Blogging For Kicks

What on earth is wrong with today’s Republicans? Can’t they think for themselves? Can they only see things in a dark and ugly way? Are their lives so bleak and ugly that they simply can’t believe other’s aren’t the same? I don’t know, but the last couple of days really have me stymied.

Nancy Pelosi backed Jack Murtha for “second-in-command” of the House Democrats instead of Steny Hoyer, and you’d think she’d pulled out a gun and blown her own foot off. I just don’t get it. She backed a good friend, someone she feels comfortable working with and who’s loyalty she totally trusts, even tho she and everyone else knew the other guy was going to get the post.

What’s wrong with backing a friend, even when the odds are against him? I think it’s a good trait, and I admire her for doing that. In the end, of course, Mr. Hoyer got the votes and the position, and she is perfectly happy to have him in the position, so what’s the problem? Yet, to hear the Republicans and a lot of newscasters talk, you’d think she’d committed the unpardonable sin and was now doomed to total failure. Go figure.

I think, at the heart of it all, is their desire to make her look as bad as possible, hoping the American people will believe she’d not up to the job she was elected too. They’re even swearing that the Democrats are in a total state of disarray and won’t be able to muster enough votes to get anything done once they take over. And this is based on what? It’s confusing as hell, that’s all I know.

Today the Republicans held their election for minority positions, and if unanimity is supposed to be so great for Democrats, why were their votes not unanimous? They had more than one person for each position, and votes were cast for each of them, so does that mean they are also in disarray? Why aren’t all these people who are trumpeting the end of the Democrat party saying anything about the “divisive” voting by the Republicans, too? Is it just because it’s a woman doing the choosing, by any chance?

So she backed the loser, so what? What difference does it make, anyway? She stood by her friend. Again, that’s a good thing, or at least it always was before. She could have turned her back on him and gone with the sure thing, hoping that would make her look “smart” in everyone’s eyes, but she didn’t. She stuck by her friend, backed him, even knowing he would lose, and because of that she’s being called everything but a capable leader. How would anyone know what kind of leader she’ll be since she hasn’t taken over yet? I tell you, these Republicans make me sick, and it’s only getting worse as time goes on.

They talk about morals, and how they have them while Democrats don’t, yet they think nothing of trashing someone who’s never done a thing to them except join the opposing political party. They don’t even stick to their voting records, or what they’ve done in their lives. No, they get personal, and it’s always in a dirty, sniping, mudslinging way. They will say anything about anyone, make even the smallest faux pas seem gargantuan, and don’t care who gets hurt in the process. Yeah, that’s some great moral fiber for you, isn’t it?

Look, the Democrats haven’t taken over yet. That won’t happen until January 20, 2007, so there’s no way to know what they will do, or how they’ll do it. All this supposition is just that - guesses as to what will happen, and it’s all based on nothing, or on such miniscule things that it wouldn’t be able to stand on it’s own if the base wasn’t padded with tons of extra dirt. That’s what Republicans are so good at, tho, so it shouldn’t be a surprise, I guess. I just thought they’d wait until January. I guess, as my grandma used to say, that’s what I get for thinking.

I just spent an interesting morning listening to the Senate Armed Services Committee digging for answers from a couple of “experts” on the Iraq war, one of which was Gen. John Abizaid, Commander of the US Central Command. I have to tell you, the tap-dancing was a wonder to behold on both accounts, and I feel it was a morning well spent.

I was struck most by the covert admission by the Gen. that at least one part of Bob Woodward’s book, State of Denial, got it right. Oh, I know, those of you who also watched it are probably scratching your heads, trying to figure out just what you missed and when, because unless you understand lawyerese, or diplospeak, you probably didn’t realize what you were hearing. Let me explain.

Sen. Mark Dayton (D), Minnasota, asked Gen. Abizaid about a quote attributed to him in Mr. Woodward’s book, and about others in another book, also, and the General tried very hard to skirt the issue. See, he’s still saying that things are going pretty well in Iraq, although he now admits that it wasn’t doing so well for a few months. That’s what he’s said whenever he came before the committee, yet, when making statements to others that he probably thought were going to keep them quiet he admits things aren’t going so well, and we probably shouldn’t be there any longer.

Well, when Mr. Dayton questioned him about it today, Gen Abizaid either had a momentary lapse of puppet control from the White House, or he simply wanted to put the truth out there in a way that hopefully wouldn’t get him in trouble. Whatever the reason, he opened up and let the facts fly, even tho most people wouldn’t realize that’s what he’d done. His words: “If you want to infer Woodward’s book is correct, FEEL FREE TO DO SO, BUT I CAN’T SAY IT IS.” (Emphasis added)

At first blush one might think he’s saying Woodward was lying, but closer inspection, and knowledge of the aforementioned lawyerese and diplospeak, reveal something totally different. He never said Mr. Woodward was lying, just as he never said in so many words he wasn’t, but by telling Mr. Dayton to feel free to infer the book was telling the truth, then adding that he CAN’T say that it is, he was saying that it’s true.

Honestly, how hard would it be to simply say “The things Mr. Woodward says about me are absolutely false, and I never said the things he said I did.” Not hard at all, right? So why didn’t he do that? The answer is, because he was under oath and couldn’t lie! What he did was try to obfuscate the matter by couching his words in a manner that could imply Woodward was lying, yet when understood correctly clearly said he was giving an accurate account of their conversation.

The point Sen. Dayton was getting at was that, at the time Gen Abizaid was first interviewed by the committee, he stated unequivocally that he would always tell them what he truly believes, and not simply parrot the President’s words on the matter. Every time he’s come to the committee, he’s said exactly what President Bush and Co. have been saying, yet in private conversations with others he’s had a completely different response. Dayton wanted to know which version is correct, and whether he has truly spoken his own mind, or simply parroted the President. I think the Gen.’s answer clearly showed which he’s been doing, and anyone who understood him correctly realizes that now.

I understand that the military is taught to follow orders from higher ups, and Gen. Abizaid is doing what he has been taught to do since boot camp, but in all honesty, it’s time for him to join the ranks of those generals who have come out and said the President has been systematically lying to us about what’s really going on over there, and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe after Jan. 20 he’ll feel more free to do that, but for now he’s given us the answer, as obtuse as it may be. The war in Iraq is a total failure, and it’s time to think about getting our butts out of there. Thanks, Gen Abizaid.

So, the election’s over, the Democrats took both houses of Congress, all’s right with the world. I bet you thought I’d be so happy I’d have nothing left to yak about, didn’t you? WRONG!! As long as Georgie Boy is still in the White House, there’ll always be something I can use. Like, for instance, this:

The title of this piece should tell you what I’m jumping on the fool for this time. The question I was answering, of course, is “How can you tell George W. Bush is lying?”, just in case anyone isn’t familiar with the old joke. It sure seems to fit the current occupant of the White House more every day.

His latest lie? “Don Rumsfeld will be Secretary of Defense as long as I’m President.” Now, my fondest hope is that he wasn’t lying, believe it or not. See, if he was telling the truth, then kicking Rummy to the curb the day after the vote was over means W. won’t be far behind. However, we all know that’s not gonna happen, so the pure fact is that he was lying his ass off yet again. Not that surprising, is it?

I kind of feel sorry for Rummy, in a way. Don’t get me wrong, I think he did a horrible job in Iraq, and it will take a very long time to even try to undo the damage he’s done, but the truth is, George W. Bush is responsible for the whole fiasco, and laying it on Rummy’s shoulders alone just isn’t fair. But then, whoever said W knows how to be fair?

I hope the new guy will have some idea of how to get us out of the mess we’re in, but I’m not holding my breath that Cheney will allow that. In case anyone is wondering how Cheney’s name came into the mix after I said it was all Bush’s fault, you need to remember that Cheney’s the one with his hand up W’s ass, pulling the strings.

Anyway, I heard several Democrats talk about their plans, which they tried to present in their respective bodies and were shot down over, and they made sense to me, so hopefully the new guy will consider them and see what he can do with them. Having served on the commission that has been studying how to turn things around over there will have given him a clear picture of where we went wrong and how we can fix it, tho, so hopefully he will have some good ideas of his own, too. Someone has to come up with something, that’s all I know.

Things are looking up, as I said, and I have high hopes we will begin to bring some sanity back to DC come January 20, 2007, but the albatross is still hanging around our necks at least until then so who knows what will happen. His speach yesterday didn’t give me much hope that he really, truly got the message the voters sent him on Tuesday, but as badly as he bungles words it’s always hard to tell just what he did mean when he says something. I guess my best path is to warily hope that he got it, and that together he, the new Sec. of Defense, and the new Democratic Congress can straighten things out and get our people home. God willing.

The Democrats got blasted for the first few days of the week over a bungled joke by John Kerry, and the Republicans had a hayday with it all, making it sound like something it was never meant to be. Even after the truth was shown, even after he finally apologized for offending anyone by his inability to tell a joke right, the Republicans hammered on and on about it, trying to use it to get back in the race before Tuesday’s election. Now, however, we have been reminded very clearly why Republicans need to be turned out of office in massive numbers, and it’s their turn to squirm under the heat.

Today we learned that, (1.), Bush and Co. put classified documents found in Iraq describing Saddam’s nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War on the internet for anyone who can Google to find, and (2.), one of the biggest names in the Right’s Christian community, a guy who’s made it his business to fight against marriage and civil unions for gays, has been seeing a gay prostitute monthly for three years, and even bought and used meth while he was there. Talk about a gift from heaven!

After all their talk of protecting us, keeping us safe, and stopping terrorists from getting a nuclear bomb, we find that, over the objections of their generals and the Democratic members of Congress, Bush and Co. posted said documents on the Internet, and they contained directions for buiding a nuclear bomb! What the heck, didn’t anyone read the documents before posting them? If so, didn’t they think that might not be such a great thing to do, considering?

But wait, this is Bush we’re talking about, here. He who wanted so badly to prove Saddam had or would soon have WMD’s so he wouldn’t be seen as such a huge liar, ended up posting the very information that could get us all killed. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but even for him, this seems pretty damned stupid. And some of you want to keep these guys in power? Get real, would you please?

As for Reverend Haggard, there’s not a lot to be said. Yesterday, when the news first came out, he swore he never met the male prostitute who broke the news of his indiscretions and never even thought of using drugs at any time. Today he admits he knew the guy, got a massage from him, and that’s when he told him where he could get the meth. But of course, while he bought the stuff, he actually never used it, just threw it away. Uh-huh, the jails are full of guys that had that very thing happen to them, aren’t they?

Now, I’m waiting for tomorrow to see just what he will admit to then. Maybe we’ll get the “Ok, I did try it, but I didn’t like it and didn’t inhale….”, along with the “Ok, he did blow me, but I didn’t really enjoy it…..”. Maybe he’ll actually come out with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. BWWAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAA! Sure he will.

Whatever it is, tho, it’s sure to keep the message going that, gee whiz, Wally, Republicans aren’t as good as the picture in their ads show, are they? Kind of like the big, luscious-looking burgers in the McDonald’s and Burger King ads, that end up looking like sickly cousins when you buy the real thing. They never look like the commercials, do they?

All I can say is, I told you so, many times. Anyone who has to tell you how moral they are every time they turn around, isn’t moral at all. Anyone who has to shove their supposed Christianity down your throat every time they turn around, isn’t Christian at all. It’s a simple fact of life, and it’s why Jesus told his followers that when they wanted to identify real Christians, “By their fruit you shall know them.” In other words, you’ll know them by what they do, not by what they say or claim.

I guess that’s been proven enough times, so why can’t everyone get it through their heads? Sweet talkers are nearly always crooks, so please use your brain and steer clear of them. It’s what they do, not what they say that counts, you know? Just to sum all this up, let me say one last thing: Go to the polls Tuesday. Vote. Just make sure you vote Democrats in and Republicans out, because while we had a President who had consensual oral sex with an adult woman, we never had all the low lives we’ve seen exposed over the last few years, and I’d say one bad apple is a lot better than a bushel full of them, wouldn’t you?

I sent the following to the DNC a minute ago:

Whoever is in charge of “getting the word out” needs to jump on Kerry’s misspeak and do it quickly by pointing out that the Republicans, including Bush, Rush, Snow, et al, have basically stipulated to the fact we are “stuck in Iraq.” Yes, Kerry misspoke, and they are having a hayday making it seem he was insulting the military, but no one - NO ONE - has called into question the part about being stuck in Iraq. If they are going to play Twist-Your-Words with this, we need to do the same by making it clear they’ve stipulated to the fact we are stuck there, and even thanking them for finally coming clean with the American people. Shirley

Now, I don’t know if they’ll use my suggestion or not, but it would be a good idea, I think. I mean, honestly, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Tony Snow, and every other Republican who’s come out swinging at Kerry for bungling his joke about Bush have stipulated to the fact that we are truly stuck in Iraq by not refuting it in their rants. It is a well-known legal fact that, if someone files an action against you listing all their complaints and you respond to it, if you don’t respond to each and every complaint they have, you have basically said you admit to that point.

Every Republican response I’ve heard carries on about the “insult to our servicemen”, and saying he is a horrible person, etc, but not one of them has argued with the “stuck in Iraq” part of it, so they are admitting that yes, we are stuck there now. The DNC needs to jump on that and beat the Republicans at their own word-twisting game. After all, we have more fact behind that than they do behind their assertions Kerry was insulting the military. We have legal precedence on our side, after all.

I do wish Kerry would just come out and say “I bungled the joke I was trying to make (which he has done, by the way), but if that bungle offended anyone in any way, I am truly sorry”, but that’s up to him. After the way he was treated in 2004 I don’t really blame him for fighting back, and I wish he would have done that back then, so I can’t jump on him for not apologizing. Also, after all these fools have been hollering, practically begging, for an apology, it would just give them another excuse to make fun of him and use his apology as something else to whip him with. However, if they turn the tables on the Republicans and use their words - or, more accurately, lack of words - to beat them back, the message of the day would have to change and we can get back to the real problems this country is facing and why we need to get the Democrats back in charge of the House and Senate.