Friday, July 27, 2007

Colbert Breaks Wrist

Stephen Colbert breaks his wrist while dancing to Beyonce. Hysterical... his take on it, not that he hurt himself.

It's the Saudis, Stupid!

Since the beginning of the "war on terror", I have always wondered what the Saudis role has been in this shell game.

Osama bin Laden is Saudi Arabian. Fifteen of the alleged nineteen hijackers were Saudi Arabian. George W. Bush and Co. flew members of the bin Laden family out of the United States in the hours after the 9/11 attacks while the rest of the country was grounded. Reports that the rising insurgency in Iraq over these past four and a half years have been that approximately 45% of the violence stems from Sunni factions supported by Saudi Arabia and only 15% from al-Qaeda.

Well now the mainstream media have finally gotten on the bus:

NYTIMES: Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, “That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not.”

...Officials in Washington have long resisted blaming Saudi Arabia for the chaos and sectarian strife in Iraq, choosing instead to pin blame on Iran and Syria. Even now, military officials rarely talk publicly about the role of Saudi fighters among the insurgents in Iraq.

They don't have to talk publicly about it because anyone who hasn't lost their mind yet and still lives in the sane, real world knows that the Bush family have long been business partners with the bin Ladens and the Saudis. Someone in the Bush administration finally had the guts to point at Saudi Arabia and the news finally decides to report it. But I don't expect to see this on the fake FOX News. It's "blame Iran and Syria" all of the time.

The New York Time continues:

The accounts of American concerns came from interviews with several senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they believed that openly criticizing Saudi Arabia would further alienate the Saudi royal family at a time when the United States is still trying to enlist Saudi support for Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi government, and for other American foreign policy goals in the Middle East, including an Arab-Israeli peace plan.

...the Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years explicitly told senior Bush administration officials of the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there. Last fall, King Abdullah warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulled its troops out of Iraq, American and Arab diplomats said.

Who the hell are we fighting for, us or the Saudis? And the fallacy that Saudi Arabia is one of our strongest allies is repeated over and over and over again by the criminals in the White House. Why isn't Saudi Arabia, or King Abdullah for that matter, on a terror watch list? Didn't Bush give a "for us or agin' us" speech a while back?

Bush, September 20, 2001: "...we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Well, almost every nation. Stop Saudi Arabia and you will almost immediately quell the violence in Iraq by almost half. HALF! But I tend to forget... it's about oil, isn't it...?

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Did I Say September? I Meant November

Remember that troop surge that Chimpy announced in January which started in February and decreased violence in Baghdad in March but increased sectarian strife everywhere else in April to the point of making the "Green Zone" not so green in May and got congressmen on both sides of the aisle to voice their disappointment in June but W. wouldn't budge in July until General David Petraeus made his assessment in September because Bush insisted that the war should be run by the commanders on the ground, not the politicians in Washington? Yeah, that surge.

All we heard was September September September September September. Well, the old September is the new November.

CNN- Thursday, July 19th: "In order to do a good assessment I need at least until November," said Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, a deputy to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. military commander in Iraq.

But on Friday, Odierno clarified his statements.

"There is no intention to push our reporting requirement beyond September,"he said. "Nothing I said yesterday should be interpreted to suggest otherwise. My reference to November was simply suggesting that as we go forward beyond September, we will gain more understanding of trends.

In other words, if they are looking at November, September means nothing. Let's all take a vacation in August while more soldiers and civilians die in Iraq.

Korey Rowe Arrested For Desertion

Iraq and Afghanistan veteran Korey Rowe has been arrested and handed over to military officials without bail for allegedly "deserting the Army".

New York Daily Star:

The Associated Press reported last month that deserters are rarely court-martialed by the Army. Although 3,301 soldiers deserted in the 2006 fiscal year, there were just 174 troops court-martialed. The AP report said some deserters are returned to their units, while others are discharged in non-criminal proceedings.

According to MSNBC, "Despite a rise in desertions from the Army as the Iraq war drags on into a fifth year, the U.S. military does almost nothing to find those who flee and rarely prosecutes those it gets its hands on."
Korey Rowe enlisted in the Army in August of 2001 and left in June of 2005. How can he be arrested for desertion? When so many deserters are virtually ignored, what makes Rowe an exception to the rule? Call it a hunch, but I'm guessing it has something to do with his movie making career.

Korey Rowe is one of the producers of
"Loose Change", a film claiming to present evidence that September 11th was an inside job, and to prove that elements within the United States government planned and orchestrated it. An updated version of that film is supposed to be released just before the 6th anniversary of 9/11.

Rowe is a political prisoner. Welcome to Fascist America, courtesy of George W. Bush and Co.

Also read's story and how you can get in touch with those in charge to politely demand his release.

O'Reilly Shows His Hypocrisy Again

A few days ago, Bill O'Reilly slammed JetBlue for sponsoring Yearly Kos, a convention held by the Daily Kos website, on the grounds that Daily Kos was a "vicious far left website" and equating them with the KKK, Nazis and David Duke. He sent a camera crew to the home of JetBlue CEO David Barger, to try to paint him into a corner.

O'Reilly then goes on to quote some of what commenters, not the facilitators, on the site write and avers that if it's on your site, you have to take responsibility for it.

Well how about this, Bill?


...O'Reilly's own Web site contains some of the most hideous hate you've ever seen.'ll be interested to know that while O'Reilly holds others responsible for the words strangers leave on their Web sites, on O'Reilly's Web site, he's not responsible at all for the hate and threats his readers leave behind. And I quote O'Reilly's own Web site:

" will not be held liable for any user activity on the message boards. We do not actively monitor user-submitted content."

You see, it's okay when he does it.And with no further ado, examples of's threats against Hillary.

Posted By: Wildabeast (4638 posts) - 24 July 2007 8:15am PTReply:
RE: If Hillary WIns, WIll You Be Respectful of Her?
If Hillary wins, I will be respectful of our leader. If you could read my thoughts, I would be on the SS [Secret Service] watch list.

Sounds like a threat to me. But O'Reilly's site isn't responsible. And by the way, you have to PAY to leave comments on O'Reilly's site, so BillO could easily find out where the comment came from and let the Secret Service decide if it's credible. Call me crazy, but I don't think he'll be very helpful.

This guy should just crawl back under the rock that he came from.

Here's The Colbert Report's take on it:

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

The Billing Records for Thompson Lobby

In an earlier post, I criticized Fred Thompson for denying that he lobbied for a pro-choice organization during his lobbying career. All Thompson had to do was admit that as lobbyist, sometimes you represent ideas on behalf of your client. But he didn't do that. Instead he chose to deny it and his spokesman insisted it was a smear.

Thompson spokesman Mark Corallo adamantly denied that Thompson worked for the family planning group. "Fred Thompson did not lobby for this group, period," he said in an e-mail.

In a telephone interview, he added: "There's no documents to prove it, there's no billing records, and Thompson says he has no recollection of it, says it didn't happen." In a separate interview, John H. Sununu, the White House official whom the family planning group wanted to contact, said he had no memory of the lobbying and doubted it took place.

Apparently, Republicans of a feather stink together. You want documents and billing records? Here they are.

New York Times:

According to records from Arent Fox, the law firm based in Washington where Mr. Thompson worked part-time from 1991 to 1994, he charged the organization, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, about $5,000 for work he did in 1991 and 1992. The records show that Mr. Thompson, a probable Republican candidate for president in 2008, spent much of that time in telephone conferences with the president of the group, and on three occasions he reported lobbying administration officials on its behalf.

Mr. Thompson’s work for the family planning agency has become an issue because he is positioning himself as a faithful conservative who is opposed to abortion.

All Fred had to do was be honest and this situation would have probably gone away. Instead he chose to take the Republican road and tried lying his way out of it.

And as for my commenter, Sturm Ruger, who claimed that " it's just another drive-by media hit piece done for the Clintons against one of their political opponents", I hope Sturm has second thoughts. You wanted the billing records, Strum. You got 'em. An apology would be nice too, but I won't hold my breath.