lost socks' politics & indie music blog: lost socks' political blog

Vets Support Bush...WHY?

Tue, 03 Aug 2004 22:30:55 GMT

   I'm not really sure how Vets can really support Bush over Kerry. Bush lies to have wars and fights them on the cheap, with mercenaries getting paid three times what soldiers do. Soldiers come back with mysterious illnesses and the government then cuts military benefits. How the fuck could ANY veteran support that? Oh...and Bush and Cheney and most of their cabinet and advisors have never had to fight in any wars because of their privileged connections!
   Kerry DID fight even though he didn't think we should be in Vietnam because his country called him to. When he saw how horrible the war really was and how ill-considered it was, he had the conviction to speak against it to end the killing on both sides. Somehow ending needless soldier deaths is seen by many people as being unsupportive to the troops. You'd think anyone could see the flaw in such logic: especially actual troops. Wanting troops not to die just so rich people can snag more oil is not treasonous. If people can't see that then I guess all hope is lost.

The Commission's Report Revisited (The End Of The Story part 2)

Tue, 03 Aug 2004 00:36:37 GMT

Here is some absolutely essential reading offering evidence that the 9/11 commission report is at best woefully incomplete and sadly it seems that is completely on purpose. Perhaps as I wrote in my last post, they just didn't want to ruffle any feathers but it's clear the report is a joke at the expense of our national security. As long as nobody's feelings get hurt I guess...interesting that there's been nary a peep in the oh-so-liberal media about these substantiated allegations. Maybe the liberal media is really the right-wing media...anyway, here's Sibel Edmonds...

The End Of The Story...

Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:53:12 GMT

   Well...the 9/11 commission report came out. That must be that...Just because the thing was chaired by both Democrats and Republicans: two groups who would have to work together to make sure nothing too embarassing to either side would appear...I thought the thing might be mildly incomplete...seeing as they didn't address any of the ties the Huffman flight school had to drug trafficking or the DEA being told to stay clear of what might be going on there...that might be embarassing. They wouldn't want to interview anyone who knew Mohamed Atta or anything (except the owner of the flight school who was conveniently deported so as to avoid any real questioning...oh I mean on an immigration violation)...just one footnote appears from Sibel Edmonds' testimony after she blew the whistle on FBI incompetence (for which they fired her despite earlier denials about that fact)...
   Of course the right wingers will focus on the passage that someone from Saddam's government supposedly offered Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq (page 66)...let's just assume that it's true (as the government never lies and Chalabi and his pals are all truth-tellers not that this passage is footnoted of course)...THAT proves this war was worth it. It doesn't matter how badly things go, it's great we invaded. So let's just forget any possible cover up; we're too brainwashed to believe it anyway. All left wing books are shit you see and liberals are all the same and they don't read (REAL stuff like Hannity or the Weekly Standard you see...anything liberal is by definition bullshit and wrong and must be based on lies but all conservative literature is of course true and never inaccurate or misleading)...right wingers win the debate by not allowing one to take place...it's better to shout and interrupt and rather than answer a question just arrogantly yell "There you go...typical liberal thing to say...you're an idiot! You don't know anything! You're so arrogant!" It's a method that could perhaps be called the "O'Reilly Factor": just don't allow your enemy to speak and if he questions the right wing view call him a traitor and shut off his mic...
   See...Kerry's a traitor for questioning the Vietnam war. How dare peace protesters say "bring the troops home now"; it's much much more supportive to leave them to die for reasons they haven't even been told. If they don't believe in the war but still fight, that's just them doing their duty as good soldiers: unless of course they're John Kerry in which case he's a man of no principles for not refusing to fight which if he had he'd be a traitor for you see...As always, it's ok if a Republican does anything but if a Democrat does it it's wrong. Republicans apparently operate on a higher moral ground where the things they do must be for a greater good somehow because they're Republicans even if what they do is identical to the thing a Democrat does. Some call that hypocrisy; of course it's only hypocrisy when a liberal were to use such moral relativism.
   Right-wingers at best are just a mirror image of all they despise about the left. They call the left closed-minded while being closed-minded themselves. The only reason what they do is different is because they KNOW THEY'RE RIGHT. How they know THAT nobody knows of course but they just KNOW it. So liberals must suck. Disagree and the right'll shout you down. They can't speak at a normal level or without interrupting.

Bush Calls You (and me) Stupid

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:25:22 GMT

Republicans think Americans are stupid. How else can one explain the distribution of bumper stickers in Kentucky saying "Kerry is bin Laden's Man. Bush is Mine"? The sad part is that Kentucky folks are buying 'em up like crazy! Despite the FACT that Bush has ties to Osama's family and has been funded largely in part by the SAME PEOPLE who fund fucking OSAMA, BUSH somehow is the good guy and Kerry inexplicably is Bin Laden's man! Now it gets MORE insulting:
"After four years more in this office I want people to look back and say, 'The world is a more peaceful place,"' Bush told supporters at a community college in Iowa. "Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be at peace."
Yeah...they think we're preeeeeeety stupid. Is the world more peaceful now? Has Bush been paying attention during "his" term? Maybe Bush means "four more years and the world will be over so there will be no threat to the US anymore and there will be world peace" because otherwise what kind of moron could even say this shit with a straight face?...cause the world's SURE on the right track! Of course we'll be safe in four more years! Now that EVERYONE hates us...we'll just invade them all and put US friendly leaders in to love us. PLEASE don't prove these bastards right. Let's not be stupid enough to swallow more of their crap. It's really beyond insulting at this point.

The State Of The Nation

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:44:40 GMT

The great thing about America is the freedom of speech! So here's a heartwarming story featuring Linda Ronstadt...makes ya proud to be an American! If of course, she'd been booted for anti-Arab comments (which she probably wouldn't be), people would be crying CENSORSHIP and she'd become a right-wing martyr...

The World Is Better Off Without Saddam So All MUST Be OK...

Sat, 17 Jul 2004 00:36:23 GMT

   A lot of people will argue that it doesn't really matter if the war was based on faulty intelligence (or perhaps outright lies) because the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Even if this were true, that does not justify an administration misleading the American people to justify starting a war. Is there anyone alive who thinks we felt we needed to remove Saddam because of his horrible treatment of his own people? When he gassed the Kurds, did we care then? Most of the same people ran the government then as do now! We didn't mind when he gassed the Iranians right? We normalized relations with the bastard and enabled US companies to SELL him the chemicals for weapons! That was Donald Rumsfeld who helped with that! We also gave weapons to Iran to use against Saddam at the same time!
   So let's get off that moral bullshit high horse that we wanted to remove Saddam because he's bad. We not only knew he was bad but we helped him in his badness. Is it only wrong to use chemical weapons when it's on your own people? Why is it okay that our leaders lied to us to go to war? Would we be there if it weren't for the oil? NO! Our own intelligence community knew that Powell's speech was wildly inaccurate and misleading. Did we try to stop genocide in Rwanda? How about East Timor? NO!
Why not? Those genocides were less bad somehow? No oil. LYING TO GO TO WAR IS BAD. HOW CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT? OUR GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING MONEY OFF THIS WAR. THEY LIED TO GET TO MAKE THIS MONEY AND NONE OF THEIR FAMILIES ARE PAYING WITH THEIR LIVES BECAUSE OF IT.
   Somehow it is less bad to people that WE have had a hand in the deaths of some 10,000 Iraqis that it would be if Saddam did it. Why is it less bad when WE torture innocent people than when Saddam does it? WHY?...and about that other thing...that the world is better off without Saddam. If he were vaporized and a democracy took over and everyone lived happily ever after then yes. But at what cost does it become NOT worth it to have Saddam gone? Are the Iraqi people better off now than they were before? Are they safer? Do they have more jobs or more food or more electricity? It seems like they have less of all these things.
Is the rest of the world safer? Now there's a whole new generations of ready-to-be-terrorists in training. They hate us for what they deem our arrogance and think we hate Islam and Muslims and want to kill them. How are we better off there? The rest of the world doesn't like us much either. Great. Saddam hadn't attempted to do anything outside of his own borders in ten years and none of his neighbors thought the war was necessary. Are they better off now?...now that Iraq is swimming with terrorism and fundamentalism (and if there really WERE any WMD's does anyone think the terrorists can't get at them now????). WHO is better off now?
   Osama will have more recruits to his cause. So I guess he's better off. Oh...and Bush has milked the whole thing for all he's been able to. Without the "war on terror" he was a joke. This all made him seem credible to some people. Of course his cabinet of military industry and oil folks have benefitted too. They've profited handsomely and kept the specifics of their no-bid contracts to themselves. They've gotten the contracts to rebuild the Iraq they destroyed. Does anyone wonder who will make a windfall when the oil starts really flowing? How can anyone not have a problem with all this? Someone please enlighten me here?

Cheney On The Ticket?

Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:33:43 GMT

Who cares if they dump Cheney from the ticket? It's not like anyone voted for Feith or Wolfowitz or Perle but these extremist dream-mongers framed Republican policy and helped push us into a war of choice that's proving disastrous for everyone. Whether Cheney's on the ticket or not, does anyone doubt he'll still be more than a little involved in running things?

Dennis Miller Still Sucks...and Gay People Are OK To Mock!

Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:18:35 GMT

   Dennis Miller is a pretty good representative for the Republicans huh...he's got that hypocrite thing down pat! Whoopi gets screwed for making a joke about "Bush" but it's okay to mockingly call Bush's opponents gay...Yeah...Kerry and Edwards are gay...hee heee...that's some funny ass shit...cause being gay is bad of course and gay people shouldn't be elected into office...luckily no Republicans are gay...not that they MIND gay people! Gay people just shouldn't be allowed to have the same rights as straight people is all...but they should be free to vote Republican...even though they're sick and wrong!
   That's why we must protect marriage from them! Though most of the right-wingers in our government have had extramarital affairs and many surely treat their wives like shit, they have the moral constitution to DEFEND MARRIAGE! Do as we say not as we do! This pro-marriage position (again...they don't mind gay people or anything!) has NOTHING to do with political opportunity! It isn't just a useful wedge issue to get people to forget their family members sent to war to make our leaders richer!...far FROM it!
   It's all about defending marriage from those AWFUL gay people (though we have no problem with gay people as long as they shut up and stay in P-town!...or are hot lesbians!)...though we won't let them marry we won't include language in the constitutional bill that explicitly denies gay couples equal rights with straight married people...we just won't include anything GIVING them rights! It's just about the definition of marriage...maybe sometime we'll let the gay couples gain some of the rights of straight married couples!...if they're really good and stop trying to advance their activist agenda!

Dick Cheney For President...No Elections Required...

Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:29:52 GMT

Once again Dick Cheney's throwing out the attacks on Kerry and Edwards. He's certainly good at this as he's unencumbered by any of that "compassionate conservatism" he and his puppet President ran on...

Kerry and Edwards reviewed the same prewar intelligence on Iraq that was given to President Bush, and both supported the decision to go to war, Cheney said. Last week, a Senate panel determined that intelligence was flawed.

"Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia"...

I guess Cheney probably remembers his own trips to the CIA to grease the wheels of intelligence to tell him what he wanted to hear...He may also remember his and Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans which was put together to hand-pick intelligence bits to support his administration's Iraqi WMD claims...and now you may have heard that the Bush administration (ie Cheney) is looking for ways to postpone the Presidential election this November in case of terror threats...yup...pretty convenient huh? Whatever happened to that whole "we won't let the terrorists interrupt our way of life" stuff? If Al Qaeda wants to stop our democratic system, why would we do it for them? How could any terror attack disrupt the entire country's electoral system??? That would literally require inside help and coordination...what is Cheney helping them plan the stuff?...or is his little election postponement gonna do the trick without any actual terrorism required?
How are we gonna justify this to ourselves to keep supporting this administration at any cost? Will their saying "freedom" enough make up for the fact that they will have taken our freedoms away? Are we smart enough to see it?

Hey America! Dick Cheney Thinks You're Stupid!

Sun, 04 Jul 2004 19:23:56 GMT

On this Independance Day, let's take a moment to think about why the founders of our nation broke free from the tyranny of the King. It was for the freedoms our present leaders seem to hope we take for granted. They say "freedom" a lot but they think we're stupid and hope that we'll stay afraid enough of terrorists (let's raise the terror level...there's been CHATTER but no credible threat...stay scared!) to let our ruling tories steal from us like their role models used to a little over two hundred years ago.
It's clear that this November, Dick Cheney's counting on the American people to be stupid. How else can one explain his patronizing tone telling us of Kerry, "His big idea for cheering up the country? Raise your taxes". Dick thinks Americans are too stupid to realize all the real "tax relief" went to the richest people in the nation ("my base" as Bush has called them). To bash Kerry:

He cited Kerry's votes against a ban on flag-burning, tax relief and banning what opponents call partial birth abortion.

Yeah...Kerry hates the working class so he voted against tax relief. It couldn't be that the relief was going to the wrong people or that the bill had other right-wing crap bundled in with it...no...it's that he's eeeeevil! Let's face it, flag-burning is a non-issue. We all know it. Anyone who burns the flag to make some point is instantly viewed as an idiot jerk by both righties and lefties alike. Contrary to the rhetoric, liberals overwhelmingly like the flag too and think burning it is dumb. It's not however a real issue at a time when the present administration is robbing the nation blind, sending poor people (with no other option than military service) off to die for oil (when our leaders avoided serving in their day), and leaving the country in massive debt, despised by all other people in the world. These are REAL issues, not some get-up-in-arms-emotional stuff like flag-burning. Abortion is a different story of course but it still doesn't affect people like the issues Dick would rather not discuss. Dick Cheney could give two shits about what happens to unborn babies or babies once they're born or teenagers or adults with outsourced jobs or old people he tricks with joke prescription drug plans; he only brings abortion up to get votes from religious people. He cares not for the people, just the votes. Hopefully the people won't be stupid enough to give that bastard what he wants so he can just screw them to the wall for another four years.

Using My Religionnnnnn...and Bill Frist's Moral Relativism (maybe he's a librul!)

Fri, 02 Jul 2004 10:39:57 GMT

Why is it that the right-wing fundamentalist nuts have such a big problem with gay people (the Bible's against it you see...) but none of these people keep kosher? When did Jesus (a JEW by the way GASP**) say "Thou shalt not have to keep kosher anymore...but that gay thing still stands"?...and those rules forbidding mixing different fabrics together?...why don't any born-agains enforce that one? It's just more of the world's religions' favorite pastime: use -insert holy text here- to justify whatever we want and ignore the parts that don't.
Wasn't it entertaining last week to listen to Republicans defend Cheney's indefensible potty-mouth!? Bill Frist shows his true colors here...just imAgine the uproar that would ensue if say...ANY Democrat did the same thing to a Republican...do ya think Mr. Frist would defend the Democrat by saying "It's a political season right now, where partisan feelings and emotions have come to the surface itself"? How transparently weak and pathetic can you get? I guess this must be just one more step in elevating the political discourse...putting ethics above politics...what a crock.

This Makes Watergate Look Like Less Than Nothing

Thu, 01 Jul 2004 00:20:25 GMT

Well, this might be the scariest thing I've read in a while...It sounds pretty legit but the gist is that the Mohammad Atta we've been given is all lies and there was pretty serious complicity in the upper reaches of our government. I guess there's a lot more in Daniel Hopsicker's book Welcome To Terrorland. Read this...

More Bush-shitt

Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:11:36 GMT

There's an interesting article here about the corruption of the despicable Tom Delay and the new inquiry into his actions. Also in the last few days the decision came by the FDA not to allow the new emergency contraception pill Plan B to be sold over-the-counter (ie without a prescription). This means people with limited incomes will have to shell out for costly doctor visits to get the drug and girls under 18 will not be able to get the pill without parents getting involved.

The FDA's own experts voted overwhelmingly to approve the drug for non-prescription purchase but The White House was able to exert enough pressure to stop the move. See...according to an NPR broadcast I heard on the subject, the religious zealots don't think there has been enough research done to allow such approval...of course when they WANT to ram something through, they merely argue that there's not enough data to STOP it from going through!!!!! Think about GMO (genetically modified organism) foods for example...they do as little research as they possibly can before approving those...we'll assume they're safe until people start dying but when the scientific community agrees that a drug is safe: we don't have enough information!...and Bushies hope WE NEVER DO! It might encourage girls to have sex you see...no one ever has sex unless they have emergency contraception...or condoms...gotta keep those away from young people or they might just have sex! Keep them in the dark about birth control and safer sex and they'll wait till marriage like good boys and girls...just like our esteemed President did!

This is just another politicized and religi-cized issue manipulated by corrupt faux moralists that tries to make them look moral while merely serving to undermine public health and young women's lives. Non-marital sex is un-Christian see...(which is why the sex-trade is excitedly preparing for the Republican convention!) luckily however, killing (and sending the poor to GET killed) for the goodness of oil and military profits is apparently not.

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:22:22 GMT

It's been a while since I've written...It just gets so depressing following this stuff and writing about it. I don't always see the point in writing so five people can read it and either agree or disagree with my perspective based on what they already think. Does anyone really change anyone's mind very often? I don't know why everyone can't see what's going on. You get John Ashcroft saying Al Qaeda is 90% ready to strike again but of course...there's no way we can know how or when or where that'll be...we just know somehow the percentage of readiness they are to attack us. Hey Mr. Ashcroft! If you know soooooo much about the terrorists' preparation, why not stop them before it happens? Maybe you're planning to stop them but not before scaring us into extending your draconian Patriot Act right?...pretty slick...but we're not supposed to notice the obvious here I guess...

Also...if we all know the voting machines are designed by partisan Republicans who have declared their intention to "deliver" Ohio (and I'd assume logically other states too) to Bush, since they've been shown to be easy to hack into, what's to stop a smart soul who's NOT a right-wing scumbag from hacking in and just delivering the election to Kerry? At least then there will need to be another election with machines with paper trails so the whole thing'll be fair. Perhaps that'll happen. I think I'll go write about music for a change. It's been a while since I wrote there either...

Bill O'Reilly: Strategist!

Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:17:38 GMT

A lot of people think Bill O'Reilly is kind of an idiot. Perhaps it's because of articles like this in which Bill argues that we should fight terror the way Genghis Khan would. Bill wants us to model ourselves after one of the most notorious and infamous warriors in history. We have the gall to act like we're going to civilize the Arab world with our enlightened ways yet we're supposed to model our war strategy off of a heartless warrior of conquest. Is Bill saying we really ARE in a war of conquest or something?

Here's an excerpt:

Writing in The New York Times, Elizabeth Alexander, the director of the National Prison Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said this: "The Pentagon-approved interrogation techniques that deprive prisoners of sleep and force them to stand in stress positions for extended periods are both disturbing and illegal. It is time for the military to unequivocally ban such officially sanctioned abuse of prisoners."

Make no mistake, the ACLU wants captured terrorists to have the same rights as American criminals do.

See...Bill just KNOWS that anyone arrested by American soldiers simply must be a terrorist. There's no need for evidence or a trial or anything! So since they're terrorists it's ok to abuse them! They might be able to give us info about other "terrorists" like themselves! What Mr. O'Reilly doesn't have the brainpower to deduce is that simply calling someone a terrorist does not MAKE them one! DUH. So we're supposed to be bringing our wonderful justice system over there having overthrown the evil dictator and all...and we don't feel the need to follow the system when we arrest Iraqi citizens! Way to win them hearts and minds...

How does O'Reilly make such a leap anyway? Just because you arrest someone means they're a terrorist? Why do people take this joker seriously? He has about as good an idea how to lead this war as the idiots who planned the thing...

Let's Bring Free Elections To Iraq AND The US !

Fri, 21 May 2004 15:12:13 GMT

People criticize the treatment of Iraqi prisoners but it's clear that we're going to give them a better system of democracy than we have here at home! Take this quote:

"The people he puts forward, we believe will be good representatives of an interim caretaker government until such time the Iraqis can hold free, fair and open elections" in January, McClellan said.

Here at home WE don't get such elections! Shouldn't we allow blacks in Florida to vote unencumbered? Shouldn't all votes get counted? Shouldn't we require a paper trail so these machines designed by Bush supporters' Diebold can be proven to be fair and to ensure that votes are recorded and tallied properly?! I don't know how McClellan can say this shit without laughing!

Abused Journalists Part 2

Fri, 21 May 2004 13:05:44 GMT

Well, I guess you should just disregard my last post as an "investigation" has cleared the soldiers accused of abusing the Reuters and NBC journalists...I guess that must mean the allegations were untrue...and I guess as long as the pictures aren't leaked to that pesky press then the allegations will remain untrue...sure is easier to deny things when there aren't any pictures, isn't it!...and I love this quote:

Cummings said all detainees, including the journalists, were given a routine medical screening, which included being undressed and having all body cavities examined.

That's not MY idea of a "routine medical screening"! Better look up my ass to make sure there's no germs in there!

A Few Bad Apples...and a Few Abused Journalists (it's ok...they're Iraqi!)

Wed, 19 May 2004 23:40:36 GMT

People are saying the "few bad apples" theory is looking absurd...I say it holds up...it's just that the apples in question are the scumbags running our government and military policy: Bush and his puppeteers like Cheney and Rummy and Feith and Rice and Wolfowitz...ok that's more than a FEW then...rotten to the core no?...

Meanwhile...word comes out that our forces have been abusing journalists working for Reuters and NBC! The abuses are of the same nature as those at Abu Gharib. At least the abusers aren't biased in their abuse. They'll treat ANY Iraqi this way...not just the supposed insurgents. Maybe they're just telling us that ALL Iraqis are insurgents at heart so we better squeeze some info out of 'em...They gotta know something juicy...

I mean...I'm sure the planners of this war are a lot smarter than I am...Things appear to be going so well after all...but I hesitate to see how abusing random Iraqi's is going to help our cause to win people over and prove that we're there to help them. These were fucking JOURNALISTS. At least ask them a few questions before you start torturing them! Then you might see that torturing them is really just a waste of time. Or perhaps Rummy WANTS us abusing journalists?? This White House isn't exactly big on the media or free speech (unless it's lapdogs like Rush or speech freely criticizing Democrats or libruls). I also don't quite get how treating people like they did in Abu Gharib is going to help extract information from someone who has no information to extract. Picking up random people and torturing them seems a pretty fucked up way to get useful information. What are they supposed to do if they have nothing to tell? Make something up? When well over 50% if not 90% of people are arrested by mistake, it doesn't take a genius of Wolfowitz's caliber to determine that beating the shit out of people isn't gonna help you learn anything...but it just might piss off the whole populace of the nation you're "liberating"...If anyone thinks Kerry could do any worse and that a change in leadership could hurt anything then I want whatever they're on...or their job at Halliburton.

Winning Their Hearts And Minds...

Fri, 14 May 2004 13:24:50 GMT

What difference does it make whose custody Berg was in: US or puppet Iraqi with constant visits by the FBI? It's all really US controlled anyway obviously and they could have gotten Berg out if they'd wanted. The fact that they're so adamant about this little irrelevant fact means they obviously have something to hide! What is it? The Bush administration loves to use this tactic: "Oh it was a CONTRACTOR who tortured that prisoner. WE had nothing to do with it!". Conveniently the contractor doesn't have the same restrictions as a soldier, as we know. What was the motive in the Berg case?

Also, what was the motive in filming and taking pictures of the abuse in Abu Gharib? If it was just to humilitate the prisoners (who were mostly wrongly imprisoned; that's called "winning their hearts and minds" I guess) then why not just pretend to take them. The prisoners were wearing fucking masks anyway? No...they were planning to show these pictures to somebody. They were supposedly ordered to pose for them (at least that's what their legal defense teams are saying). That would imply that these were not just for some sick scrapbook for the perpetrators to take home to remember ol' times. These pictures must have been for winning their hearts and minds" I guess.

The worst part is obviously that this shit has happened and could still be happening for all we know but people probably just won't record it for posterity. I have a feeling that prisoners telling of their horrible treatment later on or disappearing permanently to prevent their talking about it may not win many hearts or minds...nor will the fact that many of the abused-if not most-were arrested by mistake...guilty until proven innocent I guess or since they're generally not even charged with anything, guilty until released or killed. This ain't the American way; it's more like Saddam's way.

Another Question For Our Leaders To Ignore

Thu, 13 May 2004 23:03:32 GMT

OK...a lot of the facts surrounding the Berg murder are pretty iffy but it appears the FBI questioned him in Mosul. The US claims that Berg was held by Iraqi and not US forces. If the US authorities really visited him three times, why didn't they take him from Iraqi custody? The guy was American! Why leave him in Iraqi custody? The only reason I can think of was because it was fortuitous for the US to do so. He was expendable. He and his family were already on right wing watch lists for not toeing the neo-Conservative party line.
Who knows who killed him? It doesn't take a genius to see who gains from it though does it? The Iraqi/Al Qaeda terrorists who supposedly did it? Now they just look more bloodthirsty and horrible than the US forces who tortured Iraqi prisoners! How does that help them? It does however help the US military shift media focus from its own evils. The whole "intercepted letter" thing seems pretty convenient doesn't it?...just like finding Mohammad Atta's passport among the wreckage of the World Trade Center though obviously not quite as statistically impossible. All I know is there must be a pretty good reason why US forces left Berg in Iraqi custody...so...what is it?

Thu, 13 May 2004 00:36:07 GMT

It's more than a little disheartening to know that people like Rumsfeld are in positions of real power. Here's a guy who says that the Geneva Convention does apply to people captured in Iraq but not Guantanamo since they're terrorists being held there.

``Terrorists don't comply with the laws of war. They go around killing innocent civilians,'' Rumsfeld added.

Luckily the US forces haven't killed any innocent civilians (otherwise Rummy might be a bit of a hypocrite!)!

Of course there's no need to give these Guantanamo people access to lawyers or human rights workers! In our divine power of perfect judgement we KNOW they are terrorists and have not been arrested by mistake! Obviously! We'd never hold anyone indefinitely doing who knows what to them unless they were guilty right? Same must go in Iraq where the Red Cross estimates that up to 90% of detainees have been mistakenly imprisoned. We can't make mistakes! Of course...we now know mistakes were made in the past ok...but Rumsfeld only knew about that a few months ago! How was HE to know they'd get caught!?...and I guess it's only the contractors who should be torturing people not the military! The contractors aren't bogged down by that pesky international law!...and this treatment of Iraqi prisoners couldn't possibly make US POW's less safe! Donald Rumsfeld told me so! The higher officers got a sweet gig! Tell the subordinates to do shit to prisoners. They have to follow orders or they're in trouble! Now that they got caught they're ALSO in trouble. But the superiors aren't...they had no idea! Man...what a sweet deal they got runnin'...

Censorship Isn't Un-American! It's Grrrrrreat!

Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:39:49 GMT

So the Pentagon's mad because photos of flag-draped coffins are circulating and made it to the front page of a major newspaper. They have regulations against this see...It's important not to humanize the war. We should NEVER remember that it's a war...where people get killed and end up in coffins. If the American people see pictures of such coffins they might become terrorists or something. We must support the troops by forgetting that they get killed in war and when what remains of their dismembered bodies gets back, we should bury them as quickly as possible lest the ignorant decide maybe war isn't such a great idea, even when waged for such iron-clad reasons by such forthright and honest individuals as our leaders.

Of course, the woman who took the picture has lost her job now...some might call this government-mandated ban on such photos "censorship"...perhaps that would be because such a ban is clearly censorship. Viva freedom.

Hypocrites On The So-Called Left

Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:55:30 GMT

I always wondered how James Carville could be such a Democrat and be married to Mary Matalin. Some suggested it was all for publicity. Now I hear from the Monster Limo Weblog that he's working with Venezuelan businessmen to try to oust "Democratically" elected Hugo Chavez. The businessmen don't like his leftist policies which favor people over their greed. Carville's just another hypocrite. Great.

Short Attention Spans....

Sat, 10 Apr 2004 23:13:15 GMT

"Sadly, the commission's public hearings have allowed those with political axes to grind, like Richard Clarke, to play shamelessly to the partisan gallery of liberal special interests seeking to bring down the president," Mr. McConnell said.

Thus spake Mitch McConnell about the 9/11 hearings and the motivations of those who might question the almighty ignorance of the Bush administration. I wonder perchance if Mr. McConnell was alive during the long ago Clinton impeachment hearings? Those seemed more than a little partisan to me...I guess the GOP would have gone after say... President Bush, if he lied under oath about having an affair. That is a pretty big deal to the integrity of our nation and our safety after all. This 9/11 thing is merely an inquiry into the single most horrific attack in US history...nothing really IMPORTANT like having an affair.

I wonder what Mitchy-poo would say to that? I guess I'm being PARTISAN here sorry 'bout that.

Our Leaders Will Not Be Swayed By Terror!...cause they're home safe in their bunkers

Mon, 05 Apr 2004 04:08:59 GMT

One popular Conservative rebuttal to the statement that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq is "if you had YOUR way Saddam would still be in power". This is supposed to diffuse any argument that this invasion may have not been a great idea. I'd like to ask the person using this rebuttal if he would willingly have given his life to see Saddam overthrown. If he knew he wouldn't return from Iraq alive or ever see his family again, would he have willingly volunteered to fight in Iraq? I think we all know the answer, don't we.

See it's all good and well to have wars when you aren't the one dying. Of COURSE our government's determination to stay in Iraq isn't going to falter when terrorists attack our troops: OUR GOVERNMENT ISN'T FIGHTING THE WAR! These people are mostly draft dodgers! They're ordering OTHER peoples' kids to go off and die for their misguided reasons. The soldiers don't have a choice. What gives assholes like Cheney the right to dodge Vietnam and then send kids off to a bullshit war to make him and his buddies even richer? The worst part is that the people calling the shots are seen as legitimate leaders BECAUSE they get to call the shots! Their position makes them seem legitimate! If anyone doubts them then they're called a traitor or unpatriotic though these people are the ones who declined to fight and now think nothing of sending other peoples' kids off to fight for them.

YES it matters if the reasons for the war were made up or at best made on bad intelligence! People are DYING for this shit! It's never the people making the decisions who are getting shot at. If it WERE, there simply would not be so many wars like this one. WAKE UP PEOPLE! The traitors are the people who order people to be maimed and die for no good reason other than their own warped ideologies and desire to make lots of money off of other people's blood.