Comic Relief fund-raiser?”
“No. It's a Comic Relief event, but it's not a fund-raiser. And there will be an important Comic Relief announcement made there.”
“What kind of announcement?”
“I can't tell you.”
“Thank you. What can you tell?”
“Well, it's going to take place at the House of Blues, which usually holds 1,200, with people standing on the main floor. But because of the nature of what we'll be doing that night, we're bringing in chairs. So there's only gonna be 350 seats available.”
“And what is the nature of what you're doing? Perhaps some form of . . . entertainment?”
“I can tell you some of it, some of it I can't. [Kaufman alter-ego, now supposedly embodied by Zmuda] Tony Clifton will perform — if he shows — with his band, the Cliftones, and his dancers, the Cliftonettes. And there's going to be the premiere of an Andy Kaufman film that's never been presented in public, and will never be shown again.”
“How do you know it won't be shown again?”
“It won't. I can't explain, but . . . it won't.. . . and I really can't tell you any more. But we really want the hardcore Kaufman fans to show up, because it is going to be a historical night, around one basic theme: Andy did say that if he was going to fake his death, he would return 20 years later, to the day. That's the day.”
“You know, in your book, it says 10 years.”
“Yeah, I know. When I wrote the book, that's what I thought he'd decided. But after [Andy's girlfriend] Lynne read it, she called and said, ‘You got that wrong.' I said, ‘Whaddya mean?' She said, ‘Don't you remember? Andy was always debating whether it should be 10 or 20 years,' and that he decided, as he put it, to ‘separate the men from the boys.' If he was going to be a boy about it, it'd be 10 years. If he was going to be a man, it'd be 20 years."
“Have you considered someone trying to fake it?”
“Yes. I'm sure there'll be some nuts showing up that night, claiming to be Andy Kaufman. And who knows how Andy'd look, 20 years later? But we will have there, that night, a foolproof way to determine if in fact they are.”
“And that foolproof way is . . .?”
“I can't tell you.”
The full article actually has some tantalizingly "credible" info on a return of Andy. Which --- of course --- may be the point. On the other hand, we live right around the corner from the House of Blues...should we pop $50 a piece for SRO tickets to be there? Just in case...? I'd bite!
A Few Great Blogs
· Baghdad Burning
· Brilliant at Breakfast
· Crooks and Liars
· Dan Froomkin
· Fired Up! Missouri
· Freedom's Phoenix
· Freeway Blogger
· Glenn Greenwald
· Huffington Post
· Jesus' General
· Juan Cole
· Washington Monthly
· Media Matters
· Nashua Advocate
· Oliver Willis
· RAW STORY
· Sanoma State's
Project Censored Sites:
· Daily Censored
· Media Freedom
· Project Censored
· Scholars & Rogues
· Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
· Talking Points Memo
· Think Progress
· Tom Tomorrow
· TV Newser
· Ben Sargent
· Bill Deore
· Bob Gorrell
· Cagle's Index
· Chan Lowe
· Don Wright
· Doug Marlette
· Glenn McCoy
· Jeff Danziger
· Joel Pett
· Mike Luckovich
· Non Sequitur
· Not Banned Yet
· Pat Oliphant
· Paul Conrad
· Ted Rall
· This Modern World
· Thomas Burns
· Tom Toles
· Tony Auth
· Stuart Carlson
Or by Snail Mail
Make check out to...
7095 Hollywood Blvd., #594
Los Angeles, CA 90028