Thursday, May 20, 2004

WorldTribune.com: "'Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats,' Hollings said in a column first published on May 6 in the Charleston Post and Courier. 'You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq.'"

A few thoughts for the day, starting with this:

I am worried that a lot of the neo-cons and people defending them are Jewish. I am worried that the best reason for invading Iraq seems to be to spread the democracy around the middle-east and to secure Israel. I am worried because all of this has nothing to do with anything but pealing Jewish voters away from Democratic Party. I am concerned that this will result in some expressions of anti-semitism. I am afraid that it simply has to. At some point people will look for somebody to blame, and even though all the leadership: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice are not Jewish, there are a lot of Jews in powerful behind the scene positions. I really do not want to see the Democratic Party to become the Anti-Semite party. And I certainly do not want Jews to be punished as a race for misguided ideas of a few. Hopefully it will not come to that yet, as the catastrophe in Iraq just is not big enough YET. And in the end, I lay the blame on Bush and Cheney Administration, as they are the ones who made the decisions based on the information provided to them by the people that Bush and Cheney themselves put into positions of power. If that thought was too complicated, go vote for Bush/Cheney.

I do not think that McCain is going to be the VP. He is doing such a superb job blowing up the Republican Party from the inside, I don't see how he could do better as VP. Unless he was Bush's VP. But you surely can the signs of McCain for VP in the fact that Dennis Hastert is starting the process of disowning the Senior Republican Senator from Arizona. "Is he a Republican?" McCain is exactly what I have always pictured Republican party at its best to be about. He's got his principles, (pro-business, pro-personal responsibility, pro-life, etc.) but he remembers about the good of the country. It seems that everybody else from Bush on down (and that is never a coincidence) does not care about anything but what will help them win the next election. Pathetic really. And dangerous. Which brings us to the next point.

What is also scary is people cornered. Especially when it's the president of the most powerful country in the world. I would almost prefer him thinking that he is going to win, as he will be (hopefully) less likely to do all the stupid things that he is doing now and is going to do in the future to help him win. Question, if Rove was convinced through some great polling data, that detonating a nuclear device would ensure Bush re-election, how long would he hesitate before he started to plan the best possible timing for such an event?

"He's gone,'' Pelosi said of Bush. "He's so gone.''
Being in the low 40s on his approval rating seems to me much more important then whatever Kerry's numbers are. By the way, did everybody notice that nobody is talking to us internationally until after November? On the other hand, Sharon has until November or possibly January to get his ideas put into place without any interventions from US. I mean Bush/Rove really can't control anything or anyone anymore. Even media.

I am curious about Bush in June when he's supposed to do all this travel abroad to 'shore up' our alliances. What alliances? We have no allies that we're not paying money to and our credit card balance is past the limit. But the PResident has faked the country's signature on the loan application and has lied to the bank. Foreclosure is near.

Long live Drudge - the King of News.

Looking forward to watching exactly how and when the Republicans are going to bail on Bush. Should be fun to watch. Me thinks - September.

9/11 Commission is doing a good job of exposing NYC leaders as people who were put on pedestal a little pre-maturely (but probably inevitably).

When will GWB reverse himself (again) and change his position on Strategic Petroleum Reserves? I can't say that I know too much about it, and the last thing that I heard was, that it would not do much to fix the current crisis. Still, I would bet the farm (if I had one) that there is nothing that King George II won't eventually reverse himself on, except for tax-cuts of course.

I am pleased that Josh Marshall is agreeing with my point that when things are going so bad for the Administration, the best thing Kerry can do is not inflict any damage to himself. I think that there is no need to come up with ideas and policies when the public will automatically convince itself that Kerry will do SOMETHING different from Bush, who seems to have done EVERYTHING wrong.

Saw an editorial by Mr. Broder where he is criticizing McCain-Feingold bill as having 'flunked the grade'. I'm sorry, but I think that that's awfully short-sighted. I see lots of positives: it has evened out the playing field for the Democrats, who were afraid that they won't be able to get enough hard money to compete with Republicans. But as I have always believed, more people agree with Democrats then with Republicans. It's just that those who agree with Republicans tend to have more money. Now both parties have similar limitations. And as far as introduction of internet is concerned, that has been a great thing as well as it brought more people then ever before into the political process, which is awesome. Now Mr. Broder contends that both Kerry and Bush have abandoned the system, but I don't believe that McCain-Feingold bill had to do with federal funding of elections and limits on it, as it was defined under...Ford Administration? Overall, I feel that so far the campaign finance reform has been a step in the right direction. And hey, as long as Mitch McConnell disagrees with it, I don't see how that can be a bad law.

I wish somebody would do a break down on all the factions running the Bush Administration, similar to the one that came out in... Slate (?) few weeks ago. There's the Vulcans, the Christians. There are more then that but I suspect that there is a lot of in-fighting going on (with a possibility of more to come). Following the logic that every columnist out there has sources that are linked to the particular faction of the government, which is where his/her inside info comes from, a question rises: When George Will criticizes Bush, who exactly is he representing? According to Chomsky, Thomas Friedman is the 'mouthpiece of the State Department'. After reading Mr. Friedman, I see what Mr. Chomsky is right on again. Novak obviously represents different channels. But when Peggy Noonan, George Will, Tucker Carlson and Robert "I-do-not-reveal-my-sources" Novak criticize Bush and his rule, I am not sure if the description of 'conservative base shows cracks' describes the problem accurately enough. Of course, that's not precisely MY problem, so go ahead and crack up.

Well, that made me feel better. Thank you.


Tuesday, May 11, 2004

I do not understand why Kerry gets blasted for not doing better. This is not about him. He is standing aside talking about Health Care and watching Bush and his numbers desintegrate.
Notice there's been few attacks by Bush lately? Could it be because he's got problems of his own perhaps to be concerned with?
Anybody read Rumsfeld Rules? How ironic.

Monday, May 10, 2004

Here's a story stating that Saddam's attorney can't get in to see his client. And of course now because of Abu Ghraib situation it is understood by everyone that there is more then one possible way to treat a prisoner. My question is: How long is it going to be before we put Saddam back in charge and quickly back our way out of Iraq. Kind of like gluing that Pottery Barn vase together and try to return for at least some store credit, if not actual cash back. Saddam Trial is going to overshadow Kobe and Scott Peterson combined (I believe) and if his defense will be anything reminiscent of the Milosevic trial, it is going to be messy. I remember hearing some expert say, that we would be far better off killing Saddam, rather than capturing him alive. Still, now that we're wanted in Iraq no more than Saddam, and we do have a long experience of working very well with the previous leadership of Iraq, why not re-instate the previous regime? At least he can take care of any questions to his legitimacy quickly and without much help from US...
Couple of things:

1. I believe that Abu Ghraib is kind of like sinking the eight-ball when you are doing so well. It doesn't matter. The game's lost. Start over.
2. As Bush refuses to fire Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld looks more and more like part of this problem, it only makes Bush appear to be covering up for Rummy. Like an archbishop, refusing to punish a priest.
3. This from Josh Marshall's TPM:
This from George Will's columnof August 12th, 1999 ...

[Tucker] Carlson reports asking Bush whether he met with any persons who came to Texas to protest the execution of the murderer Karla Faye Tucker. Bush said no, adding: "I watched (Larry King's) interview with (Tucker), though. He asked her real difficult questions, like 'What would you say to Governor Bush?' " Carlson asked, "What was her answer?" and writes:
" 'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.' "

Hughes, who says Bush's decision not to commute Tucker's sentence was "very difficult and very emotional," says Carlson's report is "a total misread" of Bush. Carlson, who describes Bush as "smirking," says: "I took it down as he said it."

I'm still searching for the simplest explanation of what exactly is wrong with Pres. Bush. This is some kind of crassness that has not been seen on such high of a level of world-power before...
4. Chomsky is starting to re-surface as a reference to the current situation in Iraq and Abu Graib. While lacking any desire to compare our abuses against abuses by other governments and regimes, Chomsky is quite accurate when it comes to describing US Government and its policies.
5. Some other words used to describe GW Bush: 'cocksure, incurious and lazy.'
6. Words that won't be used to describe the greatest president of the 21st century: Curious George.
7. Seems to me that defending the Administration line is getting more and more difficult. And therefore people doing it are looking stranger and stranger. Check out Rush for instance.



Gary Bauer, then running against Bush for the 2000 nomination, called the Bush's comments "inappropriate, disgusting and profoundly disturbing."

Friday, May 07, 2004

I believe that we, as a country have made it to the pointwhere we can look back to Clinton scandals and miss those simpler better days.

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

Have you noticed that KFC is now Kitchen Fresh Chicken?

Monday, May 03, 2004

1. Iraqi prison abuse This is how I figure Chomsky would look at this (otherwise known as the look from the 24th century). Administration wants information. The order slides down to CIA who want more info. They must not care much about quality of information, as long as there is plenty of it that can be processed. The Jailer's part in this is fairly obvious and sadly natural. Is our reputation forever damaged?
2. Lou Dobbs had Tom Donahue, CEO of Chamber of Commerce. Nice. Lou is really much better then people give him credit for. Chamber of Commerce decided to blame the public education for the outsourcing of jobs. Real Nice.
3. Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly Political Animal states that Bush is the "CEO President" with all the appropriate consequences. I'm not posting a link, but you should still go and read WashingtonMonthly.com regularly. Oh yeah, go read TalkingPointsMemo.com as well. Anyway. I have noticed for a while that we live in a Dilbert Cartoon. The whole country. United States of Dilbertania. Bush as the Boss. We all are somewhere in between. Some are lucky enough to be Dogberts, some are Ratberts and others are Wollys. But the rules of the game are pretty clearly spelled out in the Dilbert Principle. Read it. It's lots of fun with lots of pictures. I suspect that there's more on this later.
4. Structure vs. Dictatorship. On one hand. People want structure. People need structure. Without enough oversight things descend into chaos of short-term gains. Whether that's business or political functionality makes no difference. On the other hand Dictatorship is far easier - you don't have to build institutions so fast and risk your career and reputation - as long as most of the people are afraid of you. So you show enough good will and show of force to keep the populous at bay. You can do it with less good and more evil - North Korea - comes to mind. Or you can do it with more appeasing the people and less force - Netherlands - comes to mind here. There's a theory that Russian people need a firm hand. Well how about they need more stable institutions that will run the place? You can go from one to the other, but you can't have both. Checks and balances is what we're due for.
5. Now that Howard Dean is not running for office and just speaks, I just love the man. He and Dr. Phil. And Judge Judy (but I don't care for her.) So Mr. Dean will be Dr. Dean? Or Governor Dean? Whatever. He is on Chris Matthews and was earlier on CNN (I watch way too much News during the day). He's like a talking Liberal Blog. I do believe that most Americans at this point should be liberal, because the right is getting more narrow and smaller. Only a handful of people can escape on that lifecapsule.

Saturday, May 01, 2004

Abuses were encouraged Well, I guess that's a mild way of saying that they were simply followed the orders. They were just prepping the prisoners for the friendly interview with the CIA.
I wonder how big of a scandal this will end up being. Really, you could keep on punishing and punishing here. And in the end, it's about George Tenet again. Oh boy. He's like a mayonnaise at a Russian dinner table. He's in everything. Wow. What a guy. I am curious and just not sure about how much is General Karpinski was involved in this. May be she was the meanest bitch there, may be she was the easiest to push around. Just not enough info to make a solid judgment.
colossal miscalculation: Well, well, well... This may be the funniest thing I've seen all day. Gosh, so apparently the development of the modern urbanized West may have been based on a colossa miscalculation. Man, these experts are a trip. So do you think that this is the Next Great Depression, or does it just feel like it? I obviously haven't lived through one, but let's see. Everybody looses money in stock markets, rich getting richer, poor getting poorer, droughts... And they end the article by quoting district manager of the Washington County Water Conservancy District in southwestern Utah :" I suspect our civilization can weather this." Seems to me, that either this needs to be in National Enquirer, or we should be concerned to the point of doing something about it. And oh yeah, throwing money at a problem isn't always the worst idea.
Google