Sunday, July 29, 2007

Political Roundup - Liars, Fires & Buyers

Digg This!Netscape BookmarkReddit BookmarkDel.icio.us Bookmark

This week, I am going to get to the point as it seems few are willing to among those either seeking or sitting in office in the executive branch.

1-Bush: Almost 100 Al Quaedas
2-Gonzales: Waiting for the "privilege" of being fired
3-Hillary and Obama: Friends or Foes
4-Mike Gravel - Who's buying our government?
1-Bush: Almost 100 Al Quaedas - How many times can you lie in one speech? And how many times can you harp on the same lie? There is no doubt that someone in the Bush political machine is still determined that Americans are going to believe the lie repeated often enough is going to be believed.In fact, total score Al Quaeda and bin Laden 118 times in 29 minutes.

It seems that Bush may have mentioned Al Quaeda as many times as there are members of the group operating within Iraq, all in a single speech. But more disturbing was the notion that he was consistently attaching Iraq to 9/11. Just when we thought this had been conceded when long ago, Bush finally admitted the Iraq war had "nothing to do with 9/11," he begins a a new phase. So, it seems his reasoning is that, though there were no Al Quaeda in Iraq at the time of the 9/11 incident; now that there are because he invited them, I guess; we must stay and fight them there to prevent them from coming here.

The problem with this is, if there are Al Quaeda there now because we have fed their recruitment efforts by continuing to fight in Iraq well after our welcome was exhausted, what makes him think that by staying there, we will decrease their numbers? And why does he continue to ignore the real experts within the Islamic circles who say the Sunni and Shia (i.e. Saudi Arabia and Iran) hate Al Quaeda even more than the US does?

According to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone and Vali Nasr, author of Shia Revival, as soon as the US leaves, both sides are more than willing to eliminate Al Quaeda by any means, as they hate them even more than the US does. According to both authors (neither of which can get a date with Bush), the only reason they tolerate Al Quaeda presence now, is that they provide additional insurgence.

Bush would have us believe all the violence is a result inner turmoil, but Iraq's hate of Al Quaeda could very well bring them together after we leave. Yes, there would be a bloodbath, but one that leads toward a stable Iraq.

2-Gonzales: Waiting for the "privilege" of being fired - Is Gonzales aware of some complex legal standard of truth that has somehow evaded the entirety of the legal community throughout history? Does he actually have a law degree? And if so, how does that reflect on the Harvard class of 1982? He seems to forget one of the basics of law practice, that once it has been established that a witness is lying, we can't believe anything else he says. He passed that point long ago. It is clear he has it in his mind that he is untouchable as long as his boss, an even bigger liar, stands behind him with various executive privileges. Doesn't Gonzalez realize the Dems are simply letting him and Bush coast as they hold a spot for an apparent Democratic heir?

Meanwhile, Press Secretary Tony Snow accused the Democrats of "possibly committing treason". full transcript via CNN

Frankly, if it weren't for the very important work the AG's office needs to do to protect our nation, the Dems would love for him to stay and continue to soil the GOP reputation. I suspect the GOP wants him, Bush, Cheney and the whole embarrassing bunch, to voluntarily disappear, so they could have enough time to reestablish legitimacy.

5min32sec


3-Hillary and Obama: Friends or Foes - It is very confusing to see the two of them walk arm in arm to cast their symbolic votes on the Senate floor, often at the last minute; then to see them trying to find real differences while running for the Dem Nomination in such a way that they can still get the general voter to accept them. The posturing is entertaining but confusing.

This week, when asked in the CNN/You Tube Debate, "Would you meet diplomatically with these countries' leaders?" They took opposite positions, and later spun their positions to accommodate each other. Hillary has, in the past, suggested she would deal with those who oppose us in the international front, though she has never suggested she would do so in a summit of heads of state.

3min25sec


It was clear from Obama's answer that he would directly meet with them just as Reagan had done when he was in the Cold War. But the next day, he claimed he would not necessarily meet with them in such a way as to legitimize them; clearly back peddling and straddling the issue.

Also the next day, Hillary simply spun this situation as one that highlighted Obama's "inexperience and naivete", to which Obama called her "Bush and Cheney Lite" in her refusal to deal with despots. Overall, it seemed to work to her advantage as she could very well claim she would maintain an open dialog with these nations while she wouldn't necessarily meet with them personally. The name-calling didn't reflect well on Obama either, as it just didn't fit. She has clearly separated herself from Bush despite her original support of the Iraq War, as did most, based on Bush's lies.

4-Mike Gravel - Who's buying our government? You had best not ignore Mike Gravel. As usual, he's angry. In this case his focus is on who's been bought among Dem contenders. He says if you really want to know who a candidate is going to represent, just follow the money:

1min40sec

1 comment:

roy said...

Abuse of the author hmmm?
well i guess free speech is only if you agree with nonsense.
I don't from either side. This article is opinion, based on emotion more than logic. one point made is politicians can not EVER be trusted unless they are held accountable. we need a less bureacratic government, and we need to hold ALL politicians accountable not just the ones not on "our" side. Vote for a third party candidate if you want change. A 10% vote for a 3rd shows dissasifaction and may produce 3rd party candidates that you can agree with. The 2 party system is antiquated and useless as they are the same.

Related Posts with Thumbnails