Hypocrisy Reins II

The Sept. 29 Des Moines Register’s report on First Lady Laura Bush’s visit to Iowa to stump for Iowa candidates quotes Mrs. Bush as saying, "President Bush has an ambitious agenda for the rest of his time in Washington. ... To accomplish them, we must have serious national conversations conducted with civility and respect.”

“…serious national conversations conducted with civility and respect…” (emphasis added). This from someone:

- Whose husband told the rest of the world “you’re either for me or against me” in the run-up to the Iraq war.
- Whose husband in just the last few days labeled Democrats who disagree with his policies as ”obstructionists.”
- Whose husband either fired or forced out anyone in his administration who dared to disagree with him (Colin Powell and Richard Clarke).
- Whose husband’s former chief of staff (Carl Rove) has a l-o-n-g record to dirty tricks (like “swift boating”).
- Whose husband’s response to a shouted reporter’s question he didn’t like is to flip him the bird.
- Whose party leaders tell a U.S. senator to “go f--- yourself” (Vice President Dick Chaney) or who respond to an audience member’s question he didn’t like with an obscene gesture that means “f--- you,” with the comment, “That’s Sicilian” (Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia).
- Whose party’s apologists include hate-mongers like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

"... serious national conversation conducted with civility and respect" indeed! There seems to be no limit whatsoever to Republican hypocrisy.

So, what’s the problem?

According to today’s online New York Times: “Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating whether Jeanine F. Pirro, the Republican candidate for state attorney general, and Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner, illegally taped conversations of Ms. Pirro’s husband last year to determine if he was having an affair.

“At a hastily arranged news conference yesterday, called because of an imminent television report on the inquiry, Ms. Pirro conceded that she had her husband, Albert, followed in the summer of 2005. She said she had discussed bugging the family’s boat with Mr. Kerik, an old friend who was then running his own security business. But Ms. Pirro, who was the district attorney of Westchester County at the time, said she never went through with the plan, and she insisted that she broke no laws.

“Seething with anger, and choking up as she laid bare her marital problems, Ms. Pirro said that two federal agents approached her at her home late one recent night and revealed that the United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York was investigating her surveillance discussions. They had been caught on tape by Bronx authorities who were conducting a separate investigation of Mr. Kerik.”

So, I don’t understand why are you guys are hassling Ms. Pirro? If the head of the Republican Party feels he can wiretap anybody he damn well pleases, which is essentially what he’s said, why are you giving this poor lady a hard time for following suit?

Hey Fox News, you guys are funny!

At first I have to admit to a real flash of anger when I read the following: According to the Associated Press, Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News characterized Bill Clinton’s somewhat pointed response to a Chris Wallace interview last week as "wild overreaction" and that it was an “an assault on all journalists."

This, I thought seeing red, from the network that hosts Bill O’Reilly and Hannity & Colmes!

Then I thought about it… Chris Wallace was practicing a tried and true journalistic approach called the “ambush question,” a technique honed to a high art by Wallace’s father, Mike, over many years on CBS’ 60 Minutes. You invite someone to participate in an interview on the pretext that you are going to talk about something else --- in this case it was Clinton’s global initiative --- but, then, when you get them on camera you ambush them with the “are you still beating your wife” type question.

Unfortunately for Fox News and Wallace, Clinton held his ground and didn’t back down. They waren’t able to embarrass him, as I have no doubt was their intent. And so now, true to their childish, bully-boy traditions, they have to go on the attack to save their embarrasment over Clinton’s mini-victory over Chris Wallace.

Less safe, not more

According to story in today’s online edition of The New York Times, the intelligence assessment that has been causing so much “interest” over the weekend “said the invasion and occupation of Iraq had become a ‘cause célèbre’ for jihadists. It identified the jihad in Iraq as one of four underlying factors fueling the spread of the Islamic radicalism, along with entrenched grievances, the slow pace of reform and pervasive anti-American sentiment.”

First, let’s keep the causes and effects straight here. It was George Bush who invaded Iraq, not, originally, because it was a haven for terrorists, but because Saddam Hussein himself was supposedly a threat to us, an allegation that subsequently proved to be completely baseless. George Bush’s unjustified invasion of Iraq is the cause for Iraq now having become a “cause celebre for jihadists.”

Second, what I found even more interesting are the other three “factors fueling the spread of Islamic radicalism,” which include “entrenched grievances, the slow pace of reform and pervasive anti-American sentiment.”

Does George Bush have any kind of coherent policy for addressing these other causes of terrorism? Have we ever heard him talk about the social and economic issues in the Middle East and Africa that fuel radicalism? Don’t forget that most of the terrorists who “attacked” us on 9/11 were not Afghanis (who we invaded because of the attack), but Saudis, (who is supposedly our ally). As the saying goes, with “friends” like that, who needs enemies?

And is it possible that when George Bush defends torture of prisoners, when he holds people for years in prison camps without charges, and that when he says things like that he is acting according to God’s instructions --- by the way, isn’t it just a bit ironic that that’s exactly what the jihadists think they’re doing as well --- that he is fanning the flames of “pervasive anti-American sentiment”?

George Bush is making us less safe, not more.

Less safe, not more

According to story in today’s online edition of The New York Times, the intelligence assessment that has been causing so much “interest” over the weekend “said the invasion and occupation of Iraq had become a ‘cause célèbre’ for jihadists. It identified the jihad in Iraq as one of four underlying factors fueling the spread of the Islamic radicalism, along with entrenched grievances, the slow pace of reform and pervasive anti-American sentiment.”

First, let’s keep the causes and effects straight here. It was George Bush who invaded Iraq, not, originally, because it was a haven for terrorists, but because Saddam Hussein himself was supposedly a threat to us, an allegation that subsequently proved to be completely baseless. George Bush’s unjustified invasion of Iraq is the cause for Iraq now having become a “cause celebre for jihadists.”

Second, what I found even more interesting are the other three “factors fueling the spread of Islamic radicalism,” which include “entrenched grievances, the slow pace of reform and pervasive anti-American sentiment.”

Does George Bush have any kind of coherent policy for addressing these other causes of terrorism? Have we ever heard him talk about the social and economic issues in the Middle East and Africa that fuel radicalism? Don’t forget that most of the terrorists who “attacked” us on 9/11 were not Afghanis (who we invaded because of the attack), but Saudis, (who is supposedly our ally). As the saying goes, with “friends” like that, who needs enemies?

And is it possible that when George Bush defends torture of prisoners, when he holds people for years in prison camps without charges, and when he says things like that he is acting according to God’s instructions --- by the way, isn’t it just a bit ironic that that’s exactly what the jihadists think they’re doing as well --- that he is fanning the flames of “pervasive anti-American sentiment”?

George Bush is making us less safe, not more.

“Better to fight the terrorists over there…

…than here.” That’s a rationale I keep hearing for the war in Iraq from the Republicans. For example, Bill Frist, the Senate Majority Leader, said it as recently one of this last weekend’s Sunday morning talk shows.

The problem is just it not so. It’s a part of the Big Lie that George Bush and his henchmen keep spewing to justify their unjustified war and, more importantly, to desperately try to stay in power.

The Iraq war is not a war against terrorists, at least not al Qaeda. It is a civil war that has more to do with differing interpretations of religious doctrine --- say if Catholics and Lutherans started shooting at each other over whether the Virgin Mary was a legitimate intercessory with Christ --- and has more with “get backs” for who was “in” under Saddam Hussein and who wasn’t than it does terrorists. So, the fact is we are not really fighting terrorists in Iraq we are bogged down in a civil war.

But let’s say for the sake or argument that Iraq was about facing terrorists.

First, the dilemma presented --- that it’s better to fight them over there (in other words, in some other country) than here (in the United States) --- is a false dilemma; it is a gross oversimplification of the choices. Just because we are fighting them over there it does not necessarily follow that they cannot still attack us in some way here.

Second, and to me more importantly, when we say that it’s better to fight them over there (in other words, in someone else’s country) than here (in the United States), what message are we sending? Isn’t it that we Americans would rather blow up your homes and your businesses (pick any country other than the U.S.), and that we would rather see your citizens killed and maimed, than ours? You be our surrogates in this so-called war on terror, while we drive around allegedly safely in our gas-guzzling SUVs.

Once again --- a theme I have harped at repeatedly --- this self-important, arrogant and decidedly unchristian attitude is what helps al Qaeda recruit. Every time George Bush or Bill Frist repeats that slogan it makes us less, not more safe.

More than one way to look at something

Today’s online edition of the New York Times, as well as other media, reported: “A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee…

"The intelligence estimate … represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government. Titled ‘Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States,’ it asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread across the globe.

“An opening section of the report, ‘Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement,’ cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology… The report ‘says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,’ said one American intelligence official.”

Sen. John McCain on CBS’ Face The Nation this morning, when asked about the report, said he believed it reinforced the importance for us to “stay the course in Iraq.” Yes, he actually used those words!

Interestingly, what I understood the report to be was a devastating blow to the credibility of George Bush and his rationale for the starting the Iraq war and for our ongoing involvement. What I got from the report was that if we continue with the current administration’s policies, we will not become more safe from a terrorist threat, but even more at risk. What I saw in the report is that George Bush is al Qaeda’s best recruiting tool. What I concluded from the report was that the U.S. is part of the problem in Iraq, not the solution.

Global terrorism is a threat; I’m not denying that. But what many of us have argued previously, and what this intelligence report seems to confirm, is that the war in Iraq is not, despite what George Bush says, the way to meet that threat. Indeed, it is exactly the wrong way to meet that threat.

“It’s a scary world out there”

I overheard a conversation in which someone used the phrase “It’s a scary world out there” to justify support of President Bush draconian, Constitution-bashing anti-terrorism measures. The person went on to further rationalize that Bush’s tactics have clearly been effective, since there has not been a terrorism attack in this country in five years.

There may, in fact, be another reason why there has not been a terrorism attack in this country since 9/11. The terrorists don’t have to attack us, because George Bush and his cronies are doing their work for them.

A major goal of terrorists is to spread fear. Another goal of terrorists is to disrupt the lives of those they oppose. And a final terrorist goal is to try to do the most damage with the least expenditure of assets.

Every time George Bush beats the drum of “It’s a scary world out there...” Every time George Bush chips away at our freedoms in the name of national security… He is doing the work of the terrorists for them. Which means they don't have to do it themselves.

Non sequitor

According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: “Non sequitor: An inference that does not follow from the premises.” In other words, it’s not logical.

For example, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld last week trying to justify the Iraq war by invoking high gas prices and how rich they would have made Saddam Hussein had he still been in charge in Iraq.

Huh? Mr. Rumsfeld, I think you’ve somehow gotten the cause and the effect turned around here: Gas prices are high because of the war you started to take Saddam out, so how could Saddam have conceivably benefited?

What disturbs me is that you might actually think I’m so stupid that I’ll buy this twisted logic. What disturbs me even more is that you might be so stupid or delusional that you actually believe it.

It doesn't make any sense to me...

...how the Republicans can be supposedly making political hay out of the so-called illegal immigration issue.

The Republicans have been in charge of the U.S. Congress and U.S. Senate for the last 10 years, so why is the issue of illegal immigration all of a sudden such a big deal? Why didn't they do something about this supposely important issue 10-years ago, or 5-years ago, or even 2-years ago?

Perhaps it is because the Illegal Immigration Problem is really a Straw Man --- a phony issue --- designed to distract us from their Iraq fiasco.

The fact is, for all intents and purposes for the last 20+ years we (which includes Democrats and Republicans alike) have invited them to come so that thousands of our U.S. business (probably mostly Republican run) could hire them cheaply. It is the height of hyprocrisy to now make political hay out of what they have tacitly allowed to happen.

We're told that the Hispanic vote has been one of the cornerstones for the GOP: I wondner how many Hispanics are now rethinking their support?

Let's see...

...according to ABC's revisionist so-called docu-drama about the lead-up to 9/11, Bill Clinton had the opportunity to "take out" Osama bin Laden and didn't, therefore, all of the terorist threats we face are his fault. Or so would seem the spin the righties are putting on it.

Let's say, just for argument's sake, that that is a historically accurate portrayal. At least Clinton and his intelligence folks apparently knew where bin Laben was.

But just as apparently, after five years in office Bush and his intelligence people either don't seem to know where bin Laden is --- which says volumes about their competence, or lack thereof --- or maybe don't want to know where bin Laden is --- which perhaps suggests volumes about their need to have a bogey man loose out there to justify their bloated budgets and Constitution-bashing political agenda.

Feeling a little manipulated?

The other day a ran across a commentary on the op-ed page of the Chicago Sun-Times by Bill O’Reilly --- yes, the Fox News rantmeister --- touting the GOP spin comparing opposition to the Iraq war to the pre-World War II Nazi appeasers.

What absolutely cracks me up is the delicious irony of that Nazi-link coming from the mouth of a Bush-flack posing as a newsman. Consider the following quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Feeling a little manipulated?

Huh?

According to today’s online New York Times: “Congress and the American public must accept that the government cannot protect every possible target against attack if it wants to avoid fulfilling Al Qaeda’s goal of bankrupting the nation, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a Senate committee Tuesday.

‘Osama bin Laden,’ Mr. Chertoff said, ‘has made it clear that scaring the United States into an unsustainable spending spree is one of his aims. In a 2004 video, Mr. bin Laden, the Qaeda leader, spoke of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”’”

Huh? Mr. Chertoff, in case you haven’t noticed, he is already accomplishing his goal. It’s called pissing away billions and billions of dollars on an unjustified and unwinable “war” in Iraq that, despite Mr. Bush’s delusional scare-mongering, has almost nothing to do with the so-called War on Terror.