Wow! What's next?
DETROIT - A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion."
Could it next be to find the perps and arrest them/him? Maybe even try them/him for unAmerican behavior? Treason, even!?
Well, I'm not getting my hopes up, but this is a start!
MidEast and US
I have seen and heard so much, from all sides, about the Mid-East, the US's involvement in it, and the feelings of the Arab world towards us.
Seems they don't like us.
Wonder why?
Could it be our unending, unfailing, unreasoning support for Isreal for the past 40, 50 years - what seems like forever - that is making US to be the big old bad guys? After all, Isreal and the Arabs have been enemies since, what... Moses' days? And we've done nothing but keep that going.
We need to change our Mission, our backing, our assistance levels, our way of thinking if anything is ever going to change over there, as far as how they perceive us, the US. We need to become an
absolute 3rd party - neutral to all but fairness for all sides and peacefull, fair resolutions of disputes.
From the NYT:
Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq
"WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.
"More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended."
I believe this "lack of support" has to do with just what I'm talking about - the big Western bear, who's been supporting their enemy through wars with all their neighbors for the last several generations, comes in and all but conquers their country, stirs things up to such an extent that things go from bad to worse, and now we want appreciation for it? That is asking for a bit too much.
We have not shown ourselves to be interested in much more than our
own interests, rather than the "good of the people" whose country we are now trying to run.
Who saw it coming...
Ok, who knew this was coming? Did bush? cheney? Rice?
No, none of them have enough foresight to see past their "inner vision." Certainly the real world is beyond them.
But a lot of US did. We've been talking and blogging and warning about it for some time now. But the Repugs won't listen or even look at what we're pointing at. Now maybe they'll see it - the "liberal" press is talking, too.
"U.S. no longer Mideast 'strong horse'
Battered image has left America little influence in the region
By TYLER MARSHALL and ALISSA J. RUBIN
Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — "As the Bush administration seeks to negotiate a diplomatic end to the fighting in the Middle East, it finds it has a strikingly weak hand.
"Despite 5 1/2 years in office, Bush's foreign policy team has been involved in surprisingly few high-stakes negotiations in the region.
"Since U.S. forces captured Baghdad without a serious fight in the spring of 2003, fear of American military might has melted away as troops were unable to control the insurgency or stem Iraq's escalating sectarian violence. The result has reduced America's aura of complete power and, with it, the ability to bend others to its will.
"The result is a serious erosion of political goodwill and moral authority, both important components of influence historically available to the U.S."
So what do we do now? Where are we to turn? The decadence of the bush team has left us few choices. We have become an annoyance. A large annoyance, for sure, but still something "they" would just as soon knock out of their way so "they" can get on with their other business. We are doing nothing constructive by being there.
More press is talking, too.
"Engaged on many fronts in the Middle East, count America's success rate there at zero
The Economist
(Aug 12, 2006)
"'Stuff happens,' said a nonchalant Donald Rumsfeld, as looters trashed Baghdad. 'The birth pangs of a new Middle East,' claimed Condoleezza Pollyanna Rice last week as Hezbollah's rockets slammed into Israel and Israel's aircraft pulverized Lebanon.
"Whatever else is going wrong for America in the Middle East, the Bush administration shows an unmatched ability to put its case in ways that make its friends squirm and its enemies fume with rage.
"Beyond the tin ear, however, is American policy really as malign, muddle-headed and incompetent as its critics say?
"The short answer is that America does not have a single policy for the whole Middle East. Some of the so-called neoconservatives believe that one idea -- spreading liberal democracy to the Arab world and Iran -- should guide all America's actions across the region. But for all their influence, the neocons have never quite got their way.
"Apart from the debacle of Iraq, the one vast strategic error Bush has made has been his sin of omission in Palestine.
"Peace in Palestine would not just make it easier to achieve America's wider aims in the Middle East. It would also be the best favour America ever did the Jewish state."
Well, there it is, at least in the opinion of some analysts - to get back in touch with the "real world" of the Middle East, the US administration
has to stop putting their Isreali puppy first in all their dealings. They
have to take pains and make efforts toward the Palestinians and other cultures and nations of the area.
Pushing our way of life on them is not going to work. They are different in their cultures and expectations.
Almost everyone knew that going in. With one significant exception...
SMALLTOWN, Texas (Rooters) -
Citizen Myles told an audience on Saturday that he hopes a new U.S. election will dismantle what he called the Republicans' "state within a state" in the United States.
ShellGames National Security spokesman Mrs. Myles said Myles wrote to the audience for quite a few minutes about the U.S. Resolution, hopefully to be approved in November, "and their common efforts to bring about a cessation of egotism and ignorance."
"The electorate has stressed the need to dismantle the Republicans' state within a state in order to build Amernican democracy," Myles said. "They expressed their view that the NRA and Religous Right were supporting the Republicans in order to exert unwanted influence over the US."
[This post is a complete plagiarism of the linked article (click title for original, as long as it remains at that address) with only the names and places changed to fit our domestic situation.]
Guns Guns Everywhere!
On a more home-grown note, what the hell is it with all these guns everywhere!? I'm so fucking sick of the holy patriotic right-wringers trying to wring their hands (and our necks) over
"they just want to take our beloved GUNS away!!"Geez, get a grip! Nobody is trying to take your damn guns! We're just trying to make it a little harder for dips like this guy to get all these! What's the purpose of a gun like this (the one in the photo) anyway? Hunting? Target shooting? Not unless the target you're hunting is human! Ban these MFs!
"This photo taken and released by the Columbus Police Department, shows the passenger seat side of Maurice Clarett's SUV after Clarett was arrested Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006 in Columbus, Ohio. Clarett was arrested early Wednesday after a highway chase that ended with police using Mace on the former Ohio State running back and finding four loaded guns in his sport utility vehicle, a police spokesman said. (AP Photo/Columbus Police Department)"
Well, fuck the guns... lives are more important that guns. I don't hear about too many being used to actually save a life - more to the contrary! But if you just gotta have your guns, you should register them and they should be in a database for all authorities to find. It gets used,
you go to jail.
bush seeks to shield official ruffians
The Washington Post today reported the White House is trying to excuse political appointees, CIA officers, and former military personnel from prosecution for humiliating or degrading wartime prisoners under amendments drafted by the bush administration to a war crimes law.
These amendments are part of the White House's response to the June 29 Supreme Court ruling that declared the military tribunal system, set up to try Guantanamo prisoners, illegal and a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
So the bush-whacker (obviously remembering his childhood antics) says, ok, but if we do it, and don't get in trouble for it, what's the big deal?!
Besides, it seems the "outrages upon personal dignity," barred by the Geneva Conventions, are just too confusing to him.
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told a Senate Committee last week the language of the Geneva Conventions was too vague and needed to be better defined by Congress."
Ok, how about we just say this - whatever you guys do to them, we get to do to you.
There's some kind of religous, humanistic line about that somewhere. I bet they've heard it.
It goes on to say,
"The administration's two other responses to the Supreme Court's rejection of its military tribunal system have been to seek legislation blocking Guantanamo prisoners' right to sue to enforce their newly won protections; and to draft a bill that replaces an absolute human rights standard with consideration of intelligence-gathering needs during interrogations."
It also points out there have been no criminal prosecutions under the War Crimes Act in the 10 years since it was enacted.
How about we start now? From the top down.
BTW, the pic I used below is from the
Deck of Rebublican ChickenHawks deck, available on
any of the links on this post.I just found them, so don't know too much about the organization, but I ordered a couple of decks a bit ago. As such, I really can't recommend them (I haven't received mine yet) but I did want to credit them for the pic below and to make anyone aware of their existence.
That crazy bush. He just doesn't get it, does he? But we expect no more from him than that.
"The White House accused the Democratic Party on Wednesday of catering to the extreme left after Connecticut voters defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman in a primary election over his support of the Iraq war."
The Democratic Party? How about the Democratic Voters? Doesn't he think
they had anything to do with this? The Democratic
Party didn't do the voting, the People did!
"I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president. I would flip it. I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party, they're going to come after you," [White House spokesman Tony Snow] said.
No no no... it's not the
extreme left who are doing this (although we are loving it, for sure). It is the Sane Voters who are showing their unhappiness at anyone who dallies with the
extreme right!
People everywhere - no matter their original gullibility - are becoming all too aware of the extreme right and their destruction of America. It is in their face, in OUR face, and it WILL NOT go on!
This is just a trickle of the river of discontent about to break the damn.
"But Snow said the vote did not reflect American views on Bush's policies, but rather how the Democratic Party dealt with the Iraq war and other issues of national security."
Yeah, so somehow bush doesn't see this as American People voting.
What an imbicile.
unless...
lemme see, unless I need a way out of this mess someone else got me into.
unless my sponser/bosses want to pull their money from my future.
unless I stop thinking about Iraq and all that stuff. heh heh heh...This just in! All of the above must have come true!
"President [b]ush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named."
So see, here's how it's going... he gets word that all his bo$$e$ are not happy, and they're gonna stop paying. So he tells a couple of his generals to start the idea about a civil war (which many people already feared, but he wasn't thinking too much about all that.) Now, with that started, he can give it a little while and then - POOF - pull the troops! After all, he'd be doing it for their own good, right?
"If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said.
But, I ask, WHERE does he think they've BEEN for the last 3+ years?!
Oh, that's right, he hasn't been thinking about them too much lately. Them and Osama, off his thinking-map.
And ya see, they are so smart, they have a contigency plan for this!
Contingency planning in case of civil war (based on lessons learned from Bosnia and Kosovo) [huh?? we learned something there?]
The military's approach revolves around three principles.
1) The first is to stop massacres by physically separating communities, moving minorities out of harm's way if necessary. [wow, why didn't someone think of this already! no one was in harm's way before?]
2)The second is to stop the flow of paramilitary gangs across the country. [oh yeah, good idea. can't do this during regular war, but will jump right in to stop them if CIVIL war breaks out]
3)And the third is to halt any incitement to violence on Iraqi TV and radio. Baghdad would pose the biggest problem, requiring a strict curfew and a ban on road traffic. The security measures would include widespread checkpoints and a ban on carrying firearms or explosives. [ummm... don't we already do this, with glorious success?]
Well, ok, so now we have the plan. his way out of this mess. It's someone else's fault, after all!
bush choices
They are all false ones.
An interesting
Doonesbury today prompted me to talk about it here. Debates over false choices are the only ones offered by bush.
Two faces of the same failure.
"Stay the course or cut and run?"
"Are you with us or against us?"
"Do you prefer war in Iraq or a mushroom cloud over New York?"
"Would you rather fight terrorists in Iraq or on our own shores?"These are, of course, the ones brought up in the strip, but I'm sure you can think of many more. The worst being the hunt for Osama in Afghanistan somehow coalescing with the sudden "need" to start a war with Iraq. Seemed to take me, at least, by surprise, and I couldn't decide in the "heat of the moment" whether it was really necessary or not. And the funds were kinda tied together, so voting against the Iraq portion of funding would only tie up funds to the Afghanistan portion - and we didn't really know what those needs would be, so rather than tie up any, we went for it all.
Bad mistake. That is what has gotten so many Dems (and a few Repubs) into the blame game of voting for then against the war. It was too quick upon us to vote against our troops, and not enough time to find out the lies we didn't see at the time.
Now we're stuck.
And having a hell of a time getting un-stuck!
Maybe this November we can get enough people changed over to start serious attempts at finding a
real solution.
bush explains things... oh, no he doesn't
A few quotes I found from his high-and-mighty'ness' floundering around in his sea of self-centeredness:
"Who cares what you think?"
President George W. Bush, July 4, 2001 to Bill Hangley, Jr., freelance writer, and
Who Cares What You Think? (also His Gift To Us)
Bush thumbs his nose at the rest of the world; can you blame them for hating us?
March 14, 2002; Alan Bisbort, American Politics Journal
"I'm the commander, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation...."
George Bush: I do not need to explain why I say things
20 November 2002; Bob Woodward, The Washington Post
"You say we're headed to war. I don't know why you suggested that. I'm the person who gets to decide, and not you."
Bush says North Korea problem can be resolved diplomatically; not so sure about Iraq
Tue Dec 31, 2:39 PM ET; RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
"I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go," Bush hinted to a British reporter at the time. "That's about all I'm willing to share with you."
U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past
Opponents of War Wonder When, How Policy Was Set
Sunday, January 12, 2003; Page A01; Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer
"I will let you know when the moment has come."
Bush Dismisses Calls for More Time for Iraq
Tue Jan 21, 8:28 PM ET; Steve Holland and Andrew Hammond, Reuters
"Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
October 7, 2002, 8:02 P.M. EDT ; Office of the Press Secretary
"I'm willing to give peace a chance."
Bush: U.N. Should Have Chance to Resolve Iraq Crisis
Friday, September 27, 2002; Fox News/AP
Impeachement, anyone?
That's just...
Signs of a repressed society, for sure.
"The August 2006 cover of Babytalk magazine. Readers of a US parenting magazine are crying foul over the publication's latest cover depicting a woman breastfeeding, with some calling the photo offensive and disgusting(AFP/HO)"I wonder... are these
readers republican?
Regardless of who they are, though, people getting upset over something like this shows "our" repressive/regressive roots are still alive and well. No wonder our forefathers were kicked out of Europe.
