Prayer and Probability

A Tale Of 2005
It was the best of times; it was the worst of times

In reviewing the past year not much need be said to recall the worst of times. There were natural disasters of hurricanes
and earthquakes and man-made disasters like the Bush war in Iraq and the Bush war against America. There will always be natural disasters and those who think they can control nature are running a fool’s errand. There will always be man-made disasters because man is not perfect nor can he be made so, those who think otherwise are engaged in an exercise in futility. However man can influence the regularity and intensity of both kinds of disasters.

We must quit trying to separate ourselves from nature. We are part of the natural world, the earth is our home. We must begin to treat it as such. Man has always exploited nature, some cultures more so than others. But over the past two centuries as mechanical technology has become the dominant force in shaping the world, exploitation has far surpassed preservation. We must learn to live in harmony with nature not just consume it for short term material gain. If we fail to do this we are on certain course to destruction. To put it in technical terms we are bending over and kissing our rear goodbye.

We must stop separating ourselves from each other. Mankind is one with our self. To quote John Donne, “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main…Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” As long as man continues to divide the world into the “us against them” fight to the finish scenario of extremists like Osama bin Laden, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and other right-wing radicals there will be no advances in the world political situation.

To say it was the best of times a certain perspective is needed. For clearly the Bush driven world is and has been nowhere near the best. In scientific terms, it sucks. To put it in biblical terms, it is on the highway to hell. However 2005 clearly has marked a turning point in America’s understanding and knowledge of the mean spirited Bush and company. America has caught up to the rest of the world in seeing them for what they are, lying incompetent weasels bent on making the world in their own image. It is an image of world domination by the few (economic and corporate elites) that rests squarely on the backs of the many (everyone else).

2005 was the best of times because it brought the attempted putsch of the radical right to a screeching halt.
They had nothing but failures the whole year, starting with their grand scheme of welfare for Wall Street, Social Security privatization. This was the number 2 priority of the Bush gang from the start, second only to gaining American dominance in the Middle East. As the year went on their top priority also slipped from their grasp, though they still refuse to admit it. It is a refusal sustained by thousands of deaths and injuries of Americans and Iraqis. But no sacrifice is too great for others to make.

Seriously wounded by failing to achieve their two main objectives, the right –wingers are gradually losing their grip of power. The media at long last has awakened from the dogmatic slumber induced by the radical right’s attack on the 1st Amendment. Karl Rove is no longer able to deny or bully his way out of his many acts of lying and duplicity. In fact he is just on his way out. Bill Frist and Tom DeLay are too busy trying to stay out of jail to put enough pressure on their party members to vote their inclination against the Geneva Convention or to void the Constitution. With a main supplier (Jack Abramoff) of illicit funds to their campaigns on his way to the big house most Republicans are being forced to look for legal and legitimate donations. This requires them to at least pay lip service to the values of everyday America, values like following the Constitution and obeying the law.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

Compassionless Conservatism
A Not So Merry Christmas

On Saturday June 12, 1999 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa George Walker Bush defined his candidacy for President of the United States as such, "Is compassion beneath us? Is mercy below us? Should our party be led by someone who boasts of a hard heart? I am proud to be a compassionate conservative. I welcome the label. And on this ground, I'll take my stand. I am running because my party must match a conservative mind with a compassionate heart.” There has never been a more hypocritical or deceitful statement in the history of American politics. Mr. Bush was most egregious in the non-adherence to this idea while he was Governor of Texas and has been faithfully consistent in his non-adherence throughout his presidency. There is one qualifier. Bush has always been extremely compassionate to the haves and have-mores; the elites who comprise his social and political base.
This ‘compassion’ has come at the expense of all the rest of America, not just the poor and destitute, though as always the burden lays heaviest on the poor. ‘Tis long past the season to hold Mr. Bush accountable for his folly.

While Mr. Bush has been unwavering in his support of welfare (tax cuts and subsidies) for the wealthy and corporate America, he has more than compensated by cutting back assistance to the poor, needy, old, and the young. Most of these cuts include the scaling back of such luxuries as medical care, heating assistance, food, child care, education, and quality of the environment. Despite these and other draconian cutbacks he continues to push the country further and further into massive debt. He has fostered a war in Iraq that several members of his administration had been planning since 1992.
He lied his way into war and continues to lie in order to prolong it.

We shouldn’t be surprised at George’s actions since becoming President, it follows the same playbook he used while Governor of Texas. It was the same game plan; rob the poor to give to the rich, increase corporate profits by any means possible especially deregulation, and to reward his elitist friends while trying to destroy his political opposition (enemies).

Mr. Bush professes to be a Christian, and while it is beyond the ability of anyone to see into his heart, it is not beyond the ability of anyone to determine if his deeds correspond to the life and teachings of Christ. I do not know if Mr. Bush and his right-wing supporters have read the Christian Bible, but I do know if they have they have failed to understand even its most basic tenets and concepts. I defy any Pat, James, or Jerry to say otherwise.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

It's The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Or Whatever

Some people would kick on mother’s milk. That’s an old saying in my neck of the woods, the Blue Ridge Mountains, meaning some people are never satisfied or happy. In recent weeks a small but vocal segment of the Christian community has raised the concern that there are those in America who are trying to steal Christmas, grinches who would strike out at the very heart of our nation. They are doing this by banning manger scenes, prohibiting the singing of traditional Christmas carols, doing away with ‘Christmas‘ trees, enticing us to do ‘holiday’ shopping, and worst of all not greeting us with a “Merry Christmas” as we attempt to spend our hard earned cash. Could anything be more un-Godly or un-American, after all, that hard earned American cash plainly says, “In God we trust.”

The time we celebrate the birth of Christ for Christians has traditionally been the most wonderful time of the year. It is a time for honoring the life of Jesus and his teachings of loving and giving, though I have sometimes thought that he might be more pleased if we would make that a daily rather than seasonal happening. I believe Christ couldn’t care less how we greet each other whether, "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Happy Kwanzaa", "Eid Mubarak", "Happy Holidays", "Happy Arbor Day" or any other greeting as long as it is given in love and respect.

Before we start complaining about the loss of Christmas and its traditions perhaps we should learn a little more about them. Christ’s birthday most likely was not December 25th. In fact there is no consensus among scholars as to time of year; some say spring, more say fall, and others say winter. There is a general consensus on why December 25th is celebrated. It is generally accepted that the Emperor Constantine chose the date to help consolidate his power. He had become the ruler of the Western Roman Empire in 312 and gradually took over the Eastern Roman Empire as well. Constantine became a Christian but the Empire had many pagan religions also. In an attempt to bring more unity, he and the Roman Catholic Church joined the celebration of Christ’s birth which was celebrated on various dates including December 25th to the pagan celebration of Sol Invictus, the return of the sun, celebrating the winter solstice.

I am sure that Christ loves any instance of giving, but I do wonder if he can be pleased with how modern corporate society has commercialized the celebration of his birth. I can’t help but think he would be more pleased if all the money spent on Christmas was used to feed the hungry, to give shelter to the homeless, and to provide medical help for the poor and indigent.

St. Francis of Assisi is given credit for the origins of the Christmas carol in 13th century Italy. The Christmas tree did not come into existence until the 16th century. Most agree that it had its origin in Germany around 1520, though the legend that Martin Luther began the tradition seems not to be true. And contrary to popular belief Christmas cards got their start in England in 1840, not Kansas City, Missouri.

There is no nefarious plot to steal or subvert Christmas, at least no more than has been going on for the past 100 years or so. To get upset over a greeting given in love or friendship is decidedly non-Christian. Why not sing Jewish songs of praise in December pageants? Christ was a Jew, I am sure he did. I appreciate a greeting of Happy Hanukkah or happy holidays I am not insulted by it, so in the same vein to one and all, Merry Christmas.

Radical Right vs. 4th Amendment
It’s Legal (For Us) To Break The Law

Ever since the days of the Nixon Presidency the radical right has been paranoid of everyone that doesn’t profess an allegiance for and adhere to their narrow minded definition of America. Over the years it has developed into a pathological state of mind that is not only consuming them but eating away at the very fabric of our society. It is no better exemplified than in their obsession to gather as much information as possible about any and everyone that they (extreme right) consider enemies. To this end they have used every means possible to enhance their intelligence gathering of those perceived enemies. It is done under the cover of darkness and secrecy then when their crimes and misdeeds come to light they first deny all, then they scream, National Security, National Security!!

Now once again the radical right finds itself exposed for breaking the law. They have already begun their denials of it wasn’t illegal but if it was it was for America’s own good. You know the drill it is the doublethink ploy of hate is love or war is peace. They use a variation for most everything they do.

One of the main defenses cited for we weren’t guilty of illegal spying on American citizens was the November 18, 2002 ruling by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. This was an appeal by the Federal Government of a unanimous FISC ruling in May 2002 that upheld restrictions on government spying. The government was determined to undermine the law, so they filed the first appeal of a ruling under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FICA) of 1978 in 23 years and 15,000 cases. The law states that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is to pick 3 Federal judges to sit on a 3 man Court of Review. Usually the Chief Justice picks a bi-partisan court, but in this case Chief Justice Rehnquist picked 3 Republican judges that were appointed by Ronald Reagan, including the ultra right extremist Laurence Silberman who was one of the main attack dogs in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. The radical right didn’t want a majority opinion, they wanted a unanimous decision and they got it.

In their decision the Court of Review cited the case of Truong vs. the United States as supporting the Presidential power of ordering unwarranted surveillance. There is the problem that Truong was before the passage of FICA which limited government spying, but so much for facts, er, technicalities. And there still is the problem that the larger bi-partisan court originally voted unanimously (7-0) against that power.

The extreme right also has tried to use selective parts of FICA under the United States Code to justify Bush’s excesses. They site TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802. In part it says, “Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year.” However they neglect to include the following,
“(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.”

The radical right also has said that Congress set conditions of war and therefore that expands the President’s power. Obviously they haven’t read TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811 which says in its entirety, “Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”

Considering all this, is it possible that the mid-term elections might be about impeachment?

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

Bush Declares Constitution Null And Void
It Is Old And Outdated

“This new threat required us to think and act differently,” with these words George Walker Bush declared his imperial (dictatorial) presidency. He said he was above the law of the land. The nation hadn’t heard such hubris since the days of Contragate and before that Watergate. As Reagan and Nixon did with those two crimes the Bush Administration attempted to conceal and justify their law-breaking with the standard radical right
explanation of “National Security”. Unfortunately for them the old, ‘we had to destroy it so we could save it’ routine doesn’t play any better today than it did in the past. And there is a reason for that, it is totally insane. It makes sense only to the intellectually, morally, and ethically challenged. That certainly explains why Bush and his cronies chose to use it.

It didn’t take the President very long to start his pattern of lying and deceiving. His tenth sentence was this, “Our mission in Iraq is critical in the victory in the global war on terror. After our country was attacked on September the 11th and nearly 3,000 lives were lost, I vowed to do everything within my power to bring justice to those who were responsible.” After more than 4 years he is still trying to mislead the American people into believing Iraq had something to do with 9-11. His WMD ploy failed, he hasn’t much else to use. Bush is running scared, he always has eventually. He and Karl Rove wanted desperately for others in his administration and party to be the ones in the public spotlight, the ones defending the lies and deception. But as many succumbed to scandal and indictment, Bush has had no option except to place himself on the firing line. This was a great plan on September 12, 2001. It is an act of desperation in December 2005.

After decades of cowering before the onslaught of the extreme right, the Media at long last seems to be rediscovering a backbone. As more and more lies and crimes of conservative reactionaries come to light the media is refusing, albeit slowly, to close their eyes to all the excesses. Hopefully as Richard Cohen has called for, we are entering the era of accountability and leaving the ‘I am responsible but it is someone else’s fault’ era.

One of the first things we must hold Bush accountable for is this from his opening decree yesterday, “As President and Commander-in-Chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it.” Nowhere does it give him the right to define and select what parts of the Constitution he decides to defend and protect. In fact the very reason for the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights is to prevent some hegemonic dictator or would be king from being able to steal the people’s rights.

In trying to secure these powers for himself Bush went on to add a plea for the extension of the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” Bill, or as he likes to euphemistically refer to it, ‘The Patriot Act’. He said,”Another vital tool in the war on terror is the Patriot Act. After September the 11th, Congress acted quickly and responsibly by passing this law.” Well they acted quickly at least, kind of. It was passed after an all night writing session conducted by whom no one knows. It just mysteriously appeared around 8 A.M. and was put up to vote without allowing Congress to get a chance to read the bill. Bush calls surrender your rights to me without knowing what you do responsible! Well he would.

Then Bush got really weird. He defended his attack against the poor and under privileged of America by saying, “We were wise with taxpayer's money and cut non-security discretionary spending below last year's level.” He went on to say, “We passed bankruptcy reform and class action lawsuit reform…, we need to keep taxes low, and make the tax relief permanent. We must restrain government spending, and I'm pleased that the House today has voted to rein in entitlement spending by $40 billion, and I urge the United States Senate to join them.” As I said yesterday the only sacrifices Bush calls for are from someone besides himself and his moneyed class. It is way past time to hold him accountable for his war against the Constitution and the American people.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

The Politics Of George W. Bush
Fear And Lying In The West Wing

George Bush is running scared. Fear, the very emotion he has used for the past four years to bully and scare the nation into following his radical positions has turned its ugly head toward him. He and his Orwellian trainer, Karl Rove, failed to understand that once loosed the beast takes a life of its own. They tried desperately to regain control over it this weekend with two speeches (1 and 2 to the nation. They attempted to turn the beast once again toward the American people. It is possible perhaps even probable that they will succeed in the very short run. They used their standard extremists’ tactic of lying and misrepresenting the facts and this has proven to be quite successful in the past. But since they so seldom deal in truth, Bush and Rove miscalculated once again. Once the truth is set free and is known there is no covering it up again. Their resurgence will be brief if at all.

They will fail because they are already being consumed by their own fear. Both speeches lacked the constantly used macho swagger that Bush and Rove so admire. They even made an attempt to project a small sense of contrition and candor but it was revealed for what it was, political spin, because all that they said that went wrong was someone else’s fault not theirs.

As always we just have to take their own words to show how corrupt they are. Bush said, “I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed.” Now can anyone and I mean anyone tell me the difference between that statement and the goals and tactics of Bush, Rove, and the far right.

With a classic example of misdirection Bush said, “September the 11th, 2001 required us to take every emerging threat to our country seriously, and it shattered the illusion that terrorists attack us only after we provoke them. On that day, we were not in Iraq, we were not in Afghanistan.” It is true that we were not then in Iraq or Afghanistan, however bin Laden cited the American presence in Saudi Arabia (we have had a military presence there since 1943), along with our support of Israel, and his desire to overthrow ‘corrupt’ Islamic governents as the reasons for the attack on the World Trade Center, not American involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan, for quite clearly there was none.

Dubya also made this statement, “I will make decisions on troop levels based on the progress we see on the ground and the advice of our military leaders -- not based on artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. That is an excellent idea. But again he has done just the opposite. He hasn’t listened to his military commanders and has made decisions based solely on timetables and plans set by politicians (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Fieth, etc.) in Washington.

Bush’s entire Presidency was best summed up by him when he said, “We're approaching a new year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect to see. We will see more sacrifice -- from our military, their families, and the Iraqi people.” How true and we will continue to see no sacrifice from him or his elitist supporters. He continues to ask for tax cuts for the wealthy while our troops are ill equipped in Iraq, while he asks for spending cuts for education, unemployment, medical benefits for poor children, and assistance for food and housing. Yes for Bush, No sacrifice is too great for others to make.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

The 1st Amendment R.I.P.
NY Times Secretly Concealed Bush Spying in U.S.

The New York Times quietly laid to the rest the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in October 2004. In a belated obituary published December 15, 2005 the Times admitted its complicity in the death. It confessed to bowing under pressure from the Bush Administration to withhold explosive information concerning President Bush’s, and other members of his Administration’s, blatant abuse of the Constitution. Bush was currently running for reelection and did not want knowledge of his malfeasance to be made public.

Bush’s conduct was eerily reminiscent of the 1972 reelection campaign of Richard M. Nixon in which Nixon and his cronies constantly ignored the Constitution and broke several laws concerning individual rights and privacy. Bush’s handlers even copied the standard radical right defense of placing all bad news under the protective blanket of “National Security”, a defense implemented and used often by Nixon. Unfortunately the Times was either too afraid or too ignorant to withstand the pressure. Considering all the things that have happened at the Times the past few years perhaps it is time for them to change their masthead to, "Some of the news that's fit to print."

By failing to stand up for their own rights, the Times failed all America. By failing to fulfill their obligations the Times failed America. Their thirteen month late mea culpa does not relieve them of responsibility for contributing to the harm done to America and the world by the right-wing extremists of the Bush Administration. Had they published Bush’s high crimes and misdemeaners when they first learned of them he very probably would not have been reelected. They effectively became the Supreme Court of 2004.


The First Amendment’s death was neither sudden nor accidental. It had been under constant attack by the Republican far-right for 40 years. Its condition had steadily deteriorated over that time. With the First Amendment’s passing the G.O.P. extremists have finally won. From now on all news will have to conform to their narrow-minded and strict regulations. If any news detracts from their authoritarian usurpation of power, hinders their dictatorial decrees, or inhibits the growth of corporate profits it will be censored, but only for reasons of national security. We can expect a dramatic increase in their Orwellian plan of rewriting history. For instance will it be long before all history books will declare that that FDR’s New Deal was nothing more than a communist plot to prevent America’s corporate and moneyed elite to rightfully maintain and continue their positions of privilege as expressed by Herbert Spencer and his concept of survival of the fittest?

This may seem extreme to some but then who would have thought that the New York Times would not immediately report that the President of the United States had broken the law and had broken his oath of office, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

Brit Hume Lobs Softballs To Dubya
He Still Strikes Out

Fox News prefaces its transcript of the Brit Hume interview of President Bush with this statement,”This is a partial transcript of ‘Special Report With Brit Hume’ from Dec. 14, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.” It shows a remarkable albeit unexpected degree of candor. First it tells us that it is a manufactured piece since it is not given in its entirety. Second it reinforces the fact that it is manufactured by saying it has been edited. Next it tells us that it doesn’t make sense without being doctored. Unfortunately it doesn’t tell us who wasn’t making sense President Bush, Hume, or both. But after reading it, it is fairly easy to make that determination for ourselves.

At the beginning the interview Bush gives faint support to Donald Rumsfeld when he answers a question about Rumsfeld staying in the Administration to the end. Bush says, “Yes. Well, the end of my term is a long time.” It sounds like Donald ought to be updating his resume.

Hume then shows either an unbelievable degree of ignorance or an improper amount of prejudice when he says this about Karl Rove, “He went through some trials and tribulations — and they appear largely to be over now.” Bush wouldn’t touch that with a 10 foot pole. He only admits the obvious and says they are friends and that Karl was responsible for his being President. He says not a word about Karl’s troubles being over and he gives no defense of him at all. This becomes all the more noticeable when Bush later does comment about another on going criminal investigation, that of Tom DeLay. When Brit asks, “Do you just — do you believe he's innocent?” Bush answers, “Yes, I do.” But Bush also says this when asked if he expects DeLay to return as Majority Leader, “I don't know whether I'm expecting it. “ It sounds like Bush’s faith in DeLay’s innocence is nothing more than a goodbye kiss. Hume also sets up Bush with opportunities to mutter the standard Bush and GOP inanities about how they are on a higher plane than their opponents, and how the Democrats are as responsible for the mess in Iraq as his administration and party are, since they (Democrats) had the same information he did. He says the Abramoff scandal is tied to the Democrats as much as the Republicans.

There was one hard question Hume asked Bush. He asked him about the number of Iraqi deaths in his war, “Where'd you get the number 30,000?” That was a mistake for Bush answered, “That was a number that's been floating around the public. You know, it was a number that was in the press. The 30,000 Iraqis, I must tell you, it's speculative. I don't think anybody knows the exact number.” Realizing his mistake Hume moved on to other things rather than challenging Bush further.

Hume closed the interview by asking Bush, “Let me get your thoughts, Mr. President, on — on how you think or hope you'll be remembered.” Bush replied, “I hope that first, as a person, I'll be remembered as a fellow who had his priorities straight: his faith, his family and his friends are a central part of his life.” Not a mention at all of the how he treated the American people or the condition of the country. I don’t know how his faith will be judged, but I do know that he favored his family and friends at the expense of the rest of us. And you know what they say, two out of three ain’t bad.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

Deconstructing George W. Bush
“Faulty Intelligence,” Never mind

George Bush actually admitted yesterday that the reasons he invaded Iraq and went to war were wrong and false. In classic Gilda Radner-Emily Litella fashion he went on to say never mind, “Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.” Say what? The reasons were wrong; the intelligence was false (read manufactured) but the decision was right. It is impossible to reason against such a mind set. It is the mind set of predetermined ideas and actions regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. It is the mind set of dictators and demagogues.

“In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front…We're hunting down the terrorists and their supporters. We will fight this war without wavering.” In saying this Bush failed to mention that the terrorists are in Iraq BECAUSE of the American invasion. He gives as justification for his war, his invasion of Iraq. He goes on to say. “We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security.” But just two paragraphs later he admits the reasons for saying and believing this were false. ”And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.” Notice he implies that he didn’t know it was wrong from the start.

Now I suppose it is possible that Stephen Hadley, the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor at the time of the Iraqi invasion, did forget to tell his bosses, Condoleezza Rice and George Bush that the CIA had written 2 memos stating that Iraq was not trying to build WMDs. He admitted that he did forget and did not tell them. But that does make me wonder why he was not fired immediately? Instead he was promoted to National Security Advisor after Rice was promoted to Secretary of State. Oh well, ours not to reason why.

Bush also said, “the terrorists cite Vietnam as a reason they can prevail,” and found inspiration from, “the collapse of the American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents.” What horrible irony that he doesn’t realize that had he volunteered to go to Vietnam instead of cutting and running, had Cheney and most of the others in the administration volunteered instead of scampering after deferments perhaps things would have been different in Nam and the terrorists would not have that inspiration.

On the many mistakes he has made in Iraq, Bush says, ‘We have fixed what was not working, and we have listened to those who know best: our military commanders.” This begs several questions, like when did Bush start listening? You would think that since he was determined to invade Iraq he would get and listen to his military commanders’ advice. And he did, he listened to Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki when Shinseki told him that at least 250,000 thousand ‘boots on the ground' would be needed. He listened to General Tommy Franks, Commander, United States Central Command, the General in charge of the invasion when Franks told him more than 200,000 troops would be needed. Bush listened he just didn’t follow their advice. Instead he went along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld when they said 130,000 would be more than enough. Let’s see here, Bush starts a war based on lies and false information, and then doesn’t take the advice of his military commanders instead relying on the thoughts and ideas
of a guy who went AWOL from the National Guard, a draft dodger, and a post Korean War Navy pilot who never saw a day of combat. These are the guys that are going to make America safer?

They can’t even make the troops they sent to Iraq safer. To make up for not sending enough troops, they under equipped those they did send. They sent insufficient supplies and equipment and much of the material they did send was defective, so much so that the troops’ families back in the States had to provide the proper equipment for them. That is how the Bush Administration has honored the men and women they sent to Iraq.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

The Killing Fields
Stan ‘Tookie’ Williams 1953-2005

AT 12:35 A.M. PST December 13, 2005 San Quentin prisoner C29300 died. Stan ‘Tookie’ Williams was killed by the state of California. He is the 1003 person put to death since the U.S. resumed capital punishment in 1977 with the firing squad death of Gary Gilmore. That is roughly 1003 too many.

I object not only on Christian moral grounds but also on humanistic philosophical and political reasons as well. To me the theoretical purpose of government is, “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The government should do all this while being the least intrusive as possible.

That is a short but loaded paragraph. Its implementation is the practical purpose of government, and is no easy task. Every concept must be defined and agreed upon. Is a more perfect union formed by cutting taxes, or perhaps providing health care for the indigent? Is justice nothing more than the unequal balancing of litigants’ net worth? Is the common defense best met by building an SDI (Star Wars) system or fighting world hunger? Is the general welfare best promoted by loose environmental standards or mass public transportation? Who is to sacrifice to secure the blessings of liberty, the lower part of the American socio-economic scale or everyone? How are we to define intrusive, by sins of commission like collecting a fair income tax or sins of omission like ignoring emission standards? That is what government is about.

So where do government executions fit in to this.
How is society made more perfect by imposing a state death penalty? Study after study details how the death penalty does not deter crime, better living conditions do. The state should not be involved in retribution or revenge on an individual capital level. It should promote non-lethal punishment and rehabilitation if possible. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” If the government then feels that it has a legitimate right to take a life in its defense, then it legitimizes the taking of life when the people feel the government is failing its purpose. “Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

I do not know if Stan Williams is guilty or not. I do not believe our society is the better for the state of California killing him. I do know that innocent people have been executed. Is there a certain ratio that justifies such a thing? Perhaps one innocent execution for every ten guilty, or hundred guilty, or thousand guilty, I do know the only way to prevent the one is to prevent them all.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

Karl Rove R.I.P.

Karl Rove, Senior Advisor to the President of the United States is a dead man walking, politically speaking that is. His meanness, hate, and arrogance all of which he used to mask his feelings of inadequacy have finally caught up with him. His last ditch pleading with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has come to naught. Fitzgerald has the goods on him, and will drop the hammer soon after the New Year. It couldn’t happen to more deserving person. Rove will go down in history as a true enemy of liberty, freedom, and democracy.

Rove tried using the standard GOP defense of I didn’t remember when he was questioned by the Grand Jury on October 14, 2005 about his lying to them (the Grand Jury) on two different occasions, once on October 15, 2004 and again in February 2005. Only last minute begging by his lawyer along with the promise of being more candid spared Rove from indictment along with Scooter Libby. The respite will be short lived. Rove is toast.

Rove will soon learn ‘I forgot’ just doesn’t cut it. Obviously one thing he has forgotten is that that defense didn’t spare his one time boss Dwight Chapin. Chapin was one of the main leaders of Nixon’s dirty tricks campaign of 1972. He is the one who sent orders and instructions to the College Republicans and Donald Segretti. Chapin was convicted of perjury for answering "I don't recall" when asked whether he had given Segretti specific orders to attack Democrats in the primaries.

Good ridance to bad garbage. So Karl as I said before “Don’t let the door hit you on your way out.”

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

Congress And The BCS
Two failures For A Metaphor

At long last Congress has decided to live up to its responsibilities to the American people. It finally has taken up a matter of utmost importance to the maintenance of our society. Of course I refer to straightening out the quagmire we know as the BCS, Bowl Championship Series.

Here is a brief summary of the intricacies of this pressing problem. First the BCS is one of two ways of determining the yearly champion of Division 1 NCAA college football. It involves polls, computers, algorithms, and a championship game. The other way is a poll of sportswriters taken by the AP at the end of the season. One of the problems is these two ways do not always coincide; in fact they haven’t on two separate occasions since the BCS and its precursor, the Bowl Alliance, have been in effect(1995). There were co-champions in 1997 and 2003.


Another problem is that despite all the computers and algorithms there have been questions practically every year, save 2005, as to whether the best teams are even playing in the BCS Championship Game. Still another problem is that of monopoly. There are 4 bowl games in the BCS. They pay $12,000,000 to $14,000,000 to each of the 8 teams that play in those 4 games. The 4 BCS games have been dominated by 6 conferences (SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East, & PAC 10) plus Notre Dame, an independent with no conference affiliation. This makes for a total of 66 schools. There are 119 schools in NCAA Division 1. Of the total 41 BCS games played (counting this year) since 1995, schools from the elite 66 have made up a total of 81 teams selected. That leaves a grand total of 1 to have been selected from the other 53 Division 1 teams. They want a bigger slice of the pie. So you see the dire situation in which the nation now finds itself.

You shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that other problems such as the war in Iraq, no health care for 45 million Americans, the outsourcing of jobs, the Katrina aftermath, or any one of the myriad of problems facing us has been solved. It is just a matter of prioritizing for the Republican dominated Congress. It is not unlike the Donald Rumsfeld approach to problems; go after what is easy and available instead of the difficult and true, re: going after Iraq rather than Osama bin Laden. Besides there are a lot of voters, er, fans who are clamoring for a solution.

Now while Congress is trying to tackle this problem people are still being killed in Iraq, dying in America for want of medical care, waving goodbye to their jobs, and are still homeless in New Orleans. But looking on the bright side if Congress gets to work we may have a true Division 1 Football Champion in a few years.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

It's The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Or Whatever

Some people would kick on mother’s milk. That’s an old saying in my neck of the woods, the Blue Ridge Mountains, meaning some people are never satisfied or happy. In recent weeks a small but vocal segment of the Christian community has raised the concern that there are those in America who are trying to steal Christmas, grinches who would strike out at the very heart of our nation. They are doing this by banning manger scenes, prohibiting the singing of traditional Christmas carols, doing away with ‘Christmas‘ trees, enticing us to do ‘holiday’ shopping, and worst of all not greeting us with a “Merry Christmas” as we attempt to spend our hard earned cash. Could anything be more un-Godly or un-American, after all, that hard earned American cash plainly says, “In God we trust.”

The time we celebrate the birth of Christ for Christians has traditionally been the most wonderful time of the year. It is a time for honoring the life of Jesus and his teachings of loving and giving, though I have sometimes thought that he might be more pleased if we would make that a daily rather than seasonal happening. I believe Christ couldn’t care less how we greet each other whether, “Merry Christmas”, “Happy Hanukkah”, “Eid Mubarak”, “Happy Holidays”, "Happy Arbor Day” or any other greeting as long as it is given in love and respect.

Before we start complaining about the loss of Christmas and its traditions perhaps we should learn a little more about them. Christ’s birthday most likely was not December 25th. In fact there is no consensus among scholars as to time of year; some say spring, more say fall, and others say winter. There is a general consensus on why December 25th is celebrated. It is generally accepted that the Emperor Constantine chose the date to help consolidate his power. He had become the ruler of the Western Roman Empire in 312 and gradually took over the Eastern Roman Empire as well. Constantine became a Christian but the Empire had many pagan religions also. In an attempt to bring more unity, he and the Roman Catholic Church joined the celebration of Christ’s birth which was celebrated on various dates including December 25th to the pagan celebration of Sol Invictus, the return of the sun, celebrating the winter solstice.

I am sure that Christ loves any instance of giving, but I do wonder if he can be pleased with how modern corporate society has commercialized the celebration of his birth. I can’t help but think he would be more pleased if all the money spent on Christmas was used to feed the hungry, to give shelter to the homeless, and to provide medical help for the poor and indigent.

St. Francis of Assisi is given credit for the origins of the Christmas carol in 13th century Italy. The Christmas tree did not come into existence until the 16th century. Most agree that it had its origin in Germany around 1520, though the legend that Martin Luther began the tradition seems not to be true. And contrary to popular belief Christmas cards got their start in England in 1840, not Kansas City, Missouri.

There is no nefarious plot to steal or subvert Christmas, at least no more than has been going on for the past 100 years or so. To get upset over a greeting given in love or friendship is decidedly non-Christian. Why not sing Jewish songs of praise in December pageants? Christ was a Jew, I am sure he did. I appreciate a greeting of Happy Hanukkah or happy holidays I am not insulted by it, so in the same vein to one and all, Merry Christmas.

The Epistemological Administration??
Rumsfeld’s SAIS Speech Continued

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld took some questions after his speech, ‘The Future of Iraq’, at SAIS Monday. One of the questioners opened with this statement, “You've become famous for or, shall I say, epistemological musings in the press.” No doubt he was being facetious for this Administration has been the least reflective and cerebral of all administrations and yes I include the Reagan Administration. A quest for and understanding of knowledge has never been a goal or tool of Bush the Lesser and company. In fact their concern is the opposite. They work with an Orwellian doublethink system
not in search of knowledge and truth but in search of the perfect duplicitous Rovian spin of reality.

One of the main Rove-Luntz tactics of doublethink is saying something often enough in hopes of dulling the senses and having people accept a proven lie as the truth. A perfect example of this is this statement by Rumsfeld Monday when he was asked about Iraq, “But we didn't go in there for oil. We're not going stay there for oil. We went in there for the reasons the president stated.” This begs the questions, Just where were those weapons of mass destruction? What were the ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda? What plans did Iraq have to threaten and attack America? What knowledge did we have to back up those wild assertions? Were we searching for the truth or trying to justify an agenda? Another questioner pointed this out when she said, “And there's a comment here, a discussion of the Defense Science Board, referred to as your own advisory think tank. And it says that, "The architects of the Iraq war lacked necessary knowledge of Iraq and its people and that they failed to factor in well-known lessons of history."” What were those reasons again?

As always Rumsfeld tried to pass responsibility for failure of the Administration’s knowledge and policy on to someone else, in this case Congress. To quote him, “no one asked Cheney in his confirmation hearings about Iraq. And no one asked me about Afghanistan. And yet, after September 11th, we were required to go halfway around the world to a landlocked country in a matter of days and weeks.”

He did let something important inadvertently slip about Afghanistan when he said, “I mean, in Afghanistan, the Soviets had -- I don't know -- 200,000 people in that country for year after year after year after year.” So the Soviets sent 200,000 troops into Afghanistan to support a friendly government and they lost. We sent all of 8800 to bring down an unfriendly government as well as to destroy al Qaeda. However we did send 160,000 into Iraq which had nothing to do with 9-11. It was so Reaganesque, just like in 1983 when he invaded the Caribbean nation of Granada two days after terrorists killed 241 Marines and American soldiers in Lebanon. On further reflection perhaps the gap between Reagan and the Lesser isn’t as great as I first thought.

Rumsfeld Transcript

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To
Make.

Through The looking Glass
Into The Distorted World of Donald Rumsfeld

Yesterday Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave speech at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C. That is I think it was yesterday. If we only go by what he said it could have been December 1991, January 1998, September 2001, or probably any day between December 1991 and December 2005 or even December 2020. The message is always the same; Iraq is a mortal threat to the United States. It intends to attack America and destroy ‘our’ way of life. Now that wasn’t true in December 1991, January 1998, or September 2001 and isn’t true today. Considering how badly the Bush Administration
is screwing up who knows if it will be true in 2020?

Here are some quotes from yesterday’s speech.

1. “If we do not succeed in our efforts… to defeat the terrorists in Iraq this is the kind of mayhem these terrorists emboldened by a victory will bring to our shores. Let there be no doubt.”

2. “Simply put, defeating the extremists’ aspirations in Iraq is essential in protecting the lives of the American people.”

3. If we allow al Zarquari and bin Laden to seize power Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic Caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East and would threaten the legitimate governments of Europe, Africa, and Asia. This is their plan.”

I have provided a video link for the SAIS speech and ensuing question and answer period. It lasts for just over an hour.

I have a few problems with Secretary Rumsfeld’s theories. Statement number one sounds a lot like the days of Vietnam when we had a choice of confronting the Godless Communists in Southeast Asia or on the California beaches. His understanding of Iraq is no better than his lack of understanding Vietnam. An even bigger problem is when and how did terrorists end up in Iraq?

Saddam Hussein was/is an evil vicious man. He’s a man to whom human life means nothing. To call him scum of the earth is to put scum in bad company. He supported terrorists during his entire reign of terror. However the scope of his activities changed after the first American-Iraqi War. He no longer was involved on an international scale as he was in the 1980’s. With one exception his terrorism became regional in nature. His regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait. Hussein gave financial support to Hamas and other Palestinian groups. He aided Iranian dissident groups like Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the PKK a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Iraq never again reestablished its prewar international terrorism.

This in no way is meant to lessen the horror and viciousness of the groups he supported. But it makes totally false the assertion that Iraq would participate in attacks against the United States. In fact he may have helped prevent them. After the first war he did provide sanctuary to some terrorists such as Abu Abbas of the 1985 Achille Lauro incident, Abdul Rahman Yasin, the 1993 bomber of the World trade Center, and mass murderers Abu Nidal, and Abu Ibrahim. However rather than give them funding and support they were placed under a house-like arrest and were not allowed to leave the country. But when Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney say we are now fighting terrorism in Iraq, they are correct. They planted the seed. They gave it life.

Never let it be said that I am not willing to compromise. So in that spirit let me say that quotation number 2 is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. America will not be safe until the war mongering extremists are defeated.
Granted there might need to be some discussion as to just who the extremists are and just what their agenda and aspirations are.

Rumsfeld as always tries to use the Administration trick of tying bin Laden to Iraq. It is now the only way to legitimize the invasion. There were no weapons of mass destruction. They tried to manufacture evidence but got caught at that. They have no options but to lie about bin Laden. Lying is not a second nature to Bush and crew, it is their only nature. America will not be any safer until they are gone.

Rumsfeld Part 2

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To Make.

The Last Exit To Baghdad
On The Highway To Hell

After reading “Victory In Iraq”, President Bush’s latest work of fiction, I am more convinced than ever that America is not going to be able to disentangle itself from the self created morass anytime soon. Not only do we not have a plan or some workable timetable to get out, we haven’t bothered to define one very important term, ‘get out’. Just what is meant by this?

From before day one of the invasion it has been the intent of the war planners to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. That has not changed. Rather than say we will eventually leave we say our position will evolve with the changing conditions. Nothing wrong with that in fact it makes sense in as far as it is tied to a withdrawal strategy. But ‘The Lesser’ carefully avoids saying this. He avoids it because he has no intention of doing so. Oil is the life’s blood of the modern world. The radical neocons have no intention of not having the American military in close proximity to its source. The neocons also want the added layer of American involvement in Israeli affairs. And the Bush family gets to protect the ruling al Saud family in Saudi Arabia. The Royal Family is terrified of the possibility of revolt and upheaval in the Kingdom. Resentment of America has forced us to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia, but this way they are just across the border. Knowing how catastrophic our invasion of Iraq has become some no doubt think we would never send troops into Saudi Arabia to fight. Those who think this have failed to understand the true radical agenda, the building and sustaining of an American Empire based on the preeminence of military power.

There will probably be three or four permanent bases
in Iraq, one in Kurdish territory, one in eastern and western Iraq, and probably one close to Baghdad. There will also be a continued build up of forces in Kuwait. These bases will all have large airfields to enable the quick and large deployment of troops. Though most likely these bases in Iraq will be self-sustaining with no contact with the Iraqi people it is most unlikely that they will engender peace and goodwill toward the United States.

The prospect of permanent bases was brought up last year by a small contingent of the media but has not been raised since. It is time for not only the media but also the Democrats and all of the American people to start asking tough questions.

Bush's Ghostwriter?

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To Make.

The Loyal Opposition
Teaching A Dead Dog An Old Trick

Over the past few weeks a faint but noticeable pulse has been detected from the heretofore dormant carcass of the Democratic Party. At first many thought it was only a hallucinatory flashback to the vibrant and turbulent times of the ‘60s. But closer examination does show signs of life emanating from the Democrats. It is a revival long time coming. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes it gives hope to a new life, a turning away from the divisive and destructive politics of the Republican Party and their ruling clique of the radical right.

This revival also gives rise to a conundrum. How is it to be sustained? The radical right did not seize power from mainstream America by preaching the worth of love and peace. They grabbed it with their gospel of hate and fear. Their political Bible taught the tactics of the repetitious use of lying, cheating, and stealing. They proved to be successful beyond the wildest dreams of even the most crazed reactionary. But if the Democrats resort to the use of the same evil ways then the new boss would be the same as the old boss, if indeed they did win.

Politicians almost always take the easiest way out. So the temptation will be great to simply copy the mean-spirited plan of the radical right. The Democrats must resist that at all costs. To do otherwise is to admit ‘we have met the enemy and he is us.’ However there are some things that should be taken from Rove, Atwater, and the evil ones. First everyone should read the following, Machiavelli’s, The Prince; Sun Tzu’s, The Art of War; and Clausewitz’, On War. These two treatises should also be read, 'Frank Luntz Republican Playbook' and David Horowitz’, ‘The Art of Political War’. These writings basically make up the true Bible of the radical right. The gist of their message is that all is fair in war, politics is war, and therefore all is fair in politics. It is nothing more than a philosophical rationalization to justify their lying, cheating, and deceiving their way to the usurpation of power.

These writings need to be read not to emulate the radical right’s despicable tactics but to understand their siege mentality and their ‘us against them’ attitude. An attitude that was best described by one of Karl Rove’s favorite writers, Vladimir Lenin, when he proclaimed, “In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.” Karl and the gang certainly took those words to heart.

There is one exception and those who have read many of my blogs are familiar with it, repetition. I use the terms extremists, reactionary, right-wing, far right, etc etc again and again. All opposition to the extreme right should make use of a vocabulary that accurately defines the far right-wing for what it is. So be repetitive. It is the repetition of truth, and while it may get to be boring it is not the repetition of lies.

All links give full text if you page down.

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To Make.

Victory In Iraq
The ‘Lesser’ Definition

In yesterday’s most recent ‘Rovian doublethink’ 5600 word proclamation by George the Lesser, the first thing he addressed and called for was victory in Iraq. This would entail an “Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, and secure,” a noble but surely unattainable concept. It not only ignores the current situation in Iraq but also its history. Iraq was initially established after World War I to enhance and protect British oil interests. But that has completely changed. Iraq now exists to enhance and protect American oil interests. Surely everyone can see the difference.

Now other than substituting one imperialist for another, the situation in Iraq is remarkably unchanged. The national boundaries were drawn by the British in total disregard for the religious, cultural, and ethnic differences of the indigenous peoples there. After all, despite these serious problems there was the overriding glue, oil.That is still the one overriding concern. We need pay no attention to these minor conflicts between Sunni, Sh’ite, and Kurds. Even though they have existed for centuries the allure of western money and materialism will make them magically disappear, or so goes the current neocon theory. It is a theory conceived in avarice and pipe dreams.

The situation in Iraq under Saddam was horrible, in retrospect the only thing good we can say about it is that it was better than the current situation two and half years after the Bush invasion, high praise indeed. It is now apparent that it will take years for the Iraqis just to work their way back up to the deplorable conditions of Hussein. Bush not only is wrong he is lying when he calls for victory in Iraq. He knows there will be no victory for America. Sooner or later it will end the same way as Vietnam, we will declare victory and then come home. The only questions are when and how many Americans and Iraqis will be killed and wounded before we accept the inevitable.

This war has been in the planning stages for years. I use the word planning loosely for obviously there was no tactical thought given to the preparation and conduct of the war. There was no tactical or strategical thought given to a post Saddam era. Lesser and company have been flying by the seat of their pants. It is time for a new pilot.

Do not misunderstand me, oil and energy will be at the front of America’s problems for quite some time. They will get worse before they get better. The question our current situation poses is how are we going to deal with these problems? Are we to take the Bush and radical right‘s unilateral solution of aggressive preemptive strikes to protect and secure oil fields, or do we wish to work with the international community to achieve peace and prosperity for all?

A Plan ?

The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To Make.