• Entredropper
      Adgitize your web site.

    • open all | close all
    • Enter your Email


      Preview
      | Powered by FeedBlitz

    • Add to Technorati Faves
  • VirusHead 2003-11-21 - Get your own free Blogoversary button!
  • Rate Me on BlogHop.com!
    the best pretty good okay pretty bad the worst help?
  • Blog Catalog
  • Blog Elites
  • 2-Review
  • Blogarama
  • BlogExplosion
  • Bloggernity
  • Bloggapedia
  • BlogHop
  • VARB at BlogMad
    • DreamHost - inexpensive with tons of space and bandwidth, wordpress, jabber - lots of GOODIES and one-click installs included


  • StatCounter

    SiteMeter
  • Posts Tagged ‘George W Bush’

    The Vicki Strategy?


    I don’t know – and I truly don’t care – whether or not John McCain had a “romantic involvement” with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Honestly, I keep expecting him to start referring to her as “that woman.” Give me a break. Can’t we break this obsession with our politicians’ sex lives?

    John and Cindy McCain been married for a long time and been through a lot together, but I can’t help thinking an unkind thing. Cindy McCain reminds me of Cruella DeVille. Blond tresses notwithstanding, Cindy McCain’s bionic eyes on that manni-kin body give me the serious creepy crawlies.

    People had problems with Hillary as First Lady. They ridiculed John Kerry’s wife Teresa. I haven’t really seen any serious coverage of Cindy McCain yet. All I can tell you is that in a very superficial way (I admit it), I’m not liking what I see when I picture her as First Lady. Given what I know about McCain, I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if he was straying.

    Take it further. Vicki Iseman looks a bit like a younger version of Cindy McCain, no? Has no-one noticed the resemblance between these two women? Or are they just too hesitant to say it?


    Vicky Iseman, John McCain, Cindy McCain, Cruella deVille

    It’s easy to think that John McCain simply fits a certain stereotype of the power-drunk man looking to update to the current model, right?

    But somehow that’s not what went through my mind.

    What if that assumption is what drives this whole thing? It’s as though Vicki were made to order.

    What if she were?

    Given the following anecdote about about McCain met (second wife) Cindy, it would be a simple matter to draw up a battle plan that included a kind of mata-hari woman who could “push his buttons.” How do you win friends and influence people in politics? Power, money or charisma – preferably all three, right?

    Cindy and John met in 1979 at a military reception in Honolulu. John: “She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident. I monopolized her attention the entire time, taking care to prevent anyone else from intruding on our conversation. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening’s end, I was in love.”

    If you were highly motivated to influence McCain, wouldn’t it make sense to identify McCain’s likes and dislikes, his attractions and repulsions? With all his rhetoric against lobbying, wouldn’t it be silly not to notice that it might take more than money to move this bear?

    Everything I’ve heard about this story is focussed on the wrong end of it. I think it’s a story about using sexual attraction as one more lobbying strategy. Ask any doctor about the hunks and chicks they send to push the new drugs out onto the market.

    For election coverage, I would prefer to see more criticism of McCain’s actual record. There’s plenty there to examine.

    And please, I beg of you please, please stop using that photo of McCain hugging Bush. Stop using it. I found the whole thing disturbing enough at the time.

    Liar! Last Ditch Fearmongering for Spying and Telecom Immunity


    Keith Olbermann Countdown Special Comment on FISA: “President Bush Is A Liar And A Fascist

    The lot of you, are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic, to whom “Freedom” is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for, when you want to get away with its opposite.

    Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as “protecting America.”Thus, Mr. Bush, your panoramic invasion of privacy is dressed up as “protecting America.”

    Thus, Mr. Bush, your indiscriminate domestic spying becomes the focused monitoring, only of “terrorist communications.”

    Thus, Mr. Bush, what you and the telecom giants have done, isn’t unlawful, it’s just the kind of perfectly legal, passionately patriotic thing for which you happen to need immunity!

    Richard Clarke is on the money, as usual.

    That the President was willing to veto this eavesdropping, means there is no threat to the legitimate counter-terror efforts underway.

    As Senator Kennedy reminded us in December:

    “The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity.

    No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.”


    YouTube Preview Image

    Reject Bush’s Cuts to Public Broadcasting


    Take Action: Tell Congress: Reject Bush’s Cuts to Public Broadcasting

    Once again, President Bush is trying to cripple the public broadcasting system by slashing its funding.

    I just signed a petition to Congress to reject these proposed cuts, and I hope you will too.

    Mr. Rogers would be proud of you.

    In 1969, Richard Nixon attempted to cut PBS funding by 50%. A senate hearing chaired by “hatchetman” Senator John Pastori couldn’t push it through as long as there was someone like Fred Rogers to speak for at least some of the reasons that public broadcasting is important.



    Olbermann on Bush, Cheney, and the Iran NIE


    I had already begun composing my post on the NIE and the question of when the executive branch was actually aware of this information a couple of days ago, but I became so angry that it was counterproductive. I picked it up again this morning, and was a couple of paragraphs into it when I got a link from OpEd News to the Keith Olbermann special commentary (I so wish that we had something more than network television). Chuck Adkins provided a transcript of the comments (via MSNBC). I’ve corrected the transcript a bit.

    My commentary couldn’t be any better than this, folks. Please watch it – and link to it.

    YouTube Preview Image

    Transcript:

    Finally, as promised, a Special Comment about the President’s cataclysmic deceptions about Iran.

    There are few choices more terrifying than the one Mr. Bush has left us with tonight.

    We have either a president who is too dishonest to restrain himself from invoking World War Three about Iran at least six weeks after he had to have known that the analogy would be fantastic, irresponsible hyperbole — or we have a president too transcendently stupid not to have asked — at what now appears to have been a series of opportunities to do so — whether the fairy tales he either created or was fed, were still even remotely plausible.

    A pathological presidential liar, or an idiot-in-chief.

    It is the nightmare scenario of political science fiction: A critical juncture in our history and, contained in either answer, a president manifestly unfit to serve, and behind him in the vice presidency, an unapologetic war-monger who has long been seeing a world visible only to himself.

    After Ms. Perino’s announcement from the White House late last night, the timeline is inescapable and clear now.

    In August the President was told by his hand-picked Majordomo of Intelligence Mike McConnell, a flinty, high-strung-looking, worrying-warrior who will always see more clouds than silver linings, that what “everybody thought” about Iran might, in essence, be crap.

    Yet on October 17th the President said of Iran and its president Ahmadinejad:

    “I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War Three, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon.”

    And as he said that, Mr. Bush knew that at bare minimum there was a strong chance that his rhetoric was nothing more than words with which to scare the Iranians.

    Or was it, Sir, to scare the Americans? Does Iran not really fit into the equation here? Have you just scribbled it into the fill-in-the-blank on the same template you used to scare us about Iraq?

    In August, any commander-in-chief still able-minded or uncorrupted or both, Sir, would have invoked the quality the job most requires: mental flexibility.

    A bright man, or an honest man, would have realized no later than the McConnell briefing that the only true danger about Iran was the damage that could be done by an unhinged, irrational Chicken Little of a president, shooting his mouth off, backed up by only his own hysteria and his own delusions of omniscience.

    Not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr. Bush. The Chicken Little of Presidents is the one, Sir, that you see in the mirror.

    And the mind reels at the thought of a vice president fully briefed on the revised intel as long as two weeks ago — briefed on the fact that Iran abandoned its pursuit of this imminent threat four years ago — a vice president who never bothered to mention it to his boss.

    It is nearly forgotten today, but throughout much of Ronald Reagan’s presidency it was widely believed that he was little more than a front-man for some never-viewed, behind-the-scenes, string-puller.

    Today, as evidenced by this latest remarkable, historic malfeasance, it is inescapable – that Dick Cheney is either this president’s evil ventriloquist, or he thinks he is.

    What servant of any of the 42 previous presidents could possibly withhold information of this urgency and this gravity, and wind up back at his desk the next morning, instead of winding up before a Congressional investigation — or a criminal one?

    Mr. Bush — if you can still hear us — if you did not previously agree to this scenario in which Dick Cheney is the actual detective and you’re the Remington Steele — you must disenthrall yourself.

    Mr. Cheney has usurped your constitutional powers, cut you out of the information loop, and led you down the path to an unprecedented presidency in which the facts have become optional, the intel is valued less than the hunch, and the assistant runs the store.

    The problem is, Sir, your assistant is robbing you — and your country — blind.

    Not merely in monetary terms Mr. Bush, but more importantly, of the traditions and righteousness for which we have stood, at great risk, for centuries: Honesty, Law, Moral Force.

    Mr. Cheney has helped, Sir, to make your Administration into the kind our ancestors saw in the 1860’s and 1870’s and 1880’s — the ones that abandoned Reconstruction, and sent this country marching backwards into the pit of American Apartheid.

    Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland…

    Presidents who will be remembered only in a blur of failure, Mr. Bush, Presidents who will be remembered only as functions of those who opposed them — the opponents whom history proved right.

    Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland… Bush.

    Would that we could let this President off the hook by seeing him only as marionette or moron, but a study of the mutation of his language about Iran proves that though he may not be very good at it, he is, himself, still a manipulative, Machiavellian, snake-oil salesman.

    The Bushian etymology was tracked by Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post’s website, and it is staggering.

    March 31st: “Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon…”

    June 5th: Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons…”

    June 19th: “consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon…”

    July 12th: “the same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons…”

    August 6th: “this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon…”

    Notice a pattern?

    Trying to develop, build or pursue.. a nuclear weapon.

    Then, sometime between August 6th and August 9th, those terms are suddenly swapped out, so subtly that only in retrospect can we see that somebody has warned the President, not only that he has gone out too far on the limb of terror — but there may not even be a tree there…

    McConnell, or someone, must have briefed him then.

    August 9th: “They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program…”

    August 28th: “Iran’s active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons…”

    October 4th: “you should not have the know-how on how to make a (nuclear) weapon…”

    October 17th: “until they suspend and/or make it clear that they, that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the **capacity**, the **knowledge**, in order to make a nuclear weapon.”

    Before August 9th, it is: Trying to develop, build or pursue.. a nuclear weapon.

    After August 9th, it’s: Desire, pursuit, want… knowledge, technology, know-how… to enrich uranium.

    And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that the National Intelligence Estimate this week talks of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program in 2003, and you talked of the Iranians suspending their nuclear weapons program on October 17th, and that term “suspending” is just a coincidence?

    And we are to believe, Mr. Bush, that nobody told you any of this until last week.

    Your insistence that you were not briefed on the NIE until last week might be… legally true — something like “what the definition of “is” is — but with the subject matter being not interns, but the threat of nuclear war.

    Legally, it might save you from some war crimes trial… but ethically, it is a LIE.

    It is indefensible!

    You have been yelling threats into a phone for nearly four months, after the guy on the other end had already hung up.

    You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar.

    And moreover, you must have realized that John Bolton, and Norman Podhoretz, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial board are now also bald-faced liars.

    We are to believe that the intel community, or maybe the State Department, cooked the raw intelligence about Iran, falsely diminished the Iranian nuclear threat, to make you… look bad?

    And you proceeded to let them make you look bad?

    You not only knew all of this about Iran, in early August, but you also knew it was ALL… accurate.

    And instead of sharing this good news with the people you have obviously forgotten you represent, you merely fine-tuned your terrorizing of those people, to legally cover your own backside, while you filled the factual gap with sadistic visions of — as you phrased it on August 28th: a quote “nuclear holocaust” — as you phrased it on October 17th, quote: “World War Three”!

    My comments, Mr. Bush, are often dismissed as simple repetitions of the phrase “George Bush has no business being president.”

    Well, guess what?

    Tonight, hanged by your own word and convicted by your own deliberate lies, you, sir, have no business… being president.

    Good night, and good luck.

    Bush Mangles Names, then Bolts


    Yeah, our “beloved leader” is really interested in helping to negotiate peace in the middle east. Isn’t that what his record is all about? Isn’t it? Isn’t it?

    Crooks and Liars:

    Looking confused and distracted, the president butchered the names of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas *shock* and even needed guidance on where to stand with the two leaders for a photo op — which was apparently the only reason he attended at all.

    After all the hype and spin about how much President Bush cares about bringing peace to the Middle East, and how he’s worked the phones and listened in preparation, our Commander in Chief took off after spending less than three hours at the summit.

    YouTube Preview Image

    Step away from the podium….

    Well, got the photo op…

    Recent Posts:

    VirusHead is using WP-Gravatar