Clinton sodomized in 9-11 movie

I've been away for a while and haven't had much time to post much lately because of school and the craziness before, during and after the wedding (A good, but busy kind of craziness!). However, I do have a lot on my mind from my time away from the blog, and I do plan on at least partially catching up.

In the meantime, I laughed today when I clicked on a link of an article to The New York Post about the upcoming movie, The Path to 9-11, which will air on ABC this Sunday and Monday. Bill Clinton appears to be pretty pissed, and it looks like he has good reason to be. According to the article in the Post, part of the movie details how Clinton was too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to deal with bin Laden. What a truckload of shit.

The accurate history of what happened the summer the embassies were bombed was that Clinton was busy going after bin Laden following the attacks, trying to do his job, despite a witch hunt out to get him. Unfortunately, this coincided with the growing momentum to impeach the president. Republicans in Congress accused the president of trying to distract the American public with a missile attack against bin Laden. Self-righteous Republicans didn't want to hear stories about bin Laden - they wanted to get the president. Fortunately, the American public wasn't fooled - nearly 3/4 of Americans didn't want to see Clinton removed from office, and he wasn't, much to the frustration of Republicans. However, when viewed through a post-9-11 lens, this paragraph all seems too unbelievable to be true, but it IS true.

Here's a thought - maybe if the FBI didn't have dozens (and I've read hundreds in some places) of agents investigating a blow job (along with the majority of Congress), maybe the agency could have been protecting America. The same goes for Congress at the time. Call me crazy.

And here's a few more thoughts on the movie and right-wing myths. 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. Idiots on the far right suffer from amnesia about this. The Clinton administration handed over all sorts of information to the incoming Bush administration on bin Laden and the growing threat of terrorism, but to no avail. The Bush cabal was too busy trying to figure out a way to repay favors to people who put Bush in office. Part of this repayment included massive tax cuts for the rich (that we still can't afford), instead of taking part of that money and adequately funding anti-terrorism programs.

If this movie is depicted as discussed in the Post article, it is a massive distortion and a disservice to the dead of 9-11, and to all Americans. The latter all too often relies on movies and pop culture to get depictions of history, and this movie will unfortunately play a part. That's pathetic and sad.

ABC has already stated that some scenes were dramatized in the movie. Really? What a shock.

Two other quick points. I'm not one of those people who believe Bush knew about 9-11. No president would knowingly permit such a brutal, ghastly attack. I do believe that if the agencies, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, hadn't had its collective head up its ass, they may have been prevented. Bush deserves some blame, no doubt, but so does Clinton, Congress and a host of other people. This is a story that will continue to emerge for years if not decades. But, I also laugh derisively at people who buy into the urban legend making its way around the Internet that states bin Laden could have been handed over to the U.S., but Clinton refused to take him into custody. This absurd right-wing myth that persists, facts be damned, and it's laughable.

And Republicans were so obsessed with bin Laden in the late 1990s (a total fucking lie), they why haven't they captured his ass since then? They've only had nearly 6 years, and 5 since 9-11. But, don't worry, people. I'm sure bin Laden is somewhere in Iraq.

I don't know what's worse - the obsession with Clinton in the late 90s, or the travesty that continues in Iraq, each and every day. Bush has got us in a real quagmire. There, I said the Q word. His debacle in the Middle East will wear the Scarlet Q for years to come, all at the cost of American blood.

My other point? Rupert Murdoch is no doubt laughing his extremist-right-wing ass off today. He owns the Post.

**

Anyway, I will watch the movie this Sunday and Monday, and report back how I feel about it. We are also having our post-wedding celebration in the Poconos this weekend, so I will no doubt have many great pictures to share. Oh, and a teeny little league called the NFL starts tonight, and I'm definitely ready for some football. And I'm even more ready for the NHL season. So much to write about, so little time. All for now.

Tune back tomorrow for a highly scientific analysis of who will have a better season, my Dallas Cowboys, or my wife's (and in-laws') Denver Broncos. Part of this proof will be in pictures!

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.