Satan Wrote the Bible

Well, that would certainly explain how a man who says Jesus was his favorite philosopher could start a war, using lies, to create $100 a barrel oil, and claim God told him to do it.

Hell, it even explains how he could claim that God wanted him to be president.

Now, I know the idea of Satan writing the Bible is going to piss a lot of you off, even some of you on the left ideologically. Please, don't panic. This new blog is simply an open forum for Bible commentaries where the author, who chooses to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, explores the possibility that Satan wrote the Bible.

The Satan essay is based on what those who believe there is a Satan believe about him. It is a rational argument using empathy. Its purpose is to make people think, nothing more or less. I have no desire to make anyone angry or upset or to change anyone’s belief.

So, please, go check it out. It's a fun read.

President Whose Dad was President Curtails Executive Power

No, not him. The Bush Administration's contributions to history can be summed up nicely with the Dick Cheney quote to Senator Leahy on the floor of the US Senate:

“Go fuck yourself.”

I mean the other President who's Dad was President, John Quincy Adams. Movie fans will remember the role in the mostly historically accurate Spielberg movie Amistad, in which Anthony Hopkins again makes you forget that he's Anthony Hopkins. After his presidency, Adams served in the US House of Representatives and was known as a friend of the Abolitionists. In one of his greatest scenes, Hopkins captures the intensity and genius of former president Adams when he argued for the defendants in the case of United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque, and others, Africans, captured in the schooner Amistad.

In 1839, 53 captive blacks on board La Amistad were being illegally smuggled into the US to be sold into slavery. They killed the ship's captain and cook and took over the ship, but were intercepted by the US Navy off the coast of Long Island. The Africans were charged with murder. The survivors of the Amistad crew claimed ownership of the “property” as did the Spanish government. The case was closely watched because of the possible legal fallout on slavery. Abolitionists enlisted attorney Roger Sherman Baldwin and the former President John Q Adams in their cause to free the Africans. Many southerners argued that to find these blacks innocent would start a civil war (something about “give me my way or someone will die” sounds familiar).

The Africans were freed and allowed to return to Africa, courtesy of the US Navy.

Of particular interest for the modern historian, Adams proved to the US Supreme Court that the president, Martin Van Buren, had grossly interfered in the case. Van Buren, who was worried about his re-election prospects in the southern states, ordered a U.S. schooner to return the Africans to Cuba immediately after a favorable decision, before any appeals could be decided. He had also replaced the first trial judge, who he was afraid would rule for the Africans.

Adams (and Baldwin) argued all aspects of the case, covering the particularly distasteful ground of property law as it applied to human beings at that time. They argued that the treaties the government cited didn't apply. But of particular interest to anyone interested in checks and balances are the passages in which Adams points out the importance of checking the power of the executive branch.

And here arises a consideration, the most painful of all others; in considering the duty I have to discharge, in which, in supporting the action to dismiss the appeal, I shall be obliged not only to investigate and submit to the censure of this Court the form and manner of the proceedings of the Executive in this case, but the validity, and the motive of the reasons assigned for its interference in this unusual manner in a suit between parties for their individual rights.

Those were the days when at least some of our leaders did the right thing, stated their cases eloquently and forcefully, and fought for the rights and dignity of every human being. The efforts of this one man, a former president and son of a president, helped end slavery. In his argument to free people who had been captured and enslaved, Adams uttered words that every generation, every administration, every citizen should remember:

This review of all the proceedings of the Executive I have made with utmost pain, because it was necessary to bring it fully before your Honors, to show that the course of that department had been dictated, throughout, not by justice but by sympathy — and a sympathy the most partial and injust. And this sympathy prevailed to such a degree, among all the persons concerned in this business, as to have perverted their minds with regard to all the most sacred principles of law and right, on which the liberties of the United States are founded; and a course was pursued, from the beginning to the end, which was not only an outrage upon the persons whose lives and liberties were at stake, but hostile to the power and independence of the judiciary itself.

Here in the midst of the modern dark ages, where the leading candidates for a major party presidential nomination openly advocate such outrages upon both the judicial and legislative branches, Adams' words should haunt the consciences of anyone who might have the power to stop them.

Bush Commits Treason (and no one does anything, again)

Scott McClellan wrote a book entitled What Happened. It'll be out in April. Remember, he told us that the President and the top staff had nothing to do with outing Valerie Plame. Well, he won't be getting any Christmas cards from the White House next month....

"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."

This is so simple. These people outed a covert CIA agent who was working on keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. On April 26, 1999, George HW Bush said:

“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”

And the people who cover up these traitors, who give them aid and comfort? Aren't they traitors too? And people who obstruct an investigation of these traitors? Aren't they insidious too?

This is treason. I can't think of a higher crime or misdemeanor...

Waterboarding is Torture

A group of former intelligence officials of the US has sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging that a hold be placed on Mukasey's nomination until he goes on record saying that waterboarding is torture. The letter, available at No Quarter, is reprinted here in its entirety, with permission:

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman and Ranking Member Senate Committee on the Judiciary

FROM: Former U.S. Intelligence Officers

SUBJECT: Nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General

Dear Senators Leahy and Specter,

Values that are extremely important to us as former intelligence officers are at stake in your committee’s confirmation deliberations on Judge Michael Mukasey. With hundreds of years of service in sensitive national security activities behind us, we are deeply concerned that your committee may move his nomination to the full Senate without insisting that Mukasey declare himself on whether he believes the practice of waterboarding is legal.

We feel this more acutely than most others, for in our careers we have frequently had to navigate the delicate balance between morality and expediency, all the while doing our best to abide by the values the vast majority of Americans hold in common. We therefore believe we have a particular moral obligation to speak out. We can say it no better than four retired judge advocates general (two admirals and two generals) who wrote you over the weekend, saying: “Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.”

Judge Mukasey’s refusal to comment on waterboarding, on grounds that it would be “irresponsible” to provide “an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances,” raises serious questions. There is nothing hypothetical or secret about the fact that waterboarding was used by U.S. intelligence officers as an interrogation technique before the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004. But after Alberto Gonzales became attorney general in February 2005, Justice reportedly issued a secret memo authorizing harsh physical and psychological tactics, including waterboarding, which were approved for use in combination. A presidential executive order of July 20, 2007 authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques” that had been banned for use by the U.S. Army. Although the White House announced that the order provides “clear rules” to govern treatment of detainees, the rules are classified, so defense attorneys, judges, juries — and even nominee Mukasey — can be prevented from viewing them.

Those are some of the “facts and circumstances.” They are not hypothetical; and there are simple ways for Judge Mukasey to become informed, which we propose below.

Last Thursday, President George W. Bush told reporters it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques about which he had not been briefed.

“He doesn’t know whether we use that technique [waterboarding] or not,” the president said. Judge Mukasey wrote much the same in his October 30 letter, explaining that he was unable to give an opinion on the legality of waterboarding because he doesn't know whether it is being used: “I have not been made aware of the details of any interrogation program to the extent that any such program may be classified and thus do not know what techniques may be involved in any such program.” Whether or not the practice is currently in use by U.S. intelligence, it should in fact be easy for him to respond. All he need do is find out what waterboarding is and then decide whether he considers it legal.

The conundrum created to justify the nominee’s silence on this key issue is a synthetic one. It is within your power to resolve it readily. If Mukasey continues to drag his feet, you need only to facilitate a classified briefing for him on waterboarding and the C.I.A. interrogation program. He will then be able to render an informed legal opinion. We strongly suggest that you sit in on any such briefing and that you invite the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to take part as well. Receiving the same briefing at the same time (and, ideally, having it taped) should enhance the likelihood of candor and make it possible for all to be — and to stay — on the same page on this delicate issue.

If the White House refuses to allow such a briefing, your committee must, in our opinion, put a hold on Mukasey’s nomination. We are aware that the president warned last week that it will be either Mukasey as our attorney general or no one. So be it. It is time to stand up for what is right and require from the Executive the information necessary for the Senate to function responsibly and effectively. It would seem essential not to approve a nominee who has already made clear he is reluctant to ask questions of the White House. How can a person with that attitude even be proposed to be our chief law enforcement officer?

We strongly urge that you not send Mukasey’s nomination to the full Senate before he makes clear his view on waterboarding. Otherwise, there is considerable risk of continued use of the officially sanctioned torture techniques that have corrupted our intelligence services, knocked our military off the high moral ground, severely damaged our country’s standing in the world, and exposed U.S. military and intelligence people to similar treatment when captured or kidnapped. One would think that Judge Mukasey would want to be briefed on these secret interrogation techniques and to clarify where he stands.

The most likely explanation for Mukasey’s reticence is his concern that, should his conscience require him to condemn waterboarding, this could cause extreme embarrassment and even legal jeopardy for senior officials this time not just for the so-called “bad apples” at the bottom of the barrel. We believe it very important that the Senate not acquiesce in his silence—and certainly not if, as seems the case, he is more concerned about protecting senior officials than he is in enforcing the law and the Constitution.

It is important to get beyond shadowboxing on this key issue. In our view, condoning Mukasey’s evasiveness would mean ignoring fundamental American values and the Senate’s constitutional prerogative of advice and consent.

At stake in your committee and this nomination are questions of legality, morality, and our country’s values. And these are our primary concerns as well. As professional intelligence officers, however, we must point to a supreme irony—namely, that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation practices are ineffective tools for eliciting reliable information. Our own experience dovetails well with that of U.S. Army intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. John Kimmons, who told a Pentagon press conference on September 6, 2006: “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.”

Speaking out so precisely and unequivocally took uncommon courage, because Kimmons knew that just across the Potomac President Bush would be taking quite a different line at a press conference scheduled to begin as soon as Kimmons finished his. At the White House press conference focusing on interrogation techniques, the president touted the success that the C.I.A. was having in extracting information from detainees by using an “alternative set of procedures.” He said these procedures had to be “tough,” in order to deal with particularly recalcitrant detainees who “had received training on how to resist interrogation” and had “stopped talking.”

The Undersigned
(Official duties refer to former government work.)

Brent Cavan
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

Ray Close
Directorate of Operations, CIA for 26 years—22 of them overseas; former Chief of Station, Saudi Arabia

Ed Costello
Counter-espionage, FBI

Michael Dennehy
Supervisory Special Agent for 32 years, FBI; U.S. Marine Corps for three years

Rosemary Dew
Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI

Philip Giraldi
Operations officer and counter-terrorist specialist, Directorate of Operations, CIA

Michael Grimaldi
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Federal law enforcement officer

Mel Goodman
Division Chief, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Professor, National Defense University; Senior Fellow, Center for International Policy

Larry Johnson
Intelligence analysis and operations officer, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Counter Terrorism, Department of State

Richard Kovar
Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director for Intelligence, CIA: Editor, Studies In Intelligence

Charlotte Lang
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI

W. Patrick Lang
U.S. Army Colonel, Special Forces, Vietnam; Professor, U.S. Military Academy, West Point; Defense Intelligence Officer for Middle East, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); founding director, Defense HUMINT Service

Lynne Larkin
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA; counterintelligence; coordination among intelligence and crime prevention agencies; CIA policy coordination staff ensuring adherence to law in operations

Steve Lee
Intelligence Analyst for terrorism, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA

Jon S. Lipsky
Supervisory Special Agent, FBI

David MacMichael
Senior Estimates Officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA; History professor; Veteran, U.S. Marines (Korea)

Tom Maertens
Foreign Service Officer and Intelligence Analyst, Department of State; Deputy Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, Department of State; National Security Council (NSC) Director for Non-Proliferation

James Marcinkowski
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations, CIA by way of U.S. Navy

Mary McCarthy
National Intelligence Officer for Warning; Senior Director for Intelligence Programs, National Security Council

Ray McGovern
Intelligence Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; morning briefer, The President’s Daily Brief; chair of National Intelligence Estimates; Co-founder, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Sam Provance
U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst, Germany and Iraq (Abu Ghraib); Whistleblower

Coleen Rowley
Special Agent and attorney, FBI; Whistleblower on the negligence that facilitated the attacks of 9/11.

Joseph Wilson
Foreign Service Officer, U.S. Ambassador and Director of Africa, National Security Council.

Valerie Plame Wilson
Operations Officer, Directorate of Operations

Economic Letter the the LA Times

In today's Business section, the LA Times mirrored the right wing administration's talking points about the economy, disguised as the jobs report, in which unemployment remained "steady" at 4.7% in October while the economy "added" 166,000 jobs. A deeper look is warranted.

In a Bloomberg article, albeit buried deep below the fold, we find the tip of the truth-burg:

"In contrast to the payrolls figures, a separate household survey showed a loss of jobs. The unemployment rate held steady because about 200,000 people left the workforce."

A little more investigation would reveal that 344,000 people left the work force in September and 340,000 left in August.

Further study of the October numbers reveals that the propaganda catapulters claimed that the real estate sector added 2800 jobs, and commercial banking added 1500, despite a housing slump. How is this possible?

The administration uses the Birth/Death Model to estimate job growth and unemployment. This statistical model is designed to see jobs created from new businesses that the job survey doesn't see. The US Department of Labor assumes these jobs were "created" based on the employment situation a year ago. So, this model cranks out numbers that say new financial service companies created 25,000 jobs in October, despite a worldwide credit crunch and the housing bust.

And the LA Times, along with all the other main stream media, parrots these numbers as if they're fact. Meanwhile, middle class American families are falling further and further behind, even though inflation is "low."

Which brings us to the GDP "growth" of 3.6% that this administration is reporting for the third quarter. This magic number is reached by counting inflation at .8%, the lowest inflation number for GDP purposes since Eisenhower. Meanwhile, the latest edition of the Economist magazine is reporting that inflation of "all items" (you know, the things people actually pay for like fuel, food and rent) at 16.7%. If we use the Economist numbers, we get a GDP of -12% annualized.

No wonder a corporatist government and their media friends don't want you to see the truth. We're in a deep recession.

And lying to the American people is basically treason. Corruption is theft. The Iraq war is the largest theft

My Burned Out Neighbors Must Hate America

Last night, we watched the flames of the fires engulf the hills of brush less than a mile from our house. Three houses less than a mile away burned to the ground overnight. So, I was a little surprised, after years of getting assaulted by the Bush voters who make up two-thirds of the electorate here, to find out from Glenn Beck, that these neighbors of mine hate America.

I think there is a handful of people who hate America. Unfortunately for them, a lot of them are losing their homes in a forest fire today.

Wow. I knew my neighbors probably voted for Bush. I know they support killing Muslims because more than one of them told me we should just nuke the whole middle east. I know they want middle class children to die if their parents are too stupid or lazy to make the fortune health insurance costs. I know they've assaulted me physically because they don't like my bumper stickers. I know they support the second amendment and the rest can go fuck themselves.

But I didn't know they hated America.

Oh, and it's a brush fire, you moron.

Bush Administration Commits Treason Again

This is sickening. Just sickening. More treason from the Bush Administration.

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

I'd like to quote Article III of the US Constitution (ain't it quaint):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

I'm going to watch the History Channel.

This is How Bush "Supports" the Troops

Thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq — as many as 10 a day — are being discharged by the military for mental health reasons. But the Pentagon isn't blaming the war. It says the soldiers had "pre-existing" conditions that disqualify them for treatment by the government.

We spend a lot of money making sure that people with "personality disorders" can't enlist. Then they go to war. Now I know you Chicken Hawk bastards who want to fight wars on the cheap won't understand this, but war fucks these guys up. They get brain injuries. They get PTSD. But now the Pentagon, which knows damn well they did not have any problems when they enlisted, is saying they did. The Pentagon (read White House) knows damn well how expensive care is for these kinds of injuries, wants to spend all that money paying Blackwater mercenaries and Halliburton latrine contracts instead of actually supporting the troops.

Why am I not surprised? I'd sure like to hear some of you Bush lovers explain this one, because I just love hearing bullshit from you sick fucks.

The Great Iraq Swindle

Bush didn't invade Iraq to find weapons. Hell, he was told there were no weapons there, and didn't care. He didn't even do it for the oil. He did it because the neo-cons orchestrated the largest swindle of American taxpayers in the history of the country.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, it turns out, was never a war against Saddam ­Hussein's Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush's war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take at his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq the lines between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity -- to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they fuck things up.

And just maybe, reviewing this appalling history of invoicing orgies and million-dollar boondoggles, it's not so far-fetched to think that this is the way someone up there would like things run all over -- not just in Iraq but in Iowa, too, with the state police working for Corrections Corporation of America, and DHL with the contract to deliver every Christmas card. And why not? What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureauc­racy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profit­eering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.

Go read it. And then I dare one of you fucking Republican Bush lovers to come back here and tell me why this glorious clusterfuck is good for my children, who will be paying for it.

There's a Word for Lying to Continue a War (or to start one)

Treason. When they lie to keep Americans in a hopeless situation, it's treason. Just like it was treason to get us there in the first place. So, any of you arguing that the surge is working, or that if we leave it will be genocide, or that a bunch of third world Muslims are going to follow us home and take over this country, forcing their religion down our throats, just remember who's feeding you that Bullshit.

Cheney.

Name one thing he's been right about, and then tell my why you want to keep listening to him.

One thing.

Fact is, the numbers they're spewing now are just more crap, and any of you who eat it up and vote Republican again are treasonous, shit-eating mother fuckers too. Go fuck yourselves. Your glorious Grand ol' Party of racism, hate, and kill-them-allness is spiraling down the drain to a very ugly place... Good riddance.

Over 80 US Dead in Iraq per Month for 5 Months Now

Arianna's excellent dissection of Republican Petraeus Praising Points (typical Republican tactic to alter plotlines to fit their political ideology) set me off like Hunter Thompson on adrenal extract. In her story, she mentions a little tid-bit that has apparently been missed by the main stream and tributary media (my apologies to anyone who already diaried this).

For the first time since the war began, we've just had five straight months with 80 or more U.S. fatalities.

And it's getting worse. Nine more soldiers were killed yesterday and today, meaning

April has been the deadliest month for U.S. soldiers in Iraq this year. The latest deaths raise to nearly 100 the number of U.S. soldiers killed this month.

I get sick thinking about it. Nearly 100 US Troops dead in April. That's a VT almost every week. If Iraq got half that coverage every week, we'd be re-deployed by now.

Instead, we have more BS from the obfuscator in chief, who the Fox Playback Megaphone and other co-conspirators hoist up, praising the brave men and women who are Making the Surge Work. As if Bill Moyer's didn't exist.

We have a team of liars, who have been at this Military Industrial Game for a long time now. The Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal is very adept at convincing Rubes to spend billions on military boondogles. They've had lots of practice. In fact, their life-long goal of privatizing the military has been met with Blackwater and Halliburton (et al). Now they can retire and fight little private wars anywhere, without answering to anyone. Corporations are taking over, and soon we'll have Rollerball to keep our minds off the annoying little things like statistics of military dead in faraway places, and how much those adventures cost.

No substitutions, no penalties... and no time limit!

The financial black hole of Iraq has provided enough US Taxpayer dollars to fund black ops until the Rapture, or at least Armageddon. Team B has succeeded in milking America for exactly what they need to continue murdering whoever they want, and this time there won't be any Iran-Contra scandal or Pentagon Papers to screw things up.

In light of all these putrid facts, which no one outside the progressive net roots seems to give a flying fuck in a rolling unarmored humvee about, I'd like to think about 80 a month for 5 straight months.

What are they dying for? If, as I heard Mitch McConnell saying on NPR yesterday, we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, then why are they getting a pass in Pakistan? And if the answer is, well, we need to be smart about Pakistan, because we need Musharaff, then why isn't it the same answer for Iraq? Don't wee need to be smart about hunting Al Qaeda there too?

And didn't the Democrat's funding bill make an exception for going after Al Qaeda? I mean, hey, I just saw Flight 93 too. Made me cry. Made me want to kill the bad guys. Made me wish we had a smart government that would have gotten Bin Laden, no matter where he was.

But it didn't make me want to put American hands on the heads of two sides in a civil war and try to hold them apart like two well-armed 10 year olds. It didn't make me want to watch over 80 coffins per month come back wrapped in flags that will be carefully folded with military precision and handed to a mother or widow.

The McCain escalation in Baghdad has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. To go after those guys, we need special forces. We need allies. We need quick response teams. All the things the Democrat bill allows for.

So, we're not one signature from ending this war. We are one signature from putting the focus back where it needs to be: on the people who attacked us on 9-11. You know, like the one George Bush said this about:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

I think I'm going to hide in the mountains too, so Republican meat grinder feeders can't find my 12 year old son 6 years from now. I hear Colorado is turning blue and getting warmer...

US Military Coup in Progress - takeover by Christion Zionist Theocratic Fascists

This is a quote from Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, from a debate Wednesday night:

Now I know I'm at war, and my legions are at war. We are not at war with Christianity and we are not at war with evangelical Christianity. Ah, but we are at war with a subset of evangelical Christianity with a long technical name that I hope won't take the rest of my time. I'll say it just one time today: it's premillennial, dispensational, reconstructionist, dominionist, evangelical, fundamentalist Christianity. I know it's a long name. We'll just call them Bob. Dominionist Christianity - the leaders you know very well: Robertson, Dobson, used to be Haggard - he's had a career change - D. James Kennedy, John Hagee, alot of people that I won't be going out to dinner with, and for a long time.

As Troutfishing's diary at the Daily KOS points out, these freaks are taking over the US Military. I wonder how many people at the White House, with their finger on the button, believe in this Rapture shit too?

More Weinstein from the debate:

"What you do when you have a 3 star general that’s ordering his staff to put together a Powerpoint presentation showing the direct parallel between the Book Of Revelation and all of our movements in the AOR ? ( for you civilians - area of responsibility, Iraq and Afghanistan )

What do you do when have a four star general who favors the distribution of a pamphlet in his commander’s bulding, his palace, advertising in all faiths and why "Jesus vs. Mohammed, An Examination of The Life of Both Prophets and Why Jesus is Superior To All" ?

Why was the most popular joke here at the Air Force Academy in 2004 "Why do Jews make the best magicians ?" Anyone know ? Show of hands ? We make the best magicians, apparently because we have the magical ability to walk into a red brick building and come out the smokestacks in a puff of smoke."

These people put God and Family before their country, in direct opposition to their oaths. As one woman who was tormented by these fascist racists put it:

"Their participation and promotion of this group is in direct violation of their oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. One officer said that God, his family, and then the US were his priorities.

I ran into this "God First, orders second" attitude when I served in the USAF. There were people in charge of the communications facilities who felt that they should do what God and the Bible told them, not what their commanders said. And if God told them to do something to launch a nuclear holocaust, they would do it. Yes, they actually told me that.

Sleep well tonight: your military wants to bring about the Rapture". - Talk To Action contributor Lorrie Johnson

Kurt Vonnegut Died: So It Goes

Vonnegut on GW Bush:

The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected.

George W. Bush has gathered around him upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography.

In case you haven’t noticed, we are now almost as feared and hated all over the world as the Nazis were.

Our president is a Christian? So was Adolf Hitler.

Honestly, I wish Nixon were president. Bush is so ignorant.

By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas in December.

Vonnegut was a master of irony. He used it lethally, often imperceptibly to those not quite his equal, as this exchange from Vonnegut's Wikipedia Page illustrates:

In 2005 Vonnegut was interviewed by David Neson for The Australian.[18] During the course of the interview Vonnegut was asked his opinion of modern terrorists, to which he replied "I regard them as very brave people." When pressed further Vonnegut also said that "They [suicide bombers] are dying for their own self-respect. It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's [like] your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing ... It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in." (This last statement is a reference to the line "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" ["it is sweet and appropriate to die for your country"] from Horace's Odes, or possibly from Wilfred Owen's ironic use of the line in his Dulce Et Decorum Est.) David Neson took offense to Vonnegut's comments and characterized him as an old man who "doesn't want to live any more ... and because he can't find anything worthwhile to keep him alive, he finds defending terrorists somehow amusing." Vonnegut's son, Dr. Mark Vonnegut responded to the article by writing an editorial to the Boston Globe in which he explained the reasons behind his father's "provocative posturing" and stated that "If these commentators can so badly misunderstand and underestimate an utterly unguarded English-speaking 83-year-old man with an extensive public record of exactly what he thinks, maybe we should worry about how well they understand an enemy they can't figure out what to call."

Vonnegut was scheduled to speak at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion's Speaker series in June. I hope they get his son instead.

Poo-tee-tweet...

Got kicked out of my union newsgroup again

Yeah, the wing-nut NRA (national redneck association) owner of my union's unofficial newsgroup finally kicked me out of the group again. Said he couldn't stand my venomous hate anymore. Funny. This from a guy who voted for a mass murder. You can figure out what he said from my reply:

What's the matter, man? Blocked my email? Just ignoring me? Maybe you didn't get this latest mail. Maybe you're just embarrased for being a Republican. Maybe all your NRA lies about liberals wanting to take your guns just aren't working anymore.

Well, for the record, gun boy, I believe in the second amendment. Guess your socialist theory on me is going down the tubes. I believe in the whole second amendment. I believe you can be part of the well regulated militia. Guns should be treated like cars (deadly high-speed metal): prove you can use one safely, and you can own one. That's a well regulated militia.

I'm also for removing subsidies to big business. Did you know that corporate welfare in this country is 10 times what we spend on people welfare. So, you see, the welfare queens are in the boardrooms, not the ghetto.

Whose freedom of speech have liberals squashed? HUH? It's your dear leader who is trying to do that. From investigating anti-war groups, having his Republican buddy jail protesters during the GOP convention, to outing an undercover CIA agent when her husband spoke the truth to power.

You called me a commie. Like most conservatives, you totally avoided the points in the first email. And like most conservatives, you would rather ban what you don't want to hear than debate it.

So, you can call me a communist, a socialist, etc. (those are names you're calling me, right?) But I can't call you a fascist. You, the Bush supporter. Do you have any idea what has been going on in this government? Did you know that Bush can call you an enemy combatant, throw you in prison, and not allow you to go before a judge and plead innocent? Are you watching the DoJ fiasco, and listening to what the Bushies are saying about the executive branch not having to answer to anyone.

THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF FASCISM.

So, if you support Bush, you support the fascist remaking of our democracy.

THAT IS FACT.

Now, you say I don't know anything about you. That's crap. I know plenty. I know you support president Bush. I know you called me a commie. That's all I need to know to respond in kind.

My venomous hate? Did you read the letter from the father of the dead soldier? HUH? Do you read? You support the most hateful murderous president in the history of the US, and you say I'm hateful? HOW DARE YOU!

You supported lies to get us into a war. How much worse can you get than that? Oh, wait, I know...

READ THIS:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/03/medical-marijuana-ruling-is-troubling.php

That woman, Raich, will die without marijuana. Marijuana is literally keeping her alive. That's not some pot dealer's opinion. It's her doctors' opinions, and she's had many. The court didn't even try to deny that she would die without it. They simply said, too bad, you can't have it. DIE IN PAIN.

Now who's hateful and venomous here, Ray? Me, or YOU who voted for the people who are pushing this hateful agenda?

What you have a problem with is the forceful way I defend myself and my point of view. You're used to liberals who just roll over and take it from bullies like you, who quietly go about your fascist reconstruction of America.

In short, you're a chicken. Rather than argue the point, you squash my right to free speech, and then come up with some crap about how liberals do that. How about some examples, HUH? When have I ever done that? IN fact, if you go back through the records, you'll find that I argued for not kicking out people with whom I disagreed.

So, yeah, you, like most conservatives, just lie about facts to make your case.

Too bad you won't do that in the open, where I can call you on it in front of your union (read socialist organization) brothers. We could delve into my "socialist ideology." Like, where in the email you responded to, did you see anything socialist. It was merely pointing out the many inconsistencies in Republican ideology.

I think government, even when being run by Democrats, should be open. We should know what our leaders are doing. We should never rely on "trust" when it comes to government. We should be informed, so we, as citizens of a democracy, can make the right decisions about who should be in charge.

We should have the right to join unions. Is that socialist? We should take care of our troops when the come home, especially when they're wounded. We shouldn't lie our way into wars. We should have kicked serious ass in Afghanistan. We should have gone into Tora Bora and gotten Bin Laden ourselves, instead of relying on bribed war lords to do it.

We should balance the budget.

How is that socialist? It's not. Which makes you a liar.

I don't have an ideology. I have a philosophy. I am open to facts and changing events to shape my policies.

And I believe that we should hear what everyone has to say, no matter how they say it. Censorship is wrong. I wasn't yelling fire in a theater. I wasn't advocating the killing of anyone (which your side often does). And I sure as hell wasn't being abusive. You threw out a commie joke, I threw out a fascist joke. Too bad you still don't get it.

Manichaen Paranoia

I love it when I have to go to Wikipedia to figure something out. While I was familiar with the dualistic Persian religion Zoroastrianism, I'd never heard of Manichaeaism, which strongly divided the world into the good (light) and bad (dark). So, when I heard Zbigniew Brzezinski say "Manichaen Paranoia" in a March 14, 2007 interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, I headed to wikipedia to find out what it was.

There was no entry for Manichaen Paranoia on March 15. There is now. In fact, I just went in and added another reference I found, an essay by William F. May: Manichaeism in American Politics, Christianity and Crisis, May 2, 1966. Hopefully this will save the page from deletion, because The One True and Good God (who tortures and kills all who are evil) knows that there is nothing paranoid about the All-Mighty GW Bush or his Wikipedia editors.

Note that the essay by May was published in 1966. Even back then, when I was two years old, wise men had noted that the radical right wing in this country had become Manichaen Paranoids.

In the Church this Manichaeism often expresses itself in the somewhat self-pitying struggle of "good church people" arrayed against the politicians. In the political Right Wing it generates—and anoints—a whole series of readiness committees, Minutemen and freedom evangelists pitted against the Communists, fellow-travelers and dupes in American education, press, church and government.

Yeah, that sounds familiar.

Odd that men such as Cheney and Bush have bought into this paranoia to the point that they have actually taken up the Nixonesque position that if the President does it, it's not illegal. Except these guys, in their sickening self-conviction that they are the doers of Good, have taken it so much further, to: If the US does it, it is not evil. Now, I ask you, how fucked up is that?

One Year Anniversary

Today is the One Year Anniversary of Vice President Dick Cheney ignoring all protocols and safety rules of hunting when he shot Harry Whittington in the face during a quail hunting trip.

Here's to ya, shooter. If shooting a man in the face with a shotgun isn't enough to give you a heart attack, nothing is. Either that, or you're not human.

Wes Clark tells it like it is, and pays

Matthew Yglesias's insight into Wes Clark's recent foray into the delicate realm of criticizing Israel, Smears for Fears is a worthy read:

"Everything Clark said, in short, is true. What's more, everybody knows it's true. The worst that can truthfully be said about Clark is that he expressed himself in a slightly odd way. This, it seems clear, he did because it's a sensitive issue and he worried that if he spoke plainly he'd be accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism. So he spoke unclearly and, for his trouble, got … accused of trafficking in anti-Semitism."

What Clark said, according Ariana Huffington, about America attacking Iran, was:

"You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

This is not anti-semitic. Why is any criticism of Israel (which has many nukes, in direct violation of many UN resolutions) considered anti-semitism? How are we ever going to get anywhere in the middle east unless Israel stops killing 10 for every one, stops building walls to support its apartheid, and goes so far as to call Jimmy Carter and Wes Clark anti-semites for trying to find solutions to huge problems that are caused, in part at least, by Israel.

Clark had a wonderful response for the likes of Jonah Goldberg and Michael Barone who are so afraid of a Clark presidency that they attack him over nothing. Clark sent this letter to Abraham H. Foxman of the Anti Defamation League:

Dear Mr. Foxman:

I really enjoyed our conversation yesterday and look forward to our continuing relationship.

As we discussed, I believe that the United States today finds itself in a pivotal position as we seek to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

We need to get our strategy right. Challenging the threat posed by Iran’s quest for regional hegemony and nuclear capabilities requires a multi-faceted strategy. There is still time for direct dialogue, and the United States should take the lead. There are no guarantees that such a dialogue would be successful; and the option to use force should not be taken off the table. It has been my experience that diplomacy has always been America’s most effective tool and that force should be used only as a last resort.

My position on Iran should not be misinterpreted, defined out of context or used to create conspiracy theories about one group’s influence on U.S. foreign policy. There is no place in these critical policy debates for Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that blame the Jewish community for the war in Iraq and for action against Iran.

A nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave risk to the United States and our allies, including Israel.

I will not tolerate anti-Semitic conspiracy webs to permeate the honest debate Americans must have about how best to confront Iran.

I look forward to working with you and others in the American Jewish community to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear threat to the United States, Israel, and our allies.

Sincerely,
Wesley K. Clark

One thing's for sure. George Bush could never write a letter like that.

A Letter to My Local Editor

In the past few months, I have seen letters stating that "everyone" thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This is a blatant lie.

Many people, including people in the CIA, Pentagon, State Department, and Congress, were trying to tell the administration that the "intelligence" they were leaking to the press was wrong. Many people, including former weapons inspectors, tried to tell them that they were cherry picking the bits that made their case, and ignoring the evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, many members of the United Nations, including France, Canada, Germany, Russia, and many others were trying to tell the Bush administration that they were getting bad intelligence.

Of course, this is not the first time that the cabal of neo-con hawks in the Bush administration had gotten "intelligence" wrong in order to spend billions on military endeavors. During the Ford Administration, a group known as "Team B" (team A was the CIA) was making a case that the Soviet Union had thousands of ICBMs. They claimed the Soviets were spending almost their entire GNP on their military. They claimed the Soviets had a particle beam that could blow our warheads out of the sky. They pressured Ford, who caved in, to let them examine the "intelligence," which they then manipulated and leaked to the press, resulting in billions being spent on weapons to counter weapons that didn't exist.

If any of this sounds familiar, it's because Team B consisted of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle, among others: a who's who of the neo-con architects of the Iraq War. Most of these men became members of the Project for a New American Century, which wrote in 2000 that "the process of transformation [in the middle east], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Even more ironically, during the Ford administration, CIA Director William Colby dared to disagree with the Cheney crowd. He was fired and replaced with George HW Bush, who agreed with them. Anyone keeping up with the Scooter Libby trial can note the ominous similarities to the outing of Valerie Plame, who's undercover operation, Brewster and Jennings, was gathering actual intelligence on nuclear proliferation. So it seems that this cabal of Cheney's has now gotten rid of a possible impediment to WMD intelligence from Iran.

This same gang of neo-cons were wrong about the Soviet Union in the 70's, and they were wrong about Iraq in 2003. Now they are telling us about the threat from Iran, without showing anyone the supposed evidence. Bush says he doesn't have to explain anything. He says he is the decider. He has boldly claimed that congress can do nothing to stop him.

Well, congress can. They can impeach. In fact, considering the lives and treasure we are spending on this fiasco (much of the treasure going to the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and for whom so many in the Bush administration have worked or will work), it is the constitutional duty of congress to look into the facts leading up to the Iraq war. When they find a high crime or misdemeanor, it is their duty to impeach.

So, the next time readers of this newspaper hear the same old lie about how Bush was working with "bad intelligence," run to the cabinet and get a BIG grain of salt. Everyone did not have it wrong. Shame on anyone, Republican or Democrat, who supported a war based on the word of a bunch of proven liars like these. If we do not impeach Bush and Cheney, then we will know for sure that the American pledge of "justice for all" is as much of a lie as those that got us into this mess.

Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link

Hey, whaddya know? The Bush Junta is lying again! I wonder if Curious George will accuse Iran of supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgents tonight in his catatonic state of the union address? Yep, the LA Times is reporting that scant evidence has been found of an Iran-Iraq arms link. I'm shocked. Shocked that there are no weapons there.

Really, folks. Are we sensing a theme here? These guys make the Gulf of Tonkin look like the greatest ruse of all time.

For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.

The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case. Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran.

Of course, they could be doing both. You don't have to be a genius to think that in one of the many meetings the administration has had on how to do the politics of attacking Iran, Cheney has shot something like this into the faces of his fellow hawks:

Quack. We can blame the insurgency, quack, on the Iranians. Quack. That'll cover our asses on why we're losing in Iraq, and we can say attacking, quack, Iran will help us win in Iraq. Quack.

Of course, since it's not being reported on FAUX Nothing (it sure ain't news, as Olberman pointed out yesterday), the shit-for-brainers, like the fucking idiots in charge of my union news group, who think Obama is a muslim sleeper cell won't believe it.

Historic Quote Pertinent to GW Bush

I more than suspect already that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong - that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to heaven against him. That originally having some strong motive - what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerning - to involve two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutiny, by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory - that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood - that serpent's eye that charms to destroy - he plunged into it and has swept on and on till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with which Mexico [read Iraq] might be subdued, he now finds himself he knows not where. How like the half-insane mumbling of a fever dream is the whole war part of his late message!.....His mind, tasked beyond its power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding no position on which it can settle down and be at ease. -- Abraham Lincoln

Administration leaving out important details on Iraq

Why am I surprised to hear that Bush-Cheney Inc. is cherry picking information again? It's really par for the course, isn't it? Because, as Bill Clinton pointed out, these guys are operating on ideology. They already know what they want to do in a given circumstance. Their ideology tells them to make friends with whoever they think can win the civil war in Iraq, so they can push through an oil law that allows Western Oil Services companies (think Halliburton) a nice chunk of the pie. So, it's not really that shocking to find that the Bush Administration is leaving out important details on Iraq:

"President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq."

Go read the whole story. The details are irrefutable. It's all so damn obvious, and yet, they thumb their noses and dare us to stop them.

No Oversight on Katrina?

Just what is the White House doing for Joe Lieberman? Besides bombing Arabs, that is. In No Oversight on Katrina?, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball investigate why the Joementum has ended on demands "that the White House turn over potentially embarrassing documents relating to its handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans." Could Joe be kissing Republican butt in order to be John McCain's vice president? Is Joe looking for a cabinent appointment? Just why, for example, would Joe back off this position:

Asserting that there were “too many important questions that cannot be answered,” Lieberman and other committee Democrats complained in a statement last year that the panel “did not receive information or documents showing what actually was going on in the White House.”

Seems good ol' independent Joe just isn't interested in finding out why the Bush administration did nothing to help the thousands of Americans who were devastated, and still are, by Katrina.

Among the missing material: the record of a videoconference in the White House Situation Room in which former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown said he warned senior officials about the dire situation in New Orleans, but was greeted with “deafening silence.” Also missing: records believed to include messages and conversations involving the president, Vice President Dick Cheney and their top aides during the days in late August and early September 2005 when the Katrina disaster was unfolding and thousands of city residents were flocking to overcrowded shelters and hanging onto rooftops awaiting rescue.

Gee, Joe. I bet is this had happened to Hartford Connecticut, you'd really want to see that video...

The Geo Strategic Importance of The Horn

In Salim Lone's article at Tom Paine, Destabilizing The Horn, you can get a brief history of the recent developments in the Horn of Africa, especially Bush's support of the Warlords, in violation of a U.N. arms embargo.

The Horn of Africa, at whose core Somalia lies, is newly oil-rich. It is also just miles across the Red Sea from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, overlooking the daily passage of large numbers of oil tankers and warships through that waterway.

So, if you're following along on your Risk Game Board, you need to note that you can guard your oil route from a land with even more oil. Geo-politics is all about business for these guys, and business means oil.

The New Iraqi Oil Law

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

Wonder if this vote has a chance in the Iraqi Parliament? I wonder who wrote this proposal? I wonder whose behind all this?

Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Blogswarm for Fair Use in Free Speech

The legal ramifications of this move by Disney to squelch fair use in free speech make this story noteworthy, but it also spotlights a dangerous disease rampaging through the right wing of this country, and that is hate speech which encourages violence as a way to settle disputes with liberals. Join the effort to cover this story so that ABC/Disney will be challenged for going after this blogger, Spocko, who is exercising his rights as a US citizen, but also to make sure that the hateful commentators are exposed for the disgusting, violence inciters that they are.

Of course, we can go after these assholes by targeting their advertisers, or by blog-swarming, or many other peaceful ways. I don't want to advocate violence against them. HOWEVER, I am for instant Karma, and I think if these bloodthirsty shits are so set in their ways that they want to call incitement to violence free speech, then I can take a few of their "conservative" points of view and beat them over their proverbial heads with them.

For example, they advocated blowing up all the mosques in Syria with cruise missiles while they're full of people praying. Of course they don't mention how they'll pay for it (cruise missiles costing millions each), but that goes without saying for wing-nuts. The instant Karma here would be for me to hope that some one blows up their church while they're praying in it. But I'm not going to hope that. I wouldn't want any innocent people to get hurt. What I do hope for, though, is for them to get stuck in Iraq with crappy body armor, in a shittily armored Hummer. Or, since they support everything the Bush administration does, I could just wish my old standard on them: I hope they get cancer, are refused marijuana to help with the pain, and just days before their cancerous organs explode, I hope they're denied the right to a dignified death and have to suffer through the cancer death, as Republicans have tried to force the people of Oregon to do, despite the fact that Oregon voters passed the death with dignity act.

Big difference between what they're doing and what I'm doing. In one case, these frumunder cheese eaters fantasized about putting NY Times editor Bill Keller in a malfunctioning electric chair. What has Bill Keller ever done to anyone? These people have supported a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. They support a president who says the law does not apply to him. They support policies of torture and murder. I do not. I only wish that these people get to experience a little of what they've wished on others. Maybe if they actually had to suffer a little in their delusional little lives, they'd think twice before wishing torture and murder on people.

White House argues its visitors log is off-limits to public

That's odd. I was under the impression that we, the taxpayers, own the White House. Bush doesn't even pay rent. But this isn't the usual landlord/tennant relationship. Bush isn't just our tennant. He's our employee. The Business side of the White House is not the residence. As Bush's employer, I want to know who's been visiting during office hours. So, when I heard that in yet another step towards unitary executive authority, that the White House is arguing that its visitors log is off-limits to public, I thought, well, that's gotta be the last straw. Coupled with the recent announcement that the executive branch can read any American's mail without a warrant, I figure even the die-hard anti-impeachment lefties must be caving in now.

And I was right. Thereisnospoon, one my favorite bloggers at the Daily KOS, has finally come over to the pro-impeachment camp:

The fact is that George Bush's continued insistence on using contra-legal signing statements to justify increasingly outrageous activities has left Americans with any shred of respect for the law with their backs against the wall.

Torture, wiretaps, mail reading, and hundreds of other laws have been shredded by the Bush egomania machine. Each one is a big fuck you to the legislative branch, as if laws of the land do not apply to the office of the President.

But I think it's more than that. After a life of having everything handed to him, GW Bush is convinced that he can do whatever he wants. And considering that many legal experts contend that a President can pardon himself, perhaps he is right. George can do whatever he wants and get away with it, because, when the shit hits the fan, the most that can happen is impeachment. In the midst of the investigations into the charges of impeachment, Bush could just pardon himself, or pardon Cheney and resign, and then Cheney pardons him. Either way, the worst that happens to the spoiled little brat is that he has to leave the Presidency a little early. Big deal. He's done what he went in to do anyway.

The rest of us will pay for years.