...Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result...
“Because I told them it had to.”
“He’s tried this two times — it’s failed twice,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says of President Bush’s escalation plan. “I asked him at the White House, ‘Mr. President, why do you think this time it’s going to work?’ And he said, ‘Because I told them it had to.‘” Pelosi reportedly then asked, “Why didn’t you tell them that the other two times?“
Friday, January 26, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
SOTU Coming Up This Tuesday
Personally, I wouldn't miss it. It's like watching Tommy Flanagan (played by John Lovitz) from the old Pathological Liars Society skits on Saturday Night Live. With Bush telling outrageous lies and making promises he won't even try to keep it's just pure entertainment...as long as you aren't stupid enough to actually believe anything he says.
Two of my favorites from past SOTU's.
SOTU 2003: President Bush Spoke of Providing All Americans with Affordable Health Care. "We must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need."
But Health Care Premiums Have Increased by Over 80 Percent. (U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06)
SOTU 2002: Bush Said Energy Must Be Made More Affordable. In 2002, President Bush said, "Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil."
But Under Bush Prices Have Climbed. Heating Costs Have Increased 64 Percent. Gas Prices 86% Higher.
The SOTU is merely an exercise in Bush making more outrageous lies and promises every year in an attempt to top himself from the year before.
Two of my favorites from past SOTU's.
SOTU 2003: President Bush Spoke of Providing All Americans with Affordable Health Care. "We must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need."
But Health Care Premiums Have Increased by Over 80 Percent. (U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06)
SOTU 2002: Bush Said Energy Must Be Made More Affordable. In 2002, President Bush said, "Good jobs also depend on reliable and affordable energy. This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure, and it must act to increase energy production at home so America is less dependent on foreign oil."
But Under Bush Prices Have Climbed. Heating Costs Have Increased 64 Percent. Gas Prices 86% Higher.
The SOTU is merely an exercise in Bush making more outrageous lies and promises every year in an attempt to top himself from the year before.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
It's True: Bush Proclaims Sunday "National Sanctity of Human Life Day"
From Bob Geiger:
I swear, I'm not making this up.
In a formal White House proclamation issued Friday, George W. Bush declared January 21 National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2007.
"America was founded on the principle that we are all endowed by our Creator with the right to life and that every individual has dignity and worth," reads the stirring proclamation. "National Sanctity of Human Life Day helps foster a culture of life and reinforces our commitment to building a compassionate society that respects the value of every human being."
And here's the real kicker: "Among the most basic duties of Government is to defend the unalienable right to life, and my Administration is committed to protecting our society's most vulnerable members," says the hypocritical statement.
Bush then goes on to brag about all the steps his administration has taken to promote his famed "culture of life" saying "we are helping to make our country a more hopeful place."
Naturally, this doesn't take into account the many safety-net programs that have suffered under the Bush administration or that his party has blockaded a minimum wage increase for the last 10 years. What about so many elderly and disabled who have had to do without home heating assistance with Bush's crew running the Congress?
I guess there's also no point in talking about the fact that, since Bush became president, almost eight million more Americans have no medical coverage of any kind or that his refusal to even acknowledge a health care crisis has left millions of elderly Americans and children with no ability to stay healthy. But, hey, once that little cell becomes a child, the GOP's obligation to care seems to cease, doesn't it?
But on he goes...
"National Sanctity of Human Life Day serves as a reminder that we must value human life in all forms, not just those considered healthy, wanted, or convenient. Together, we can work toward a day when the dignity and humanity of every person is respected."
And, of course, the saddest and most profound hypocrisy is that Bush's little proclamation comes too late for the 3,030 U.S. military dead in Iraq, the thousands of troops who have come home maimed and bearing the scars of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome or the untold number of Iraqis killed in the name of Bush's life-affirming effort in Iraq.
"I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being," Bush's proclamation ends.
I call upon this sorry excuse for a president to quit issuing proclamations.
I swear, I'm not making this up.
In a formal White House proclamation issued Friday, George W. Bush declared January 21 National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2007.
"America was founded on the principle that we are all endowed by our Creator with the right to life and that every individual has dignity and worth," reads the stirring proclamation. "National Sanctity of Human Life Day helps foster a culture of life and reinforces our commitment to building a compassionate society that respects the value of every human being."
And here's the real kicker: "Among the most basic duties of Government is to defend the unalienable right to life, and my Administration is committed to protecting our society's most vulnerable members," says the hypocritical statement.
Bush then goes on to brag about all the steps his administration has taken to promote his famed "culture of life" saying "we are helping to make our country a more hopeful place."
Naturally, this doesn't take into account the many safety-net programs that have suffered under the Bush administration or that his party has blockaded a minimum wage increase for the last 10 years. What about so many elderly and disabled who have had to do without home heating assistance with Bush's crew running the Congress?
I guess there's also no point in talking about the fact that, since Bush became president, almost eight million more Americans have no medical coverage of any kind or that his refusal to even acknowledge a health care crisis has left millions of elderly Americans and children with no ability to stay healthy. But, hey, once that little cell becomes a child, the GOP's obligation to care seems to cease, doesn't it?
But on he goes...
"National Sanctity of Human Life Day serves as a reminder that we must value human life in all forms, not just those considered healthy, wanted, or convenient. Together, we can work toward a day when the dignity and humanity of every person is respected."
And, of course, the saddest and most profound hypocrisy is that Bush's little proclamation comes too late for the 3,030 U.S. military dead in Iraq, the thousands of troops who have come home maimed and bearing the scars of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome or the untold number of Iraqis killed in the name of Bush's life-affirming effort in Iraq.
"I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being," Bush's proclamation ends.
I call upon this sorry excuse for a president to quit issuing proclamations.
Friday, January 19, 2007
We Need an Attorney General That Actually Knows The Law
(Like I said last year)
Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.”
As has been noted by many, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Yesterday, during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed there is no express right to habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution. Gonzales was debating Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) about whether the Supreme Court’s ruling on Guantanamo detainees last year cited the constitutional right to habeas corpus. Gonzales claimed the Court did not cite such a right, then added, “There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”
Specter pushed back. “Wait a minute. The constitution says you can’t take it away, except in the case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus, unless there is an invasion or rebellion?” Specter told Gonzales, “You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.”
As has been noted by many, the right of habeas corpus is clear in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Contitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Just Because the President Refuses to Listen...
...doesn’t mean people aren’t speaking.
dailykos:
From Bush’s defensive radio address this morning:
Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.
All righty, then. I’ll play. Off the top of my head, here are just two examples of what "proposing nothing" looks like, starting with: John Murtha’s plan:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
Then there’s the Iraq Study Group report, first commissioned by the president, then ignored by the president, then the choice to actively pursue the precisely opposite suggestions is made ... by the president:
Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.
...Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.
... The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.... The United States must not make an openended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
Now we can collectively play with Google all the live-long day to find a couple hundred non-bone-headed alternatives to Bush’s troop escalation and "scare the living shit out of Iran" strategy. But really, why is the burden on us? Or on Congress? Newly elected Congressional representative Chris Murphy said it best during his campaign last August:
"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together."
This is your omelet, Mr. Bush. Unstuff your ears, do some research on what many, many military experts and Congressional leaders have recommended, and figure out how to re-shell your own damn egg. And quit whining in your radio addresses that other people won’t clean up the mess you and you alone have made of the world.
dailykos:
From Bush’s defensive radio address this morning:
Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success. To oppose everything while proposing nothing is irresponsible.
All righty, then. I’ll play. Off the top of my head, here are just two examples of what "proposing nothing" looks like, starting with: John Murtha’s plan:
To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.
Then there’s the Iraq Study Group report, first commissioned by the president, then ignored by the president, then the choice to actively pursue the precisely opposite suggestions is made ... by the president:
Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.
...Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.
... The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations. By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq.... The United States must not make an openended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq.
Now we can collectively play with Google all the live-long day to find a couple hundred non-bone-headed alternatives to Bush’s troop escalation and "scare the living shit out of Iran" strategy. But really, why is the burden on us? Or on Congress? Newly elected Congressional representative Chris Murphy said it best during his campaign last August:
"It is like dropping a raw egg and asking me what my plans are for putting it back together."
This is your omelet, Mr. Bush. Unstuff your ears, do some research on what many, many military experts and Congressional leaders have recommended, and figure out how to re-shell your own damn egg. And quit whining in your radio addresses that other people won’t clean up the mess you and you alone have made of the world.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Another Foolish, Unqualified Bush Appointee
...but then again is there any other kind?
“I would confess I’m no expert on Iraq.” – Defense Secretary Robert Gates, during congressional hearings yesterday. “Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was ‘no expert on military matters.‘”
Feeling confident in this man's abilities? Yeah...me neither. Reminds me of "Heckuva job Brownie".
“I would confess I’m no expert on Iraq.” – Defense Secretary Robert Gates, during congressional hearings yesterday. “Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, he told the panel he was ‘no expert on military matters.‘”
Feeling confident in this man's abilities? Yeah...me neither. Reminds me of "Heckuva job Brownie".
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
FLASHBACK: Bush Says Sending More Troops To Iraq Would ‘Undermine Our Strategy’
From Think Progress:
On Wednesday night, President Bush is expected to announce plans to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops. On June 28, 2005 — just 18 months ago — Bush said that sending more troops to Iraq would “undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead” and “suggest that we intend to stay forever.”
Bush prefaced his comments by saying that, “If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them.” Last month, Gen. Abizaid revealed that he asked all the commanders on the ground and none of them wanted more troops. Shortly thereafter, Abizaid was replaced.
On Wednesday night, President Bush is expected to announce plans to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops. On June 28, 2005 — just 18 months ago — Bush said that sending more troops to Iraq would “undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead” and “suggest that we intend to stay forever.”
Bush prefaced his comments by saying that, “If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them.” Last month, Gen. Abizaid revealed that he asked all the commanders on the ground and none of them wanted more troops. Shortly thereafter, Abizaid was replaced.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
White House Declares Visitor Logs Top Secret
WASHINGTON — The White House and the Secret Service quietly signed an agreement last spring in the midst of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal declaring that records identifying visitors to the White House are not open to the public.
But they think it's OK to open our mail and and listen to our phone calls.
I think we (the people) have a right to know who has access to our government officials.
These aren't nuclear launch codes, aircraft carrier coordinates or anything else with national security implications.
It's simply a list of people who drove down a public street, turned into a public driveway and walked into a public building to meet with a publicly elected official.
The government can know every movie I've ever rented, every book I've ever read. But what they do while representing us is top secret????
Why does the Bush Administration behave like a common banana republic tin pot dictator, instead of the leader of the free world?
Friday, January 05, 2007
Bush: Congress Must Limit Pork Spending
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he'll submit a proposal to balance the budget in five years and exhorted Congress to "end the dead of night process" of quietly tucking expensive pet projects into spending bills.
Well OK, putting aside the fact that the Democrats ALREADY pledged to do this where the Hell was Bush for the last SIX YEARS when the GOP was setting records for pork? Sheesh!!!
I don't want to use the word liar yet again when referring to Bush but in 2000, the Bush-Cheney campaign website said that to "restore confidence in government," President Bush would "attack pork-barrel spending." You be the judge of how truthful that statement was...
Number of Pork Projects in Federal Spending Bills (GOP running things)
2005 - 13,997
2004 - 10,656
2003 - 9,362
2002 - 8,341
2001 - 6,333
2000 - 4,326
1999 - 2,838
1998 - 2100
1997 - 1,596
1996 - 958
1995 - 1439
It is almost laughable how out of control this is until you realize you and I are paying for this. But NOW that the Democrats are in charge Bush wants to do something about this. What a hypocritical fool.
ABC News Survey: 33 Senators Say They Were Wrong To Vote For War In Iraq
In Oct. 2002, 77 senators voted to give President Bush authorization to go to war in Iraq. Just 23 senators voted against it.
But according to a new ABC News survey, 33 out of the original 77 senators “indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now.” Five senators — including three Republicans — said that in retrospect, the intelligence was so wrong that the matter should never have even been brought to a vote. These results would mean that a vote to authorize war in Iraq today would be 43-57, and the resolution would fail.
ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper presented the survey results today on Good Morning America, noting that the survey of the senators was “a stunning repudiation of their own votes, the prewar intelligence, and the war itself.”
According to a December CBS News poll, just 39 percent of the American public now believes that the “United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq.”
But according to a new ABC News survey, 33 out of the original 77 senators “indicated they would vote differently knowing then what they know now.” Five senators — including three Republicans — said that in retrospect, the intelligence was so wrong that the matter should never have even been brought to a vote. These results would mean that a vote to authorize war in Iraq today would be 43-57, and the resolution would fail.
ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper presented the survey results today on Good Morning America, noting that the survey of the senators was “a stunning repudiation of their own votes, the prewar intelligence, and the war itself.”
According to a December CBS News poll, just 39 percent of the American public now believes that the “United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq.”
Un-Curious George Learns a Lesson
"No back rubs."
-- President Bush, quoted by the Washington Wire, at the end of a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Bush grabbed the headlines last summer after giving Merkel an awkward back rub at a summit.
-- President Bush, quoted by the Washington Wire, at the end of a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Bush grabbed the headlines last summer after giving Merkel an awkward back rub at a summit.
McCain Claims He Knew Iraq War Would Be ‘Long And Hard And Tough,’ Contradicting Pre-War Statements
Today on MSNBC, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that he knew the Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough,” and that he was “sorry” for those who voted for the war believing it would be “some kind of an easy task.” “Maybe they didn’t know what they were voting for,” McCain said.
In fact, during the run-up to war in 2002 and 2003, McCain repeatedly described the prospects of war in the rosiest terms, declaring the U.S. would “win easily”:
“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]
“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
In fact, during the run-up to war in 2002 and 2003, McCain repeatedly described the prospects of war in the rosiest terms, declaring the U.S. would “win easily”:
“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]
“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
Lott: I May Oppose Troop Escalation
Yesterday on MSNBC, Trent Lott (R-MS), the second ranking Republican in the Senate, said that he may oppose troop escalation in Iraq.
Transcript:
Matthews: Is there a chance you’ll say no to the surge?
Lott: There is.
Lott’s comments are particularly significant because, as the Minority Whip, he’s responsible for bringing his caucus in line with the Senate leadership’s position. If he’s not for escalation in Iraq, it’s unlikely there will be any serious effort in the Senate to get other members of his caucus to support it.
Transcript:
Matthews: Is there a chance you’ll say no to the surge?
Lott: There is.
Lott’s comments are particularly significant because, as the Minority Whip, he’s responsible for bringing his caucus in line with the Senate leadership’s position. If he’s not for escalation in Iraq, it’s unlikely there will be any serious effort in the Senate to get other members of his caucus to support it.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Bush Says Government Can Now Open Your Mail Without a Warrant
“President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant,” the New York Daily News reports. “The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a ’signing statement’ that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.”
Bush Ignores Law, Fails To Appoint Policy Coordinator For North Korea
From Think Progress:
Since President Bush has been in office, North Korea has developed 10-11 bombs worth of plutonium, suitable for use in nuclear weapons, and conducted its first nuclear weapons test. All of the administration’s efforts to control North Korea’s nuclear program have failed.
Congress decided something had to be done. On Sept. 30, 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which required the President to appoint a Coordinator of Policy on North Korea to “provide policy direction and leadership for negotiations with North Korea relating to nuclear weapons.”
Bush signed the act into law on Oct. 17, 2006. The law required Bush to make the appointment within 60 days.
The 60 days were up on Dec. 16, 2006, which was 19 days ago. The situation in North Korea continues to deteriorate, but Bush still won’t act.
Since President Bush has been in office, North Korea has developed 10-11 bombs worth of plutonium, suitable for use in nuclear weapons, and conducted its first nuclear weapons test. All of the administration’s efforts to control North Korea’s nuclear program have failed.
Congress decided something had to be done. On Sept. 30, 2006, Congress passed the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, which required the President to appoint a Coordinator of Policy on North Korea to “provide policy direction and leadership for negotiations with North Korea relating to nuclear weapons.”
Bush signed the act into law on Oct. 17, 2006. The law required Bush to make the appointment within 60 days.
The 60 days were up on Dec. 16, 2006, which was 19 days ago. The situation in North Korea continues to deteriorate, but Bush still won’t act.
Iraq Civil War Update
Six months ago, U.S. forces in Diyala province “hoped security would improve” with the death of Abu Musab Zarqawi. “Instead, security has collapsed” in the area and “attacks have more than doubled in the last year.” “Violence has devastated the provincial police force and brought reconstruction to a virtual standstill.”
Ummm Hasn't Bush Been In Office for SIX years?
Bush aims to balance budget by 2012
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Wednesday the budget he presents to Congress next month will aim to balance the budget by 2012 and make lower tax rates permanent.
Why the hell didn't he submit this proposal in 2001 when he came into office...before he ran up 3 TRILLION in debt? ...when he had a GOP led Congress? ...when he could have balanced the budget WHILE IN OFFICE?
The sheer gaul and ignorance of this moron is awe inspiring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)