To Nat, from d with love...

Nat is someone I have come to know in the Blogo-sphere. I respect her opinions and she respects mine. Many times I agree with her. This time I don't. Recently she posted something at Any Which Way which I tried to answer. Apparently my answer was too long even for AWW's generous standards, so I have decided to post it here. Please don't think I'm picking on Nat, this post is directed to all of my Bush supporting cyber-buddies, it just kind of morphed from a response to a post into a post all it's own.

deuddersun

Nat, you are obviously an intelligent person. And a compassionate one, I believe. In the face of all the facts that are coming forth against Bush and the Neo-cons, how can you possibly support George Bush? Both mebrudder and me enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at a time when virtually no-one could be found to serve, including our Vice President and most of the other folks surrounding George Bush. Why did we do it? Who knows? I'd like to say that we were being patriotic Americans, but the truth may lie closer to the fact that we wanted to know, for ourselves, if we could cut it, if we could make the grade, if we truly were fit to be ranked amongst the "Baddest of the Bad". Whatever our reasons, we did it, and by doing so earned the right to say things that others might find objectionable. That's okay. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just have a hard time swallowing somebody telling me that because I don't support Bush's war in Iraq, I'm a traitor, or non-patriotic, or that I'm "hurting" our nation's efforts in the War On Terrorism.

Don't get me wrong. I know we are in a War. I know we are engaged with a new kind of enemy. One who doesn't have a "home base". A "particular country" we can invade, conquer and come home smiling over a job well done, as we did in WWII. We beat the Germans and the Japenese back then, Game Over, let the party begin!

Viet Nam was our initiation to the wars of the 21st century. John Kerry served with Honor and Distinction. The fact that those who never even served at home, (much less abroad), try to tarnish his service makes me sick to my stomach. Like myself and my Brother, John Kerry earned his right to his opinion. John Kerry wasn't just another pot smoking, coke toking hippie who criticized our government's involvement in Viet Nam. He was a decorated Veteran who saw the shit first hand, unlike our current Commander in Chief and most of his Cabinet. His actions after his service were motivated by the fact that he had seen the elephant, and realized, (like MacNamarra and others, 20 years later), that the men and women who had signed up to defend Democracy and The American Way of Life were merely pawns in a much larger game, a game he no longer wanted to play. His actions against the Viet Nam Conflict, (I won't call it a "war" because our government never deemed it a "war"), were motivated by a desire to save American lives, lives that were being thrown away in a "war" that we were not allowed to win. A "war" with no achievable resolution. We weren't allowed to beat them, but we couldn't let them win. Hmmmm, sounds like a Mexican stand-off to me, and one which cost some 55,000 American lives. In my eyes, that makes him a Patriot. I know for a fact that I love this country and I know for a fact that scroff does. As my mother used to say "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." We both ate the pudding, girlfriend, at a time when folks had to be dragged to the table.

This brings me finally to the subject at hand, Michael Moore. The one thing a liar hates most is being exposed as a liar, and this is what Moore does with Bush & Co. While it's true he has nothing new to say, he presents the facts in an orderly, easy to comprehend fashion, and it is this which frightens the neo-cons. This film is a reflection of Mr. Moore's views on the actions of the Bush Administration on the events of September 11, 2001. The fact that the Right has worked so hard to suppress it only illustrates the Right's total contempt for the average American's ability to view it, understand it and come to a rational, reasonable judgement regarding it. In other words, most of us don't really know what's good for us so a few of us will make the "important" decisions for all of us. Thank you, but, no thank you. Been there, done that, got the fuckin' tee shirt.

Nat, I only care about what's good for the United States of America. I know you have loyalties to Israel and that's okay. John Kerry won't let Israel hang out to dry. But you're in America now. The interests of THIS country have to come first. And it is NOT in the best interest of THIS country to be in Iraq right now. Not when Afghanistan is still a hotbed of Taliban resistance and NOT when the perpetrator of 9/11 is still free. Bush invaded Iraq not because it posed any kind of immediate threat to the United States, but because it is the keystone nation in controlling the Middle-east, and the oil the Middle East produces. If Bush was serious about "rogue nations" with WMD, we'd have invaded North Korea. And if Bush was serious about stopping Islamist Terrorism we would have invaded Saudi Arabia. (15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis-imagine if scroff and I and 13 of our friends did the same thing to Saudi Arabia, the outcry for justice against America would be deafening.) Moore only points out the hypocracy of the Bush administration. Here's what one expert had to say concerning the House of Saud: (This transcript concerns the death by beheading of Paul Johnson. It is reprinted here in it's entirety to illustrate the position of Saudi Arabia concerning the actions of Islamic terrorists.)

<[QUOTE]b>CNN BREAKING NEWS

Hostage Beheaded in Saudi Arabia

Aired June 18, 2004 - 14:30 ET

KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: If you're just tuning in to our breaking news, we are following the story that American hostage Paul Johnson has been beheaded.
Right now we have gotten word from the bureau chief of al Arabiya Television that he has seen the videotape of the beheading, also three chilling photographs on an Islamic Web site show the beheaded body of this American hostage, Paul Johnson, who was captured a week ago by Islamic militants connected with al Qaeda, a man by the name of Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin, a self-proclaimed military leader of this al Qaeda group in Saudi Arabia, a group by the name of al Fallujah Squadron.

He was kidnapped on Saturday. The statement now coming across the Web site: "We gave you the deadline, but you did not respect it. This is," the statement continues, "This is what we promised to do."

A 72-hour deadline was given by this terrorist group. In exchange, they would give Paul Johnson for freed jail militants. That, of course, did not happen. Now, we are reporting that American hostage Paul Johnson has, indeed, been beheaded by these terrorists.

We want to bring in Eric Haney, former member of the elite Delta Force. He also spent time guarding the Saudi family.

Eric, first of all, I want to talk to you about the hunt for these killers. And you know the Saudi family, you know more than well know how this -- how they will react.

ERIC HANEY, FORMER DELTA FORCE MEMER: Yes, I've got it and she's talking to me.

PHILLIPS: Can you hear me OK, Eric?

HANEY: Yes.

PHILLIPS: That's OK. I know you're working your sources and getting information right now. What I'm asking you is -- is about the hunt for these killers, these terrorists and what's going to happen right now from a military perspective, from the Saudis perspective.

HANEY: Well, from the U.S. perspective it's in the Saudi hands, and the Saudis have been reluctant -- it's a mild word. The Saudis have almost totally refused to ever cooperate with U.S. authorities over any incident within Saudi Arabia. They've been extremely obstructionist.

And the principal reason for that is there are so many ties in the Saudi security services and intelligence services with al Qaeda and other extremist groups. So don't look for anything drastic to happen right now.

Anything that the Saudis have done also in the past, they've moved very quickly when they've captured someone to execute them almost immediately. And a lot of that has to do with just protecting some people who were placed with inside the police and the security of Saudi Arabia.

PHILLIPS: Eric, put this into perspective for us. Because I thought Saudi Arabia was a strong ally of the United States, that there was a strong relationship here.

We talked a lot about the relationship between the Saudis and the Bush dynasty. When I say the Bush dynasty, I talk about the president and his father.

And you have Americans like Paul Johnson living in Saudi Arabia, helping this economy. Someone who showed a tremendous amount of respect toward the nation of Islam, to Muslims.

It seems hard to believe -- I mean you're saying it. You're saying it's in the Saudi hands and formerly, they have not been supportive in pursuing something like this, but isn't it time for that to change? I mean, it's not -- at least, this is not getting any better.

At what point did the Saudis say OK, we cannot tolerate this; we have got to take action?

HANEY: Well, the Saudis have been taking some tentative action, but it's been very lukewarm. And that's what provoked al Qaeda to move back to its original objective, and that is to depose the Saudi monarchy and to establish a radical Islamic regime inside the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, within the soul of Saudi Arabia.

We have to remember, the ideological homeland of extreme version of Islam is from Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia; most of al Qaeda's members have come from Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers are Saudis; the bulk of the prisoners at Guantanamo are Saudis. That's just a real fact.

When we think of the Saudis as allies, let's think of them, really, as just people that we do an extreme amount of business with, but with whom we have a great cultural -- cultural difference. And we in the West and particularly in the United States have failed to understand that.

And the objective here with the beheading of this man is to further drive Western workers, those professionals and craftsman and technicians, out of Saudi Arabia to hasten the collapse of the kingdom.

PHILLIPS: So you're saying that the more Westerners are driven out of Saudi Arabia, the more that situations like this occur, that you're saying it could lead to a tremendous economic hardship for Saudi Arabia?

HANEY: Well, it's going to further exacerbate it. There are just so many things that apply on this. But the Saudi monarchy has been complicit. And more than just complicit, historically. And this is something that we know quite well and the scholars of that region of the world know this.

That the house of al-Saudi, the ruling family, has been entwined with the Wahhabist movement since the 18th Century. And they support one another. It's a theocracy there.

And it's worked quite well until the last ten years with the rise of al Qaeda when bin Laden, in his messianic view, said the monarchy is so corrupt, it must be replaced, and it must be replaced by a pure Islamic regime. And that's been the objective all along of al Qaeda.

It's not to destroy the American government or to change our way of life or convert anybody to Islam. It's to form that pure Islamic government based on the soil of Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Islam. And this is part of that guerilla warfare to bring that about.

PHILLIPS: Do you find it ironic, at all, Eric, that you, as a former member of the elite Delta Force, have guarded the Saudi family and now this beheading, this horrific beheading of an American living and working in that country that there will be, as you say, tentative action to finding these killers?

HANEY: Sure. I guess ironic is the best word, but it's just part of the life in the world that we live in in these times. And this is going to further deteriorate before it ever starts to get better. Saudi Arabia, the government and the nation, is rapidly approaching a time of genuine crisis in what that nation will be in its view.

And I'll give you this, with Mr. Johnson that beheading, this killing, was merely to establish the bone fides of the group that perpetrated this act. That's why their demand was something that was unreasonable and couldn't be met. That's why the person they grabbed was a person without real power. Other than the fact that it's a horrific act.

The next captures that come about, maybe someone similar to Mr. Johnson, but eventually this group is going to grab someone, some Westerner who is either a political person or a person of such a corporate and financial standing that they do have power. And it will provoke both the Saudi and the U.S. governments into some real hard action.

And what they're hoping that action will be will be an overreaction so that it brings about increased repression inside Saudi Arabia, which influences the populace in their hatred and their disgruntlement towards the government. It's part of classic guerilla warfare that we're experiencing now.

PHILLIPS: Sergeant Major Eric Haney, a former member of the elite Delta Force; also had the assignment of guarding the Saudi family. Thank you, Eric -- Miles.

HANEY: Of course. [/QUOTE]

This fully supports Moore's contention of a "relationship" between the Bush Family and the House of Saud. What "Moore" do you need Nat? A building to fall on you?

Cheney still proclaims that Bin Fergotten had ties to Saddam. Bush has now changed the "Mission of the War" from "Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction" targeted for our cities, deployable within minutes, to "Hey, we liberated the Iraqi people and brought them Democracy." Yeah, right. Turn on CNN any time of any day and see how "overjoyed" the "liberated citizens of Iraq" are. Or ask any of the families of the 800 + American's killed in Iraq if this war was justified. (I personally do not know ONE Veteran who agrees with this War, not one! Where are all these Veterans Against John Kerry?) Some people, believe it or not, would prefer a Theocracy to a Democracy, who the hell are we to shove our way down their throats?

Point is Nat, Bush is a one & done President. He had a chance, a once in a millenium chance, after 9/11, to make this country the shining example of all that is good and right in this world, and he threw it in the gutter. And despite what all the Republi-cons have to say, his reign is over. He knows it, I know it and you know it.

deuddersun :deud:

Check Out Me Fittest Main Man, Da Ali G.

Ali G.


Ali G is the bad boy rapper straight outta Staines in the UK, near Windsor, where the queen lives. He may live with his Nana in the suburbs and has spent more time in Drive thru's than in Drive by's, but he intends to change the world. Already the UK's number one comedy phenomenon Ali G brings his unique style of interviewing to HBO. Talking to the great and the good about the issues that really matter Ali is the only interviewer prepared to ask the really difficult questions like "what was it like to walk on the sun?" to Buzz Aldrin or asking the ex head of the FBI to cast his mind back to the grassy knoll and ask "who really shot JR?".


Sunday, July 18. On HBO.

oldcatman

I've been meaning to update my links for some time now. There are many great sites and blogs out there in Blog-o-land and while I can't link to them all, some just can't be passed up. "oldcatman" is one of them. If you're ever in need of a good laugh, drop by and say "Hey" to "oldcatman", the guy is a piss!

Welcome to deuddersun says... oldcatman!

deuddersun

Now...I Finally Understand!!!

Cheney Blows Fuse at Senate Photo Shoot

A recently uncovered "Secret" Memorandum from the CIA has revealed what we have feared all along - Dick Cheney is a Robot, programmed by Rove, Wolfowitz and other Neo-Conservatives!

Further proof of this startling allegation occurred at the Annual Senate photo shoot on the Senate Floor, when Cheney became agitated at Sen. Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont) over Leahy's criticisms of Cheney and his alleged ties to his old firm Hallitosis-burton. Witnessess described Cheney as a cross between Robot Commando, (a popular robot toy from the '60's) and the "Lost In Space Robot", wildly waving his arms and shouting "Fuck You Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!" Eyewitless testimony from others present at the Photo Shoot indicated that smoke was pouring out of Cheney's ears and his eyes were revolving wildly in opposite directions. One concerned Senator allegedly doused Cheney with a glass of water, hoping to cool him down, but instead completing the short circuit that eventually shut him down.

It was reported that Cheney was removed from the Senate by Secret Squirrel to an undisclosed location where he is undergoing repairs by that "Epitome of Evil" the Brain, and his somewhat mentally challenged assistant, Pinky. It has been rumored that Pinky and the Brain are actually the real force behind the Bush Administration and the Neo-Con movement, as Pinky was overheard saying, "What are we going to do tonight, Bwain?" To which the Brain cryptically replied, "Same thing we do every night, Pinky, try to take over the World!"

Pinky and the Brain prepare to do a remote degaussing of Dick Cheney's robotic brain

deuddersun

Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism

From Steve Turnham
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, June 24, 2004 Posted: 6:14 PM EDT (2214 GMT)

Read the real story here.

Bush or Wiggums?

Go here. Do this. Just do it! Too goddamn funny!

Thanks to ejectbush.com Gonna hafta link to these guys....

deuddersun

Mess With The Bull...

You just gotta love it! Colin Powell's brat is head of the FCC, (probably a pay-off to Powell for toeing the Party Line on Iraq, but that's another story), which has turned it's sights on the Howard Stern Radio Show. Although the following article labels Stern "apolitical", it's no secret, (at least to his listener's), that he always supported Republi-con Candidates, including Bush. In fact, until, the FCC went after him, Stern was a huge supporter of Bush's War in Iraq, in spite of some mild criticism he leveled at the Bush Administration a while ago. It was this very same criticism which Stern claims turned the White House, the FCC and Clear Channel against him. After all, he's been doing the same type of programming for 20 years, why now?

And so, in response, Stern has declared Radio Jihad on Smirky the Chimp and his Neo-Con Administration, much to the delight of this writer and other "Lefties". There's an old Italian saying, "Mess with the Bull, you get the Horn." Well, the Bull is loose in Smirky's "China Shop" and all the Superglue in the world won't be able to fix the wreckage!

deuddersundesternfanwun



Kerry’s Secret Weapon?

Hundreds of thousands of swing-state radio listeners may turn the unlikely Howard Stern into a presidential kingmaker

by Ross Douthat | Jun 01 '04

Though much has been made of the recent debut of Al Franken as a liberal talk-radio host, the most important political voice on talk radio this year may turn out to be not Franken but the usually apolitical "shock jock" Howard Stern.

Recent months have not been kind to Stern, who found himself a target of the backlash against indecency that followed the baring of Janet Jackson's nipple during the Super Bowl halftime show. In February the radio behemoth Clear Channel Communications dropped him from six of its affiliates for being "vulgar, offensive and insulting." The following month the FCC slapped him with a $27,500 fine for his on-air discussions of sexual techniques such as the "nasty Sanchez" and the "blumpkin" (don't ask). As Congress considers raising obscenity fines as high as $500,000, Stern is contemplating a move to satellite radio, where the FCC couldn't touch him.

The proudly boorish host has cast himself as the target of a Republican vendetta—sparked by his criticism of President Bush and spearheaded by Clear Channel (whose CEO is a Bush family friend). So Stern is fighting back, proclaiming "radio jihad " on Bush's re-election campaign and partly remaking his show—well known for its adolescent obsession with fart jokes, lesbians, and strippers—into a platform for anti-Republican invective. "Remember me in November when you're in the voting booth," Stern tells listeners. "I'm asking you to do me one favor. Vote against Bush. That's it."

The idea of Howard Stern as presidential kingmaker may seem absurd on its face. But Stern has successfully dabbled in politics before. In 1994 he launched a Libertarian Party candidacy for governor of New York, only to quit the race and endorse George Pataki, a Republican, over the incumbent, Mario Cuomo. Stern was polling at six percent before he dropped out, and several political observers believed that his endorsement helped Pataki pull off a narrow win. The previous year Stern had endorsed the Republican candidate Christine Todd Whitman for governor of New Jersey, on the condition that Whitman name a rest stop after him if elected. Sure enough, Whitman upset the Democratic incumbent, Jim Florio—and today the Howard Stern Rest Area graces Interstate 290 just east of Burlington City, New Jersey.

Both those races took place within Stern's home market. But with eight million weekly listeners, Stern also has a larger national audience than any radio host other than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Dr. Laura Schlessinger (the majority of whose listeners presumably tend to be Republican). Stern could sway many undecided voters, according to Michael Harrison, of Talkers magazine, a nonpartisan periodical that surveys radio listener demographics.

Harrison says that Stern has "a gigantic audience of thirty- to fortysomethings, people who have grown up with him, people who are teachers, accountants, lawyers." Several million of them "would say they lean conservative ... but are on the fence" in this race. And the host has tremendous credibility with his listeners. "He may be raunchy, edgy, dirty," Harrison says, "but he's compulsively honest, and his main target is hypocrisy." Also, it's not hard to imagine that Stern's relentless screeds against the President would compel some of the previously nonvoting members of his audience—people whom political campaigns usually ignore—to turn out for John Kerry.

In a closely divided country it may not take many votes to tilt the electoral playing field. Ohio, for instance, went for Bush by fewer than 200,000 votes in 2000, and is up for grabs this fall. Stern's broadcasts in Cincinnati and Columbus reach a total of 138,000 listeners a week, according to Arbitron, an independent firm that tracks radio audiences. Missouri and Pennsylvania are also swing states; his show reaches 139,000 in St. Louis and 358,000 in Philadelphia.

In Florida, the fiercest battleground in 2000, the Clear Channel purge cost Stern audiences in Fort Lauderdale and Orlando—which is fodder for Bush-Clear Channel conspiracy theorists. But even now Stern's show reaches 38,000 people a week in Fort Myers—seventy times Bush's Florida margin in 2000. In short, it's not inconceivable that Stern could swing a state or two into Kerry's column.


Ross Douthat is an Atlantic staff researcher.

One For The Right...

Ronald Reagan, Ron Jr., Nancy Reagan and Patti Davis, circa 1967. Inset, Ron Reagan Jr. today.



Now that the Right has diefied Ronald Reagan and placed him among the immortals, it follows Nancy and his offspring must also share a place in the Pantheon of the Gods. Not since JFK has so much praise and worship been lavished on the passing of an American President. And so it seems that America, who once fought a Revolution to cast off the oppressive chains of the British Monarchy, has a new Royal Family.

But the Republi-cons, in their zeal to immortalize a bumbling, inept President who often confused movie plots with reality, may have created a monster that will come back to bite them in their collective, Right-wing asses.

It's bad enough that Nancy Reagan is running around promoting Stem Cell Research, undermining Bush and the Christian Coalition's stand against it, but now you have the dead President's namesake, and heir apparent, Ron Jr. firing broadsides at the Bush Administration and siding with those Hollywood "Communists" like Susan Sarandon and Alec Baldwin. But, hey, the Royal Family is the Royal Family and as such, they are incapable of making mistakes, as many of us who tried to point out the elder Reagan's failings found out last week when our fellow citizens on the Right howled with indignation every time we pointed to their Idol's Clay Feet.

With that being said, it's time for the Crown Prince, Ron Jr. to speak for himself. Below is an article by David Talbot written for Salon Magazine and published on April 14, 2003.

Republi-cons, read it and weep.

deuddersun

___________________________________________________________________




Reagan blasts Bush

"My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush," says the former president's son, in a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration's efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By David Talbot



April 14, 2003 | The Bush inner circle would like to think of George W.'s presidency as more of an extension of Ronald Reagan's than of his one-term father's. Reagan himself, who has long suffered from Alzheimer's disease, is unable to comment on those who lay claim to his political legacy. But his son, Ron Jr., is -- and he's not pleased with the association.

"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," he said during a recent interview with Salon. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."


Reagan spoke with Salon from his home in Seattle, where he lives with his wife, Doria, a psychologist. A former ballet dancer ("At 45, I'm afraid those days are over"), he has worked in recent years as a magazine journalist and a TV personality, currently hosting dog shows for the Animal Planet network ("I live 'Best in Show'"). He and Doria have three cats, but no children ("They're like kids, without the tuition"). Though he never followed his father into politics, Reagan takes a strong interest in public issues, serving on the board of the Creative Coalition, an organization founded in 1989 by performers like Susan Sarandon and Christopher Reeve to politically mobilize entertainers and artists. Reagan recently moderated a Creative Coalition panel discussion in San Francisco on the topic of free expression during wartime, featuring Alec Baldwin on the left and Michael Medved on the right (and a smoldering Sean Penn in the audience).

Reagan, still as lean as he was in his dancing days, has a sharp tongue -- but like his father, he has a knack for softening his barbs with a charming affability and disarming sense of humor.

Reagan took a swipe at Bush during the 2000 GOP convention in Philadelphia, which featured a tribute to his father, telling the Washington Post's Lloyd Grove, "The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?" Since then he's been quiet about the current occupant of the White House -- until now.

Some observers have compared Bush's persona as an intellectually challenged but politically gifted leader to that of Reagan. But the younger Reagan vehemently rejects the analogy. "The gunslinging cowboy, the actor who just read his lines -- that stereotype doesn't fit who my father really was.

"My father had decades of experience in public life. He was president of his union, he campaigned for presidential candidates, he served two terms as governor of California -- and that was not a ceremonial office as it is in Texas. And he had already run for president, against Ford in '76, nearly unseating the sitting president in his own party. He knew where he was coming from, he had spent years thinking and speaking about his views. He didn't have to ask Dick Cheney what he thought.

"Sure, he wasn't a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."

Reagan says he doesn't have anything personal against Bush. He met him only once, at a White House event during the Reagan presidency. "At least my wife insists we did -- he left absolutely no impression on me. But Doria remembers him very negatively -- I can't repeat what she said about him, I'd rather not use profanity. I do remember Jeb -- a big fella, seemed to be the brightest of the bunch. And of course their parents were very charming."

But Reagan has strong feelings about Bush's policies, including the war in Iraq, which he ardently opposes. "Nine-11 gave the Bush people carte blanche to carry out their extreme agenda -- and they didn't hesitate for a moment to use it. I mean, by 9/12 Rumsfeld was saying, 'Let's hit Iraq.' They've used the war on terror to justify everything from tax cuts to Alaska oil drilling."

Of course, Reagan's father was also known for his military buildup and aggressive foreign policy. "Yes," he concedes, "there are some holdovers from my dad's years, like Elliott Abrams and, my God, Admiral Poindexter, who's now keeping watch over us all. But that observation doesn't hold up. My father gave a speech a couple years after he left the White House calling for 'an international army of conscience' to deal with failed states where atrocities are taking place. He had no thought that America should be the world's policeman. I know that for a fact from conversations I had with him. He believed there must be an international force to intervene where great human tragedy was occurring. Rwanda would have been a prime example, where a strike force capable of acting quickly could have gone in to stop the slaughter.

"Now George and Dick and Rummy and Wolfy all have a very different idea about America's role in the world. It was laid out by [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz back in '92 -- Iraq is the center of the Middle East, its axis, and it's of such geo-strategic importance that we can't leave it in the hands of Saddam. We need to forcibly change that regime and use Iraq as a forward base for American democracy, setting up a domino effect in the region, and so on. My father, on the other hand, was well aware of the messiness of the Middle East, particularly after [the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in] Lebanon."

Reagan says his opinions about the war were not changed by the rapid fall of Baghdad. "Look, whether or not Saddam was a bad guy, or whether the Iraqi people were terribly oppressed, was never the issue. I mean I'm happy for the Iraqis, but that's not what this was all about. Nor was the military conclusion ever in doubt; this was the Dallas Cowboys playing a high school team. Their army was a third the size it was in '91, and it didn't give us much trouble then.

"And the weapons of mass destruction? Whatever happened to them? I'm sure we'll find some," he laughs. "They're being flown in right now in a C-130.

"There were, and will be, a lot of people killed over there. And if you don't care about the Iraqi casualties, what about the American? We stand to lose more people in the next months of occupation than we lost in the weeks of war. One of the reasons we escaped largely unscathed so far was because our military moved so fast. But now we're sitting targets -- we have to establish bases, patrol the streets, guard checkpoints. We're sitting targets for suicide bombers and other terrorists."

Reagan's parents were notoriously remote from their four children. Ron Jr. reportedly had the closest relations with his parents and he remains close with his mother, Nancy Reagan, who as the keeper of the Reagan flame is often called upon to dedicate public sites bearing her husband's name. Reagan says his mother shares his "distrust of some of these [Bush] people. She gets that they're trouble in all kinds of ways. She doesn't like their religious fervor, their aggression."

Reagan says his family feels particularly alienated from the Republican Party over its opposition to embryonic stem cell research, which could have significant benefit for Alzheimer patients like his father. "Now ignorance is one thing, ignorance can be cured. But many of the Republican leaders opposing this research know better, people like [Senate Majority Leader] Bill Frist, who's a doctor, for God's sake. People like him are blocking it to pander to the 20 percent of their base who are mouth-breathers. And that's unconscionable -- there are lives at stake here. Stem cell research can revolutionize medicine, more than anything since antibiotics."

Reagan, who says the label "progressive" would fit him, does not belong to a political party. "I'm certainly not a Republican; I couldn't belong to any party that had leaders like Tom DeLay. And the Democrats are too busy trying to out-Republican the Republicans."

His father entered politics at a relatively late stage in his life, after careers as a sports broadcaster, actor and General Electric pitchman. Has Reagan ever considered running for office? No, he insists, "I have no political ambitions. For one thing, I'm not interested in raising all that money. It's just not the life I want to lead. When is the last time you heard a politician speak his mind? McCain? Yes, he came close. But I once asked him at a Creative Coalition meeting, 'You talk passionately about this nexus of money and influence that is corrupting our democracy. Why don't you name names?' His response was a demurral.

"I have no problem with public service. And yes, better people should be running for office. But personally I just can't see myself doing it, to live in Washington D.C., the whole package. I was immersed in that my whole life. I saw politicians up close and there were so many who just repulsed me."

What if a group of concerned citizens approached him and helped raise money for his entry into politics -- would that make a difference? "You mean like they did with George W.? 'Hey, you've got name recognition, that's all that matters -- we'll give you millions of dollars to run!' Imagine coming to a man with just two years' experience in public office, and a ceremonial one at that. Imagine installing such a blank slate in the presidency of the United States! This is a regency, not a presidency.

"And they told us, 'Don't worry about W. not knowing anything, good old Dick Cheney will be his minder.' Dick Cheney? And this was going to be compassionate conservatism? Dick Cheney is to the right of Genghis Khan, he wants to drill in your backyard, he wants to deny black people their rights --it was all there in his voting record for us to see. What were we, rubes?"

While Reagan rejects a political career, he clearly doesn't shy from speaking out. What if GOP conservatives, who still lionize his father as the greatest president of the 20th century, pressure him to shut up? "That wouldn't be a smart thing for anyone to do."

salon.com

About the writer
David Talbot is Salon's founder and editor in chief.

My Tribute to Ronald Ray-Gun...Zzzzzap!

Ah, well, you're a good little monkey, Georgie. Drink up all of my formula and someday you too can be President.


I've been struggling for days to come up with a fitting tribute to the man who began dismantling the "American Dream" and laying the foundation for the "American Nightmare" we now endure under Smirky the Chimp (read "George Bush"). Not surprisingly, very little has been said of his "folicies" in the "Liberal Media", which would lead me to believe that when it comes to Ronald Ray-gun, most of America seems to be suffering from Alzheimers too.

I'm not making light of Alzheimers Disease. It is a terrible disease. Years ago I made a video program with Hal Kern & Associates entitled, "Caring...Sharing, The Alzheimers' Caregiver", for the Alzheimers Disease and Related Disorders Association dealing with those most hurt, the caregivers. I do not, therefore, make light of the suffering endured by Ronnie's family, but somebody has got to tell the truth. That truth describes countless other victims who still suffer today as a result of Ronald Ray-guns "folicies" while he was President of the United States of America.

The Republi-cons, loud and strident as ever, would elevate Ray-gun to the status of "demi-god", placing his image on the ten dollar bill and Mt. Rushmore. They expect the rest of us to grovel on our knees at the feet of their hero and will accept no criticisms, no matter how true. Like a screaming tribe of baboons, they hurl their own excrement at those of us bold enough to suggest that Ray-gun wasn't all they crack him up to be. They blissfully ignore the fact that this is the guy who cut school lunch programs for under-privileged children, stating that because it is made from tomatos, ketchup is a vegetable; claimed Welfare Queens drove new Cadillacs; made the rediculous statement "trees" were "dangerous" because they emitted 93% of the nation's nitrogen oxide pollution; fired 13,000 Air Traffic Controllers (and redefined how Big Business deals with it's workers); ignored the AIDS epidemic; had fourteen Officials in his Administration criminally charged (with eleven convictions, most of which were later pardoned by...you guessed it, Bush I); ignored impassioned pleas by Jewish leaders and attended a commemorative ceremony in Bitburg where 49 soldiers of the Waffen SS were among the 2,000 buried; who's Interior Secretary, James G. Watt was forced to resign from his Cabinet post after a series of controversies, including the uproar that followed his portrayal of five members of an advisory panel as "every kind of mix you can have. I have a black, I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."; and who will long be remembered for the Iran/Contra scandal.

Yeah he was an "Angel" alright. So was Beelzebub.

One clear voice has come through, however. One guy has the balls to tell it like it is. So in case you haven't read it else-where, I'm reprinting it here, in it's entirety. He says it sooooo much better than I could and I applaud his courage for saying it. (It seems some of our Right-leaning citizens have forgotten the 1st Amendment and, embracing the 2nd, sent him death threats and other threats of bodily harm for nothing more than telling the truth.)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ted Rall:


REAGAN'S SHAMEFUL LEGACY

Mourn for Us, Not the Proto-Bush

NEW YORK--For a few weeks, it became routine. I heard them dragging luggage down the hall. They paused in a little lounge near the dormitory elevator to bid farewell to people they'd met during their single semester. Those I knew knocked on my door. "What are you going to do?" I asked. "Where are you going to go?" A shrug. They were eighteen years old and their bright futures had evaporated. They had worked hard in junior and senior high school, harder than most, but none of that mattered now. President Reagan, explained the form letters from the Office of Financial Aid, had slashed the federal education budget. Which is why the same grim tableau of shattered hopes and dreams was playing itself out across the country. Colleges and universities were evicting their best and brightest, straight A students, stripping them of scholarships. Some transferred to less-expensive community colleges; others dropped into the low-wage workforce. Now, nearly a quarter century later, they are still less financially secure and less educated than they should have been. Our nation is poorer for having denied them their potential.

They were by no means the hardest-hit victims of Reaganism. Reagan's quack economists trashed scholarships and turned welfare recipients into homeless people and refused to do anything about the AIDS epidemic, all so they could fund extravagant tax cuts for a tiny sliver of the ultra rich. Their supply-side sales pitch, that the rich would buy so much stuff from everybody else that the economy would boom and government coffers would fill up, never panned out. The Reagan boom lasted just three years and created only low-wage jobs. When the '80s were over, we were buried in the depths of recession and a trillion bucks in debt. Poverty grew, cities decayed, crime rose. It took over a decade to dig out.

Reagan's defenders, people who don't know the facts or choose to ignore them, claim that "everybody" admired Reagan's ebullient personality even if some disagreed with his politics. That, like the Gipper's tall tales about welfare queens and "homeless by choice" urban campers, is a lie. Millions of Americans cringed at Reagan's simplistic rhetoric, were terrified that his anti-Soviet "evil empire" posturing would provoke World War III, and thought that his appeal to selfishness and greed--a bastardized blend of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand--brought out the worst in us. We rolled our eyes when Reagan quipped "There you go again"; what the hell did that mean? Given that he made flying a living hell (by firing the air traffic controllers and regulating the airlines), I'm not the only one who refuses to call Washington National Airport by its new name. His clown-like dyed hair and rouged cheeks disgusted us. We hated him during the dark days he made so hideous, and, with all due respect, we hate him still.

Not everybody buys the myth that Reagan won the Cold War by demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this [Berlin] wall" or bankrupting the Soviet Union via the arms race--Zbigniew Brezinski's plot to "draw the Russians into the Afghan trap" by funding the mujahedeen, Chernobyl and covert U.S. schemes to destabilize the ruble had more to do with the end of the USSR. Gangsterism replaced the ossified cult of the state, millions of Russians were reduced to paupers, revived radical Islamism in Central Asia and eliminated our sole major ideological and military rival. That increased our arrogance and insularity, left us in charge of the world and to blame for everything, paving the road to 9/11. (Reagan even armed the attacks' future perpetrators.) Anyway, the Cold War isn't over. In which direction do you think those old ICBMs point today?

The lionizers are correct about one thing: Reagan was one of our most influential presidents since FDR, whose New Deal safety net he carefully disassembled. He pioneered policies now being implemented by George W. Bush: trickle down economics, corporate deregulation, radicalizing the courts, slithering around inconvenient laws and international treaties. On the domestic front, he unraveled America's century-old social contract. What the poor needed was a kick in the ass, not a handout, said a president whose wealthy patrons bought him a house and put clothes on his wife Nancy. National parks were to be exploited for timber and oil, not protected. The federal tax code, originally conceived to redistribute wealth from top to bottom, was "reformed" to eradicate social justice.

Bush also models his approach to foreign policy on that of the original Teflon President. Reagan elevated unjustifiable military action to an art. In 1983, anxious to look tough after cutting and running from Lebanon, Reagan sent marines to topple the Marxist government of Grenada. His pretext for invading this Caribbean island was the urgent plight of 500 medical students supposedly besieged by rampaging mobs. But when they arrived at the airport in the United States, the quizzical young men and women told reporters they were confused, never having felt endangered or seen any unrest.

In a bizarre 1985 effort to free a few American hostages being held in Lebanon, Reagan authorized the sale of 107 tons of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, at the time one of our staunchest enemies, with the proceeds to be used to fund rightist death squads in Nicaragua--something Congress had expressly forbidden him to do. Evidence strongly suggests that Iran-Contra was at least his second dirty deal with Islamic Iran, the first being the October Surprise, which delayed the release of the Iranian embassy hostages until after the 1980 election was over. Ronald Reagan eventually admitted to "trading arms for hostages," yet avoided prosecution for treason and the death penalty.

Reagan, like Bush 43, technically served in the military yet studiously avoided combat. Both men were physically robust, intellectually inadequate, poorly traveled former governors renowned for stabbing friends on the back--Reagan when he named names during McCarthyism. Both appointed former generals as secretaries of state and enemies of the environment to head the Department of the Interior. Both refused to read detailed briefings, worked short hours, behaved erratically in public appearances, ducked questions about sordid pasts, and relied on Christianist (the radical right equivalent of Islamist) depictions of foes as "evil" and America, invariably as embodied by himself and the Republicans, as "good." Based on intelligence as phony as that floated to justify the war against Iraq, Reagan bombed Muslim Libya.

COPYRIGHT 2004 TED RALL

RALL 6/8/04

Some Fun Things To Do On A Rainy Sunday...

Found this over at Scroff's place, who found it at Girlydyke. Try them yourselves and see what you come up with!

The first is a Name Game of sorts. I put in Magster, (onnaconna she's me lady) and ...Voila!

M	Modern
A	Altruistic
G	Great
S	Sophisticated
T	Trustworthy
E	Exhausting
R	Raw

Name / Username:

Name Acronym Generator
From Go-Quiz.com


Then I did deuddersun, (onnaconna dat's ME!)...

D	Dainty
E	Explosive
U	Unreal
D	Distinguished
D	Dirty
E	Enjoyable
R	Rounded
S	Sweet
U	Unforgettable
N	Naive

Name / Username:

Name Acronym Generator
From Go-Quiz.com


But Wait! There's More!

Here's one to test yer "Coolness"! Yup, I am Supercool! Hell, I knew that!

Am I cool or uncool? [CLICK] You are Super-Cool! Woah! Step back - the future's so bright for you it's blinding me! You are the coolest of the cool. Everyone looks up to you as the benchmark for being coooool. The fonze was your grandfather. Any cooler and you'd freeze! WOO it's chilly in here. Cool quizzes at Go-Quiz.com

Aaand....More, more, more...

Finally, and very telling indeed, a Warning Label Test!

PARENTAL

ADVISORY

DEUDDERSUN CONTAINS EXPLICIT LYRICS

Username:

From Go-Quiz.com


Daaaaaaaaaat's It! For today anyway. Try these and let me know how YOU stack up!

deuddersundasupercoolexplicitwun

Guidelines For Dealing With Bushboys

I was over at the Bro's place earlier and came across an old piece written by Scroff instructing those of us with good sense on how to deal with the Bushboys. The piece was linked to from an excellent post by Ruthalla entitled, "From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity". I liked it so much I decided to post it here.

(By the way, for those of you who are interested, De LaHoya stole the fight last night so I had a good day after all - d.)


Sunday, May 04 2003 @ 12:39 PM EDT
Contributed by: Scroff
Views: 75

I spend some time on another site which welcomes mild debate about various topics. One of the posters to that site is a bit more conservative than the rest of the posters there. As a result of his frustration trying to make his argument in the forums there, he went to a pro-war weblog (actually one of the Scary Websites listed elsewhere on this site) seeking trolls to help him in his efforts to liberate the "lefties". Here is my response to the sudden incursion of pro-war posts to that site. I thought it was a little funny.



Oh brother, the intellectual power is overwhelming. Ok, so the bushboys are here.

Here are some guidelines for dealing with bushboys.

A bushboy can be a fun and engaging pet if you refuse to allow it to anger you or bite you. They will bite and will never, ever, despite mounting piles of evidence to the contrary, let go. DO NOT TRY TO TAME A BUSHBOY! They are feral and can never be brought back.

1) Realize beforehand that they will stoop to any level to make their point, way beyond outright lies (which they heard on Fox News).

2) They condone violence, and they know that the majority of folks here don't, therefore they will stop at nothing in their attempts to get you to react to them. When you've finally been frustrated beyond belief and tell them to go *fvck* themselves or some such, they will call you and all (pick your derogatory comment) "lefties" (their favorite word, don't look for too much imagination here) hypocrites and losers and (insert derogatory remark here).

3) On the other hand, its own frustration level is extremely low (can you say king-baby?). Therefore realize that when you make a point they are unable to refute (and you will), they will not hesitate to cajole, threaten, insult, dismiss as (insert derogatory remark here), and degrade your mother.

4) Understand that they take themselves very seriously, individually and as a group. Thus they will, similar to baboons, growl and bark and scream and chatter in unison. This is actually quite remarkable phenomena to witness.

5) Understand that when they call you a (insert derogatory remark here) they actually believe it should piss you off and insult you. Apparently their parents never taught them the "Sticks and stones" nursery rhyme when they were pups.

6) Speaking of children, keep in mind, should you care to approach a bushboy, that, regardless of their age, education, profession or social class they are no more than tired, cranky, children. Think of your two or three year old relatives when they don't get what they want.

7) With these in mind, the best approach when dealing with a bushboy is a motherly one. If you are a women let your maternal instinct come out. If you are a man expose your female side and mother these poor creatures. Try to remember, no matter how arrogant, opinionated, self-righteous, or even frightening they may become, bushboys are simply lonely, sad, frightened children in their hearts. Why else would they feel the need to carry big guns? Keep in mind also that they are an endangered species, and rejoice in your special opportunity to frolic with what may be the last of a dying breed. Finally, do not allow them to reduce you to a bushboy yourself, and always remember NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, go from love.

One of the most fun things to do with your bushboy is to watch it dig it's own hole. The funniest part of this display is that it will never realize it is digging a hole, no matter how deep. But exercise caution! They will bite when cornered!

Thank you. You may now feed your bushboy.