Before it becomes even more irrelevant...
I used to work for the Navy in civil service and am a former Navy wife. When the Navy Times, et al, came out against Rumsfeld, I was very concerned. It doesn't matter that Gannett owns the military newspapers. The papers speak for the military. They are ultra-conservative and, naturally, very pro-military and pro-military families.
For the only media mouthpiece of the military to come out against Rumsfeld like that was foreboding, at best. Basically, you may as well say that the SECNAV and all of the other Chiefs of the military branches were speaking out to the public via the military. The only reason they would have done that would have been because they were not being listened to in the Administration, and had attempted to convey their views in an ungodly amount of attempts.
You have to understand. This is simply NOT DONE. That it occurred was extraordinary. Tantamount to military coup manuevers. That is fucking scary as hell.
Bush did not fire Rumsfeld because of the election.
Bush did not fire Rumsfeld out of his own volition.
Bush fired Rumsfeld because the military told him he had to, period.
My best bet is that the only reason the editorials were published is because Bush was threatened with their publication, and still resisted up to the day before the election. He probably pooh-poohed them even when published, thinking that if his party retained Congress, he would have enough power to continue resisting the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Once they lost, he had no choice but to fire Rumsfeld to avoid an overt mutiny of the military. It will never be admitted, of course. But, I'd lay odds that it happened.
One more thought about the military. I'd like to point out, especially to the media whose knowledge of the military is nil, that members of the military of any rank or branch will not ever speak their true thoughts when being interviewed.
You can interview them from here to the moon, and they will never speak against the chain of command, which includes the President and SECDEF. They CAN'T, you numbfucks!
When you join the military, you are owned by the military, lock, stock and barrel. If you challenge the chain of command in any way, shape or form, or intimate anything other than complete compliance and agreement, you will be court-martialed for treason. Let me spell that for you...T.R.E.A.S.O.N. If not treasonous, any comment not fully supportive of the chain of command will land you in court martial for I.N.S.U.B.O.R.D.I.N.A.T.I.O.N.
Got it yet? Stop harrassing the troops by asking them what they *THINK* about the war. They are not paid to think. They are paid to kill. Period.
To paraphrase an old Navy saying, if the Navy (Army, Marines, etc.) wanted you to have an opinion (or a thought) they would have issued you one in your duffle bag.
'Nuff said.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Friday, November 10, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
WE decide who's the Decider here, bud, and it's US
"Few deciders have gone through such a period in which the decisions seemed so out of their hands. He told North Korea not to test nuclear weapons, but Pyongyang detonated a bomb anyway. He tells Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, only to have Tehran thumb its nose. He orders generals to find a way to stabilize Iraq, but bombs and bullets claimed more U.S. lives in October than in any other month in two years.
Now the voters are the deciders, and it's a verdict Bush can no longer influence."
Read the entire analysis at WaPo.
"Few deciders have gone through such a period in which the decisions seemed so out of their hands. He told North Korea not to test nuclear weapons, but Pyongyang detonated a bomb anyway. He tells Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, only to have Tehran thumb its nose. He orders generals to find a way to stabilize Iraq, but bombs and bullets claimed more U.S. lives in October than in any other month in two years.
Now the voters are the deciders, and it's a verdict Bush can no longer influence."
Read the entire analysis at WaPo.
A Sticky Bush
I have a bush growing in my front yard. It's a damnable firethorn bush I hate and despise for it's name is as apt a name as ever invented. It's showy and tough, and, unfortunately, indestructable. I have tried to kill it in every conceivable way other than pouring kerosene over it and setting it afire and burning down my house, which it butts up against most obnoxiously. It appears to be innocuous, yet if you look at it closely, you will see hidden amongst it's showy red berries, long and dangerous thorns. Reach in and try to trim it back, or shape it into something acceptable, and you will be stuck with a thousand barbs which sting and burn like hell itself. There is only one way to deal with it, and that is with a powerful buzz-saw type trimmer.
I can't think of a more accurate analogy of another dangerous Bush.
However, this column at BBC News does a great job of describing Bush as the velcro President, although it contains a number of inaccuracies. Of course, it is from the BBC. Still, it states that Democrats have no plan, simply echoing the lies of the Republicans. It does not specify that the "robo-calls" are being made solely by Republicans. And, incredibly, it states that Congress has done Bush "no favors" in the last two years. Oh, well. They're Brits. What the hell do they know? Still, I like the "Velcro" President bit. Read it all:
Velcro president faces final test
By Matt Frei BBC News, Washington
If Ronald Reagan was the Teflon president, to whom nothing seemed to stick, W has become the Velcro president, to whom just about everything sticks. Call it the price of decisive leadership.
Only a day before the elections, George Bush was campaigning in Pensacola, Florida - the state his own brother has governed with resounding success - and the Republican hoping to succeed Jeb Bush did not turn up to appear with the president.
The only TV ads that feature the commander-in-chief have been those fielded by his opponents.
The only states where the president, who is a fabulous campaigner, has been allowed to exercise his sleeveless charm on the voters are those places where the audiences already love him, like Kansas.
Either the White House has been asked to stay away, or it has been trying to plug holes which have suddenly sprung up in places where they never thought they would have to spend time or money.
'Political capital
The president's second term was not supposed to be like this.
The day after his victory over John Kerry, with the president's Grand Old Party in firm control of Congress, an energetic George Bush announced he had "earned political capital and intended to spend it".
The president broke open his political piggy bank in an effort to overhaul social security, the state pensions system.
Reform may have been a good idea, even necessary, but the attempt to secure it was a disaster. Within months, the president's hard-to-understand plan was gathering dust on a shelf.
And greater setbacks and indignities loomed, costing whatever pennies of political capital Mr Bush had salvaged from the social security debacle.
Hurricane Katrina produced shocking levels of devastation that were surpassed only by mind-boggling incompetence from government at every level.
And then there was the corruption - financial and, apparently, sexual. The Republican enforcer in the House, Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, was forced out of office. At least three other Republican congressmen came under one investigation or another. One is already in jail and another seems headed that way.
Add Mark Foley, the Florida Republican who sent lascivious e-mails and instant messages to teenage Congressional pages, and you have the making of a Velcro presidency.
Crumbling keystone
The bad news has left the GOP in a bad mood - this campaign has been conspicuous for the amount of back-biting within Republican ranks.
Social conservatives are angry that the president hasn't done more to advance moral crusades like his proposed amendment to ban gay marriage.
Fiscal conservatives are livid about pork-barrel spending in Congress, $250m "bridges to nowhere" and a budget deficit of truly blushing proportions.
Neo-conservatives like Richard Perle and Ken Adelman are, it seems, now apoplectic about the way Iraq was mismanaged and how their dream of creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East was botched by the administration's stinginess with troops and resources.
If the administration is an arch, Iraq has been the crumbling keystone.
The drip-drip of daily casualties, the spectre of civil war, the aching sense of helplessness has sapped the administration's confidence and the voters' goodwill.
The Democrats should have the most to gain, but they are caught in the headlights of Iraq, much like the rest of the nation.
Their biggest problem is that they don't have a plan.
The Republicans' biggest problem is that the Democrats may not need one - they have been taking the advice of the late brass-knuckled Republican strategist Lee Atwater: "If your opponent is busy shooting himself, don't get in the way!"
Although the entire country is electing representatives on Tuesday, and a third of states are choosing senators, control of the legislature will come down to about seven Senate races and perhaps 25 House seats out of 435.
Nationally, the race has become a battle between the Democrats' anger and the Republicans' organisation.
Triangulator
The latest polling data suggests that the gap between the two parties has been narrowing. After months of solid leads for the Democrats, as the clock ticks down, more Republicans may feel suitably energised, alarmed or guilty to get off their sofas and vote.
From automated "robo-calls" designed to annoy the other party's voters to negative television campaigning, this election has become a textbook case of scraping the bottom of the election ballot box.
Republicans privately admit they expect to lose the House, but they hope to hold the Senate. That could hamstring the president, leaving him a quacking lame duck.
But remember divided government is the norm in the US. In the last century the president has had an opposition Congress twice as often as a sympathetic one. That need not prevent a president from getting things done.
Bill Clinton passed his ground-breaking welfare reform two years after the shock of a Republican tsunami - he learnt how to work with Congress and that made him a better president.
Can George Bush, the conviction politician, become a Clintonian triangulator in his last two years of office?
Some doubt it. And yet it may be in his best interest. After all, the Republican Congress has not done George Bush any particular favours in the past two years.
I can't think of a more accurate analogy of another dangerous Bush.
However, this column at BBC News does a great job of describing Bush as the velcro President, although it contains a number of inaccuracies. Of course, it is from the BBC. Still, it states that Democrats have no plan, simply echoing the lies of the Republicans. It does not specify that the "robo-calls" are being made solely by Republicans. And, incredibly, it states that Congress has done Bush "no favors" in the last two years. Oh, well. They're Brits. What the hell do they know? Still, I like the "Velcro" President bit. Read it all:
Velcro president faces final test
By Matt Frei BBC News, Washington
If Ronald Reagan was the Teflon president, to whom nothing seemed to stick, W has become the Velcro president, to whom just about everything sticks. Call it the price of decisive leadership.
Only a day before the elections, George Bush was campaigning in Pensacola, Florida - the state his own brother has governed with resounding success - and the Republican hoping to succeed Jeb Bush did not turn up to appear with the president.
The only TV ads that feature the commander-in-chief have been those fielded by his opponents.
The only states where the president, who is a fabulous campaigner, has been allowed to exercise his sleeveless charm on the voters are those places where the audiences already love him, like Kansas.
Either the White House has been asked to stay away, or it has been trying to plug holes which have suddenly sprung up in places where they never thought they would have to spend time or money.
'Political capital
The president's second term was not supposed to be like this.
The day after his victory over John Kerry, with the president's Grand Old Party in firm control of Congress, an energetic George Bush announced he had "earned political capital and intended to spend it".
The president broke open his political piggy bank in an effort to overhaul social security, the state pensions system.
Reform may have been a good idea, even necessary, but the attempt to secure it was a disaster. Within months, the president's hard-to-understand plan was gathering dust on a shelf.
And greater setbacks and indignities loomed, costing whatever pennies of political capital Mr Bush had salvaged from the social security debacle.
Hurricane Katrina produced shocking levels of devastation that were surpassed only by mind-boggling incompetence from government at every level.
And then there was the corruption - financial and, apparently, sexual. The Republican enforcer in the House, Tom "the Hammer" DeLay, was forced out of office. At least three other Republican congressmen came under one investigation or another. One is already in jail and another seems headed that way.
Add Mark Foley, the Florida Republican who sent lascivious e-mails and instant messages to teenage Congressional pages, and you have the making of a Velcro presidency.
Crumbling keystone
The bad news has left the GOP in a bad mood - this campaign has been conspicuous for the amount of back-biting within Republican ranks.
Social conservatives are angry that the president hasn't done more to advance moral crusades like his proposed amendment to ban gay marriage.
Fiscal conservatives are livid about pork-barrel spending in Congress, $250m "bridges to nowhere" and a budget deficit of truly blushing proportions.
Neo-conservatives like Richard Perle and Ken Adelman are, it seems, now apoplectic about the way Iraq was mismanaged and how their dream of creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East was botched by the administration's stinginess with troops and resources.
If the administration is an arch, Iraq has been the crumbling keystone.
The drip-drip of daily casualties, the spectre of civil war, the aching sense of helplessness has sapped the administration's confidence and the voters' goodwill.
The Democrats should have the most to gain, but they are caught in the headlights of Iraq, much like the rest of the nation.
Their biggest problem is that they don't have a plan.
The Republicans' biggest problem is that the Democrats may not need one - they have been taking the advice of the late brass-knuckled Republican strategist Lee Atwater: "If your opponent is busy shooting himself, don't get in the way!"
Although the entire country is electing representatives on Tuesday, and a third of states are choosing senators, control of the legislature will come down to about seven Senate races and perhaps 25 House seats out of 435.
Nationally, the race has become a battle between the Democrats' anger and the Republicans' organisation.
Triangulator
The latest polling data suggests that the gap between the two parties has been narrowing. After months of solid leads for the Democrats, as the clock ticks down, more Republicans may feel suitably energised, alarmed or guilty to get off their sofas and vote.
From automated "robo-calls" designed to annoy the other party's voters to negative television campaigning, this election has become a textbook case of scraping the bottom of the election ballot box.
Republicans privately admit they expect to lose the House, but they hope to hold the Senate. That could hamstring the president, leaving him a quacking lame duck.
But remember divided government is the norm in the US. In the last century the president has had an opposition Congress twice as often as a sympathetic one. That need not prevent a president from getting things done.
Bill Clinton passed his ground-breaking welfare reform two years after the shock of a Republican tsunami - he learnt how to work with Congress and that made him a better president.
Can George Bush, the conviction politician, become a Clintonian triangulator in his last two years of office?
Some doubt it. And yet it may be in his best interest. After all, the Republican Congress has not done George Bush any particular favours in the past two years.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Next, please!
Now that Saddam's trial is over and he has been found guilty, when does the trial of George W. Bush begin?
Monday, October 30, 2006
Lying about the dead
The issue of inaccurate casualty information resurfaced last summer when Army officials revealed that two California National Guardsmen - Lt. Andre Tyson and Spc. Patrick McCaffrey - were murdered in June 2004 by the Iraqi civil-defense soldiers they were training. The Army initially told the men's families they were killed in an enemy ambush.
My question is: Has the administration lied to the families of our dead soldiers when disclosing the truth about their deaths was embarassing or counter-productive to their pursuit of continuing this war which some of their mouthpieces have already admitted is simply about securing the Iraqi oil fields?
You know they have. Bush stood up before Congress and lied to Congress and the American people. The administration manipulated Colin Powell into lying to the United Nations. Do you think they would hesitate for a moment to lie to a couple of American families?
It makes me want to throw up.
My question is: Has the administration lied to the families of our dead soldiers when disclosing the truth about their deaths was embarassing or counter-productive to their pursuit of continuing this war which some of their mouthpieces have already admitted is simply about securing the Iraqi oil fields?
You know they have. Bush stood up before Congress and lied to Congress and the American people. The administration manipulated Colin Powell into lying to the United Nations. Do you think they would hesitate for a moment to lie to a couple of American families?
It makes me want to throw up.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Democrats, show some guts!
In a speech to the military in Charleston of my home state yesterday, Bush said that if we pull out of Iraq, the terrorists will follow us here.
What? Are there so few terrorists that they don't have enough to send over here now? If there are that few, what the hell are we worried about? Sounds like another reason to get out of Iraq to me.
Should those few follow us, I suppose they will have no problem getting in since he has failed to secure our borders or our ports.
He also said in an earlier speech that Democrats have no idea how to win in Iraq. Like he does. Neither he nor anyone in this country even knows what the hell we're trying to win in Iraq. How will we know when we win since he keeps changing the reasons why we went there in the first place? This bozo is such a joke.
He repeated the charge that the Democrats have said we will leave Iraq now, immediately. Overwhelmingly, Democrats have called for a staged withdrawal, not immediate retreat. This liar is such a liar.
Democrats: DO NOT let the Republicans paint us as soft on defense. We must address this accusation with full force. We must emphasize that we are stronger on defense than are they, that we will enforce the 9/11 Reports recommendations, we will secure our ports and borders and chemical and nuclear plants. We will defend our country, not uselessly invade a irrelevant countries with no ties to terrorism. We will prosecute the war on terrorism to its fullest, and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, who do harbor terrorism.
Democrats are no longer the party of the 60's. If the party is smart, they'll listen to Democrats like Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. If the Democratic Party becomes the party with guts, balls, and military strength bolstered, rather than tempered, by strong diplomacy, then we will make gains in the South this election, and we could win the South in the next. If we get back the votes of FDR Democrats who have just been voting Republican since it began to seem like Democrats were the party of the gutless, we will win the South. If we win the South, we win. Period. Mark my words. Forget Ohio. As the South goes, so goes the nation.
What? Are there so few terrorists that they don't have enough to send over here now? If there are that few, what the hell are we worried about? Sounds like another reason to get out of Iraq to me.
Should those few follow us, I suppose they will have no problem getting in since he has failed to secure our borders or our ports.
He also said in an earlier speech that Democrats have no idea how to win in Iraq. Like he does. Neither he nor anyone in this country even knows what the hell we're trying to win in Iraq. How will we know when we win since he keeps changing the reasons why we went there in the first place? This bozo is such a joke.
He repeated the charge that the Democrats have said we will leave Iraq now, immediately. Overwhelmingly, Democrats have called for a staged withdrawal, not immediate retreat. This liar is such a liar.
Democrats: DO NOT let the Republicans paint us as soft on defense. We must address this accusation with full force. We must emphasize that we are stronger on defense than are they, that we will enforce the 9/11 Reports recommendations, we will secure our ports and borders and chemical and nuclear plants. We will defend our country, not uselessly invade a irrelevant countries with no ties to terrorism. We will prosecute the war on terrorism to its fullest, and defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, who do harbor terrorism.
Democrats are no longer the party of the 60's. If the party is smart, they'll listen to Democrats like Dave "Mudcat" Saunders. If the Democratic Party becomes the party with guts, balls, and military strength bolstered, rather than tempered, by strong diplomacy, then we will make gains in the South this election, and we could win the South in the next. If we get back the votes of FDR Democrats who have just been voting Republican since it began to seem like Democrats were the party of the gutless, we will win the South. If we win the South, we win. Period. Mark my words. Forget Ohio. As the South goes, so goes the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
