Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Falwell has fallen...

...and he isn't getting back up. That's right, Jerry Falwell is dead. Good riddance! The hateful, intolerant, homophobic, socially conservative Christian evangelizing bigot has finally went to his 're-ward'. Boy is he going to be in for a surprise!

I can just see it now though, all the documentary specials they'll run on his sorry ass about all the so-called "good" that he accomplished. It certainly wasn't good, but he definitely did accomplish quite a bit for uptight bigoted social conservatives and did a lot of damage to freedom and diversity in this country in the process. And that's just the beginning. He helped to set the pieces in place to continue this assault on liberty, diversity, freedom of speech, separation of church & state, progressive ideals, and pluralist society in general. Because of him and others, the struggle against intolerance, prejudice, primitive dogmas, radical ideologies, social, religious, gender, and racial bigotry will continue for at least one more generation.

Falwell is certainly to blame for a lot of disastrous things in this country, like helping to get Christian conservatives organized and politically active — similar to Hitler forming the Nazi party. He set the wheels in motion for the modern social conservative movement.

His sadly misnamed 'Liberty' University will go on for generations helping to give college educations accompanied with right-wing conservative Christian brainwashing, all so that there will be more socially conservative Christian minions to be unleashed on the country, enacting their anti-liberty, Dominionist agendas.

Falwell was always shooting off the mouth with absurdities. Like blaming liberals, homosexuals, and pro-choice advocates for the 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. He was also a major hypocrite, quick to judge others, he HATED homosexuality and depicted it as a grave sin against GOD that must be rejected by society. Apparently gluttony wasn't so much of a sin as it never stopped his corpulent self from becoming, well, more corpulent. No doubt the overeating contributed to his dying when he did.

McCain was right the first time, Jerry Falwell and his ilk are "agents of intolerance". I cringe when I think about the disgusting lies that are to come, the hero of conservatives that he'll be made out to be in the following days.

Well, now that he's dead he can go to what lies beyond and finally see for himself just how foolish, misguided, and wrong his life's work has been. One thing I'm sure of, he won't find the afterlife anything like he'd expected it to be. It's just too bad he can't tell his followers about the TRUTH.


Christopher Hitchens said of Falwell on Anderson Cooper's 360, "The empty life of this ugly little charlatan proves only one thing: that you can get away with the most extraordinary offenses to morality and to truth in this country if you will just get yourself called Reverend.

Who would, even at your network, have invited on such a little toad to tell us that the attacks of September the 11th were the result of our sinfulness and were God's punishment if they hadn't got some kind of clerical qualification?

People like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign and selling pencils from a cup."

Well said...

The Cult

A few days ago it came to my attention that a reporter for the BBC, John Sweeney, had a verbal blow up at Tommy Davis, a Scientologist who was hell bent on defending Scientology and harassing anyone who opposes the "church".

After Mr. Sweeney was followed around and hounded by this Tommy Davis character, the Scientologist nut finally went off on Sweeney while he was interviewing someone else about Scientology, "You have no right whatsoever to say what is and what isn't a religion. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees one's right to practice and believe freely in this country. And the definition of religion is very clear and it's not defined by John Sweeney."

Whine, whine whine... This guy is certainly conflating a lot of things here. First of all, as a matter of fact the constitution of the United States of America guarantees the citizens of this country the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs without government persecution, it says nothing whatsoever about any or all religions being respected, nor that any of the rest of us have to make accommodations for any religions or cults, nor that any of the rest of us have to give any respect whatsoever to any religion, and most especially it does not in any way, shape or form minimize the other guarantees found in the First amendment of the United States Constitution — a right to freedom of speech and a freedom of the press... In other words, Davis is waaay off the mark!

Secondly, no, religion is not defined by John Sweeney, nor is it defined by Tommy Davis nor Tom Cruise nor Bruce Willis nor John Travolta, nor L. Ron Hubbard. As far as myself and most other people are concerned, Scientology is a cult. But that doesn't matter, no one is stopping Tommy Davis or any of the rest of the Scientologists from believing in whatever lunatic space-alien cult fetish they want to. No one is violating their rights. Again, Davis and his kooky friends are WAAAY off the mark!

Sp little Tommy goes on to rant further, "And for you to repeatedly refer to my faith in those terms is so derogatory and so offensive and so bigoted and the reason you keep repeating it is because you wanted to get a reaction like you're getting right now. Well buddy, you got it! Right here, right now! I'm angry, real angry."

Oh, now he's angry. "Real angry"... Who gives a damn? I suppose the truth hurts. Even Davis here must realize at times that his "faith" feels more like a cult and so he is easily upset by a journalist even mentioning the fact that some people do refer to it in such a way...

All through this little diatribe John Sweeney has listened intently, coolly, calmly with no interruption to this rant and he is now ready to do some talking of his own, oh, but little Tommy just won't have that, "So we're done, because if you use that term one more time... I can't be responsible for my actions. So John, goodbye."

Tommy {he thinks he's Tom Cruise} Davis here is dead wrong. Like anyone else he most certainly can be held responsible for his actions and would be. His cult may have him believing he is somehow above the law but in the real world he isn't.

Here is the actual video of the Scientologist nut, Tommy Davis, defending his cult and having his indignant rant.

Well, Mr. Sweeney wasn't about to let this nonsense slide on by without a response. He continued on after Davis making it clear that it was now his turn and Davis needed to listen. At some point they had this little exchange.

Now I certainly agree that the reporter, John Sweeney was out of line, but then in dealing with these crazy lunatics and Davis' earlier rant, I probably would have lost it too. I'm sure he had enough of being harassed by these gestapo thugs that go around intimidating anyone who investigates or is critical of Scientology. As Sweeney seems to have found out, they will pull out nearly any tactic to discredit or otherwise silence critics of them.

So I saw the outburst video on Keith Olbermann and then looked it up online to find out more about it. I watched it several times and to me it seems obvious that these thugs from the Church of Scientology were trying to intimidate John Sweeney because he was investigating them. Mr. Sweeney lost his cool because he was being hounded by people from the "church" {because that's how they protect themselves, harassing anyone who questions their belief system} and he was trying to get his point across to this little Scientology twerp just kept rambling on and on and on and on...

When watching the video one can see that Mr. Sweeney raises his voice to talk over the man who won't let him get a word in edgewise and even quiets down when he's finally allowed to speak but then this Davis creep continued his blabbering on so Mr. Sweeney started screaming again. To me it seems obvious that his point was as if to say, 'I CAN TALK LOUDER THAN YOU SO SHUT THE HELL UP AND LET ME MAKE MY POINT' and to prove to him that he could. He was trying to get the little shit to shut up long enough so he could make his point. Again, it's not the right way to handle things but understandable nonetheless. In fact, I'd say good job, Mr. Sweeney, at not letting these cultist nutjobs get you to back down.

Here is an article by John Sweeney in which he explains his side of the story.

Now I know that these people are upset about having it revealed that their "church" is akin to a cult. That is understandable, but as I said before people are entitled to their opinions and journalists have a right and a duty to investigate. And while religious tolerance is a good thing, not all beliefs are equal — truly. Most importantly perhaps, read my lips, Tommy Davis, and let me make sure that this crystal clear: THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IS A CULT!!! It is a creepy, scary, dangerous, lunatic fringe, new age CULT.

But don't just take my word for it...




Los Angeles Times series on Scientology
{copy} Time Magazine article on Scientology

Yep, a krazy, kreepy kult...

Monday, May 14, 2007

Guiliani: the next Neocon puppet?

There is so much hype going on about Rudy Giuliani. I think so much of it seems so undeserved. Just what is it that he did which was so extraordinary after 9/11? It appears to me that he didn't do much of anything that any other even slightly competent public official wouldn't have done after such a disaster. While it is certainly understandable from a psychological and sociological standpoint, nonetheless it seems to be all too often overlooked that the instant skyrocketing of the public's approval rating for both Giuliani and Bush was based on pure emotionalism not merit.

Now I'm not completely opposed to Rudy Giuliani. Not at all. He says he believes there are, "sensible, commonsense things you can do that will make government once again look to people like a functioning, problem-solving organization." He also thinks that "[he] can make government more like a business...a problem-solver rather than a problem creator." Sounds great! But talk is cheap. Just how he plans to achieve all this remains to be seen, but it does sound good. A fresh approach perhaps.

There are some more interesting aspects of Rudy. I like the fact that he is much more sensible in his approach to gay equality and women's rights than his Republican peers. But then I am concerned about his cozying up to social conservatives, though admittedly he has not done so to the disgusting level of pandering that the flip-flopping Mitt Romney has. And I also admit that he did clean New York City up, no minor accomplishment in the least. Of course, he used some rather draconian tactics to achieve this. One must ask themselves in such situations: does the ends justify the means? Is being a sort of tyrant in order to improve law and order really an accomplishment, or is it taking the easy way out at the expense of the citizenry and their liberties?

I think progressive moderates would actually seriously consider the question posed here. But on the other hand, most conservatives would probably totally dismiss such notions; to many the motto is 'whatever reduces crime and improves "morals" is justifiable'. Conversely, the Liberals might say that such ends NEVER justify the means. Such absolutism is why results are so seldom seen from any government ran by partisan hacks and ideologues. Was Rudy being pragmatic or dogmatic?

Well, there are his tantrums and other tyrannical behaviors to consider. Like his dictating what is art and what is not, making threats about cutting funding to art museums who depict art which he believes is offensive to Catholics... Or his assault on a New York magazine, taking their ads off of city buses because they poked fun at his vanity {taking credit for EVERYTHING good in the city}. Clearly this was a personal affront to him, and so he decided to use his official powers to send them a message. Someone that reacts like that might as well be a mob boss with the key to the city. If he doesn't like you, you could have hell to pay... Do we want to give this guy the key to the country? I don't think so.

I think that all of this coupled with the way he has seemingly profited from the superstar status which 9/11 gave him, when just before this he was surrounded by scandal and was becoming increasingly irrelevant, reveals a man who is not only undeserving of the accolades he is given, not only is he not suitable for the job, but he might very well be the type of person that would abuse his power much the way Bush & Co. has done for the past 6 years. As a country we definitely do not need more of the same.

And then there is the security of the free-world to consider as well. Not only is it imperative to protect civil liberties from governments, but to keep governments from dragging us deeper and deeper into open warfare based on ideologies, not necessities. I must say, I think it is a very legitimate concern just how severely Giuliani might overreact to the next inevitable terrorist attack in this country. Undoubtedly there will be neocons who will weasel their way into influential positions in a new administration. Considering what happened as a reaction to 9/11 under Bush, it seems quite plausible that if some more Saudi jihadists trained in Talibanistan were to attack the U.S. with a WMD, President Rudy might just invade North Korea on the advice of Neocons like William Kristol and his cabal of war-mongering ideologues who say it is necessary as part of the "broader global war against extremist Islamic fundamentalists and terrorism".

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Incurious George

Former CIA Director George Tenet was on Chris Matthew's Hardball yesterday. Chris really went after him, trying to nail him down on how the war was sold to us on bogus info, the justifications for the war have proved untrue, the planning for dealing with Iraq after Saddam seems to have been non-existence, and how George Tenet seemed to have done little about any of this. A good interview. This is the kind of Hardball I remember...

Full transcript of the show

While George is making the rounds on the various programs 60 Minutes, Tim Russert, Jon Stewart, et al. he's been passing the buck to save his own ass and promote his book. Now that things are going down in flames and he has nothing to gain from staying silent, I guess he figures it's time to save his own image by putting this off on the hawkish and inept Bush & Co. and perhaps creating some semblance of a legacy that doesn't include helping to sell the Vietnam war of the 21st century.

He's been getting a lot of criticism for not doing more when he had the chance, especially now that he seems to be critical of how things were handled. Of course it makes perfect sense why he's taking so much heat right now, not only because he was right there when so much of this bullshit story was being sold to us, but also because he is among the few from the Administration that has stepped forward to talk about things. The American public, indeed the world would love to take it's anger and frustration out on this reckless administration, especially the incompetent little dictator Bush, but alas, we can't. People in the administration are very quiet about all this, they're keeping their distance, staying where it's safe and will mostly get the softball questions throw at them. The public at large would like to have a stoning in the public square, but for that a warm body is needed, George "slam dunk" Tenet just happens to fit the bill.

I actually think he deserves every bit of the criticism that is coming to him and then some! He should have stood up when he had the chance. If we were being mislead by the administration and he knew it then he should have went public with it then, damn the consequences of his job. As a public servant he is supposed to be serving the American people, not the President, not a political ideology or party. Instead of taking a stand he took the coward's way out. Fine. Then he should remain a coward. No pat on the back, no newfound respect, no forgiveness, and definitely no wealth from his exploitative book.

Monday, May 07, 2007

The First debates...

So now after having seen both the Democratic and Republican debates I can say more assuredly, Yep, we're screwed!

First the Democrats. The surprise was former Sen. Mike Gravel. I didn't even know who this raving kook was, and he was way out there on some stuff, seemingly disconnected from the reality the rest of us live in. He certainly seemed to be a man of very passionate conviction, though he seemed angry most of the time. I suppose frustration over the lack of integrity in modern politics can do that to a person. Perhaps the most memorable moment from him was when he said, "I gotta tell ya, after standing up with them [other Democratic candidates on the dais], some of these people frighten me!" Yeah, me too!

Sen. Hillary Clinton seemed a bit phony, as usual, but she did answer a lot of the questions rather well. For the most part she seemed informed and as if she'd given these issues some thought. Of course she also seemed as if she was pandering. She seemed too polished and often used her alloted time without going over. A bit too rehearsed it would seem.

Really, I don't think she made any serious mistakes. However, one thing did catch my attention though, something which I found all too telling, the issue of her having voted in favor of the war with Iraq, even though she talks as if she opposes our having gone there now. .

"I take responsibility for my vote. Obviously I did as good a job I could at the time. It was a sincere vote based on the information available to me. And I've said many times that if I knew then what I now know, I would not have voted that way." When the topic of her having voted for the war with Iraq was brought up, as usual she put the blame on Bush & Co. having mislead us on the justifications for this war instead of owning up to her own errors in trusting him. She first claimed to "take responsibility for [her] vote," saying yet again that "if [she] knew then what [she] now know[s], [she] would not have voted that way." Hmmm... And just why did she not know then what a lot of us did, that this war was based on bogus info and trumped up rhetoric?

She also said, "Obviously I did as good a job I could at the time." That was a really, really bad answer... First of all I think it showed a lack of integrity in not admitting she made a mistake and instead just continued to be bullheaded, refusing to admit her error and putting the blame on someone else. But it also shows incompetence on her part. If deciding 'yes' to the question of whether or not to vote for this unjust and unnecessary war was "her best" I'd hate to see her worst! For some time now I've felt that if laypersons like some us could see through the lies and propaganda by Bush & Co., then why in the hell didn't politicians like Sen. Clinton see this? Where was her objectivity and caution? Where was her ability to make good, sound decisions? When it comes down to it I think it clearly shows that she is either being dishonest here or she is totally incompetent to not have been wiser. Either way she isn't fit to be senator, let alone president.

Sen. Barrack Obama, was perhaps the biggest disappointment of all. Of course this could be that I had big expectations for him. He seemed to evade some of the questions, not offering a very good explanation or even avoiding them altogether but going off on a tangent about something else. I really wanted to find a lot of things to approve of him. For some time now I've been somewhat impressed by the guy but just unsure of what he stands for exactly. I figured once we got to the debate stage he would start to better articulate his plans but he really didn't.

Perhaps the biggest blunder on his part was when asked very directly, "[if] we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?" Rather than his answer sounding Presidential, like one whose priority is protecting the country and taking a solid defensive stance, he sounded perhaps more like a mayor, "the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans. And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack."

Joe Biden sold his ideas fairly well. I like Joe Biden and have for a long time. In fact, I recall hoping strongly that he would run as talk of 2008 increased... That would be pretty much after the shock and dejection of Bush managing to hijack the country for another 4 years. I think he's very intelligent, has a lot of great ideas about how to make changes in government. Of course, because of this alone he'll never win. It was so amusing when Brian Williams commented about how Biden has been accused

Christopher Dodd
did alright as well, I find myself agreeing with him at times and at other times not. He doesn't seem like the left-wing liberal type but then I'm also concerned he might be too conservative.

Bill Richardson was a bit of a disappointment, he just isn't very commanding. His stance on issues and his ability to express himself doesn't reach me. He just doesn't seem presidential, he seems more like a diplomat.

John Edwards did rather well, I think. I must say, the more I hear of the guy the more I'm impressed with him, but also disillusioned. He talks of their being "two America's" an apparent allusion to the have's and the have nots, yet Edwards is filthy rich, he has a huge house, and pays $400 for hair cuts... I will say this for him, I do think he's honest. I've listened to his interviews, and have come to the conclusion that he's either a very, very good actor, or he's speaking from the heart most of the time. I don't get that feeling from much of the others.

Another of the candidates, probably the most honest of all, is Dennis Kucinich. He's too liberal for my tastes but he does have a lot of interesting ideas and fresh perspectives. Most folks right it off as too radical of a change in how we look at war, our place in the world, social programs, etc. but then maybe some "radicalism" that doesn't involve perpetuating the same old cycle of exploiting the majority for the benefit of a very select minority.

Full transcript of the Democratic debate

When it comes to the Republican debate, one of the things I noticed was how someone had sure went out of their way to give them a fancy set up. They were in the Reagan Presidential Library and even had the backdrop of an older version of Air Force One... There was plenty of talk about Reagan, everyone was invoking his name, attempting to channel his spirit, or at least show themselves to idolize the guy. I'm still trying to figure out, what is this obsession with Ronald Reagan? Just what is it that he did that was supposed so fantastic. You'd think he was George Washington to these Republicans. I guess that explains why I am not and never will be a Republican.

As for the debates, Mitt Romney was slick, scary, definitely a flip-flopper, and to be perfectly frank about it, why vote Mormon? These folks have some really bizarre beliefs and I'm not so naive to believe that a person's political or religious ideologies won't interfere with their ability to lead the country. The man is so plastic, so phony. I must say I'm really concerned about him winning the nomination. I refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton, but if she runs against Mitt I'm afraid I'd have to...

John McCain was really hung up on rhetoric, he's trying to be the tough guy hoping it will help his image. I used to have a lot of respect for McCain, but he sold himself out soon after he lost the party nomination in 2000 and he's mostly been singing Bush's praises since then. And he's certainly too pro-war. He's just not the maverick he used to be. If he could genuinely bring that back and show some independence instead of sucking up to the neocons and the theocons I'd seriously consider voting for him...

Ron Paul is certainly too libertarian for my tastes, I cannot support eliminating the income tax {unless it was replaced with a sufficient revenue stream}, completely getting rid of social programs like social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, and needed agencies like the FDA. Still, Ron Paul is a very refreshing change. I'm wondering just where this guy came from. I didn't think they made guys like this anymore. We could certainly use a lot more of this small-government mentality from candidates. Ron Paul is like the true conservative, isolationist, non-interventionist, limited government, fiscally conservative.

Paul wants us out of the UN and NATO, which is certainly radical, dangerous even. But he not only opposes the war and our having ever gotten into it, he also opposes the imperialism we've seen in this country for years. He wants to get rid of NAFTA, of course he also wants so-called "free trade". He seems to be a State's Rights kind of guy, so when it comes to social issues I think he'd leave it up to the states, like abortion law. As far as gay issues are concerned I think he wants the government out of people's personal lives and he might be indifferent to same-sex marriage but would probably never push for homosexual equality.

Tommy Thompson first he says employers should have a right to fire gays, then says his "hearing aid" failed. Brilliant, jackass. Either he's a bigot or he's full of shit, either way we don't need that sort of leader.

Evolution became and interesting topic, 3 out of 10 of the Republican presidential candidates say it's bogus. This, of course, came from the socially-conservative religious fundamentalists of the line-up — Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback...

Rudy Giuliani thinks overturning Roe vs. Wade would be "okay". Lost more moderate votes with that stance than conservative votes that he may have gained from it. Other than that I think Rudy is a thug, he think he lead NYC like a little dictator, and he's certainly too hawkish on the war, on all war, on the so-called "Global War On Terror". I think this guy would give us more of the kind of neoconservative war-mongering that we've seen from little Bush. I do, however, like his stance on social issues

Full transcript of the Republican debate

I think we all know that this will be the most important election in at least a generation, but it looks like this will also be the most polarizing and heated of them. The red vs. blue ever divide widens...

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

4 years later...

Mission still unaccomplished. Today marks the 4th year since the man who holds the office which is officially known by the acronym PoTUS, George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq whilst standing below a huge banner of "Mission Accomplished" while partaking in a little photo-op moment.

Clearly there was no "Mission Accomplished" at that point, well unless you count the mission of getting Bush reelected, and keeping Republic* politicians in control in the 2004 election. Officially, however, according to repeated statements from Bush & Co. the mission in Iraq hasn't just been to topple Saddam, eliminate WMD's, or open up a front against Islamic terrorists. Nope, it was to spread democracy, to see a free, stable and Democratic Iraq become a reality.

Well, it is some 4 years, nearly 3,400 dead American soldiers, and 50,000-55,000 dead Iraqis since Bush's photo-op, and that mission is beyond any doubt not even close to being accomplished. In fact, as time has gone on and more has been learned about the history of Iraq and the ancient hostilities there, and of course the worsening realities there now, it seems more like mission impossible.

Keith Olbermann gives a really good rundown of Bush and his Mission Accomplished

So here we are four years later, and Bush is still giving his same old line that we just need to give it more time, one last surge. As if this time, just like all the rest, this time is going to make the difference. How long will we go on with this?

While I opposed the Iraq war back when Bush & Co. and seemingly everyone else was saying it was absolutely necessary; something we had to do and had every moral justification in doing. I knew that Bush and worse still his Neocon backers —Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al.— had been planning years before Bush came to power. I knew that the so-called intelligence on Iraq having WMD's and connections to al-Qaida was bogus. I knew it was bogus all this talk of spreading democracy. Of course, I also felt that it wasn't the responsibility of our country, nor ethically right to "spread democracy" through force of arms. I also felt that it was wrong for this nation to declare war preemptively, and it was unethical to attack and destroy a country in order to force regime change. In short, I never supported this war.

I also have been opposed to many of the tactics this Administration has used in Iraq, with the incompetence of Rumsfeld and others. But while I have always been opposed to the war, nonetheless, for a long time, until the past year as a matter of fact and even more specifically until Bush's weak troop surge, I have disagreed with the war but have been opposed to pulling out because of the chaos that it would likely leave behind. While the liberals and anti-war crowd has insisted we leave now, I felt that we had a duty and responsibility to try to fix what we fucked up. Now I think the situation has become one in which repairing our mistakes is not a possibility. Bush & Co. are too incompetent. I have no faith in their ability to do the right thing in Iraq.

So as this situation has continued to deteriorate, and this troop surge has been far too low to accomplish much of anything, I've decided that we are not working to correct past mistakes, we are simply prolonging the inevitable. As such, I do believe we need to start to withdraw our forces. What will be left behind, now that Bush's war has created first a magnet to draw terrorists in, but also ultimately a vacuum for them to prosper in? Likely Iraq will be a haven for terrorists. Maybe the government and local factions will take control and kick the extremists out of their country. I don't think that is likely. I'm sure it will be years, decades even of work to get the upper hand on these groups. But I am positive that the desire to destroy the West among the common people will continue to be reinforced the longer we occupy and wreak havoc on Muslim countries.

I think a pull back and a new strategy diplomatically is in order. As well as doing our best to contain the civil war that is Iraq today. And it cannot be stressed enough that we the United States, via our President, his war, their incompetence, and our consent of it are to blame. Another 60,000 to 100,000 troops, with the proper strategy might have turned the tide. 20,000 to even 30,000 isn't going to do it. A continuation of the al-Maliki government and their divisive policies is not going to see a positive change in Iraq.

Keith Olbermann talks with Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America in an interview in which they discuss the cover-up of the killing of Pat Tillman by friendly-fire as well as the strain on the military.

Here is an article on the Huffington Post that Paul Rieckhoff wrote about the 4th anniversary of Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment.

When it comes down to it, there was one crucial failure from the Administration. Outside of being lied to about the justification of war, and outside of the gross incompetence the administration used in waging this war {improper planning, not enough occupation forces, not enough reconstruction, disbanding the government}, perhaps the biggest failure was Bush & Co. not being honest enough to make it clear that this war was not going to be a "cake walk", it was going to be a long, painful, arduous, costly battle that would wage on for a decade or more. An insurgency from regime change in a nation such as Iraq, and the ensuing occupation was inevitable. Poor planning ensured it would be a major insurgency. Major insurgencies take years, decades perhaps to vanquish. This could not be accomplished in 4 years, it can't be accomplished in 8.

They didn't tell us that, of course, and now they are paying the political price for that and more. But Bush keeps claiming that "stay the course" means support the troops, while looking for a solution beyond the military is "admitting defeat". Bush and his gang gave us defeat when they committed us to this war and turned it into the fiasco it has been for over 2 years now.

I applaud the Congress for standing up to Bush, FINALLY, and trying to put a stop to his insanity. I'm afraid it won't last long, though. Before long I'm afraid the Dems will give up and let Bush has his way, yet again, as the easily dissuaded America public buys the same old "support the troops" canard.

Bill Maher was on Hardball with Chris Matthews discussing Mission Accomplished, as well as the "gay" obsession with Reagan. Hilarious! Chris really needs to have Bill on the show more often. The public could use more straight-forward talk about the lunacy, perhaps even criminality of Bush & Co. and their apologists...

* An increasing number of Rethuglicans, even Bush insists on using what is to them a pejorative term like "democrat" party, "democrat" congressman, etc. I must say that it is so fitting that they would find the word and concept of "democratic" as something to be avoided....... Because of this, I figure one good turn deserves another and therefore I apply their logic in response by depicting Republican politicians as "Republic" politicians, and of course the "Republic" party. Sounds extremely petty & ridiculous right? Yep, my point exactly!