Bush's Africa Aids Package... Uh, okay.

Friday, in the latest example of increasingly, and spectacularly pathetic PR antics, Bush argued fervently before Congress in support of continuing financial aid for HIV relief in Africa.

It was a valiant and courageous message of hope and conviction.

I can't find a transcript, but in his address to Congress, Bush continually used language like, "We don't want people guessing on the continent of Africa whether the generosity of the American people will continue" in his standard idiotic, tough guy cowboy demeanor. By listening to the tone of the speech, one would have assumed that there was a vast controversy surrounding the aid package. Indeed, there are a few who have some quible with some of the provisions of the plan... Republicans who want more of the funds to go toward abstinance education, to be precise. However, there is near-unanimous support for the Africa/AIDS package among Democrats in the House.

I'll say that again: There is near-unanimous support for the Africa/AIDS package among Democrats in the House.

Over all, the aid package enjoys solid bi-partisan support.

What is wrong with that guy?

Stupid, absurd, baseless, and pathetic grandstanding on the part of the President. And nothing more.

But moreover, why is Bush pretending to be concerned with AIDS in Africa when he obviously doesn't give a shit about the health of his own citizens, for example?

Scoring political points is an obvious answer. And it doesn't hurt that much of the aid money goes directly into the pockets of American drug companies.

Double whammy.

Here's an example of the brilliant defense the President offered of the Aids package, "My attitude toward Congress is, see what works, PEPFAR [The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] is working. It is a balanced program. It is an ABC program abstinence, be faithful and condoms. It is a program that's been proven effective."

Besides the stunning incoherence of the statement, it should be noted that PEPFAR has, in fact, not been shown to be more effective than more comprehensive programs.

Kahones? Perhaps, but small.

So let me get this straight: Bush says that it is essential that the House pass the Senate FISA bill (the dubiously titled, "Protect America Act"), which would allow the Government to continue to spy on Americans without a warrant. However, he says that he will veto any form of the bill that does not contain retroactive immunity for phone companies that have, in the past, cooperated with the government in eavesdropping activities.

Doesn't that mean that Bush thinks that its more important to protect phone companies from lawsuits than to, in his words, "protect the American people"?

Seems pretty clear to me. And that certainly shouldn't surprise anyone. Since day one of this Presidency, protecting and enriching corporations has been Job One.

Let's be clear, the government can, under original FISA provisions, listen to anyone they want to at any time, assuming they have even a minimally good reason to do so. Their sole complaint with the FISA rules is that it creates too much red tape. So in essence, what they are saying is that they want to be able to spy on people without telling any one about it, because, of course, they simply can't be bothered with going to a judge every single time. It would just be a huge hassle.

Isn't that just chillingly creepy? Basic civil rights are trumped by excess paper work?

But, in stark contrast to their performance in recent history, House members declined to pass the "Protect America Act" by the deadline on Saturday.

Bravo! Did Democratic members of the house finally grow some kahones?

Perhaps they did, albeit abysmally small ones.

Crucial to comprehensive interpretation of this matter is the fact that Bush did have the option of extending the provisions of the existing FISA ammendments, which he declined to do. In other words, the ONLY effective difference between the "Protect America Act" and a Presidential extention of the current FISA ammendments, is the controversial retroactive protection for phone companies included in the Senate FISA bill. Hence, if one may extrapolate from the administration's own analysis of the situation, they have made us less safe by refusing to enact provisions that did not offer protection for phone companies.

That isn't hard to figure out. WHERE IS THE "LIBERAL" MEDIA ON THIS ONE?

But the obvious question is, Why is the Bush administration so reticent to go the the FISA court (which has rejected a small handfull of warrant requests out of TENS OF THOUSANDS) to get a warrant? Several explanations come to mind, each more sinister than the last.

Kucinich, 2002:

Bad news for the bad guys

President Bush has a strong history of demonstrating his lack of proficiency with spoken language, but I think this takes the cake. While addressing the crowd at the Middle East Conference in Anapolis earlier this week, Bush fumbled over the names of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders who were standing RIGHT NEXT to him at the time. He didn't just mispronounce their names, he completely BUTCHERED both names. That's not just stupid, that's unbelievably incompetent. The incident occurs at 1:25 in the video below.




You may have heard about this recent story about Blackwater International, the mercenary army operating above civil or military law in Iraq. There have been some interesting developments in the past few days. First, the Blackwater agents were not protecting a principal, as first reported. Instead, in defiance of orders, after dropping off the official, the guards went to the area where the massacre took place, reportedly under a hunch that an insurgent with whom the guards had a grudge was present there. As it turns out, the Blackwater guards ended up killing 17 innocent civilians including women and children, precipitating their expulsion from Iraq. Last week, The Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Blackwater over the incident. The suit also accuses Balckwater of knowingly allowing guards to work while taking steroids and other "judgement-altering" drugs.

The Blackwater story is especially poignant in light of the new best-selling book by Naomi Wolf, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, in which Wolf outlines, "Ten steps to fascism" which have historically occurred as nations transition to a fascist state. One of these steps is the creation of a para-military army. Another is the establishment of secret prisons. Yet another is the expansion of executive powers and erosion of traditional civil protections. Sound familiar?


As you have heard, Trent Lott, Senator from Mississippi and notable scumbag racist, announced his resignation from the senate this week. It is widely speculated that Lott is resigning now to avoid the new law that bans senators from entering the lobbying business within 2 years of resigning. It is estimated that lobbying would secure a multi-million dollar income for Lott. When asked at a news conference yesterday whether the new law had anything to do with his decision, he replied that it "didn't have a big role". I call bullshit. We'll see.
Interestingly, Lott voted against the senate ethics reform bill, which set forth the provision against lobbying by recently resigned senators, i.e., the law he is seeking to avoid now. Let it be noted that Lott is a big fan of lobbyists in general, earning a top spot on the Washington Post's list of Senators who accept the most favors from corporations. He also has a strong record of voting against legislation that would curtail the influence of lobbyists in Washington. From Barack Obama's website, "Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican who hopes to regain a Senate leadership job next year, warned against going too far in reaction to the Abramoff scandal. He singled out moves to end the practice of secretly inserting special projects into spending bills at the behest of lobbyists. While those "earmarks" have "gotten out of control," Lott said, they can be an effective way for Congress to address a problem or need back home."

Lott is one of six Republican senators, along with 17 Republicans in the House to announce their resignations recently. The lobbying reform law which takes effect on Jan. 1 may account for some of this mass exodus, which in itself says something about the motivating factors that lead many Republicans to public "service", but as described this week in the conservative vomit rag, The National Review, many Republicans fear "a coming cataclysm" of Democratic control in Washington. A recent Pew Center poll found that 50% of Americans now consider themselves Democrats, compared to 35% Republican. Self-described "independent" voters find themselves overwhelmingly leaning toward voting Democrat.

Encouraging, perhaps, but also depressing. 35% of Americans still lean Republican? How bad can those guys screw up and still retain considerable support? This is the party of Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Delay, the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, Alberto Gonzalez, torture, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, every snake-handling toothless racist inbred redneck troglodyte in America, and... AND, by God, George W. Bush. It is, after all, impossible to separate the man from his party. They put him in office, and they, albeit unenthusiastically, continue to support the imbecile.

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." G.W. Bush

This was said in 2002, but I just came across it today. This is once again one of those times when I am beyond words. That the media did not pick up on this when it was said is appalling. I guess it is true that "Ignorance is Strength."

And, by the way, remember....

Oceania is at war with Iraq. Oceania has always been at war with Iraq.

I'm so tired of living in Bizarro World!

On Oct. 1, Pres. Bush declared it Child Health Day. From the proclamation: "My Administration supports programs that give parents, mentors, and teachers the resources they need to help and encourage children to maintain an active and healthy way of life." But, it seems that the Pres. doesn't think actual health coverage fits the deffinition of a program that does this. Because if he did, he wouldn't have vetoed the the Childrens' Health Insurance Plan, only the 4th veto of his presidency. Was the whole Child Health Day thing just a pre-emptive slap in the face cause he knew he was about to use the veto on this? Was it some kind of sick joke? Can I please wake up from the Twilight Zone episode my country has turned into?!?!

To add insult to injury, a recent defense bill, which was not vetoed by-the-way, is spending $2.4 billion on jets for the USAF, which are made in Texas. Of course, we can pay Texan defence contractors billions of dollars, but can't afford to provide health care to our children. And, to top it off (this is what really pisses me off), the Pentagon insists it has enough of these C-17 Globemaster jets. Are you kidding me?!?!?

Impeach Cheney... for crying out loud

I honestly don't see why there is a stronger argument for impeaching Cheney rather than Bush, but it seems that Cheney impeachment has the momentum for now. There are at least several dozen actions committed by the administration that would Constitutionally require impeachment.

This is not a political question. The US Constitution prescribes a course of action to be followed when officials commit high crimes and misdemeanors. It is not optional.

Please register your support here.

EPA (Exxon Protection Agency)

This story is a few weeks old, but it's worth remembering, especially insofar as it is representative of a pattern of behavior.

Bush's inclination to reward loyalty over competence is well-documented. But even more sinister and troubling is his habit of appointing people to important Government positions who are overtly hostile to the agency which they are chosen to represent, in order to render that position impotent.

The first and most flagrant example was appointing John Bolton to be the US Ambassador to the UN. Curiously, Bolton has expressed violent hostility to the very idea that the UN should exist, as well as to the notion that we should cooperate with them, at all.

Several weeks ago, the New York Times broke a story about Philip Cooney, a Bush aid who altered Government documents in order to weaken the language about climate change contained therein. Phil was chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. His qualifications? Before coming to the White House in 2001, he was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, which has long opposed the regulation of greenhouse gases. Two days after the article was published, Cooney resigned, and was hired immediately by... you guessed it, ExxonMobile.

Which brings me to my last example: Conservatives are fond of saying things like "the government that governs best, governs least", which, in the case of the current administration, couldn't be more true. The less those guys do, the better. Everything they touch turns to shit. A brilliant strategy really: Say that Government doesn't work, then get into power and prove it.

Bush Administration Favors Loyalty Over Competence

If you've been paying attention at all, you've heard about the scandal involving the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, and the subsequent cover-up by the White House and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who famously said that the US Constitution does not guarantee a right to Habeas Corpus. Gonzalez is also famous for being able to walk up-right while being completely void of a spinal column.

The fact that the Attorneys were fired for a flagrant lack of proclivity to kiss up to the Bushies shouldn't surprise anyone. Bush's preference for blind adherence to his sinister goals over job-competence is well-precedented. Perhaps the best example of this is the appointment of the infamous Michael Brown to the head of FEMA; a man whose prior employment was over-seeing horse trial judges for the Arabian Horse Association, a position from which he was asked to resign.

Agents in charge of accounting for war expenditures in Iraq have been criticised for a lack of experience, but curiously, many among them have been involved in campaign fund-raising for Bush. Is it coincidental that 400 Billion dollars have simply evaporated in Iraq?