Fair warning: this will probably piss you off.
The Rolling Stone presents: The Great Iraq Swindle.
Let me boil it down for you.
Step 1: Choose government officials not by experience, but by political affiliation and in particular loyalty to the administration.
Step 2: Deceive the public into channeling their 9/11 anger into a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Intentionally ignore the mountain of evidence indicating an Iraq invasion would be nothing short of a quagmire, even if it's the very evidence once used to justify keeping Saddam Hussein in power after the first Persian Gulf War, even if said explanation came out of the mouth of one of the second war's biggest proponents. Despite knowing the exact opposite is true, tell the American public that the war will be payed for by Iraqi oil, that the whole enterprise will take less than 6 months, and that we'll be greeted as liberators.
Step 3: Create a coalition of the coerced, and go to war with just over a third of the troops recommended by the military's top generals.
Step 4: Privatize EVERYTHING. Put all the military specialists on the battlefield and replace them with contractors who will pay civilians twice as much to do the same job half as well. Hire mercenaries to handle some of the security as well.
Step 5: When the contractors defraud the taxpayer, refuse to prosecute them.
Step 6: Profit!
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The Trouble with Impeachment
This is an excellent article outlining some good reasons for Nancy Pelosi to keep impeachment off the table for the time being: The Trouble with Impeachment. Fox Noise warning: it's posted on a known liberal, left-wing website!
However grudgingly, I have to agree with Meyerson that impeaching Bush and Cheney is simply too encumbered by partisanship to possibly succeed. I certainly didn't want to accept that, as it really just illustrates the inadequacy and ignorance of the people who elect our representatives, but hey, nothing new there.
But how about something a little more pragmatic? Impeaching Dick Cheney alone would be a show of force against executive malfeasance, and could very well be an achievable scenario. As Meyerson mentioned, Cheney's not the most popular kid on the Republican playground at the moment, and his political capital, along with his credibility, is more than likely completely spent by now.
Congressional Republicans would save some face by spinning Cheney as a lone bad apple, they'd keep their president, and most importantly for them, Nancy Pelosi, a woman Republicans scorn as the epitome of tax and spend, welfare state, morally bankrupt, left-wing nutjobs, would not assume the presidency. They'd probably filibuster to keep Darth Vader in power if San Fransisco Nancy was the only alternative.
So while I agree with Meyerson's assessment, I think Cheney's currently the low hanging fruit (rotted out, to be sure), and should be picked the next time he proposes we attack Iran.
However grudgingly, I have to agree with Meyerson that impeaching Bush and Cheney is simply too encumbered by partisanship to possibly succeed. I certainly didn't want to accept that, as it really just illustrates the inadequacy and ignorance of the people who elect our representatives, but hey, nothing new there.
But how about something a little more pragmatic? Impeaching Dick Cheney alone would be a show of force against executive malfeasance, and could very well be an achievable scenario. As Meyerson mentioned, Cheney's not the most popular kid on the Republican playground at the moment, and his political capital, along with his credibility, is more than likely completely spent by now.
Congressional Republicans would save some face by spinning Cheney as a lone bad apple, they'd keep their president, and most importantly for them, Nancy Pelosi, a woman Republicans scorn as the epitome of tax and spend, welfare state, morally bankrupt, left-wing nutjobs, would not assume the presidency. They'd probably filibuster to keep Darth Vader in power if San Fransisco Nancy was the only alternative.
So while I agree with Meyerson's assessment, I think Cheney's currently the low hanging fruit (rotted out, to be sure), and should be picked the next time he proposes we attack Iran.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Joe Lieberman vs Theodore Roosevelt
Who's right?
Joe said in 2005: "It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril."
Teddy said: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
... or perhaps Joe simply changed his mind...
Joe said in 2003: "In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It’s not about searching for scapegoats; it’s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge."
Funny how his story changes when it's his job on the line. This is one of the reasons I voted for Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic primary and again in the 2006 general election.
Joe said in 2005: "It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril."
Teddy said: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
... or perhaps Joe simply changed his mind...
Joe said in 2003: "In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It’s not about searching for scapegoats; it’s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge."
Funny how his story changes when it's his job on the line. This is one of the reasons I voted for Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic primary and again in the 2006 general election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)