Sunday, October 30, 2005

A belated Fitzmas post. Maybe...

Now that Fitzmas has come and past, we know that charges of treason and crimes committed by high ranking White House officials are serious, and not just some loony left-wing fantasy. Now that we know there were no WMD in Iraq, we also know that opposing the war does not make you a left-wing whacko that hates America and wants to "sympathize with terrorists" as Karl Rove put it. Speaking of Karl Rove, he is still under investigation. Even though right-wing broken record Sean Hannity has said otherwise, Rove is still in a heap of trouble and may be indicted any day. But to summarize the indictments of Fitzmas, indictments have finally been handed down after 2 years of investigation. I. Lewis Libby is the top aide to Vice President Cheney. He was indicted for five counts (2 for Perjury, 2 for False Statements, and 1 for Obstruction of Justice) in the CIA leak case investigating the exposure of undercover agent Valerie Plame. Karl Rove seems to have escaped indictment for now, but Fitzgerald is not finished with the investigation, and will be calling a new grand jury next week. Libby was instrumental in building up the false case for war against Iraq. Here you can view a PDF of the actual indictments. Despite the right wing spin, these indictments are very serious, and represent a breech of national security by the White House itself for purely political purposes. Since Libby repeatedly lied to investigators inside and outside the courtroom, he has hindered prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's attempts to fix a problem with national security. There is a condensed video of Fitzgerald's press conference here. I reccomend it highly.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The Winning Side.

For the political mind, there are two sides to an argument: the right side and the left side. For the moral mind, there is the right side and the wrong side. And for the emotional mind, there is the winning side and the losing side. For people that call themselves "conservatives" Bush has really done many liberal, "big government" type things while in office. He has refused to veto anything that has come across his desk, breaking records for letting the government pass new laws. He has presided over an explosion of government pork being included in federal spending bills. The PATRIOT act is the largest "big brother government" proposition since Japanese internment camps during World War II. He has failed to reign in spending. But the real reason Bush still retains any level of support from "conservatives" is because of the war in Iraq. But this isn't even a conservative idea. It is the biggest government pork project there is, as ungodly amounts of money are being flushed down the toilet. Interventionalism is and always has been a populist idea. But yet the "conservatives" that back Bush all support him for his biggest government ideas. To what do we owe this ironic twist of rationality among Bush supporters? They call themselves conservative, but they support his big government ideas. The reason, I believe, is that they simply want to be on the winning side. The 9/11 attacks made America look weak and vulnerable to many of our citizens. The PR propaganda released shortly afterwards was geared to counter this, and cast Bush and America as tough and dominant once again. To appear dominant once again, America had to attack something, someone, anyone. So we went into Afghanistan. But that wasn't big enough. We had to find another target that we could easily incinerate quickly to make America seem tough again. That perfect target was Saddam Hussein. Quite simply, "conservatives" that support the president support beating somebody up and winning, and not real conservative values. No matter how irrational it is, no matter how detrimental to this country and themselves it is, they just want to beat somebody up and be on the winning side. Not the right side, not the left side, not the morally correct side, but the winning side. The entire conservative propaganda empire, from Fox News to Limbaugh to Jerry Fallwell play on this theme: "Conservatives are tough and dominant, liberals are weak and flaky." Is it any coincidence that Sean Hannity looks like an ex-quarterback from the high school football team, and Alan Colmes looks like the science nerd that everyone threw food at during lunchtime? If you doubt me, just read some Ann Coulter columns. Her rhetoric is all about dominance, and not conservatism. If the underlying debate were really about left and right, Bush would have no support at all. He spends like a drunken sailor, and the only individual liberties he supports are those of CEO's of companies and law enforcement authorities. But "conservatives" in government and their constituents have managed to shift the axis on which the debate is centered from a political one to an emotional one. Support for Bush is more about winning than being a conservative. It is more about winning than taking the moral action. Right-wing propaganda has invented many enemies that "conservatives" have to "win" against: terrorists, liberals, the Clintons, welfare queens, college professors, scientists, etc. It's not about facts or morals, it's about beating someone up. "Conservative" propaganda is just there to tell you who it is. How do you fight this? NOT by becoming more moderate. Not by playing to the center. That comes off as weak. You play this by dominating the public discussion, sticking to your points, knowing the facts, and not backing down. You do this by having a strong set of values that you believe in, and never doubting them. You do this by taking the fight to the streets and never giving up your proud, leftist values. Liberalism is good for nearly everyone in this country. It gives power to the bottom 95% of the people. Conservatives should be the ones on the defensive for their "fuck the middle class, screw the poor" selfish attitudes. How many people would agree with conservatives if the debate was framed in that manner?

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Point-Counterpoint: Kay Bailey Hutchinson vs. Kay Bailey Hutchinson on "Perjury"

In an effort to make this blog fair and balanced, I am attempting to get more than one point of view into the discussions on here. Fortunately for me, I only need to look to one person to get both points of view! :-) Today's guest will be Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R), where she debates herself on the seriousness of a perjury charge. ***It might be inportant to note that one Hutchinson quote was taken while Clinton was President, and one Hutchinson quote was taken in the anticipation of Karl Rove being indicted for perjury. Can you guess which one is which? :-)

* * * * * * * * * * * *
JOHNNY COUGAR: Ok, Ms. Hutchinson, let's start with you. What are your views on the seriousness of perjury? HUTCHINSON:
The edifice of American jurisprudence rests on the foundation of the due process of law. The mortar in that foundation is the oath. Those who seek to obstruct justice weaken that foundation, and those who violate the oath would tear the whole structure down. Every day, thousands of citizens in thousands of courtrooms across America are sworn in as jurors, as witnesses, as defendants. On those oaths rest the due process of law upon which all of our other rights are based. The oath is how we defend ourselves against those who would subvert our system by breaking our laws. There are Americans in jail today because they violated that oath. Others have prevailed at the bar of justice because of that oath. What would we be telling Americans -- and those worldwide who see in America what they can only hope for in their own countries -- if the Senate of the United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to look the other way? I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice. I ask unanimous consent an analysis of the Articles of Impeachment be printed in the Record.
JOHNNY COUGAR: Hmmmm...an interesting argument, Kay. Now let's see what you have to say nearly 7 years later. HUTCHINSON:
I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars.
JOHNNY COUGAR: Wow. We certainly have attained our goal here at truth > lies. Those are really different viewpoints. Thank you for your time, Ms. Hutchinson, and we'd like to welcome you back for more fair and balanced coverage on truth > lies!

A Fitzmas Carol for the Holiday Season!

What's that...it it Patrick Fitzgerald?? I hear he's coming down the chimney with indictments for all the bad little boys in Bush's cabinet! I think it's time for a song! By JohnnyCougar and Bru

Don't Rest Ye Merry Democrats Don't rest ye merry Democrats Although they booked DeLay Remember that indictments Will come on Fitzmas Day To save us all from Bush's hacks Who leadeth us astray O charges of treason and more Treason and more O charges of treason and more From the White House in Washington The name of Plame did slip Once Wilson proved the liars wrong Back from his Niger trip Behold the rot that caused the leak On Bush's sinking ship O charges of treason and more Treason and more O charges of treason and more To Rove the Great Deceiver And Libby, Cheney's bitch The plan to sell their pointless war Would go without a hitch But Karl's just a conjurer And Scooter just a snitch O charges of treason and more Treason and more O charges of treason and more Good Fitz will throw the book at them Or so my sources say Hark! Time has come at last to cheer And make these traitors pay Our flag will tell of freedom 'gain Come glor'yous Fitzmas Day! O charges of treason and more Treason and more O charges of treason and more Sweet pat'riots can speak freely now That Rove is behid bars And Cheney's booked, and Libby's done For starting groundless wars Our press will come out free again But not without it's scars O charges of treason and more Treason and more O charges of treason and more
Feel free to sing along or add your own!

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Fascism & Chaos in Iraq: Tax Dollars Flushed Down the Toilet

An unlikely source, The American Conservative, contains an article written by Philip Giraldi explaining in detail the extent of the corruption of the Coalition Provisional Authority, in which countless gobs of US Government money was mishandled, misplaced, and misapropriated.

One shocking paragraph describes:

Money also disappeared in truckloads and by helicopter. The CPA reportedly distributed funds to contractors in bags off the back of a truck. In one notorious incident in April 2004, $1.5 billion in cash that had just been delivered by three Blackhawk helicopters was handed over to a courier in Erbil, in the Kurdish region, never to be seen again. Afterwards, no one was able to recall the courier's name or provide a good description of him.
The fact that we have conservative sources like this online magazine and George Will harping about the corruption of this current administration can only mean good news.  Democrats will face an uphill battle if they have to confront a unified Republican party in 2006.  But Republicans are heading for a trainwreck.

They even go into trashing Halliburton:

Halliburton has frequently been questioned over its poor record keeping, and critics claim that it has a history of overcharging for its services. In May 1967, a company called RMK/BRJ could not account for $120 million in materiel sent to Vietnam and was investigated several times for overcharging on fuel. RMK/BRJ is now known as KBR or Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been the focus of congressional, Department of Defense, and General Accountability Office investigations. Defense Contract Audit Agency auditors have questioned Halliburton's charges on a $1.6 billion fuel contract, claiming that the overcharges on the contract exceed $200 million. In one instance, the company charged the Army more than $27 million to transport $82,000 worth of fuel from Kuwait to Iraq. Halliburton has also been accused of billing the Army for 42,000 daily meals for soldiers, though it was only actually serving 14,000. In another operation, KBR purchased fleets of Mercedes trucks at $85,000 each to re-supply U.S. troops. The trucks carried no spare parts or even extra tires for the grueling high-speed run across the Kuwaiti and Iraqi deserts. When the trucks broke down on the highway, they were abandoned and destroyed rather than repaired.

The whole article is a pretty good read.  And remember, of course, to send it to all your conservative friends!

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Rove is GUILTY! The best evidnece so far.

Anyone can speculate as to whether or not Karl Rove is going to be indicted or not regarding the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. Obviously, to be indicted, it must be proven that he knowingly revealed Plame's identity. We don't know if Patrick Fitzgerald has proof of that or not. But sometimes the best way to tell if someone is guilty or not is from their behavior. And as we can see from this turn of events, he looks guilty as hell. Rove has canceled his appearance at a fundraiser for Jerry Kilgore, the Republican nominee for Virginia governor.

There it was, smack in the middle of the first page: The man scheduled to deliver the keynote address in support of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore would be Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser who is embroiled in the investigation of a leak that revealed the name of a CIA operative. Tickets were hot. The press was barred. But soon after party activists sat down inside the ballroom of the Sheraton Premiere at Tysons Corner, it was announced that Rove had been scratched from the lineup. No detailed reason was given. The 300 breakfasters listened instead to Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Now why would he cancel this if he didn't think indictments were coming. This is unlike Rove's modus operandi. Could you see Rove dropping out if he thought he was going to walk away scott free? I just can't. If he wanted to make a statement to the Republican party and its constituants that he is not worried about any indictments, he would speak at this fundraiser anyways. If he is going to be indicted, obviously, he will tarnish the Kilgore campaign a week later if he is raising money for Kilgore.

So we can judge from his behavior that he is guilty. No one knows Rove's perils right now better than Rove and his lawyer (other than Fitzgerald and the jury, but they are not talking). So we might as well get our information from Rove himself.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Republican House candidate running on IMPEACHMENT platform!

In my city, if you are out at the bar and you see a beautiful girl sitting by herself, you have approximately 2 minutes to go up and talk to her before someone else does. If you are hesitant, get shy, or are just waiting for the right opportunity, someone else is going to start up a conversation with her, get her number, and you will be left hanging out to dry. The lesson is "When you see a chance, you take it." (Homage to Steve Winwood intended). Otherwise, someone else will. Well, the impeachment issue is our beautiful, lonely looking girl at the bar, sitting all by herself. And the Republicans are now eying her up. Before the Mires nomination, this would never have happened. No one would have even thought about it. But now that the Republican base is splitting, there will certainly be talk of impeachment by the right. In fact, they may even take it up as their OWN issue! The Rutalnd Herald of Vermont reports:

"A Congressional candidate who wants to impeach President Bush insists he can win the Republican primary.

Dennis Morrisseau, 62, of West Pawlet, plans to seek the Republican nomination to run for U.S. House of Representatives. The seat is being vacated by Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., who plans a run for the U.S. Senate.

A central part of his platform, Morrisseau said, will be bringing articles of impeachment against Bush."

While the conservative base gets more angry with Bush, they are distancing themselves with him. The more distance they put between Bush and conservatives, the closer they come to claiming the impeachment issue. Democrats are losing time to claim this as their own issue. The recent poll results show that there is a majority of people that could easily support an impeachment.

So why, can I ask, aren't we hearing about that from Democrats? It's time to hear from the leaders of our party speculating publicly about impeachment. This organization is criminal, and it has gone too far! We need to create a set of talking points about impeachment. Let me suggest a few:

  • There has been corruption in previous administrations, but the Bush administration is pushing new limits on corruption.

  • The American people deserve to know the truth, and if Bush won't tell them, than put someone in office that will.

  • How can we fight terror if the American people can't trust their President to tell the truth about why we went to war?

We are sitting around at the bar talking about "Oh...the luck..." and swirling around what's left in our glass. We are thinking "Maybe I should go over and talk to that girl at the end of the bar" but then we are making excuses not to, and wondering why we are still single. It's time to get that girl's number, and start a long lasting relationship with impeachment proceedings. Before the old-school conservatives do. I would like to remind everyone skeptical of a Republican turncoattery that this present administration has done someting unprescedented in the history of America: we have been the sole instigator of a major war. The US doesn't start wars, but that is exactly what Bush did. Moreover, he lied on many, many occasions to his base about why we needed to go to war. The Plame leak will directly implicate this administration not only of playing dirty politics, not only of breaking the law, but of lying to the public to fool them into supporting a war in Iraq. And the Abramoff investigaton is next. Bush's support is a house of cards. His base supports him because that is the thing to do when your country is in grave danger, and when it is at war. But his policies (and attempts at policies) such as preventing universal healthcare, attacking Social Security, runaway spending, ignoring immigration problems and much, much more are hurting his base. Their support is as hollow as a house of cards just waiting for someone to blow it over. My take on the present criticism of the White House from BOTH sides of the political spectrum (something unheard of in Bush's tenure) is that conservatives already sense the impending doom. They are already trying to distance themselves. And it's time the Democrats familiarize themselves with both a backbone and the term "impeachment."

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Time for Jim Sensenbrenner to get the axe - Bryan Kennedy for Congress

Jim Sensenbrenner is the perfect example of a corrupt Republican sitting in a gerrymandered district, and because of that he has never been challenged. His corruption reeks to high heaven, and his deficit-spending ass needs to get the axe. Bryan Kennedy, a teacher at my Alma Mater, is taking him on in Wisconsin district 05, and needs the help of Kossacks. He has already released one ad attacking Sensenbrenner on supporting funding for Tsunami victims, but not New Orleans victims. You can see it here:http://www.bryankennedyforcongress.com/preview.mgi Kennedy is a strong, progressive candidate, but he is fighting in a conservative district. It is an uphill battle, but it is one the Kos community has fought before. In 2004, he surprised everyone by garnering more votes than ever for a Democrat in his district. This year, he is better organized, and already has some name recognition. Kennedy supports General Wes Clark's stance on the war: that it was the result of a lack of foresight and that it was a huge mistake in planning. He is for raising pay for soldiers, wants to fight against gerrymandering districts to the point where they are not competitive, and he has strong support from labor. He is also a harsh critic of the patriot act. He supports equal pay for women, and wants to strengthen dometic abuse penalties. He knows how to win in a conservative district, he just needs the support. If you want to know more, visit: http://www.bryankennedyforcongress.com Thanks for your time, and please help Wisconsin get rid of Jim Sensenbrenner!