Wolfowitz out - I'm too crestfallen for words

So, Paul Wolfowitz is out as president of the World Bank. In the words of Jon Stewart, "the World Bank did what Iraq could not, kill Wolfowitz."

Okay, I don't know if I got Stewart's joke exactly right, but you get the idea.

I shed no tears for this guy - I'm happy he now has to go find a real job and that his cushy, politically appointed position as president of the World Bank is gone. In his case, a "real job" will no doubt be sitting on the boards of defense contractors (or companies that do business with them) and the like. (Does Halliburton have an opening?)

After all, the war he helped conceive is keeping all of them awash in plenty of blood soaked cash, so I'm sure they'll be more than happy to help their buddy Wolfie.

Other than that, I don't have anything to add, other than the fact that I'm depressed I no longer have any legitimate reason to run this altogether flattering picture of Wolfie.

Keith O on CBS Sunday Morning

I loved this informative piece, and unfortunately I didn't get to see it this past Sunday. (Score one for YouTube.) It's a CBS This Morning interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, and it's a great look behind the glasses, bluster and bubbling anger that defines him. KO is now my favorite political figure on TV, edging out Jon Stewart by a nanometer. (But TDS is always essential viewing.)

I'm doing ANYTHING but taking 2008 for granted, but if a Democrat captures the White House, I wonder what will become of people like Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and Olbermann?

Won't change a thing, claims KO, a self-described baseball nut. "If a Democrat did these things [referring to the Bush Administration], I would be out there just as ferociously," he said.

One thing's for sure - he's not going anywhere, and I couldn't be more delighted; he just signed a four-year contract extension with MSNBC to continue Counting Down for us every evening. Sweet.

Sleep tight, Mr. O'Reilly.

Grand Old Perverts on borrowed time

For two straight days last week, The Daily Show effectively destroyed Republicans for the Mark Foley Sex Scandal. It's easier for you to watch the roundup than it is for me to write what these morons said, so take a look. The clip above is a little over nine minutes long, but trust me, it's soooo worth your time.

The video clip below isn't too bad, either. Watch them. Then, watch them again. This is the sad state of government in the United States today. Think that's hyperbole? People, Republicans control the White House, both Houses of Congress, and at an ever-increasing rate, the judicial branch, starting with the Supreme Court. And Republicans (and the pundits who parrot their views, including State TV, Fox News) will do or say just about anything to stay in power. About the only thing Republicans haven't done is use the military. Wait... Anyway, more after the video clip below.



Whether you like Jon Stewart or hate him, he does a remarkable job of skewering Republicans and exposing hypocrisy, and for that he should be commended. The best part about Stewart is that the show is well researched - nothing like clubbing Foley over the head with his own video tape from

It's just amazing how Republican lawmakers are running for cover in this scandal, which is a sickening disgrace. When I hear comments from some of these GOP legislators, I'm reminded of the Roman Cathlick Church and the sex scandals that have rocked it in the last 3-4 years. It's bad enough that altar boys were molested by the dozens (and probably hundreds) of priests in the first place, but what was worse was the church leadership that looked the other way for decades. Evidently, the same thing took place with Foley.

Even more laughable are the conservative pundits who are "analyzing" the whole incident. I can't possibly spell this out any clearer--

I fucking HATE Sean Hannity with every fiber of my being. Yes, I wrote hate - a word we are conditioned to shun, but what the hell is Fox spewing on state TV every day? Hate, but in slightly less overt forms. Insannity's comments and pathetic attempts at spin in the video clip at the very top (toward the end - approx. the last 1.5 minutes of the clip) about the Foley scandal are fodder for the bullshit cannon, and they run the risk of ruining his already useless reputation.

First, Hannity brings up a Democratic Congressman who was involved with a page 23 years ago. 23!! Nice. Then, *SURPRISE!* he brings up Clinton and Lewinsky, getting the latter's age wrong, saying she was 19 years old at the time of the affair. Well, Lewinsky was 22, and the affair was between consenting adults, but I'm sure Hannity made an honest mistake there, right?

I also get a kick out of how Hannity tries in vain to bring President Clinton into the scandal: "Now I don't mean to bring Clinton into this, but Monica was 19 years old." Besides getting her age wrong, Hannity lamely attempts to use an age-old trick - trying to hide behind your qualifier to absolve yourself of blame. Of course you meant to bring up Clinton, you dick! It reminds me of people who say, "No offense, but ________." Obviously they know it's going to offend you, or they wouldn't say that. Or people who say, "I'm not a racist, but ___________," and then say something racist.

The sad thing about Hannity is that there are people who actually think he speaks the truth (I'm friends with a few of them) and that the Democrats are behind all of this, and blah blah blah. Pathetic, sad and frightening, all in one human being. Impressive, really. Hannity's father, Rupert Murdoch, must be awfully proud.

The million dollar question about Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, is what did he know and when did he know it? It seems like he's known about Foley's inappropriate behavior for some time; even conservative estimates place it at the beginning of 2006, at the latest, and I've read several other pieces which say Hastert has known about it for years. I'm not interested in a number, but if Hastert knew about it one week before it became public, swift and appropriate action should have been taken against Foley. Fair?

Since it appears that Hastert knew about Foley's misdeeds (crimes) ahead of time, that makes Hastert culpable, and at least partially responsible for allowing Foley's wildly unethical and inappropriate behavior to continue without consequences. Hastert should immediately resign. Considering his statements since the scandal erupted, I wonder if Dennis likes what he sees when he looks in the mirror every morning? You might be asking, am I referring to Hastert, President Bush, or Foley himself? Yes.

Predictably, with an election around the corner, Republican leaders are running for cover and calling the two plays they know best from their playbook: scare tactics and distraction.

Think about the Karl Rove playbook that we are so used to by now.

First off, the election year scare tactics:

Notice how in 2004 and 2006, the wedge issues "mysteriously" came to the forefront? Every speech that Bush gives has to talk about the War on Terror, but we get others, too, in election years: gay marriage, immigration, tax cuts, steroids in baseball, Terri Schiavo, you name it.

I also find is super mysterious that gas prices are suddenly dramatically dropping leading up to this election, too. (It takes shockingly little digging to discover which party is in bed with big oil.)

Now, we're treated with lame-assed attempts by Republicans to scare the shit out of voters - Dick 'n W are running around the country, overtly saying that Democrats can't keep us safe from the terrorists. The scary part is that some people actually believe this shit.

Here's President George W. Bush on CNN last week (10/4/06): "Vote Republican for the safety of the United States of America." The bastard has balls, I'll give him that.

I'll bet my bile duct that there will be some sort of terror alert just before the election, too, or maybe the president will declassify information telling us that a major plot had just been foiled, but that they "can't give us any details due to national security."

Last week Hastert implored House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to agree to have former FBI Director Louis Freeh look into the whole Foley scandal. When I read that, I almost spit up my stromboli. Freeh, a partisan GOP scumbag, would have just been another GOP mouthpiece. His record during the Clinton years is a disgrace - one of Clinton's biggest mistakes was not firing the bastard, but Clinton hesitated to because it would have looked like he was firing Freeh because Freeh didn't agree with him politically.

Also very amusing to me is Hastert (and other Republicans) blaming the whole Foley scandal on billionaire liberal activist George Soros. What a laugh. How stupid does Hastert think we are? It wasn't that long ago that Mellon Bank heir Richard Mellon Scaife was behind so much of the Clinton trash that was bandied about in the 1990s - most it lies reported as news. Think I'm bullshitting? Read about the Arkansas Project and who funded it. At least with Scaife, there's proof. Hastert is just throwing Soros out there, hoping people will just automatically buy into it without doing any reading of their own. Sadly, some will.

Since 1979, Scaife has donated over $407,000 to Republican candidates, and $2,500 to Democrats. Read about that Here. Scaife had strong ties to Kenneth W. Starr and he also funded the American Spectator, but later defunded the magazine when it was critical of him and wouldn't go along with campaign to call Vince Foster's death a suicide.

Lastly, I find it wildly entertaining that some GOP sycophants and politicians alike are accusing the Democrats of gay bashing. Democrats are doing nothing of the sort, and it's another half-baked attempt at distracting from the real issue, which is an adult, in a position of power, making sexual advances on an minor. It doesn't matter if the perpetrator is male or female, nor does it matter if the victim is male or female. And do Republicans honestly believe anyone who is gay will now turn on the Democrats? You've gotta be kidding. Anyone remember the proposed Constitutional Amendment by Republicans that would define marriage as something between a man and a woman?

It's the sign of an increasingly desperate party - now the GOP is even courting the gay vote! Amazing. I'll say it over and over - the party will do just about anything to stay in power.

Even prominent Republicans are recommending that Hastert step down, including Thomas Kean Jr., GOP Senatorial candidate in New Jersey.

Anyway, one more video clip worth watching...



The clip above is so money. How do the idiots on Fox even say this shit with a straight face? A few thoughts: 1. Where was all of this "investigating" about who is behind a scandal during the Clinton impeachment fiasco? Funny how Fox News all of a sudden now has investigative skills, but in the 1990s when Clinton was in office, the "network" would report any rumor as fact. 2. Even if it proves true that Soros is behind it, (and I'm far from that, considering it's from State TV), so what? If this stuff about Foley is true, I don't give a damn how it came out.

It's scary how inept our country's leadership is. We must have dramatic change in November. I pray it's coming.

TDS strikes again

One more Daily Show clip, and this one's an instant classic. I won't keep posting recaps from the show - try to catch it or DVR it; Stewart and his team have been amazing - but this one is just too good to pass up discussing.

Following the disclosure by USA Today about the NSA's wiretapping program, Bush and his news channel, Fox, went on the offensive. Stewart, as usual, didn't let them get away with it.

You know what I love most about technology? The videotape doesn't lie. I've had to put up with that fact with Clinton/Lewinsky for years (and I still do from my GOP friends - fair enough), but now it's Bush's turn to be on the receiving end of witty and thorough journalists/satirists/comedians digging up old videotape and exposing his lies.

Anyway, the clip: The other night on The Daily Show, Stewart took aim at the hypocrites in the Bush administration as well as just about everyone with airtime at the national news channel, Fox. This is hilarious - I've watched it over and over.

Get the clip Here, and when you can't stop watching it, I won't say I told you so. Once you click on the link, scroll down about 1/3 to 1/2 way down the page, until you see the picture at above left and the title "TDS: Phone Logs and Fox Pundits." Right click on the link on the left, VIDEO WMP and save it to your hard drive. Pass this one on, too, or at least the link. Your friends will thank you for it.

Enjoy!

Dubya on & off script...scary

Jon Stewart must have the best crack research department in the political comedy business.

Bush has nominated Air Force General Michael Hayden to replace Porter Goss as head of the CIA. The other night on The Daily Show, Stewart played clips of when Bush announced both Goss and Hayden as his nominee to head the agency. Identical. Hilarious. Download and the view the clip Here. When you click on the link, you will have to go down the page about 2/3 of the way, but trust me, this is worth the effort - it's Bush at his scripted best (or worst?)!

I'm not so sure that Hayden is the best choice, but, to be honest, I view his having headed the NSA for six years as a positive, not a negative. But, I haven't done a whole lot of reading and research on him yet, so that opinion is off the cuff and nothing more.

Bush At His Unscripted Worst
During a question and answer session on May 9 at the Kings Point Clubhouse in Sun City Center, Florida, Bush answered (or attempted to answer) a question about the Alaskan pipeline. Take a read...

Q: I would like to ask one question about the Alaskan pipeline. My understanding is that most of that supply does not come to the United States, and I would like to know why that goes to other countries rather than to where it's needed here, so that we can --

THE PRESIDENT: You mean the crude oil coming down the pipeline?

Q: Yes, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I don't know where it goes, to be honest with you. Sorry. I can find out. (Laughter)

Q: Okay. Could we just divert a little bit of that our direction, please? (Laughter)

THE PRESIDENT: I thought you were going to ask, how come we don't have the gas pipeline coming down yet - because there's a lot of untapped oil and gas up there that can be explored in environmentally friendly ways. And I think we ought to be drilling in ANWR - it's called ANWR. I know we can do it and protect the environment at the same time. And I know there's a lot of untapped gas up there that we ought to get down through pipeline, as well. I don't know where all the oil goes coming out of the pipeline now. I'll try to find out for you.

###

Now I may be nitpicking here, but it cracks me up that the president knows so much about all of the natural gas and oil that we should drill and explore for in ANWR, yet he cannot even answer a question about where the oil goes now. No wonder he played to carefully screened and selected audiences prior to the '04 election, and why his advisors don't want him in many unscripted situations.

I won't get into an ANWR rant right now, except to say this: When the president says that ANWR can be explored in "environmentally friendly ways," he should be wearing a brown suit, because he's 100% full of shit. Anyone remember the Exxon Valdez disaster? That's when about 12 million gallons of crude oil were dumped into Prince William Sound in 1989 when the Exxon supertanker ran aground, devastating the environment, wildlife and the lives of fisherman and residents. To date, Exxon has paid a measly $300 million in cleanup costs. I say measly because Exxon, the world's biggest oil company, lost a court ruling and has been ordered to pay over $5 billion to the people whose lives the drunken, iceberg slaloming captain of the Valdez ruined. Yet, the company continues to fight and appeal instead paying the settlement and allowing these people to move on with their lives. By the way, last year alone the company had over $30 billion in profits .

So, there isn't exactly a good precedent of oil companies being friendly to the environment up north, and when an accident does happen, big oil hasn't exactly been contrite and willing to do the right thing. So, why should the government whore out more of its lands to big oil? And let's be honest here, if this was a puddle of black gold the size of the Saudi Arabian oil fields, that might outweigh the risks. But, it's not - all of the oil extracted from the ground might supply the U.S. for less than a year, and that's an optimistic estimate. Depending on where you get your numbers from and the ax that source has to grind, estimates on how much oil is in ANWR vary widely. But, even with the most optimistic of estimates, it's not like we're sitting on a gigantic, untapped oil reserve that could change the course of our foreign oil dependence. Experts have been saying this for years, but deaf Republicans obviously aren't listening - we cannot drill our way out of foreign oil dependence. (Maybe Republicans are "deaf" because of all the green that big oil lines their pockets with.) So, I still think drilling in ANWR isn't worth the environmental costs and risks, at least until the oil companies can totally prove they can do it without screwing the environment, and until they sign a legally binding pledge to pay all cleanup costs in the event of an accident, and not fight damages Exxon style. When those two conditions are met, maybe, just maybe, it'll be time to drill.

Speaking of ANWR, the president sure seemed happy that he knew it's called ANWR, didn't he? Doofus. I bet he had one of those snide grins when he said that, too.