The REAL legacy of Katrina
Storm exposed latent racism now permiating the country.

August 30, 2006 by mugsy.

While everyone else is talking about what was and was not done in the rescue and rebuilding of New Orleans and Biloxi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I want to discuss something else the winds of Katrina exposed besides the Mississippi topsoil… the growing racism spreading in this country (Republican and Democrat alike).

As the one-year aniversary (memorial?) has drawn nearer, the racist tendencies of so many Conservatives has begun to spill out like water over a levee.

Photos and video of the bloated carcassas of dead poor black victims in New Orleans floating face down in the flood waters of the NOLA 9th ward, hundreds of people at the lowest rung of the economic ladder crying out for rescue at the Super Dome, to Conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh letting loose a little Freudian slip when he called New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, “Mayor Nayger”, have invaded our sensibilities this past year.

WV Senator George Allen’s…

…now infamous “Macaca” insult to a dark-skinned kid of East Indian origin (”Welcome to America”, Allen chuckled) is just the latest example of what appears to be a worsening trend.

Montana Senator Conrad Burns joking about the “little Guatemalan man” doing some painting for him, even suggesting he’s here illegally, which besides being just rude, is surprising for someone that has railed on the floor of the Senate over people that hire illegal immigrants. Huh.

Florida Rep. Tramm Hudson suggested that he believes most black people “don’t know how to swim”. Okay, that’s just stupid. But when you consider that apes are physically incapable of swiming due to their build, the question of whether or not the Congressman was using this as the basis for his beliefs is disturbing.

But we must be fair now, New Orleans Mayor (D) Ray Nagin… for whom black LSU history professor Leonard Moore titled his book “Oreo in a Chocolate City”… did indeed use that term to describe what NOLA would be “once again”, and then sounded like a word-parsing idiot the next day suggesting he meant “chocolate made with white creamy milk”. Oh! THAT’S what he meant! I feel like a stupid racist for even thinking otherwise!”

But why stop there? “[T]he majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims”, says Florida Dist13 (R) candidate Mark Flanagan. I wonder if Mr Flanagan ever heard of Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or Ted “The Unabomber” Kaczynski? Because before 9/11, the only terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the ‘93 trade-center bombing were by militant Conservative white guys.

Paul Nelson, a Republican running in the third district of Wisconsin, knows how to spot a Muslim at the airport: “If he comes in wearing a turban and his name is Muhammad, that’s a good start”.

I have an easier solution:

Fox news commentator Mike Gallagher, on the air, proposed a “Muslim’s only” line at the airport. You know, because the last thing a terrorists wants to do is blend in. I’m reminded of the old argument about “if you ban guns, only the honest people will turn them in”. Likewise, only the “non-terrorist” would single themselves out for greater scrutiny and get in that line, don’t ‘cha think, Mike?

Pat Buchanan, a varitable fount of racist xenophobia, who has wanted a 2,000 mile long concrete wall along the border with Mexico since his early Presidential aspirations in 1992, is now suggesting we need to put a moratorium on “all immigration into this country” until we can decide who we want to let in and who should go home. And just who should we let in? Why, “folks from cultures and civilization that have been assimilated before”.. you know, Europeans.

And don’t forget his claim that “Mexicans don’t want to assimilate” into American culture (96% of Mexican-born Americans do).

But his Cou’de’gras has to be his recent accusation that “Mexico seeks to re-annex 7 southern states”. Time to invade Mexico!

Is any of this a surprise as this White House fosters anti-immigrant nationalism that has shown nothing but disrespect for anyone that isn’t a rich white person of European decent?

Remember when we were PROUD to be thought of as the country whose motto is, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.“? Today, it’s not the Statue of Liberty the rest of the world is reminded of when they think of the U.S., it’s Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Bilbray Premature Swearing-In, part 2
Evidence Hastert *knew* what he was doing.

August 28, 2006 by mugsy.

(If you haven’t already, please read the “Conscoiusness of Guilt” story below first.)

Now, evidence has been uncovered that the premature swearing-in of CA50 (California District 50) candidate Republican Brian Bilbray of San Diego was no innocent mistake:

Upon further investigation (Aug 28, 2006)…

(…)
A careful look at the statement in the Congressional Digest reveals some interesting assumptions and perhaps careful planning. The Speaker, Hastert, administered the oath based on word from California’s Assistant Secretary of State for Elections that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Several assumptions are embedded in this statement. First, Hastert knew that he needed an authority to justify the election as official. Second, he relied on state authority, Susan Lapsley specifically. Third, Hastert knew that there were only “unofficial results,” because those are clearly referenced yet he accepted the word of the Clerk that Lapsley had made the call that Bilbray “was elected Representative in Congress.” Finally, Lapsley, who has no official status in San Diego County where the election was held, used “unofficial results” to convey to the court that Bilbray was elected.
(…)

So, to clarify, Speaker Hastert recognized the fact that the state had ultimate authority to certify the election, AND was told that the results were “unofficial“, yet swore Bilbray in anyway.

This was no innocent oversight. It was a DELIBERATE circumvention of the election process with a FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE IMPLICATIONS.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Consciousness of Guilt
(R) Rep Bilbray sworn in early to thwart law.

August 26, 2006 by mugsy.

First, the background…

You’ve probably heard the story of former Republican Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham, now serving an 8+ year prison sentence for bribery. So bold-faced crooked was Cunningham, he lived on a boat named the “Duke-Stir” owned by a defence contractor, and even wrote a “bribe menu” on government stationary of what he charged for certain votes. The poster-boy for the Republican “Culture of Corruption”. An emergency election for his replacement was held in San Diego on June 6th between Democrat Francine Busby and Republican Brian Bilbray.

Twelve days before the election, in a move CA50 (California District 50) election officials said was to ENSURE the security of the election, sent every single Diebold touchscreen voting machine home with a different election official, breaking the “chain of custody” rules (if you aren’t already familiar with Diebold voting machines and their insecurity & hackability, visit here, here, here and here).

Surprise, surprise, Republican Brian Bilbray won, despite trailing in the polls on election day. When news of the voting machines being sent home with election workers for overnight stays… many laying unattended in garages and in cars for nearly two weeks before the election… reached the Busby campaign, they immediately cried foul and filed for a criminal investigation in local district court.

Sensing danger, a mere seven days after the election, Washington flew Bilbray to D.C. where he was quickly sworn in by House Speaker Denny Hastert (R), the effect being that Bilbray was no longer under the jurisdiction of the local CA50 courts, approximately two weeks before the election results in California were finalized.

Here is the public statement from Busby’s attorney:

As lead counsel in the election contest in California’s 50th Congressional District, I wish to bring to your immediate attention, the intent of Congress to terminate elections before the votes are counted and long before certification. It is now proven that the Congress intended this precise result when they swore in Brian Bilbray only 7 days after the June 6 special election, and then subsequently argued that this action deprived everyone but the House of Representatives of all jurisdiction, right or power to do anything about it, nor even to have a recount or investigation of the vote!

(…)

“The defendants’ position is that the court is powerless (i.e. without jurisdiction) to do anything about this election contest, because Bilbray was sworn in only 7 days after the June 6, and long before the election was legally final on or about June 29.

More from “BradBlog“, which has been following this story closely:

{…}

The CA50 special election was held on June 6, on illegal voting machines as has been described here many times. (link omitted). On June 13, Brian Bilbray was sworn in to House of Representatives. On June 30, the election certified by Registrar of Voters Mikel Haas. And on August 22, defendants filed a brief and moved to dismiss, stating that because Bilbray has already been sworn in, the Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever and the House has exclusive jurisdiction to judge who its members are and the qualifications of those members.

Ya know folks, I don’t know about you, but the very fact that the Republicans rushed to swear in Bilbray in order to side-step the law, shows a consciousness that something was wrong and they needed to move quickly before the courts could take their seat away.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

The “Bush Republicans in 30 Seconds” radio contest has ended!

August 25, 2006 by mugsy.

Today was the official end for submissions to our “Bush Republicans in 30 Seconds Radio Contest”. Earlier this year, BI30 sought to host a new ad contest to do for the 2006 Congressional mid-terms what MoveOn.org’s “Bush in 30 Seconds” video contest did for the 2004 Presidential election. Because BI30 is an all-volunteer effort and does not have the resources of a MoveOn.org, we targeted radio advertising rather than more expensive TV or print ads. Our goal was to run ten :30 second (or five :60 second) radio spots in the weeks just prior to the November election on one Nationally syndicated radio program.

Sadly, word of the contest just never got out and the response was too small to justify the costs. Interest in the *outcome* was high, but interest in participating was not. Most felt it was just too difficult to do a motivating and thought provoking ad using only audio.

However, we do intend to keep the video archive online, and we have started this new Blog ensuring that our brand of keen observations and political insight continues!

Thanks to all who expressed interest in the contest and provided words of encouragement and support! - Mugsy

Posted in Contest Info | 1 Comment »

Challenge to my Right-wing brethren:
Name just ONE Bush success in six years and WIN A FREE DVD!

August 23, 2006 by mugsy.

Monday, President Bush conceded once again that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, yet, according to him, invading that country was necessary to stop an “emerging threat”. How exactly a country with no “weapons of mass destruction”, that had been disarmed by years of intrusive inspections and careful monitoring, was “a threat” isn’t clear. And any argument that we “liberated” the Iraqi people from the oppression of Saddam falls flat in the wake of the daily violence and civil war that has gripped that country since we invaded almost four years ago. I never really bought that “justification” anyway because, as far as I’m aware, Saddam didn’t set up roadblocks at the borders to stop people from leaving. If life under Saddam was bad, apparently, it was tolerable because the only mass exodus of Iraqi’s was the Kurds that moved into Northern Iraq to live under the protection of the U.S. “No Fly Zone”.

The invasion of the first of three countries in Bush’s “Axis of Evil” has reinvigorated the nuclear aspirations of the other two. Iran’s stock is soaring while the U.S. and Israel’s are sinking like a stone. Al-Qaeda is larger, more widespread, more proficient and more admired in the Muslim world than ever before, and now, the Bush Administration has even managed to make Hezbollah look “heroic” and “respectable” in the wake of last weeks bombing.

Unrest in the Middle East due to Bush’s aggression has sent oil prices skyrocketing, making these Arab dictatorships and theocracies absurdly wealthy. It is American oil dollars that allows Iran to help Hezbollah in looking like the benevolent savior of the Lebanese people.

Even those few things that some people may begrudgingly give the Bush Administration credit for… fighting AIDS in Africa for example, suffer from stipulations that those African nations may not use that money to purchase cheaper generic drugs to help more people for the same money, or distribute condoms to help prevent spread of the disease, because the Religious Right would scream bloody murder if they did.

And “No Child Left Behind“, their educational program, is under-funded, discourages critical thinking and innovation by forcing students to memorize stale facts and figures, then ties those performance results to funding, providing schools with incentive to cheat, fudging scores and declaring an inordinate number of students to be “challenged” and exempting all but their brightest students from those very tests.

Add to that an exploding national debt and a “War on Terror” that even Bush himself admits has been a complete and total failure, I issue my challenge:

Name JUST ONE thing the Bush Administration has done right and WIN A DVD, your choice:

o “Why We Fight” - a documentary on Republican President Eisenhower’s parting words regarding the growing “military industrial complex” he saw coming in the wake of World War II.

o Syriana - Four intertwining stories revolving around the merger of two fictional oil conglomerates in the United States and their involvement in the Middle East.

o All the Presidents’ Men - The quintessential political docu-drama about Wordward & Bernstein uncovering the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon Administration.

o “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room” - Documentary about the most catastrophic corporate meltdown in history.

o “V for Vendetta” - From the creators of The Matrix, the 2006 hit movie set in England about a vigilante that seeks revenge on the fascist dictatorship that destroyed his life and ruined his country.

Post a comment if you have an answer. First irrefutable answer wins. (”success” here is defined as a positive outcome from a positive agenda put forth by the Bush Administration.)

Contest ends election day, November 2, 2006.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

Why exactly is “setting a deadline in Iraq” a BAD thing?
A logical EXIT STRATEGY for Iraq that works:

August 20, 2006 by mugsy.

“We’re not leaving [Iraq] so long long as I’m the President!” - President Bush to reporters, Monday, August 21, 2006

Ever hear a better argument for IMPEACHMENT?
—————————–

With a college degree and Cum Laude GPA, I know I’m not an idiot. So why do I feel like one when everyone in the world but me seems to agree that “setting a fixed pullout date for Iraq” is a BAD thing?

The logic goes as such: “we can’t set an arbitrary deadline because they’ll just wait us out if they know were leaving on XYZ date.” Seems to make perfect sense, right?

Well, after almost five years now (four in Iraq), the insurgency’s “staying power” certainly isn’t in question. And an even more mind-boggling argument is that the insurgency will “lay low” until we pull out then flare up the moment we leave. That one really toasts my marshmallow. We can’t train Iraqi forces because of the ongoing violence, so how does a temporary reprieve in the violence that gives us time to train Iraqi security forces be a bad thing? And call me crazy, but somehow, I can’t help but feel that after a period of calm in Iraq that allows life to return to normal for millions of Iraqi’s and maybe get some reconstruction done, improving their lives, you’re not going to find as many people eager to resume the anarchy and day-to-day bloodshed that is currently destroying their country. Maybe a few, but definitely not the 20,000 we see today. Reasonably, a number small enough that the newly reconstituted Iraqi security forces could handle on their own.

Of course, here is how it would REALLY play out:

First, with Democrats seizing control of The House of Representatives (and God willing, The Senate too), the newly appointed head of the Armed Forces Committee John Murtha would call for an immediate vote to implement his “Redeployment Strategy”. Over the course of six months to a year, troops would move out of Iraq and into neighboring countries, most certainly Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in the South, Israel and *maybe* Jordan in the West, and another big *maybe* Turkey in the North (U.S. troops are already in Afghanistan to the East). Inter-faction violence would likely continue, but not any worse than it is now (with 110 civilian deaths a day), and perhaps even diminish a bit. Troops that remain “in-country” will concentrate on training the Iraqi forces, with clear training benchmarks along the way. I’d even make sure the Iraqi’s know that for every day they don’t meet those benchmarks, the deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops is delayed, providing both the soldiers AND civilian population ample incentive to meet (or exceed) those deadlines. For every 10,000 Iraqi security forces trained, 10,000 U.S. soldiers redeploy (as they stand up, we stand down… sound familiar?). Some have suggested that it should be closer to 2:1 the rate of Iraqi troops to U.S. troops, but I believe that as the number of U.S. forces in Iraq decreases, so will the violence, so a 1:1 ratio should be just fine.

Redeployed coalition forces can then be called back in by the Iraqi military at a moments notice if needed, after which they will return to their respective bases. Once the last coalition unit has redeployed out of Iraq (6 months), U.S. forces begin the process of returning home (over the next six months). Within a year, control over the security of Iraq will be back under the control of Iraqi’s. If assistance is still needed after that point, troops can still be called in within 24 hours from military bases in Germany, Japan and South Korea.

During this time, ALL foreign contractors should be immediately withdrawn from Iraq. YOU DO NOT send foreign workers into a country with 50%-75% unemployment. An unemployed Iraqi with no money, no future, and nothing to do all day except swelter in 115′ heat, who sees foreigners with jobs but obviously aren’t doing a damn thing because he still doesn’t have electricity or running water, has nothing else to do all day but get mad, pick up a gun, and kill every foreigner he sees. Every Iraqi that is put to work is one less Iraqi taking up arms and joining the insurgency. And once Iraqi’s begin to take pride in their own reconstruction, they’re going to be less inclined to blow it up.

On May 21st on “Meet the Press”, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that one of the things they did *right* was not send in too many U.S. troops (”too big a footprint”), thus preventing it from looking like an occupation than… well hell, whatever it is now. I’m sure you can figure out her logic as well as I. But then the question is: “if too many U.S. troops is a bad thing, then how can too many FOREIGN CONTRACTORS be a good thing? And if you don’t want to look like occupiers, why build some (rumored) THIRTEEN American Embassies, including this $592 million dollar monstrosity…

a single 21-building complex on 104 acres of prime real estate inside the so-called “green zone” of Baghdad. “Occupiers”? Pshaw!

I’ll save “the financial money-tree they’ve turned Iraq into for American contractors” rant, for another day. Ditto for how the “continued destabilization of the Middle East ensures that the per/barrel price of oil stays artificially inflated, resulting in record profits for the oil industry” rant. What do you expect when you’ve got a “failed Texas oilman” and “former government contractor” running the White House?

Oh, one last thought… for those Nay-sayers on the Right that continue to insist that leaving Iraq early will allow our enemies to declare “victory” and only embolden them… I remind you that after the ‘91 Gulf War when we handed Saddam his ass in a sling, he STILL declared “victory” and celebrated the anniversary of “Iraqi’s victory over the U.S.” every year afterwards. Let them “declare victory”. Who gives a f*ck? (pardon my French) That doesn’t stop us from going back in if we have to, and they know it.

Posted in Political News | 1 Comment »

Top 10… 11… 12… ah, the heck with it…
Ways Bush has helped the Terrorists:

August 17, 2006 by mugsy.

The cease-fire in Israel seems to be holding and the Bush Administration is once again patting themselves on the back for “fixing” a problem they helped create. While the rest of the world was critical of Israel, calling their response an “over-reaction”, the Bush Administration was unwilling to call for a cease-fire, even supplying the Israeli military with bombs. President Bush defended his decision on the grounds that “peace wasn’t really peace” because there was always an underlying simmering hatred just below the surface. He pointed out how we were “at peace” when they attacked us on 9/11. Never mind that there had been a string of attacks and attempts on American targets all through the 90’s following the first Gulf War in ‘91 when we based some 17,000 U.S. troops near Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

So here we are. A fragile cease-fire with anger simmering just below the surface. “Peace”… but not peace. Exactly the kind of “peace” we were told “wasn’t really peace” barely more than a week ago… 800 dead Lebanese civilians and 39 dead Israeli civilians later (not to mention the hundreds of dead soldiers). Israel now more hated than ever in the heart of the Middle East. Lebanon, a fragile new Democracy that we did nothing to support after they so bravely expelled Syria from its decade-long occupation, most of its citizens, once ambivalent towards Hezbollah, now support the militant anti-Israel organization, blaming Israel, not Hezbollah, for the death and destruction inflicted upon them.

Hezbollah, in a PR move worthy of Karl Rove himself, has vowed to reconstruct every home and rebuild the entire country (with the generous support of Iran), leaving American and Israeli politicos scratching their heads wondering how to counter the “Good Will Coup” Hezbollah is enjoying as a result. The money, aid and reconstruction we supply is only seen as “owed”, earning not a scintilla of “kudos-points”.

So what have we earned from this little adventure? Israel is now hated by the closest thing it had to a burgeoning Democracy on its front doorstep, in addition to earning the condemnation of moderate Arab states in the region, and even more anger from those that already wanted them “wiped off the face of the Earth“.

Once again, Iran expands its influence in the region, supporting a minor political faction in Lebanon that made up less than 11% of the Lebanese Parliament (14 out of 128 members) that is sure to see major gains in the next election.

So #1 on our list: Hezbollah’s PR coup, now viewed more favorably by millions in the Middle East while the U.S. and Israel become even more despised.

From the very beginning of his Presidential campaign, President Bush was already talking about “terrorism”… but not bin Laden (the man behind everything from the ‘93 WTC bombing, the African Embassy bombings in ‘96, the thwarted “Millennium Plot” or the bombing of the USS Cole three months before). No, his target was Saddam Hussein, “the guy who once tried to kill my dad at one time“:

February 16, 2000:

“[…] I’m just as frustrated as many Americans are that Saddam Hussein still lives. I think we ought to keep the pressure on him. I will tell you this: If we catch him developing weapons of mass destruction in any way, shape or form, I’ll deal with that in a way that he won’t like.” - Gov. George W. Bush, interview on PBS’s News Hour

Yes, those dreaded “Weapons of Mass Destruction”.

When bin Laden finally confessed to orchestrating the attacks on 9/11, he pointed specifically to the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia… the Arab Holy Land… as the justification. So barely 6 weeks after the invasion of Iraq and two days before “Mission Accomplished”, President Bush did Osama the biggest favor one could do for a close family friend, he pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia, closed the base and moved the whole lot of them to their new home in Baghdad.

So #2 on our list: Pulling U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia like Osama wanted.

Before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush gave the following reason why such an invasion was necessary:

“Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground…” - [President George W. Bush giving reason why we should invade Iraq 11/4/02]

DoD estimates put the number of “insurgents” in Iraq at ~20,000… ~800 of which are foreign fighters that have declared allegiance to al-Qaeda and bin Laden. Iraq has proven not only a source of continuing proof of “American Imperialism”, “war mongering” and “war on Islam”, but is providing al-Qaeda with the very “live fire” training ground President Bush cited as justification for invading Iraq.

Now, to be fair, President Bush didn’t specifically SAY that Iraq becoming a terrorist traing ground was a BAD thing, he just told us to “imagine it”.

So #3 on our list: We no longer need to “imagine” Iraq becoming a terrorist training ground, it now is.

You’ve probably heard the stories that in the days immediately following 9/11, members of the bin Laden family were permitted to fly out of the country following a cursory 20 minute interview each, at the behest of the Saudi government, fearing that members of the wealthy and politically connected bin Laden family might become targets of violence and reprisals in the wake of 9/11. President Bush, whose family had been doing business with bin Laden Construction for several decades, gave the bin Laden’s the green light to leave the country in private chartered jets.

Former President George H.W. Bush was at a meeting of The Carlyle Group, a private investment firm, in the Ritz-Carlton hotel in D.C. with Shafiq bin Laden, brother of Osama when planes struck the Twin Towers in New York. Shafiq was among those allowed to flee the country in the wake of the attacks.

So #4 on our list: Assisting the bin Laden family to flee the country after 9/11.

I just caught myself wondering something I hadn’t thought of before: Why was there no “Mission Accomplished” victory speech after Afghanistan? Think about it. The invasion of Afghanistan, deposing the Taliban and even installing a new government headed by Hamid Karzai took roughly the same amount of time as the overthrow of Saddam (with no government to replace it). And just as in Iraq, we hadn’t caught bin Laden anymore than we captured Saddam before declaring “Mission Accomplished”, so why no victory speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier after the overthrow of the Taliban?

Might it have been that Afghanistan was an unwelcome distraction from their Prize… the invasion of Iraq… that they had been pining for for the past decade? (”Okay, we got Afghanistan out of the way, now back to business.”)

Of course, the conflict in Afghanistan was no more “Mission Accomplished” before we invaded Iraq than Iraq was when President Bush was ferried out to the USS Abraham Lincoln in a Jump-Jet after the fall of Baghdad, but that didn’t stop him from making his grand (tragically premature) declaration of victory. Why no dramatic declaration of victory in Afghanistan?

Well, the most obvious answer is because bin Laden had not been caught. The American people never would have stood for such a declaration of victory in Afghanistan without his capture. So if we could not declare “Victory” without Osama “dead or alive“, why were we talking about Iraq before “Mission Accomplished” in Afghanistan?

Relying on the local militia and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora is #5 on our list.

The attacks on 9/11 shocked the world. Not just the Western World and Americas’ allies, but many in the Muslim world were taken aback as the sight of those towers on fire and the thousands that were murdered.

A general feeling that al Qaeda might have gone “too far” swept across the world. On September 18, 2001, Iranians and Palestinians took to the streets in Candlelight Vigils for the American victims. The prayers and good will of the world were focused on the United States.

So how best to take advantage of that Good Will than to invade an oil-rich Muslin country in an unprovoked attack that has now cost the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens?

Everything that Osama bin Laden was saying about America was coming true. Our “goal”, he claimed, “is to conquer the Islamic World, occupy their land and steal their oil”, and suddenly, there we were, invading Iraq, bombing civilians and securing Iraqi oil fields.

So for pissing away the global support and empathy felt towards the United States after 9/11 and “proving Osama right”, we have #6.

Before the invasion of Iraq, al Qaeda was a small terrorist organization with perhaps 100 members. Today, al Qaeda loyalists number in the thousands, operating out of 34 countries across the world. The occupation and daily violence in Iraq, their greatest recruiting tool.

Turning Iraq into a recruitment poster for al Qaeda is #7.

Last June, USA Today reported on the growing resurgence of the Taliban, forcing us to move 10,000 additional troops back into Afghanistan. The new Afghani government lacks the power nor influence to quash this resurgence on its own, so five years after 9/11, coalition troops are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan… and now the war is expanding just as Iraq teeters on the brink of civil war.

The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan due to neglect ranks #8.

And while we are on the subject of the Taliban, this extremist totalitarian repressive Theocracy was once welcomed by our government for its crackdown on the cultivation and sale of Opium. Peddling the drug was considered “profiting off human misery” and therefore banned. Those who violated the ban were subject to severe prosecution, even death.

In May of 2001, the Bush administration gave the Taliban $10 Million dollars to fight Opium growth in Afghanistan. Today, Afghanistan is once again the leading source of Opium/Heroin on the planet, with over 370 thousand acres of Poppy fields across the country, only this time, instead of banning it, the Taliban is profiting off it, using the money it makes off this profitable cash crop to fund its resurgence. Already suffering from dire poverty prior to 9/11, nearly all Afghani farmers now raise this profitable crop as the only thing they can grow that actually earns them any money. And their number one customer: the United States.

The return of Afghanistan as the leading supplier of Heroin to the world: #9.

Ace BBC reporter Greg Palast made the following observation last week when Bush’s “traffic light of fear” was dusted off and raised to “Code Red” for all flights from the UK into the United States: “Why do we have a terror alert system that tells the terrorists when we are on/off alert?”

“America is the only nation on the planet that kindly informs bombers, hijackers and berserkers the days on which they won’t be monitored. You’ve got to get up pretty early in the morning to get a jump on George Bush’s team.”

What do YOU do differently when they change the color of the National “Threat Level”? What do you think THE TERRORISTS do differently depending upon our current threat level? So why do it?

Keeping you scared to keep them in power by using a warning system that tips off the terrorists while doing nothing for us, pulls in #10.

On October 10, 2001, President Bush answered the question on the minds of so many clueless Americans unaware of our involvement in the Middle East, “Why do they hate us?”. His simplistic and wildly off the mark answer: “They hate us for our freedoms” was his response… a sort of “feel-good” blameless reasoning that allowed millions of Americans to continue feeling like victims rather than victimizers.

So, if “our freedoms” are encouraging people to attack us, then what better way to fix it than to take those freedoms away. “The Patriot Act”, a sweeping litany of super-Constitutional investigative tools was quickly passed in the wake of 9/11 largely unread by most members of Congress.

Oddly, not one member of Congress wondered, “How did you come up with this so fast?” New laws that allowed our government to spy on its own people, search our homes without a warrant, even confiscate items without so much as telling you what was taken; force librarians to turn over reading lists and monitor those that request and check out “flagged” reading material (a provision the nations librarians mostly refused to cooperate with and forced removal from the Patriot Act); and monitor our phone calls, again, without warrant.

And our greatest freedom: living without constant fear or in a perpetual state of anxiety, hammered home with daily announcements that “we still are not safe”, “the violence is growing”, and the infamous “color-coded threat level” mentioned above, gone.

Taking away many of the very freedoms President Bush said “they hate us for” is #11.

In his 2003 “State of the Union”, President Bush included Iran and North Korea in his “Axis of Evil” speech, then proceeded to make a case for invading Iraq based upon trumped up evidence. Now on alert, and no longer cooperating with U.S. or UN authorities, Iran and North Korea quickly resumed their long mothballed nuclear weapons ambitions.

Teaching the rest of the world that the best way to prevent being invaded for having “weapons of mass destruction” is TO ACTUALLY HAVE THEM ranks #12.

Iraq and Iran were at war for nearly eight years (September 1980 to August 1988), and the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in that time as a check on Iran. Saddam was our good friend and President Ronald Reagan sent “Special Envoy to the Middle East” Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad to pledge the United States’ continued support. With the removal of Saddam Hussein, that check on Iran was lifted.

Removing Iraq as a check on Iran: #13.

Okay, you get it by now. The list goes on forever. A general disdain for other religions and cultures bred by this Administration contributed to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. Imprisonment without trial… a violation that cuts to the very core of what it means to be an American… allows the rest of the world to point to “Gitmo” as “the anti-Statue of Liberty“. Iraq, once a secular nation where women could vote, go to school and drive cars, and the three religious factions of Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurds lived together in one country, has given rebirth to extreme religious fundamentalism, women in black burkas that dare not show their faces in public, in a country on the brink of civil war and a government allying itself with Iran.

I have no doubt I’m forgetting many many more obvious and dramatic examples. I invite you to add your own to the list (even if this post is old, I’ll be monitoring it for additions in the weeks and months to come).

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

You Owe Me BIG!

August 15, 2006 by mugsy.

A couple of months ago, CBS News produced the following frightening report on our exploding National Debt:

YouTube video: The Incredible Exploding Deficit

We owe more in debt to the Communist Chinese than we have spent on the war in Iraq ($265B vs $260B), essentially making them the financiers of the war. We owe 2-1/2 times that to Japan ($673B).Which got me wondering:

Why would they loan us so much money?

After 9/11/01, the Federal Reserve cut Interest Rates to the bone… a mere 0.5%… trying to jump-start an economy that was already sinking into the toilet after George Bush took office. Low interest rates discourage savings and encourage buying, especially big-ticket items like cars and homes. Last week was the first time in nearly two years that the Fed did not raise interest rates this quarter, fixing them at 5.25%. Still a fairly low level for anyone looking to make money by putting it in the bank. But the housing market is drying up as interest rates climb, and rising oil prices have pushed up the price of everything. An interest rate hike now would have really hurt the economy. So why not CUT interest rates instead to get it moving again?

When you need to borrow money, you promise to pay them back with interest. That’s their incentive to loan you the money. But the lender wants to charge the highest rate of interest possible without you changing your mind. So to attract lenders, we offer to pay more in interest. The higher the interest rate, the more willing they’ll be to loan it to you (assuming they consider you a good risk that will pay them back). That’s why Loan Sharks charge such high interest rates. They are preying on your desperation. Which begs the question: With interest rates so low, what do THEY get out of it? Did China lend us $265 BILLION dollars because they looked forward to being paid back at a mere 0.5% interest rate? Will they ever make that money back WITH INTEREST within our lifetimes? Even at the current 5.25%, it would take over 19 YEARS just for China to get its initial $265B back (and worth much less 20 years from now) before it starts to see even a dime of profit in interest. So why then loan us the money?

Well, when YOU are deep in debt to someone, you can’t exactly bully, criticize, or otherwise intimidate the lender, ESPECIALLY if you plan on borrowing from them again. Don’t think our creditors don’t know this.

Okay”, say the detractors, “then what about Japan? We owe them even more. They are not human rights violators, what’s their motivation?” Answer: economics. Japan is America’s biggest trading partner, we import more goods from Japan than any other country on Earth (and that includes oil from the Middle East). Cars, electronics, home appliances. Our largest source of trade to the Japanese… selling them the raw materials they need to produce those finished goods for sale back to us. When you are as deep in debt as we are, you’re in no position to say, “Hey, slow down! Stop sending so much stuff over here! The trade imbalance is killing us!” No, if we want their money, those flood gates must remain open. Cheaper quality goods from Japan flow in, American manufacturing jobs go out. Get it?

Now here’s the fact that’s “really gonna back your noodle” (to quote The Matrix): The Bush Tax Cut for the top 2% of the wealthiest Americans comes to about $900 BILLION dollars in lost tax revenue. Remember, we borrowed just over $938 Billion from China and Japan alone, an amount we must pay back with interest. That is money that is NOT being spent to give our troops the necessary armor to prevent serious injury; money not being spent to rebuild New Orleans and Biloxi after Hurricane Katrina last year; money not going for Pell Grants so low-income students can go to college; money not being spent on providing healthcare; money not being spent to fund Homeland Security, check our luggage for explosives or inspect all shipping cargo coming into our ports for chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

But if you’re a Republican with control of The White House and both Houses of Congress, it is more important that that 2% get their $900 Billion dollar tax cut because they’re going to use it to create jobs… and they are. The latest unemployment figure in the U.S. has risen to 4.8%, adding a mere 113,000 jobs in July for the entire United States. Whoo hoo!

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

U.S. blows UK case early. Not 2006… 2004!
ANYONE REMEMBER NOOR KHAN?

August 14, 2006 by mugsy.

On Sunday, NBC News reported that the Bush administration may have prematurely exposed the British investigation of a terrorist groups’ plan to use explosives to down as many as 10 aircraft headed for the US, for political gain, forcing MI-5 to move before they were ready, possibly allowing the heads of these terrorist plots to get away.

This might be surprising had they not have already done this at least once (and arguably as many as three times) before.

When I heard the US may have forced the UK to move in on the latest airline bomber plot early in order to score some cheap political points because of an election, one name immediately sprang to mind: Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, the MI-5 mole that had infiltrated al Qaeda in 2004 and may have led us to The Big “O” himself, but because the Bush Administration desperately needed to disrupt the momentum of the Democratic National Convention that had just ended two days before, giving Senator Kerry a bump that extended his lead in the polls, they needed something to remind everyone (to quote a line from “V”) “WHY THEY NEED US!”.

Exposing the name of “Valery Plame” was bad enough, but exposing the name of a Pakistani double-agent that had infiltrated al-Qaeda’s inner sanctum…

And of course, they’ve now done it once again, and just as before, no one seems to remember.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »

ABC News still referring to “the Far Left”. My letter to them:

August 14, 2006 by mugsy.

Dear ABC News,

I was seriously bothered by comments on “World News Tonight” regarding the victory of Ned Lamont over incumbent Joe Lieberman in Connecticut’s Democratic Primary last Tuesday. I am still hearing the ridiculous meme being perpetuated that Lamont’s win is somehow the result of “Left Wing extremists that seek to push the Party to the far Left.” Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Senator Lieberman has earned a reputation as THE LEAST Democratic senator in the Democratic Party, constantly siding with the Republican Neo-Conservatives in Congress over his own Party, often going as far as to chastise his own Party for not acting more like Republicans. He simultaneously bashes Democrats that bash him and his campaign… just a small taste of the Neo-Conservative hypocrisy that Connecticut voters have grown to loath in their Senator.

The Democratic vote for Ned Lamont was a vote for a RETURN to more Democratic principles. A vote FOR party unity and a REJECTION of the Bush Doctrine… which is the REAL extremist position in our country (war mongering, Constitutional violations, extreme fiscal irresponsibility, and just an overall nasty demeanor that has permiated the public at large - “That racist, sexist, homophobic xenophobia you smell… you’re soaking in it!”)

“Anti War” is NOT “the extreme Left position“. 60% of all Americans now want an exit strategy for the imminent withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, so please stop referring to “the anti-war movement” as “the far Left” because it’s patently false.

A key reason for the selection of Senator Lieberman as the 2000 Vice Presidential nominee was his party-splitting vote to impeach President Clinton in 1998, even chastising him on the Senate floor. Selecting Lieberman was mostly a maneuver to attract both Conservative voters and Democrats dismayed over President Clinton’s behavior.

But to now listen to Senator Lieberman repeatedly defend President Bush for committing crimes and defending atrocities resulting from his policies, only serve to heighten Senator Lieberman’s detachment from the core principles of the Democratic Party… regulation of government and industry for the betterment of society; whereas the Republican agenda is the exact opposite: regulating people for the benefit of government and industry).

It comes as no surprise that Senator Lieberman hasn’t yet questioned WHY he received so many ringing Conservative endorsements, including several by some of the most radical extremists hate-mongers in the Republican Party:

o Sean Hannity, of “Hannity & Colmes” on Fox - Publicly endorsed Lieberman on his show and organized a fund-raiser in CT (link).
o Ann Coulter - “He needs to just come on over (to our side).” (link)
o Michelle Malkin is posting links to stories that show Lieberman leading Lamont in polls on her blog. (link)
o Bill Kristol, Editor of “The Weekly Standard” - “Is it too soon to consider him for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination in 2008?” (link)
o Karl Rove - “Whatever we can do, we will do (for Lieberman).” (link)
o Tony Snow - “A vote for Lamont is a vote for another 9/11.” (link)
o Tom Delay gave his support for Lieberman “over Lamont” (link)
o NYC Mayor Bloomberg says he would campaign for Lieberman if asked (link)
o James Guckert (aka Neo-Conservative male prostitute reporter Jeff Gannon) - “(JFK would) more than likely be sickened by its treatment of Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few in his party who takes the threat of Islamofacism seriously.” - (link)
o David Horowitz - “[Sen. Lieberman is] the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the face of its enemies.” - (link)

VP Dick Cheney, GOP Ringmaster Ken Mehlman and former WH Press Secretary McClellan also all praised Senator Lieberman. And Joe didn’t earn that kiss from President Bush because he was an impartial Independent. Speaking of which, Senator Lieberman’s decision not to support the Democratic nominee in Connecticut, but instead run as an Independent, should only further illustrate the same disloyalty to the Democratic Party that Connecticut voters recognized in Joe long ago and voted out Tuesday night.

Joe Lieberman was near the bottom of the pack in 2004, drawing a pathetic 2.5% of Democratic supporters NATION WIDE in the Democratic Primary, further illustrating that Senator Lieberman has been out of the Democratic mainstream for a very long time. And no one was blaming “bloggers” for his unpopularity back then, now were they?

And still Senator Lieberman can’t understand why he is so vilified by voters in “his own Party”. The Party didn’t reject Joe… Joe rejected his Party… long ago. Please stop perpetuating the falsehood that Democrats are “split”, “in disarray” or otherwise being usurped by a “radical minority”. You are only doing the Republican’s dirty work for them by perpetuating the myth that Democrats “are in disarray”. They claim, “Democrats can’t agree on anything”. Of course, half of that “disarray” was frequently The Good Senator from Connecticut. Now with Joe gone, I think you’re going to see a lot less of that.

Posted in Political News | No Comments »