The Republican's Perpetual Search for the Next Blowjob

Since Watergate — when a Republican president was rightfully impeached and forced to resign before being removed from office for legitimate crimes that he committed — the Republicans have deployed the strategy of trying to grind the government to a halt whenever a Democrat is elected president.  They deploy this strategy so the Democrat administration can get as little accomplished as possible.

Whenever you hear about a “scandal” involving a Democrat president, you must keep the GOP's "Stop Government" strategy in mind because, no matter what the scope of the scandal is, the Republicans will use it to the best of their ability to grind the government’s ability to govern to a halt.

The GOP certainly deployed this strategy when Bill Clinton was in office.  Beyond the budget battles that led to actual Federal government shutdowns, the GOP kept digging into the supposed crimes of the “Whitewater” real estate deal until, after not finding anything illegal, they centered on a blowjob — which isn’t a crime.  It’s a fucking blowjob.  But that didn’t stop the Republicans from using a fucking blowjob to finally grind government to a halt by using it to impeach Clinton.

Right now, there are three “scandals” circling the Obama administration.  The Department of Justice getting phone records of Associated Press journalists is the only legitimate scandal out of the three; and currently, there isn’t a bit of evidence pointing to Obama having knowledge of DOJ actions.  There is a vast gulf of difference between an employee of the executive branch committing a crime and the president directing those crimes; and the latter was the situation with Nixon and Watergate.  Also, due to warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency during the Bush administration being declared legal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, there exists the very real possibility that the DOJ’s actions weren’t even a crime.  

Should there be Congressional hearings into this matter?  Of course.  But there is a difference between having hearings and grinding government to a halt — a difference that the Republicans, due to their post-Nixon strategy, purposely obfuscate.

As for the Benghazi “scandal”, that attack happened at a time of protests in Muslim majority cities around the globe.  There was absolutely no intelligence about an upcoming attack on a US consulate office in Libya’s second city.  After all, usually it’s the embassy in a capital city that is targeted, not a minor office.  We don’t even know if the Benghazi attack was planned ahead of time or just happened on the spot.  I've lived in Cairo, so I’m familiar with how streets in Arab cities in Africa look; and there’s not a lot of opulence in those streets.  If an American ambassador is driving into town in a rich American car, with security in tow, then the city residents can at least deduce that this is somebody important.  There are a lot of weapons available in a country that just went through a civil war, and from there the only organizing that takes place is a couple of on the spot telephone calls and, bam, you have an attack.

That’s.  It.  There was no conspiracy to hide information about this attack because there was probably absolutely no information at all until it happened.  And it happened at a time of global protests in Muslim cities, which was enough to make anyone question whether it was a protest gone awry or an attack.  Period.  End of story.  

There is no reason for the Republicans to drag this Benghazi story out for months, but they have anyway.  Why?  Because they are trying to grind the government to a halt.

Besides the Department of Justice and Benghazi, we have the other new “scandal” revolving around an IRS office in Cincinnati targeting new organizations with words like “tea party” and “patriot” in their name applying for non-profit status as 501(c)4 groups.  The decision to target conservative organizations was, most likely, made at a middle management level in a satellite IRS office outside of Washington DC, so how, exactly, is Obama responsible for this?  Furthermore, groups that wish to qualify for 501(c)4 non-profit status should have a stated purpose and goals for “social welfare”.  One of the groups that was targeted, called “Tea Party Patriots”, spent most of their time rapidly organizing against Obama before the election.  Their biggest accomplishment was producing an anti-health care act movie called “The Determinators”, publishing it on DVD and sending it out to hundreds of thousands of Americans.  How, exactly, is that working towards aiding the “social welfare” of society?

The  IRS saw a sharp increase in organizations claiming 501(c)4 status after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.  And, quite frankly, if you have conservative organizations steeped in anti-tax and anti-government ideology forming blatantly political organizations that were applying for non-profit status as 501(c)4 “social welfare” groups, wouldn’t you be curious, too?  Yes, all organizations are supposed to be judged equally, but this targeting of conservative organizations was likely borne out of IRS employees looking for better ways to manage their workload.  Let’s face it, these conservative organizations are pretty suspect.  Besides the fact that this wasn’t ordered by the Obama administration, how exactly is this a scandal?

Should there be a hearing or two?  Of course.  But will Republicans pretend this is the end of the world?  Of course.  Why?  Because they are trying to grind the government to a halt.

In light of all of these “scandals”, wherein evidence of direct involvement from the Obama White House doesn’t exist, it’s worth mentioning two actual scandals from the Bush administration that Republicans (and their savant-like stenographers in the mainstream media) cared nothing about — two non-scandals that had evidence of the Bush White House being directly involved.

The most important non-scandal of the Bush administration was the Downing Street Memo.  Published in the British press on May 1, 2005, the memo proved that the Bush administration was lying to the world about the evidence we had regarding Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction during the run up to the Second Iraq War.  That unneeded war killed over 4,800 soldiers, injured over 32,500 soldiers, and likely killed over 120,000 Iraqi civilians.  I could get into the monetary costs that we’re still paying off, but the human toll is sick enough.  Why didn’t the Republicans or the mainstream media regard the Downing Street Memo as a scandal?

The second non-scandal is one I mentioned previously, the National Security Agency executing warrantless wiretaps.  This was initiated by the Bush administration after 9/11, and Republicans weren’t appalled by it.  In fact, one of the groups who was spied upon took their case to court but it was recently thrown out in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The case has yet to make it to the Supreme Court, and lawyers the group spied on fear that an appeal to the Supreme Court would only uphold the ruling from the 9th Court because of the conservative-leanings of the current Supreme Court justices.

Why didn’t the Republicans use these two scandals, with direct connections to the Bush White House, as a reason to host a number of hearings and grind government to a halt?  Why do they only care when lesser crimes are committed that don’t have any apparent connections to the Obama White House?

The answer is simple: Republicans want power, period.  That’s why they’ll turn a blind eye when one of their own commits impeachable atrocities against the Constitution and humanity.  But when a Democrat is in office, then they’re constantly searching for the next blowjob.

Warnings unheeded

Nearly 50 years ago, another Republican president said farewell to the nation with a warning about the growing strength of the ties between the military and corporations. Eisenhower said:

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Tonight, Bush ended his own farewell address with references to Iraq -- an unneeded war where private/corporate militias were heavily relied upon for fighting.

And Ike -- a real Republican -- rolls over in his grave.

Au revoir, Bush. Be sure not to cause anymore catastrophes on your way out, if you can help it.

Pissed Off Again Naked Brunch

Woke up this lovely Sunday morning to the attached Republican Doctrine accusing us of a lack of patriotism, stupidity, and more in a love letter from a resigning Bush.  Well, Rethuglicans, it's a shame it's come to this.  Really LOW tactics.  From my neighbors no less.  I am surrounded by you maniacs.  To bad, so sad you are losing and WILL lose this Presidential election.  And, God Bless America on a fuckin' Sunday back at 'cha.

Click on the image to read page 1 of the diatribe.

Or you can click on these links to read each page; there are 5 of them.

• BushPg1


• BushPg2


• BushPg3


• BushPg4


• BushPg5

Be sure to pass this around and to your local Democratic Headquarters.  I am.

According to Polltracker '08 which averages all polls by state and then nationslly, Obama is kicking McCains butt.

Nationally  51.2% to 42.4% on average

Electoral Votes  Obama 306   McCain 157

Oh, Happy Day!

By the way, I printed a huge fuckin poster of Obama yesterday and I'm sticking it in my yard with the other three Obama signs already out there.  A better fuck you I couldn't have come up with.

Comparing the ideologies of General Musharraf and Genre.. Err, excuse me, President Bush

Reading this blog post requires that you've paid attention to events in Central Asia over the weekend, but for those who haven't here's a quick overview: The Pakistani Supreme Court was set to rule on whether or not President Musharraf could run for reelection while still heading Pakistan's military. Additiionally, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who has recently returned to the country and wants a piece of the political pie (and has the clout to demand such) was out of the country, in Dubai on personal matters. General Musharraf then went apeshit, suspending the constitution and declaring martial law; also comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, basically saying that he's a president trying to keep his country together. But unlike America's civil war, Musharraf claims that Pakistan is fighting terrorism.

Now, bringing us to my post, how exactly is terrorism defined? And where does a similariity between Bush and Musharraf's views come into play? The truth is scarier than you think:

Unlike Bush, Musharraf at least had the decency to announce to the whole world that he was placing the constitution "in abeyance" and arrogating all power to his sole person. The Bush administration prefers to promulgate shadowy memoranda, signing statements, and Humpty-Dumpty like amendments to the meaning of common words. Since the courts are instruments of terrorists (and can even be used to demoralize the security forces!) counter-terrorism logically requires the abolition of the rule of law.

Yeah, go you should read the whole thing.

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

Just when you thought Iraq took a positive turn...

OK, I'm guessing that nobody reading this seriously thought that Iraq was heading for better times, but lately, there had been surprisingly less bad news eminating from the country. Turkey is ready to fix that:

Turkey Ponders Iraq Campaign

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday that Turkey would not be deterred by the possible consequences of invading Iraq if it decides to stage a cross-border offensive against Kurdish rebels. [...]

The Turkish parliament was expected to approve a government request to authorize an Iraq campaign as early as next week, after a holiday ending the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. But that does not mean a risky incursion will follow at once. Turkey might give diplomacy, and perhaps economic pressure, more time to work even as public enthusiasm for a military mission mounts.

Ahhh yes, diplomacy. That will also prove to be an obstacle since Turkey is throwing a hissy fit -- calling its US ambassador back to Ankara -- over the House of Representative's committee level vote on a bill to call the Ottoman Turks' genocide of the Armenians during World War I a genocide. Yes, they're that stubborn. And let's not mince words here: it was a genocide. In fact, the Turks' mass murder of Armenians was such a clear-cut case of genocide that it prompted Raphael Lemkin to coin the word "genocide" -- the word didn't yet exist, and there was no other way to describe the atrocities committed by the Ottoman Empire. Why modern day Turkey still has a conniption over the mere mention of the involvement of the Ottoman government is beyond me.

But maybe I spoke too soon. Maybe diplomacy will work, since Bush has vowed to veto the Armenian Genocide bill should it reach his desk. There's one word for such an action: Shame.

And to think, all Bush could have done to avoid a confrontation with Turkey is take care of the Kurdish PKK guerrilla problem -- but he hasn't lifted a finger to do such. And now that the PKK is killing Turkish military on Turkish soil again, Turkey is ready to act -- and Bush has absolutely no justification to stop them, since he invaded Iraq for lesser reasons. In fact, some might call those "reasons" outright lies.

But to practice diplomacy with Turkey, our factually-challenged president is willing to continue masking up what is historical fact. The Turks systematically targeted and murdered hundreds of thousands of Armenians during World War I. However, Bush sees fit to continuing denying this -- to continue denying the dignity of the Armenian people -- just to try and salvage his quagmire of a war.

Shame on Bush, shame on anyone who voted for him, and shame on anyone who supports this war. Is it possible for all three of those entities to sink any lower into the moral sewer?

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

:: Holy Shiite: Bush Administration betrays us all ::

This is a followup from a post I wrote on Sunday regarding Seymour Hershs' article in the New Yorker. After a deeper read and understanding of the implications of what he wrote, well, I was appalled then, now I'm absolutely sickened. It's Iran Contra all over again.  Surprising?  No. THE REDIRECTION: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

Check out the reaction on AlterNet

Our own government is supporting Al Qaida and others. Additionally, is Negraponte's change in position including supposition he moved for this very reason.

Bush supports betrays the troops.

Is it any wonder that more Americans trust Congress more than Bush? Or, that 2 out of 3 disagree with Bush's surge sending more troops to Iraq? And, this is a new low:

The poll also registered a new low on the question of whether the Iraq war was worth fighting. Thirty-four percent responded that it was, while 64 percent said it was not -- 51 percent strongly. On this question, 51 percent of military veterans and 53 percent of veteran households said they strongly believe that the war was not worth fighting.

It's great people are finally figuring this out. But, it should never have taken this long. Such waste. I'm going to be sick now.

tag: Shiite, bush, administration, negraponte, troops, sunni, seymour hersh, iraq, poll, mideast, irsn, dominance

:: An entire world at war .... ::

Could someone please introduce Bush to the theories and practice of Conflict Resolution?

Seymour Hersh on Iran, Syria, and the Middle East in the New Yorker gives us yet more reasons to get rid of Bush/Cheney. It seems like they are trying to create an entire world at war. Winner take all. Enslave to rest to corporations. Put all the people back into mystical religious servitude of the state controlled church.

Flynt Leverett, a former Bush Administration National Security Council official, told me that “there is nothing coincidental or ironic” about the new strategy with regard to Iraq. “The Administration is trying to make a case that Iran is more dangerous and more provocative than the Sunni insurgents to American interests in Iraq, when—if you look at the actual casualty numbers—the punishment inflicted on America by the Sunnis is greater by an order of magnitude,” Leverett said. “This is all part of the campaign of provocative steps to increase the pressure on Iran. The idea is that at some point the Iranians will respond and then the Administration will have an open door to strike at them.”

On Bush/Cheney’s certain war with Iran:

Still, the Pentagon is continuing intensive planning for a possible bombing attack on Iran, a process that began last year, at the direction of the President. In recent months, the former intelligence official told me, a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.

In the past month, I was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change.

Two carrier strike groups—the Eisenhower and the Stennis—are now in the Arabian Sea. One plan is for them to be relieved early in the spring, but there is worry within the military that they may be ordered to stay in the area after the new carriers arrive, according to several sources. (Among other concerns, war games have shown that the carriers could be vulnerable to swarming tactics involving large numbers of small boats, a technique that the Iranians have practiced in the past; carriers have limited maneuverability in the narrow Strait of Hormuz, off Iran’s southern coast.) The former senior intelligence official said that the current contingency plans allow for an attack order this spring. He added, however, that senior officers on the Joint Chiefs were counting on the White House’s not being “foolish enough to do this in the face of Iraq, and the problems it would give the Republicans in 2008.

Ofcourse, they are foolish enough.

On Saudi Arabia & the Palestinians:

Patrick Clawson, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, depicted the Saudis’ coöperation with the White House as a significant breakthrough. “The Saudis understand that if they want the Administration to make a more generous political offer to the Palestinians they have to persuade the Arab states to make a more generous offer to the Israelis,” Clawson told me. The new diplomatic approach, he added, “shows a real degree of effort and sophistication as well as a deftness of touch not always associated with this Administration. Who’s running the greater risk—we or the Saudis? At a time when America’s standing in the Middle East is extremely low, the Saudis are actually embracing us. We should count our blessings.”

The Pentagon consultant had a different view. He said that the Administration had turned to Bandar as a “fallback,” because it had realized that the failing war in Iraq could leave the Middle East “up for grabs.”

No shit.

I have to go clean up for the family birthday parties, including my own.