Thursday, June 30, 2005


DATE: 28 June 2005
PLACE: Fort Bragg, North Carolina...Home of the 82nd Airborne

Once again the Great Liar has come to prime-time to rehash old lies. Once again he does it from the comfort of a place where he knows there will be no-one to heckle him or disrupt his concentration on the tele-prompters. Of course we wouldn't want anyone to disrupt his short term concentration. If he lost his train of thought...which isn't much...he would never be able to regain it, and he would show just how incompotant he really is.

So, instead of his goons allowing that to happen, he speaks...reads from a tele-prompter because he can't go with notes and can't remember a military base where he is sure everybody "likes" him. Even this kind of backfired. There was no applause until a Whitehouse staffer started to applaud at the end. Now it could be that the troops in the audience were told not to, but I doubt that.

Bush went on and on with things he has tried to pass off as the truth for almost four years. Same old lies, same presentation, using several words or phrases repeatedly. In case you missed some...or had more pressing matters than to listen to a lying fool...I'll run through them. There is no specific order here, just the way I wrote them down Tuesday night.

Item mentioned: number of times

Osama bin Laden: 2
Saddam Hussein: 2
Freedom: 21
September 11th: 5 (Guess he's beat that old horse enough already.)
Mission: 11
Mission Accomplished: 0 (That's right folks, mission was accomplished May 2004.)
Weapons of Mass Destruction: 0 (Finally figured out there weren't any.)
Resistance: 0 (Nobody would want to resist our presence in their country.)
Insurgents: 4 (The locals who don't want us there.)
Terrorists: 23 (These people weren't there before we went there.)
A Mistake: 1

This last one is the one I really want to spend some time on.

That little beedie-eyed redneck cowboy had the balls to say that it would be a mistake to set a timetable for troop withdrawl from Iraq. He said that it would give the terrorists...or as I like to refer to them, insurgents and/or resistance...time to sit back and wait us out.
First of all, I really don't think the announcement of a withdrawl timetable would have any effect on what the insurgents/resistance are doing already. I don't remember the North Vietnamese Army backing off when they found out we were pulling out of Vietnam. The fool can't come up with a plan, or...and I think this is the real reason...he dosen't plan on ever leaving. Think about it, several military bases in Iraq and he could virtually control the Middle East. Anybody for colonization? Empire building at it's best!

For my second point I have to go a short distance back in time with the help of the fine people at Think where I found some information about a certain governor from Texas who thought then President Clinton should have a plan for withdrawl from Kosovo.

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.

Here is what he said then:

Gov. Bush: “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.” [Seattle Post Intelligencer, 6/5/99]

As opposed to what he says now:

“Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis – who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops – who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy – who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out.” Fort Bragg, 6/28/05

Six years time must make a lot of difference, especially when you're not just a governor anymore but are now the dictator...I mean president.

There's one more thing I'd like to share with you that the cowboy lied about on Tuesday night. Once again I turn to those fine folks from Think for the information. 'Tis a wonderful way they keep track of the fool's lies. This one has to do with the "capable" Iraqi forces that have been trained by our troops. Please don't get me wrong, I believe our troops are doing the best they can to train the Iraqis with what they have been given by this administration. But these guys just aren't ready, even if Bush and his henchmen believe they are and want us to believe they are.

Bush: “Today Iraq has more thann 160,000 security forces trained and equipped for a variety of missions.”

Fact: Most Iraqi Security Forces Are Not Trained Or Equipped

Fact: “Only three battalions are rated fully operational by the Americans, and many others are far behind in terms of manpower, training and equipment.” [New York Times, 6/13/05]

Fact: According to the Brookings Institution, as of May 2005, only 50,000 troops were proficient and well-equipped. [Brookings, 6/3/05]

So, as you can see, the faces change but the stories, lies, and bullshit remain the same.





Saturday, June 25, 2005


On Wednesday night, June 22, 2005, Karl Rove proved himself to be not only a liar but also a traitor. Speaking at a gathering of the New York Conservative Party he stated that "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. " He also said that conservatives "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

This insulting lie was not only leveled at liberals, it was also leveled at the Democratic Party as a whole. Now I've heard the excuses that Rove was talking about, a liberal organization, for a statement that was made by them after the attacks that we shouldn't respond with military force. BULLSHIT! That's all it was, an excuse by conservatives to try to cover-up for Rove! That statement by the Fascist Pig Rove was intened for anyone who is not a conservative or does not back the present administration to the fullest with unbridled, blind loyalty.

I, myself, am a liberal. In fact anyone who reads my blog will (or should) know that I lean farther to the left than most liberals. There have been times when I have agreed with some conservative ideas or views. There have also been times that I have disagreed with some democratic ideas or views. BUT to have Karl Rove say that all of us liberals and democrats wanted to treat the 9/11 attackers with kid gloves is a total lie and an insult to our patriotism!

Everyone I know, whether they are liberal or democrat or republican, agreed that military action had to be taken to send a message that we, as a united country, were not going to stand by and let the perpetrators of this violent act go unpunished. Nor were we going to let it happen again.
Therefore we backed the president when he sent troops into Afganistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban.

On Sunday, June 19, 2005, Bush made a Father's Day address at a military base here in the US. He said that we would not leave Iraq until we were finished. He said this because he is being pushed for a time-table for withdrawl. He also said that we invaded Iraq because they attacked us. No-one from Iraq was on any of the planes on 9/11. If he wanted to attack the country that attacked us why didn't he attack Saudi Arabia. That's where the hijackers were from. They were all Saudi nationals, not Iraqis.

We agreed with the attack on Al Qaeda in Afganistan, but DID NOT agree with the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that there was no proof of a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Nor was there any proof of Saddam having any WMD's. Now we have proof that both of these "reasons" for invading Iraq were false. Both of these were lies told to the American public, and Congress, so Bush and his bastard friends could profit from the blood of American servicemen and women.

This is why Karl 'The Fascist Pig" Rove is a traitor. He helped to set-up this fiasco. He helped to get our service personel sent into an illegal war without proper armorment to be killed for the profit of his special interest group. He has helped send our soldiers to their deaths. THIS IS A TRAITOROUS ACT! Karl Rove along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft and countless others, of which there are too many to name, should all be brought up on charges of treason. Give them all a fair trial, unlike they would do for anyone else, but make the trial fair and they will be found guilty just like the Nazi's at Nurumberg. And like the Nazi's, maybe some of them should be hanged, after all these bastards and bitches believe in the death penalty.

There is one other item you might find interesting. Karl Rove is no longer a consultant to Bush. He is a government official, a Whitehouse staff member, an aid to Bush, paid with the taxes YOU pay every year to the tune of $157,000. How do you like them apples? Once more we are paying to be lied to by a traitor. TIME FOR THIS ASSHOLE TO LOOSE HIS JOB!

It's time for all of us true patriots to start writing to our Senators and Representatives and tell them it is time to start the impeachment prosess to remove both Bush and Cheney from office.
I think it is time for the International Court to bring them and their co- conspiritors up on war crime charges.






Tuesday, June 21, 2005


Seems like the CIA knows, sorta. Thats what Porter Goss, the director of the CIA, says anyway. Just remember, Goss was appointed to that post by the Liar King, George "Dubya" Bush.
Director Goss said he has "an excellent idea" where Osama bin Laden is hiding. Thing is, that darned diplomacy thing is gettin' in the way, again. If diplomacy is the problem that must mean he's not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We have diplomatic relations with one and a bunch of Osama hunters in the other. Not there Porter? Guess not, otherwise your guys would have him by now, I would think, if you really knew where he was, or if he was in one or the other.

Well let's see ...hmmm...thats one long walk to Iraq. Oh wait, he wouldn't go there. Even more guys with guns there. It would be pretty stupid to enter a country with 130,000 US troops armed to the teeth no mater how good the guy is at hiding. That leaves one other place that isn't to far away for foot travel, Iran. Could it be that Director Goss' "excellent idea" may be Iran? That's what Rep. Curt Weldon(R) of Pennsylvania, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and member of the Homeland Security Committee thinks. Weldon told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday(6/19/05) he "knows for sure" that Osama has been "in and out of Iran, where Ayatollah Khomenei has been protecting him with his Revolutionary Guard."

The information that Weldon is using to place bin Laden in Iran is one secret source known as "Ali". This is the same source who had the information about future terrorist threats and Iran's nuclear(or if you're Dubya it's nucular) weapons program. By the way, this "Ali" is supposed to be the cousin of the former Shah of Iran who was removed from power during the Islamic Revolution in 1978. Could be he's looking for some retribution.

Now, CIA Officer Bill Murray...(yeah, yeah I know, not THAT Bill Murray, the funny guy)... anyway, the CIA Bill Murray said he met "Ali" while stationed in Paris...(France not Hilton)...and he said of "Ali" that "he's never given us any information that was the slightest bit credible" and "this guy was a waste of my time and resources."

Well...lets see now, I seem to remember that "Curveball" was just one guy who the CIA didn't think was reliable either, but good ole Dubya thought his information was good enough to invade Iraq. Opps...I forgot, that was just an excuse to cover the plans the Busheviks had already made for Saddam's fall. It worked so good before maybe they can fool all of us again...doubt it.
Does everybody remember the Axis of Evil? Sure hope so 'cause it looks like No.2 on that list has gotten itself square into Dubya's cross-hairs. Next stop, downtown Tehran. Not to worry folks, I'm sure Rumsfeld will guarentee that this will only take "six weeks at the most" with "low casualties" for our side.

The problems the military has in Iraq right now are nothing compared to what they will have in Iran. Over 1700 dead in Iraq, probably more like 17,000 dead in Iran if that fool in the Whitehouse decides to go there. Don't be an idiot again, George. Don't go there!
For anyone who doesn't believe we would invade Iran, please read the following article by Scott Ritter a former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998.

The US war with Iran has already begun
by Scott Ritter
Sunday 19 June 2005 12:06 PM GMT

Americans, along with the rest of the world, are starting to wake up to the uncomfortable fact that President George Bush not only lied to them about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (the ostensible excuse for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of that country by US forces), but also about the very process that led to war.

On 16 October 2002, President Bush told the American people that "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope that the use of force will not become necessary."

We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute' orders authorising the US military to begin active military operations inside Iraq, and that these orders were being implemented as early as September 2002, when the US Air Force, assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardment of targets inside and outside the so-called no-fly zone in Iraq.

These operations were designed to degrade Iraqi air defence and command and control capabilities. They also paved the way for the insertion of US Special Operations units, who were conducting strategic reconnaissance, and later direct action, operations against specific targets inside Iraq, prior to the 19 March 2003 commencement of hostilities.

President Bush had signed a covert finding in late spring 2002, which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units into Iraq for the purpose of removing Saddam Hussein from power.

The fact is that the Iraq war had begun by the beginning of summer 2002, if not earlier.

his timeline of events has ramifications that go beyond historical trivia or political investigation into the events of the past.

It represents a record of precedent on the part of the Bush administration which must be acknowledged when considering the ongoing events regarding US-Iran relations. As was the case with Iraq pre-March 2003, the Bush administration today speaks of "diplomacy" and a desire for a "peaceful" resolution to the Iranian question.

But the facts speak of another agenda, that of war and the forceful removal of the theocratic regime, currently wielding the reigns of power in Tehran.

As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah's to an "axis of evil" (together with the newly "liberated" Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of "democracy" to the Iranian people.

"Liberation" and the spread of "democracy" have become none-too-subtle code words within the neo-conservative cabal that formulates and executes American foreign policy today for militarism and war.

By the intensity of the "liberation/democracy" rhetoric alone, Americans should be put on notice that Iran is well-fixed in the cross-hairs as the next target for the illegal policy of regime change being implemented by the Bush administration.

But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.

As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool's dream.

The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.

The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

Perhaps the adage of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror.

But the CIA-backed campaign of MEK terror bombings in Iran are not the only action ongoing against Iran.

To the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.

Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's interest in Azerbaijan may have escaped the blinkered Western media, but Russia and the Caucasus nations understand only too well that the die has been cast regarding Azerbaijan's role in the upcoming war with Iran.

The ethnic links between the Azeri of northern Iran and Azerbaijan were long exploited by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and this vehicle for internal manipulation has been seized upon by CIA paramilitary operatives and US Special Operations units who are training with Azerbaijan forces to form special units capable of operating inside Iran for the purpose of intelligence gathering, direct action, and mobilising indigenous opposition to the Mullahs in Tehran.

ut this is only one use the US has planned for Azerbaijan. American military aircraft, operating from forward bases in Azerbaijan, will have a much shorter distance to fly when striking targets in and around Tehran.

In fact, US air power should be able to maintain a nearly 24-hour a day presence over Tehran airspace once military hostilities commence.

No longer will the United States need to consider employment of Cold War-dated plans which called for moving on Tehran from the Arab Gulf cities of Chah Bahar and Bandar Abbas. US Marine Corps units will be able to secure these towns in order to protect the vital Straits of Hormuz, but the need to advance inland has been eliminated.

A much shorter route to Tehran now exists - the coastal highway running along the Caspian Sea from Azerbaijan to Tehran.

US military planners have already begun war games calling for the deployment of multi-divisional forces into Azerbaijan.

Logistical planning is well advanced concerning the basing of US air and ground power in Azerbaijan.

Given the fact that the bulk of the logistical support and command and control capability required to wage a war with Iran is already forward deployed in the region thanks to the massive US presence in Iraq, the build-up time for a war with Iran will be significantly reduced compared to even the accelerated time tables witnessed with Iraq in 2002-2003.

America and the Western nations continue to be fixated on the ongoing tragedy and debacle that is Iraq. Much needed debate on the reasoning behind the war with Iraq and the failed post-war occupation of Iraq is finally starting to spring up in the United States and elsewhere.

Normally, this would represent a good turn of events. But with everyone's heads rooted in the events of the past, many are missing out on the crime that is about to be repeated by the Bush administration in Iran - an illegal war of aggression, based on false premise, carried out with little regard to either the people of Iran or the United States.

Most Americans, together with the mainstream American media, are blind to the tell-tale signs of war, waiting, instead, for some formal declaration of hostility, a made-for-TV moment such as was witnessed on 19 March 2003.

We now know that the war had started much earlier. Likewise, history will show that the US-led war with Iran will not have begun once a similar formal statement is offered by the Bush administration, but, rather, had already been under way since June 2005, when the CIA began its programme of MEK-executed terror bombings in Iran.

Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998, and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, to be published by I B Tauris in October 2005.

The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera.

By Scott Ritter





Monday, June 20, 2005


In a radio address on Sunday June 19th, 2005, George "Dubya" Bush again lied to the citizens of the United States and the rest of the world. He stated that we went to war because "they attacked us" refering to Iraq when it was Saudis that were in the planes on 9/11. Now if Saudis attacked us, why is it that Bush blames Iraq, or could it all be a ruse so he could attack the country he wanted to even before the 2000 election? Either way, lying to Congress is an impeachable offense!

The article that follows was written by Thom Hartman, a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author. These are his words, not mine, and I take no credit for them. I just wanted to share them with as many people as possible.
Again these ARE NOT my words and I do hope you will see why Bush should be impeached.

They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
by Thom Hartmann

Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate burglary and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members of Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Bill Clinton had sex in the White House with Monica Lewinsky, but Congress concluded he'd lied about it to maintain political power. Another impeachable crime.

The real scandal of the Downing Street Memos, with the greatest potential to leave the Bush presidency in permanent disgrace, is their implication that lies may have been put forward to help Bush, Republicans, and Blair politically. If Bush lied to gain and keep political power, precedent suggests he and his collaborators in the administration may even be vulnerable to impeachment.

Conservatives say the Bush claims of WMD and "mushroom clouds" were a "lie of ignorance." Condoleezza Rice periodically does the talk-show circuit and repeats the "lie of ignorance" myth. "The entire world thought Saddam had WMD," she and other Bush representatives suggest over and over again. "We had bad intelligence."

This is a lie to cover up a more damaging lie. "The entire world" was, in fact, watching and listening to Hans Blix, who was telling us that he couldn't find any evidence of WMD - or any other sort of threat - in Iraq. Most of our allies were convinced that Saddam did not have WMD, or that if he did have some small stockpiles left they were so insignificant and degraded that they were irrelevant. This is why the only permanent member of the UN Security Council to join us in attacking Iraq was Blair's UK: China, France, and Russia didn't believe Iraq represented a threat to them, to us, or even to its neighbors.

Nonetheless, Bush keeps trying to push this lie-to-cover-up-a-lie. In his June 19, 2005 radio address, he suggested that the Saudis who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were actually Iraqis. "We went to war because we were attacked," he said, hoping Americans' memories are short.

US media pundits, knowing the "WMD lie" and the "Saddam attacked us" lie for what they are, mostly suggest that Bush's use of WMD and terrorism to justify invading Iraq was a "lie of convenience." The implicit assumption is that Bush did this because of a "greater good"; that even though he lied, he was doing so to advance America's interests. This helps pundits to feel like they're part of an in-crowd elite who know what's best for America, even if they can't tell the children - er - citizens.

The "lie of convenience" is based on the neocon argument that the US needed a "footprint" in the Middle East to both secure our oil supplies and provide military security to Israel. But it ignores the many nations in the region where we now have military bases (some huge), the power and ability of our navy, and the power of Israel's military. And it doesn't explain how our getting bogged down in Iraq could possibly advance our interests at home or around the world.

Often included in the "lie of convenience" mix is the PNAC suggestion that for America to be safe, we must forcefully project military power all over the world and hold decisive control of the world's largest oil supplies. This flies in the face of most of America's history, starting with George Washington's farewell address warning against "foreign entanglements." It's not only un-American, but is the assumption used throughout history to justify empires, and in every single case has ended up bleeding dry those empires, consigning them to painful contraction or total collapse.

And neither the "lie of convenience" nor the "lie of ignorance" were demonstrably the reasons why Bush invaded Iraq.

So why then did George W. Bush lie us into invading and occupying Iraq?

We know that Bush wanted to massively cut taxes on his corporate sponsors and people, like himself, with substantial inherited fortunes. He wanted to weaken government protections of the environment, children, the poor, the elderly, the ozone layer, and our nation's forests. He wanted his oil-rig and mining-interest friends to have more access to public lands.

We know he wanted to undo Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal by stripping the American workplace (particularly government and schools) of unions, rolling back "socialist" unemployment and Social Security programs, and eliminating SEC and tort restraints on predatory corporate behavior. He'd even campaigned on this platform - particularly Social Security privatization - back in 1978 when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress from Texas.

We know he wanted to increase the police power of the federal government, gut the First and Fourth Amendments, and thus create a "safe and orderly nation" of people under constant surveillance, who never question those in power.

We know he wanted to give billions of our tax dollars to churches he approved of, and bring their leaders into the halls of government. He wanted to pass laws incorporating religious dogma about when human life begins, what is appropriate sexuality, and free churches to use tax-exempt dollars to influence politics.

It was an ambitious agenda. In order to bring about this neoconservative paradise, Bush knew he'd need considerable political capital. And that kind of capital didn't come from his being selected as President by the Supreme Court.

Such political capital - such raw political power - would only come, he believed, by his becoming a "war president."

Bush wasn't the first to realize how war strengthened a president in power, although the Founders saw it as a danger rather than an opportunity.

On April 20, 1795, James Madison wrote, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

Reflecting on war's impact on the Executive Branch of government, Madison continued his letter about the dangerous and intoxicating power of war for a president.

"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended," he wrote. "Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both.

"No nation," he concluded, "could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

But freedom wasn't the goal of George W. Bush or his neoconservative Republican colleagues. It was political power. And they were willing to lie us into a war to achieve it.

Writer Russ Baker noted in October, 2004, that Mickey Herskowitz, the man Bush had originally hired to write his autobiography ("A Charge To Keep: My Journey To The White House"), told Baker that George Bush was planning his Iraq invasion - to seize and hold political power for himself and the Republican Party - during his first presidential election campaign.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told Baker. "It was on his mind. He [Bush] said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Bush lied, and Americans died. And continue to die. But politically - at least so far - it has worked out well for Bush.

It was a lie of political expediency, with the war resolution carefully timed just before the 2002 elections to help the Republicans take back the Senate.

It was echoed and amplified and repeated over and over again to help him and other Republicans get elected in 2004.

It wasn't a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary benefit.

It wasn't a war against terrorism - that was just a convenient excuse.

It wasn't a war to enrich Bush's and Cheney's cronies - those were just pleasant by-products.

It wasn't a war to show Poppy Bush that Junior was more of a man than him - that was just a personal bonus for Dubya.

It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.

It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else - oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media - all could only come if political power was seized and held through at least two decisive election cycles.

The Bush administration lied us into an invasion to get and keep political power. It's that simple.

The same reason Richard Nixon authorized Watergate and then lied about the cover-up. The same reason Nixon lied about his "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam.

When Americans - and the US media - finally realize that Bush's lie was just to get "political capital," to increase the "discretionary power of the President" so he could undo Roosevelt's New Deal and seal power across all three branches of government for his Party, they will turn on him and his Republican co-conspirators.

If it comes out in the open before the election of 2006, Republicans could even lose the House and the Senate, which would virtually guarantee investigations of the many other crimes of the Bush administration. (For example, "bribery" is one of two crimes cited in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment - and the Big Pharma/Medicaid and Big Tobacco/lawsuit settlement cases may qualify.)

Probably the only two things that could slow down the American electorate's growing realization of the magnitude and horror of Bush's political lies would be another attack on America or a new Bush-led war into Syria, Iran, or North Korea.

Bush has already shown, by lying us into Iraq, that he's at least capable of the latter. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison on February 8th 1776, "It should ever be held in mind that insult and war are the consequences of a lack of respectability in the national character."

And already the cons are working the talk-show circuit, threatening the US with a new attack, and recommending we strike now at Iran or Syria. "Be afraid. Be aggressive. Give us more political power."

But if Jefferson was right when he said that the best defense of democracy was an informed electorate, there is still a small window of opportunity for the American press to do the job they've been so carefully avoiding these past five years.

Instead of just reporting that the Downing Street Minutes and memos exist, they can highlight them against the timeline of Bush repeatedly lying during those days before the war. They can quote him saying that he had no plans for war, was working toward peace, and only wanted Congressional authorization to avoid a war, and point out that this was all after - months after - his administration had told the British that war was a sure thing.

Lying, in other words, to get us to go along with an invasion that would cement in Republican control of the Congress and the White House, and, thus, also the courts. Lying for nothing more than "political capital."

Let us hope our Fourth Estate is up to the task.

Remember, these are not my words. I just wish to share them with other citizens, like myself, who are concerned about honesty from the President (and his cabinet and staff), and concerned with the direction our country is going.

Think about what you have read and contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them to push for impeachment of Bush. You can use the following web site to find all the different ways to contact them...
I thank-you for your help in this very important, pressing matter.



Saturday, June 18, 2005


Wisconsin, my home, is a beautiful state. Wonderful natural resorces, beautiful landscapes, lots of wildlife (both natural and man-made). There's lots to do here...camping, fishing, get the idea. Great people here, too. Progressive, caring, concerned...well most of them. Like all states we do have our jerks, aka assholes. Some of our biggest jerks, aka assholes, work (or pretend to work) in Washington,D.C. The biggest asshole on my mind right now is

Representative James Sensenbrenner Jr. Republican 5th District, the new Joe McCarthy. For those of you who don't remember "Uncle" Joe (or have never heard of him), he was the Senator during the 1950's who started the "Unamerican Activities" investigations that totally ruined the lives of thousands of honest, hard working people in this country.

Below is an exerpt from "Think Progress" that was posted June 11, 2005 which will give you an idea of what kind of fascist asshole Sensenbrenner is.....

"Sensenbrenner Drunk With Power"

"Rep. James Sensenbrenner’s behavior at yesterday’s Patriot Act hearings was truly outrageous – but hardly out of character."

"This is the same Sensenbrenner who wants to give Congress the authority to ‘police the behavior’ of judges, a full-fledged assault on the separation-of-powers doctrine."

"The same Sensenbrenner who negotiated the REAL ID Act in a series of secret backroom deals from which minority party members were barred. The same Sensenbrenner who led efforts to ram through that controversial act without a single hearing in either chamber of Congress."

"The same Sensenbrenner who literally rewrote amendments, offered by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and others, to make them appear to have been written to help sexual predators evade the law."

"The same Sensenbrenner who was so desperate to obstruct the 9/11 Commission intel legislation that he actually rejected language that he himself had submitted."

"The same Sensenbrenner who actually encourages the Patriot Act to be used in cases not related to terrorism."

"At some point, one wonders: when does such disregard for limits, such extreme abuse of power, become something other than democracy?"

My thanks to Nico for this posting at "Think Progress".

Sad thing is, he isn't the only moronic-fascist-idiot-asshole we have sent to Washington. But, being a progressive state, we do try to balance out the jerk-offs with some real good ladies and gentlemen. The following, which was going to be part of a "letter to the editor" until they said it was too long, should explain what I mean....

On June 15th, 2005 a rollcall vote was taken in the House of Representatives. This vote was on an amendment to the Privacy Bill, H.R. 2862, which was introduced by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont. Through a bipartisan coalition the amendment passed blocking the FBI and Justice Department from using the Patriot Act to search library and bookstore records without a search warrant. The vote talley was 238 Yes, 187 No, and 8 Not Voting.

Those Representatives from Wisconsin voting for this amendment were Democrats Tammy Baldwin (2nd), Ron Kind (3rd), Gwen Moore (4th), David Obey (7th), and Republican Thomas Petri (6th). Hats off to all of them for standing up for our freedom to be able to read what we wish without the fear of the government (i.e. Big Brother) spying on us for what we read.
Those Representatives from Wisconsin votingagainst this amendment were Republicans Paul Ryan (1st), James Sensenbrenner Jr. (5th), and Mark Green (8th). For some reason these McCarthyites believe it is alright for the government (i.e. Big Brother) to keep track of everything we read.

As a life-long resident of the 1st District of the great progressive state of Wisconsin I, personally, find it very offensive and disconcerting that my elected official, who is in Washington to represent the best interests of my district, would feel it more important to keep track of what I read than protect the freedoms and liberties afforded me and my fellow citizens by the Constitution.

I do so hope that the people of the 1st District will take note of this vote and others (Bankruptcy Bill, Schiavo Bill, Iraq War, Tax Reduction for the Rich, (un)Patriot Act for examples) where Rep. Ryan has voted against the working stiffs of this country and vote his ass out when his present term is up! I am tired of my representative being a mouth-piece for an administration that lied to get this country into a war for the benifit of his friends and political backers, and continues to lie to try to cover-up all the previous lies.

So you see folks, McCarthyism has reared it's frickin' butt-ugly head again in the form of one James "The Fascist Asshole" Sensenbrenner Jr. with his side-kicks Paul "The Fascist Jerk-Off" Ryan and Mark "The Fascist Pin-Head" Green.

To all Citizens and Patriots: