Remembering an awful, watershed morning

I've been thinking about 9/11 quite a bit this morning - it's hard not to, considering the media coverage of the one of the worst anniversaries in American history (and for once, the media circus is deserved).

It almost seems like decades ago when America was in a post-Cold War cocoon of prosperity and growth. There 1990s brought out the best of America and the worst of America, but more bad than good. We can honestly look back with a little more hindsight with each passing 9-11 anniversary and truly realize how asleep we really were.

Unfortunately, it's pretty difficult to have a discussion about 9-11 these days without it becoming intensely political. And that trend is not helped by politicians who try to make hay out of homeland security issues, and the whole "we can protect you and they can't" ridiculousness. I'm referring to Repubes like Rudy 9iu1ian1, who never misses an opportunity to pimp 9-11 like he's participating in some sort of celebrity endorsement. John McCain is a little more subtler, but not by much; he often insinuates that American will be much less safe if Obama is elected president. It's shameful, disgusting and despicable, but that's never stopped any of them.

Some day, I really would like the whole truth about 9-11 to come out, including its causes, and who was responsible for the tragedies seven years ago. Unfortunately, there seems to be little political will to truly get to the bottom of 9-11 with a bipartisan, independently appointed commission (unlike the 9/11 Commission that was hand-picked by President Bush and his cronies in the GOP-controlled Congress).

I can't help but sit here and wonder if we ever will find Osama bin Laden. Maybe this October the Bush-controlled Pentagon will get around to finding him. No one could possibly be surprised if that happens.

Keith Olbermann had plenty to say about the 9/11 anniversary last night. More on that in a minute.

Stewart's Britney / McCain analysis

No one mixes political analysis and humor better than Jon Stewart. In fact, he's the best in the business. The above clip is the gold standard. (Watch the vid, and you'll get the pun.)

Anyway, I really got a good laugh out of this clip; stick with it, it's a little over nine minutes, but it's one of the best I've seen on The Daily Show in quite some time.

Hearing the words come out of McCain's mouth about how he'll balance the budget, win in Iraq, find and kill bin Laden, etc. is high comedy at its greatest. Don't get me wrong, I certainly hope all of those things will happen, but just saying you'll do it without offering specifics is Saturday Night Live-sketch worthy, and definitely fodder for The Daily Show.

I've been writing for a long time now that "winning" in Iraq is a myth. Even if we "win" as politicians define it (and I still don't know what that is), we've lost. And by that I mean trillions spent (before it's all said and done), thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and for what? So we could get cheap oil, which isn't happening, anyway. I tire of typing this over and over, but it does bear repeating, since the right sees fit to keep propagating lie after lie after lie about why we invaded in the first place and why we should stay there. I don't buy any of it.

As far as balancing the budget, George Stephanopoulos was totally right to take McCain to task - he's proposing massive tax cuts, in addition to "winning" the War in Iraq. An economist it does not take to figure out that his math is, how shall I say it? - Creative. This year, we are going to have a $600-700 billion deficit, and that's without any more tax cuts. And Brain McCain is going to reverse all of those losses and balance the budget?!? I LOVE it when McCain tells Stephanopoulos "Look, I'll find you $100 billion tomorrow." One, that's patently absurd, and two, he probably could - but not a dime would come from the Pentagon. But, we could say goodbye to lots of other social and educational programs, to be sure, which McCain and the GOP have been trying to do for years.

It also should be lost on no one how the media is simply pimping and recycling McCain's talking points over and over and over, too. McLame puts out an attack ad calling Obama "arrogant," and the next thing you know, media talking heads the world over are repeating it like the drones that they are. Stewart is right on point here, too; anyone running for president has to have a certain amount of arrogance in him or her, without question. I don't know who's currently "winning" the Arrogance War between the two (nor do I care), but hearing McCain boast about how he "knows how to win wars" strikes me as blatantly arrogant, dismissive of alternate strategies, and, quite frankly, a total lie. As has been mentioned here and on countless other blogs (God only knows no one in the mainstream media has enough sac to ask him) -- "Name a war you've even remotely been in that's won, Senator." Anyone who did have the temerity to ask him to his face would most likely get that creepy smile and stare, and then a deflected answer (McCain has elevated that to an art form).

Probably my two favorite parts of this clip, though, are when McCain vows to pursue Obama to the "gates of hell," and then he just stares blankly ahead, with that creepy, plastic smile (at about the 7:20 mark); and when he says that he would not invade Pakistan because "it is a sovereign nation." And Iraq was... WHAT?

Ashcroft's bad: Obama Whatshisname?

No wonder this administration hasn't caught bin Laden - current and former administration officials can't even get his name right.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft recently stuck his foot in his mouth when discussing the USA PATRIOT ACT with a group of college students in New York - Obama bin Laden is an awful man, isn't he? Ashcroft received all the punishment he deserved at the hands of the college student, he booed him loudly. Pretty funny.

How is our president like OJ? Read on...

I heard this one on the radio this morning, and I let out a whoop when I heard Bill Press mention it. I like Press, but he is a liberal radio talk show host, so I wanted to verify it.

This whopper involves White House Press Secretary Dana Perino (above) answering a question about Osama bin Laden:

Q: As far as Osama bin Laden and our national security is concerned, he has issued another tape and warning Europe and it may affect the United States. And also, yesterday Senator Obama called on the President to bring Osama bin Laden, who is in Pakistan. Does he think he's still alive, Osama bin Laden?

MS. PERINO: I would put it this way. The intelligence community analyzed the tape. They do believe that that was his voice. So that would mean that for all things - for all that we know, that he is still alive. And the President has a very aggressive hunt on for Osama bin Laden. [Emphasis Mine] And I think in the tape, what Osama bin Laden was trying to do is to suggest that he stands for all Muslims, and I think that if you look at the facts across the board, especially what's happening in Al-Anbar province and across Iraq, that Arabs are starting to turn against them, and that is of huge strategic significance in the global war on terror.

That is quite simply the funniest, most ridiculous thing I've heard come out of a White House press secretary's mouth in a long, long time. It gets even funnier when one listens to Bush's comments about bin Laden a few years ago:

All you have to do is watch the first 1:45 to get the point. Looks like Dana's credibility fall down and go boom. But, what should we expect? This is the same Dana Perino who didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was in an interview last December, too.

Don't get me wrong - I think every reasonable American and member of the press expects and even tolerates a certain amount of b.s. coming out of the mouth of any press secretary, under any president, but this takes it to a whole new level.

When I read "Bush," "aggressive hunt," and "Osama bin Laden," all in one sentence, it made me think of OJ. Yes, that OJ; you know, the one who has hired private detectives to conduct a thorough investigation and to aggressively look for Nicole Brown Simpson's killer(s). (At left is OJ, hot on the trail of his ex-wife's killers - they must have been grounds keepers or something.)

Maybe Bush and OJ could golf together - by the 18th, they could have the Simpson killers and bin Laden, all in jail.

There's hope after all for amnesic GOPers

This is one of the better parodies I've seen this year - I got a big kick out of it. It's the Ronald Reagan defense - "I can't/don't remember." (Although Reagan most famously said "recall.")

Bin Laden should have been in this commercial, too, because Bush and his cabal sure as hell don't remember (don't want to remember) that HE and his organization are responsible for 9-11, not Saddam Hussein.

Ike was right

On January 17, 1961, three days before he left office, President Dwight Eisenhower warned:

"...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

If there is a supreme being, and I believe there is, Ike is looking down on the current state of affairs in this country, shaking his head, and saying "I told you so."

The ineptitude of our Department of Defense seems to get more and more appalling by the year. The defense budget is over half of a trillion dollars per year, and yet, the department can't account for over a trillion dollars in allocated money. It's just unbelievable.

Amazingly enough, the DoD asks for more.

Seeing Donald Rumsfeld again is a buzz kill - his obfuscations and intentionally vague answers are about what I'd expect.

It's startling that we sell so much of our defense technology to other countries when it comes back to bite us in the rear end so much. Iraq and Osama bin Laden are two of the more glaring examples (and errors) of this often ill-advised policy.

The irony isn't lost on me that we funded and armed Hussein in the 1980s during Iraq's war with Iran (and turned a blind eye to his chemical weapons use and mass slaughter to tens of thousands). We also armed Osama bin Laden to the teeth in the 1980s in his fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I'd like to say that some day our political leaders will learn, but they haven't shown any indication that they are about to change.

Russ Feingold on Bush's threatened veto

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann a few nights ago to talk about President Bush's promised veto and rhetoric about the emergency appropriation for the War in Iraq. Feingold is as spot on and articulate as anyone I've heard on the subject.

Feingold rightfully points out that there is plenty of precedent on ending funding for combat operations during war time, most notably during the Clinton Administration when we had forces in Somalia during Operation Restore Hope. After we lost 18 U.S. troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. (By the way, I tire of hearing Repubes deride Clinton for the loss of those soldiers - he deserves some blame, but it was President George H.W. Bush who put our troops in Somalia in December 1992.)

Anyway, Feingold hit it right on the head - if Bush vetoes the spending bill, it's going to be on his head, or at least partially. He rightfully reasons that the Democrats were sent to Congress to do the bidding of the people, and that's to end this war:

Well, it's just incredible to me that the president of the United States is planning on vetoing a bill that actually provides the funds that he wants for this next phase of the war. And the reason is, is, that he thinks he shouldn't have to follow the will of the American people, which was expressed in November, and that is that somehow this war has to start to end.

The bill is a very reasonable approach, and the president is being beyond stubborn in saying that we have to provide the funds and have no reaction at all to the fact that the people of this country want us out of this war. It's incredible to me that the president is this detached from reality.

Of course, some hear this and get all hysterical, that the Democrats are simply Bush hating. No, they are not. What we are seeing now is a president who had no oversight for the first six years of his presidency. Bush is totally incapable of compromise, or reaching across party lines. For a man who ran in 2000 as "A uniter, not a divider," he's shown a shocking indifference to even having a dialogue with the Democrats. More from the interview:

OLBERMANN: He referred to, in this news conference, in some of the questions, some who believe our strategy there is not working, a group who believes that we should not be there in the first place. Is it possible, do you think, Senator, that the president does not realize that this group of some people constitutes about seven out of every 10 Americans?

FEINGOLD: Well, he must know at some level, but he refers to the fact that we're back in our states, listening to the people in our states, as a vacation. Well, he needs a vacation like that, or he needs to get back onto a place like Wisconsin, in the rural areas where I am this week, Keith, doing town meetings, where people are telling me, For God's sakes, when are you going to get out of there? How can you possibly have this thing continue? What is the president thinking?

He is truly out of touch with the people of this country. This is not a position of a few people in the Democratic Party. It is virtually a consensus of the American people that we have got to have an orderly end to this war, safely redeploy the troops in the next few months.

[...]

Senator Harry Reid and I have concluded that a bill or an amendment that would make that date a year from now, March 31, 2008, is the next step, if necessary, if he truly does veto the supplemental bill.

OLBERMANN: To the power of the purse, for all the president's talk of alleged irresponsibility on the part of Congress in his news event this morning, it would seem, in his answer to that question about the power of the purse, the president was forced to admit that what you and your colleagues are doing is, in fact, entirely legitimate. And if that's true, and he says it's true, doesn't that make his veto the cause of any interruption of funding for the troops, in the unlikely event that happens?

FEINGOLD: Absolutely, Keith, unless we've shifted into a monarchy. The whole idea of our system is that these powers are divided. The president's the commander in chief, but the Congress is given the power of the funding, the appropriations power. We had to provide the funding in the first place, and if we decide this war is a bad idea, which I think just about everybody's concluded, then it's our—not just our right, but our responsibility to say, "Well, by X date, we will no longer do the funding."

And if you—you can ask Republican senators who say this is a bad idea, why did they vote for a date to cut off the funding for Somalia in the early '90s? Remember Black Hawk Down, we lost those 18 brave Americans, and we said, You know, this isn't working out very well, we ought to stop this.

And so John McCain and John Warner and all of us voted for a date certain by which the troops were safely redeployed. And at the end of it, the funding was cut off. They've already voted for this approach. It's not extreme. It's right in the absolute core of our constitutional powers and our responsibilities as members of Congress.

###

Uh oh - I'm bringing up those pesky 1990s again. How inconvenient. I not-so-fondly remember Repubes howling and screaming whenever President Clinton did anything militarily. No matter the cause, he never, ever had the support of a Republican-controlled Congress - Somalia (which he inherited), Bosnia, Kosovo or any actions to combat terrorism.

At every turn, it was Republicans who were screaming about Clinton's misuse of the military, or worse. Funny how I never heard "When troops are in harm's way, we don't question the operation - we get behind the president." Feingold rightfully reminded viewers of this the other night.

Speaking of supporting the president, one final thought. I realize that it's difficult for most of us (myself included, on most occasions) to reflect on our foreign policy in the 1990s through a 9-11 looking glass. Fine.

But, what really roils me is the persistent, idiotic rumors that float around the Internet about Clinton not doing enough about Osama bin Laden while he was president. Part of that is a valid point - he even admitted as much during his contentious interview on Fox News with Chris Wallace last September.

However, I also vaguely remember President Clinton wanting to do more to fight terrorism, but the Republican-controlled Senate and House wouldn't give him the budget increases he asked for. I also remember his missile attacks on Baghdad in retaliation for the attempted assassination of President Bush Sr. in Kuwait, and also the missile attack on a bin Laden compound that missed the terrorist by hours.

But again, to hear Republicans talk about it, they all wanted to invade Afghanistan and get bin Laden immediately, but Clinton didn't want to. Lies, lies, lies. In fact, when Clinton was leaving office, the one thing that the Clinton team told the incoming Bush administration to pay particular attention to was bin Laden. Call that one Operation Ignore, as the Bushies did nothing.

Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert, served under presidents Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and until 2003, President George W. Bush. He's confirmed the current Bush administration's willful indifference to bin Laden during the first eight months of the administration. And this has also been confirmed by Bob Woodward and Paul O'Neill, the former treasury secretary. But, they're all lying, right Mr. President?

For more reading, I highly recommend Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies; and Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty : George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill.

These are two fantastic books, told by former Bush administration insiders, and they both offer insight into how Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq before 9-11, a conveniently forgotten fact.

The truth of the matter is that Bush and the far right want perpetual war, with no end in sight. It's hard to conclude otherwise, considering their stubbornness and obfuscation in the face of Democrats' attempts to end this war.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession ~ Count me skeptical

Yesterday, to great fanfare, the Pentagon released transcripts of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession of his role in 9-11. Mohammed, a high-level Al-Qaeda operative, has been in custody since 2003 or 2004 (depending on where you get your information - our government is so secretive, it's tough to tell). He was moved to Guantanamo Bay in September of last year. Funny how not too long after he gets moved to Guantanamo, he confesses. More on that last point later.

What really strikes me is how neat and tidy the story seems. To believe Mohammed, you'd think that he was responsible for every terrorist act since Watergate. Okay, a bit of hyperbole there, but take a read on some of the things he confessed to: Masterminding the September 11th terrorist attacks; the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean; the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower; the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63; planned assassination attempts on Pope John Paul II, Pervez Musharraf and Bill Clinton; planned attacks on Heathrow Airport and Big Ben clock tower in London; the Millennium Plot; and the murder of Daniel Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded in 2002.

Formerly a member of Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization in Kuwait, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks." If all of this is true, great. But, will we ever know if it's true? This administration has lied so much, it's hard to believe what's true and what's not true anymore. When listening to the Bush Administration's spin on just about anything, I'm much more inclined to not believe it than believe it.
Following American politics today is like being an airline pilot, flying through a thick fog, who doesn't trust his instruments.

I'm highly skeptical of anything Mohammed says, and I'm not alone. One CIA official has been quoted as saying that anything Mohammed says should be treated with a high amount of skepticism, even referring to at least some of his confessions as white noise - useless chatter devised to get himself through another day's interrogation, and more importantly to send the U.S. government on wild goose chases. Unfortunately, our government has been on many of those before, especially since 9-11.

He's claiming responsibility for quite a laundry list of terrorism. Are we now supposed to believe that Osama bin Laden is inconsequential? The Bush Administration would no doubt love that, but I hope the rest of America isn't buying into this bull - the bottom line is that ultimately Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9-11. Not to go all X-Files on you, but The Truth is Out There.

I also find the timing of this announcement awfully convenient. In the last month, the Bush Administration has had these crises to deal with: Continuing debate on the troop surge, the firing of eight federal prosecutors, the Scooter Libby trial, the Walter Reed scandal, and a host of smaller prickly issues I'm sure Bush wishes would just go away. Many of above have been flashing hot lately, so why not release a bit of good news to get all of the bad press off the front pages of Websites and newspapers?

If you think this administration is above manipulating the press in that way, think again. A few quick examples...

1. In December 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured, conveniently right before the primaries for the 2004 election were set to begin. Patently absurd that it took the biggest and best military in the world nine months to catch him. Kind of like how absurd it is that we are going on six years since 9-11, and still no bin Laden. But, I digress.

2. The announcement of Saddam's verdict in his trial, 48 hours before the 2006 mid-term elections. When the press protested, Tony Snowjob had the nerve to go before the press and declare that the U.S. would never interfere with the Iraqi judicial process. Unreal. Press reports later confirmed that the actual verdict was not completely ready until four days later. Hussein heard that he was guilty, then had to wait four days to find out what he was guilty of. Yea, no tampering there.

3. In the spring and summer of 2004, anyone remember the numerous "terror threats" that were issued? You remember, the color coded system that we heard about all throughout 2004? Seems funny that we haven't heard about many of them since the '04 election. I expected to hear lots of them again in '06 before the November election, but we didn't. I half wonder that the reason we didn't is because of all of the negative press about Republicans trying to scare everyone to death before the '04 election. Have the threats gone away? I don't think so.

4. How about in February 2006, when Bush publicly boasted about the administration's foiling of a plot to blow up the "Liberty Tower" in Los Angeles. (He probably meant to say "Library" Tower, but, you know, a president can get the tallest building in LA wrong, especially when talking about its potential destruction when delivering a major anti-terrorism speech.)

What's more, we should distrust anything that might have been confessed to under any form of torture. I love analogies, so allow me to turn to a brilliant movie, Reservoir Dogs:

Mr. Blonde (played by Michael Madsen) is part of a criminal enterprise that just robbed a jewelry store. At the very beginning of the heist, the cops show up. Quickly. Too quickly in the eyes of the criminals. They begin to turn on one another. Blonde shoots his way out of the robbery, taking an officer hostage to get away. Mr. Blonde has just cut off a police officer's ear, trying to find out about a possible snitch in the group. Chris Penn walks in, and he starts screaming at Mr. Blonde, bellowing, "This guy will tell you he started the Chicago Fire if you beat him hard enough, but that doesn't fucking necessarily make it so!"

I'm sure you can see where I'm going here - just because someone confesses to something under torture (something that is oft-speculated about in Guantanamo Bay, where Mohammed is being imprisoned), that doesn't mean it's true. Often, it's not.



Of course, Sean Insanity was all over the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confession, treating it like the Bush Administration had just captured the real man responsible for 9-11, Osama bin Forgotten.

It's funny to hear Insanity talk about Rosie O'Donnell's "irresponsible rhetoric," something which he has a Ph.D. in. Wait, I forgot - he's a college dropout. Scratch that. By the way, I'm in no way defending O'Donnell - a true blabbermouth moron.

I got a kick out of Hannity's leading questions to Slade Gorton in this piece, too, especially when he said to Gorton, "So, these statements [by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] were not made under duress, RIGHT?" Of course, Hannity didn't get the answer he wanted, as Groton stated he wasn't sure under what conditions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's statements were made. Swing and a miss for Insanity. But, that never stops him.

The thing that enrages me the most about this particular piece of footage is Insanity's beating the oft-beaten drum about the United States refusing to take bin Laden when he was offered, during the Clinton Administration. This has been thoroughly debunked, yet the right won't give up on this story. Hey, it's the old adage of the right - keep on repeating a lie, over and over and over, until people begin to believe it. And there are many who believe that Clinton refused to take bin Laden into custody, but that we could have. (By the way, can there ever be any sort of national debate, specifically when it's about the GOP's bread and butter, the War on Terrorism, without bringing up Bill Clinton's supposed "shortcomings"?)

I'm not going to get into this again here, other than to briefly say this about Clinton and terrorism. Yes, the Clinton Administration could have done more to combat terrorism - Clinton himself will freely admit that, and he has, very publicly, on many occasions. But, he did as much as he could at the time. Clinton tried to increase the terrorism budget, but was rebuffed by the GOP-controlled Congress every time he did it. When he once closed off Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House, he was called "hysterical" by many people, almost all Republicans. What's more, Clinton gets very little press about the various successes in combating terrorism that happened on his watch.

The evidence is strong, given by people who were inside the Bush Administration prior to 9-11, that Bush and his cabal did little to combat terrorism. In fact, John Ashcroft even cut the terrorism budget in the summer of 2001, a few months before the attacks. Then there's the August 6, 2001 memo, entitled Bin Laden determined to Strike in US, which was included in the presidential daily brief, that gets consistently ignored, and conveniently forgotten, by the likes of Sean Insanity. But instead, let's keep harping about Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, about taking some classified documents from the National Archives. What's more important here?

About those files that Berger took ~ he pleaded guilty to taking classified information, and was sentenced to pay a $50,000 fine, two years probation and 100 hours community service. And he also lost his top secret security clearance for three years.

But, morons like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Insanity won't let a good conspiracy theory go. The Wall Street Journal, which has one of the most conservative editorial pages in the country, wrote this about the Berger incident:

Justice says the picture that emerged is of a man who knowingly and recklessly violated the law in handling classified documents, but who was not trying to hide any evidence. Prosecutors believe Mr. Berger genuinely wanted to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission but felt he was somehow above having to spend numerous hours in the Archives as the rules required, and that he didn't exactly know how to return the documents once he'd taken them out... We called Justice Department Public Integrity chief prosecutor Noel Hillman, who assured us that Mr. Berger did not deny any documents to history. "There is no evidence that he intended to destroy originals," said Mr. Hillman. "There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission."

Keeping sizzling that Berger though, Hannity. Some sheep are bound to believe you.

The things that I loved most about Insanity's rant in the clip above is the "death score card" that Faux News posts about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, which totals 3,197.

Hmm. Let me think about that for a minute. That number, 3,200, that means something to me. Where have I seen that before?

Oh yea, the number of Americans killed in Iraq since the war began four years ago this Tuesday. (The current total sits at 3,204 at this writing, with 12 more inconfirmed.)

Whether you agree with the War in Iraq or not, don't buy into all of the spin about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's "confession," specifically from an administration that's in as much political trouble as this one. (Bush's approval ratings remain in the toilet, at 30 percent. The most recent Newsweek Poll rates his embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, more popular than he is. Ouch.)

In my humble opinion, it's probably just another clumsy attempt by Bush and his cabal to reintroduce common knowledge into the mainstream media as "news" in order to turn around the president's sagging approval ratings.

Only time will tell if it's another Mission Accomplished by President Bush.

GOP's down in the 4th - send in the scare play

Above is the latest GOP attempt to scare the living shit out of Americans who, according to the latest polls, are just about fed up with Bush and Karl Rove's version of leadership in America. Or, should I say, fear mongering.

This ad is a disgrace on so many levels, it's pretty tough to overstate how disgusted I am by it. Not as a Democrat, but as an American.

The Republicans have turned America in so many wrong directions and made so many poor decisions, they really have so little to run on. So, in this desperate hour, they are reverting to the one tactic that has helped them win two elections since 9-11 - scare the American people into believing they are the only party that can keep America safe. It's so pathetic, it's rather funny, but what brings me back to Earth is that there are sheep out there who will buy into this line of bullshit, OR who will vote Republican because of a few certain issues, no matter what - religion and pro-life being two of them.

Anyway, both parties are guilty of running negative ads, but the Republicans seem to be taking it to a whole new level. Will it pay off? I doubt it this time around, but if I were in Karl Rove's and Bush's shoes, I'd probably be doing the same thing - it's worked before, and they really have no options left.

BUT WAIT! Of course they do - after years of screwing up Iraq, even the president has signified that it's time to change the course in Iraq. How profoundly said that the deaths of nearly 3,000 American soldiers didn't move him to that, or tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians - it's the possibility of losing control of one or both Houses of Congress.

Well, enough on this ad. I'll leave the rest to a sage political commentator that you've come to know quite well on this blog - Keith Olbermann.

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!