Thursday, October 06, 2005

Associated Press photos "President" Bush, pictured giving a speech today in Washington, D.C., in which he accused others of being imperialists and fascists who are trying to seize control of Iraq through violence. Bush: Crazy, evil or both? Psychiatrist M. Scott Peck, in his wonderful book on the phenomenon of evil, People of the Lie, states that evil people, pretty much by definition, routinely accuse others of exactly that which they are guilty themselves. So what to make of George W. Bush when he says, as he said today, that the "terrorists" in Iraq are trying to establish "a radical Islamic empire"? I mean, Iraq is a Muslim nation. The United States, a so-called "Christian" nation, invaded, without cause, the sovereign Muslim nation of Iraq in March 2003 and still occupies it. No Muslim nation ever invaded and now occupies any part of or territory of the United States. So who is the evil empire? And who are the terrorists? (Ask the survivors of the thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civilians the U.S. military has killed since March 2003 -- the people whom the United States supposedly was "liberating" -- who the terrorists are.) Bush today called the "terrorists" in Iraq "killers" who want to "[seize] control of Iraq by violence." Um, again, the United States has killed thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians. Does that not make us Americans killers? I mean, a killer, by definition, is one who kills, correct? And did the United States not seize control of Iraq by violence? I mean, I seem to remember the "shock and awe" in which the United States bombed the fuck out of Baghdad back in March 2003 after the members of the Bush regime lied through their teeth to the United Nations and to the world that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that made Iraq an imminent threat. Is dropping bombs not violent? Did the United States not seize control of Iraq by dropping bombs on it? Just because the corporately controlled U.S. mainstream television "news" networks never showed us what it looks like to be on the receiving end of one of those many, many bombs that the United States dropped on Iraq, but treated the March 2003 invasion of Iraq as though it were a fucking video game in which no one really dies, does that mean that the United States did not seize control of Iraq through violence? Why is something "evil" when the "enemy" does it -- but for the cause of "democracy" and "freedom," blah, blah, blah when the United States does it? (Just asking.) Bush calls the "terrorists" "Islamo-fascists." I'd call Bush and the members of his regime and his regime's supporters "Christiano-fascists," but they're not true Christians, just true fascists. It's awfully interesting to see a fascist like Bush call someone else a fascist, however. I don't believe that the Muslims want to control the world. I believe that they want control over the Muslim nations and that they want the United States out of the Muslim nations. I don't blame them. I want the United States out of the Muslim nations, too, because the United States only goes to the Muslim nations to steal and to kill for the profits of U.S. corporations, like Dick Cheney's Halliburton. And Americans want American control over the United States and its territories, so how can Americans criticize Muslims for wanting Muslim control over the Muslim nations? And Americans certainly wouldn't tolerate Muslims invading and occupying any part of or territory of the United States, so how can Americans expect Muslims to tolerate the U.S. invasion and occupation of any Muslim nation? I believe that it is the Bush neocons who want to control the world -- and that they want to gain control of the world by diverting Americans' and the world's attention from their own fascistic wrongdoings to the "evildoing" of the "enemies" that they create -- a la George Orwell's 1984.  Bush, as though he had any meaningful insight whatsoever into good and evil or psychiatry -- I mean, the man can barely choke out a coherent sentence -- said today that the "Islamo-fascists'" beliefs "are evil but not insane."  Which makes me wonder: Is Bush evil or insane -- or both? If he knows that he is lying, if he intentionally attempts to deceive -- such as when he accuses the "terrorists" of the exact same crimes of which he and the members of his regime are guilty -- that makes Bush patently evil. If he actually believes the hypocritical bullshit that flows so freely from his mouth, however, that would make Bush insane, because an insane person, by definition, has no grasp on reality. However, I suspect that Bush is both evil and insane: I suspect that he has little to no grasp on reality, which makes him insane, and he shows no evidence whatsoever of truly giving a fuck about the pain and suffering and the death and destruction that he has caused needlessly, which makes him evil. And combating evil begins at home. Update (Friday, Oct. 7, 2005): Shortly after I posted this I saw this news story from AFP: U.S. President George W. Bush allegedly said God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, a new BBC documentary will reveal, according to details. Bush made the claim when he met Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas and then foreign minister Nabil Shaath in June 2003, the ministers told the documentary series to be broadcast in Britain later this month. The U.S. leader also told them he had been ordered by God to create a Palestinian state, the ministers said. Shaath, now the Palestinian information minister, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq..." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me: "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God, I'm gonna do it.'" Abbas, who was also at the meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, recalled how the president told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state." A BBC spokesman said the content of the program had been put to the White House but it had refused to comment on a private conversation. The three-part series, "Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs," charts the attempts to bring peace to the Middle East, from former U.S. President Bill Clinton's peace talks in 1999-2000 to Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The program speaks to presidents and prime ministers, their generals and ministers, about what happened behind closed doors as the peace talks failed and the intifada grew. The series is due to be screened in Britain on October 10, 17 and 24. If Bush really believes that God speaks to him, then we have a modern-day Caligula on our hands. OK, we know -- we have known for a while now -- that we have a modern-day Caligula on our hands. The question is: Can we afford to wait until Bush's second term is up? Hopefully, we can remove him bloodlessly, through impeachment. 7:42:49 PM    Comments []

Memo to 'President' Bush: We've already sacrificed way too much for you and your cronies, motherfucker! Let's see: George W. Bush's illegal, immoral, unprovoked and imperialist invasion of and subsequent occupation of Iraq -- which was based on his regime's fucking LIE that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction -- has bankrupted the nation, killed almost 2,000 of our soldiers, killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, and has made the United States much more susceptible, not less susceptible, to terrorist attacks in the future. But that's not enough, Bush said today. No, he said, we Americans need to sacrifice even more for the bogus war that his unelected regime started in Iraq.* I have a much better fucking idea: How about Bush and Cheney and Cheney's Halliburton and the other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp start sacrificing? When's the last fucking time that one of the stupid evil greedy rich white men who are running -- and ruining -- this nation ever fucking sacrificed anything? How dare they ask us Americans to sacrifice even more than they already have stolen from us? When are we going to take up pitchforks and torches and baseball bats and take our nation back from these reptiles who not only rob us blind, but then tell us that we should give them even more? Just asking. *He stated: "Wars are not won without sacrifice, and this war will require more sacrifice, more time and more resolve." 7:09:37 PM    Comments []

Bush puppeteer Karl Rove, shown left (we know, Karl, we know!), and/or "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, right, might soon join Tom "I Am Not a Crook" DeLay in the High-Ranking Repugnican Indictee Hall of Fame. And the new and not-so-improved House majority leader, Roy Blunt of Missouri, below, was involved with DeLay in what The Associated Press describes as a campaign-finance "carousel." Repugnican implosion continues The unelected Bush regime has done damage to the nation and to the world that will take years, perhaps even generations, to repair, but at long last the regime is imploding. It looks like Tricky Tom DeLay's successor as House majority leader, Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, is crooked, too, according to The Associated Press, which describes a "financial carousel" that benefited both Blunt and DeLay. Reports the AP: Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes. When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press. Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture. The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates. Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor. The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed. "These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred. None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time. DeLay has temporarily stepped aside as majority leader after being indicted by a Texas [grand jury]. Spokesmen for the two Republican leaders say they disclosed what was required by law at the time and believe all their transactions were legal, though donors might not always have know where their money was headed. ...Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House. The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny. [The whole complicated, spider-webby news story here.] Something tells me this mess will be untangled and even more indictments of high-ranking Repugnicans will follow. Speaking of indictments of high-ranking Repugnicans, the special prosecutor investigating the leak of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame's identity to the media is to announce any time now whether he will bring indictments in the matter. Possible indictees are Bush puppeteer Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Reports Reuters: The federal prosecutor investigating who leaked the identity of a CIA operative is expected to signal within days whether he intends to bring indictments in the case, legal sources close to the investigation said [yesterday]. As a first step, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was expected to notify officials by letter if they have become targets, said the lawyers, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. Fitzgerald could announce plea agreements, bring indictments, or conclude that no crime was committed. By the end of this month he is expected to wrap up his nearly two-year-old investigation into who leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. The inquiry has ensnared President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The White House had long maintained that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leak but reporters have since named them as sources. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by Fitzgerald. In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a target. Libby's lawyer was not immediately available to comment. "It's an ongoing investigation and we're fully cooperating," said Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride. The outcome of the investigation could shake up an administration already reeling from criticism over its response to Hurricane Katrina and the indictment of House Republican leader Tom DeLay on a conspiracy charge related to campaign financing. New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to the grand jury on Friday about the conversations she had with Libby. Plame's diplomat husband, Joseph Wilson, has accused the administration of leaking her name, damaging her ability to work undercover, to get back at him for criticizing Bush's Iraq policy. Fitzgerald's agreement to limit the scope of Miller's testimony to her conversations with Libby -- a proposal he rejected a year earlier -- suggested that Libby had become "the focus of interest," said one of the lawyers involved in the case. After initially promising to fire anyone found to have leaked information in the case, Bush in July offered a more qualified pledge: "If someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration." My guess is that we'll see shortly whether Bush will keep that promise, and I'm surprised that the Repugs haven't launched personal attacks upon Fitzgerald -- yet. 6:42:25 AM    Comments []