God Damn Sean Hannity!

So I was watching Hannity and Colmes the other night, and they had a Kerry spokes person on talking about the bad stuff going on in Iraq. First, Sean just asserted that this guy was one of the "Clinton people", and so I guess was suggesting that this guy would dodge questions in the same way that Clinton did with the whole "that depends on what 'is' is" thing. Anyway, I was just amazed when he brought out one of his old rhetorical tricks that sucked when he was using it prolifically, and it sucks even more now. Specifically, I'm talking about the old "Is the world better off without Saddam? Yes or no?". Amazingly, they dummbass that they had on couldn't give a decent answer.
The answer to this is that by merely framing the question in the way that he did, Hannity has demonstrated the simple-minided thinking on the issue insofar as he is asking you to look at the situation in a vacuum. You can't give a yes or no answer. Sure, if everyone stops fussin' and a fuedin' in Iraq and democracy is able to develop, then I think the answer would be right. But, on the other hand, if civil war breaks out, and maybe someone like Sadr comes to power, things could be so much worse.

Dummy's got more to Say.

So Dumsfeld had previously said that elections were only going to take place in areas where it is safe (which I guess is just a long way of saying that the elections aren't going to happen), but now he's changed his tune, and says that there will be elections. Yeah!
But that's not the end of it. He also had this to say:

Rumsfeld also said Washington would not wait until Iraq "is peaceful and
perfect" before beginning to withdraw U.S. troops "because it's never been
peaceful and perfect and it isn't likely to be."

OK. So after this administration has moved the ball so many times (WMD's to Saddam & 9/11 to just a threat to national security in some vague sense to a making the lives of Iraqis better) they've now abandoned the old catch-all of bringing peace and freedom to the Iraqi people. Make no mistake about it people, what Dummy said is that we are going to cut and run because we are losing. All that we've been able to accomplish over there is getting Saddam out of power, but at the price of thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost and destroyed, a bunch of money that we don't have (and even if we did, it could have certainly been better spent), destabilizing an entire region of the globe (at least), and open the door for decades of tribal warfare that will doubtless cost the lives of many and quite possibly lead to the rise of a tyrannt worse than Saddam. Fuck, we didn't even get cheaper gas out of this fuck up.

We're fucked! This country is falling apart and if that asshole get elected it's all over.

It would be Nice if he was kidding, but unfortunately he's not.

So here's Dumbsfeld's latest plan for Iraq:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cast it a little differently this week, at a
news conference in Missouri. Iraq is making progress, he said. At some point the
Iraqis will get tired of getting killed and we'll have enough of the Iraqi
security forces that they can take over responsibility for governing that
country, he said.

Ok. Without batting an eyelash, anyone reading this would first be floored by how amazingly stupid this statement is. But let's, just for fun, actually unpack it a bit. First, it is basically saying that the new strategy is a war of attrition, much like...VIET-FUCKING-NAM! I am the product of the American public educational system, so my 10th (which would have been in the early 90's) grade history books didn't know how the Vietnam war turned out, but I've seen Platoon and I'm thinking maybe the ourcome wasn't so great. Further, if we are going to be fighting a war of attrition, the problem is that our troops will be there longer and getting killed every so often...not to mention all of the civilian casualties. That's not good. Actually, come to think of it, that fucking sucks! Then there's the whole thing about about Iraqi's growing tired of getting killed. Gee, Dummy...I'm not too sure about this one. Maybe, just maybe, what will happen is that they'll just get really pissed off because they keep getting killed and the insurgency will grow in popularity. Oh, wait...too late! Point well taken Dummy. That is, unless Iraqis could get more pissed of than they are now. But that's not possible, is it? I mean, there's gotta be some pissed-off ceiling of sorts.
Then there's the whole think with the security forces. Well...the first thing that comes to mind is that if the insurgents can get tired of getting killed, then maybe so can Iraqi security forces....Oh, fuck it! The guy's a fucking moron.

Here's a little poem, since I know Rummy fancies himself a poet:

Ode to Rummy

by Barwise

Our Secretary of State is Donald Rumsfeld
But all his neo-con buddies
With whom he is quite chummy, all call him Rummy, for short
I am not a neo-con and I'm certainly not his buddy
I call him Donald Dumsfeld
For short it's just Dummy

Poor August Job Numbers. I Think a Pattern is Begining to Develop.

New job numbers:

Evidence that the economy is back came early this month when the government
reported there were 144,000 new jobs created in August after lackluster gains in
June and July. At the same time, the unemployment rate dropped from 5.5 percent
to 5.4 percent. This number was a reflection of more people getting discouraged
and dropping out of the work force. Nevertheless, the improvement is being
touted by the Bush administration. The president has emphasized the strength of
the economy as good news.

Of course, Bush will point to the 1/10th percentage point drop in the unemployment rate proof that he is creating jobs, even though what actually happened is that people just gave up. Further, he's certainly going to point to all of the other economic indicators that really indicate nothing more than an increase in corporate profits.

CBS to issue statement on the memos.

It appears that CBS is going to make a statement on tonights news, saying that they were mislead about the authenticity of the much disputed memos. I'm not sure that I am willing, if CBS does conceed that they are forged, to conclude that this is actually the case. The story has been effectively undermined by all of the bullshit controversy. That is to say, the credibility of the memos has been so effectively undermined that it just doesn't make sense for them to stay behind the story. So, at this point, CBS is just looking to save face.
They've won. We've lost. The right is so good at manipulating the media and hence public opinion that there really seems to be no point in fighting it any longer. For the longest time I was of the opinion that most people that you hear parroting right wing lies knew in their heart of hearts that it was completely false, but they just wanted to believe it because it provided a rationale, though a flimsy rationale, for their ideological leanings. I'm not so sure this is the case any longer. It seems more and more that people actually believe that this stuff is true. They really think that the weapons are in Syria, that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, that Abu Ghraib was the work of just a handful of rogue soldiers.
Maybe the assent of blogs of late could be viewed by some as a way to fight back agianst the right's informational dominance over the American public, but so far the opposite effect seems to be occuring. That is, the right has quickly managed to co-opt this new medium and use it to their advantage.

Again, I would be content to conclude that they American public, because they are so foolish, is going to get what they deserve. But this is a tyranny of the majority and I'm stuck in the middle of it. What to do...what to do?

BlogsforBush---what a bunch of pussies!

So I posted a comment on http://www.blogsforbush.com/ , and I got this message:

Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, we have
enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first
time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no
need to re-post your comment.

The funny thing was that my comment actually made reference to Bush's little loyalty oath thingy, and the above kinda made me think that that sort of stuff is just par for the course for these pricks. Confused, I had a look at the FAQ section and came across this:

Q. Will comments ever be deleted or edited?
A. Any comments deemed inappropriate by a member of the Blogs For Bush Team
will either not be published (if posted by an unregistered commenter) or
deleted. Because registered commenters have their comments published
immediately, these comments may be edited or deleted. Varying opinions are
welcome. However, Blogs For Bush reserves the right to maintain order and
respect within the blog's comment threads. Comments that will be considered for
deletion include (but are not limited to):
Anonymous comments, and/or
comments posted without a valid e-mail address.
Demeaning comments towards a
member of the Blogs For Bush Team or another person leaving a comment.
Deliberately off-topic or nonsensical comments.
Multiple postings of the same comment in various comment threads.
Comments with a gratuitous amount of objectionable words or that
constitute flaming.
Comments containing links to objectionable
material.
Comments made questioning the comment policy or the
moderators for enforcing the policy. (All questions on the comment
policy should
be sent to the Moderator.)
Comments reported to a member of Blogs for
Bush as being inappropriate or offensive.
Unnecessary contiguous comments in
the same thread will either be edited or deleted.
Comments considered
libelous or offensive.
Any comments considered to be troll activity.
Comments that are merely cut-and-paste jobs will be edited. If you want to
refer people to an article on another site you may link to it, but not post in
full in the threads.
...and other comments we deem inappropriate for the
site.
The comment policy is nonnegotiable. The decision made by any of the
moderators is final.

Q. Will you ban people from commenting on Blogs for Bush?
A. Yes. If someone repeatedly displays behavior showing a lack of interest
in reasonable discussion, or repeated offenses of any of the criteria listed in
the answer of the previous question, we will not hestitate to ban people from
commenting on this site or refuse to publish their comments.

Q. Is that censorship?
A. No. This is not an attempt of censorship. This is about maintaining
respect and order on Blogs for Bush. We try and maintain a higher level
of debate and discussion that some people just don't appear to be
interested in at all. This is not an attempt of homogenize the comment threads
of Blogs for Bush. One can easily view the comment threads here and discover
differing opinions are indeed welcome. Blogs For Bush prides itself for it's
welcoming of diverse opinions, unlike suchs blogs as the DNC's Kicking Ass, The
Kerry-Edwards Official Blog and Howard Dean's Blog for America, which have been
known to delete comments presenting opposing views. Commenters who appear
interested in reasonable debate and discussion will not be deleted. However, we
will not let this site's comment threads be reduced to inappropriate, childish
and offensive fighting.

Right, so the first thing to notice about all this stuff is that it is totally arbitrary and effectively means that they are going to remove anything that they don't like. And the reference to comments that question said policy as inappropriate is just classic. But more importantly, I couldn't help but wonder if the stated aim of this policy, "maintain[ing] a higer level of debate and discussion", is for real or just there for window dressing. There's one way to find out. Let's have a look at some of the comments posted on this site.

For are first example we don't have to go to the comments section at all, we can just look at what one of the contributors posted:

Liberals,
can we call them anti-American now?

To answer your question: of course you can call us anti-American, you anti-American fascist fuck. But this is truly elevated indeed.

Here's more:

Have they mustered a firing squad? When's the date of the execution for these
two gentlemen?

I'd hate to see the level of discourse denegrate from such a high bar.

Here's one:

They let people Like this reprouduce???

Yeah...I say the same thing everytime I drive through the Midwest.

You know, I don't think they're trying very hard to keep an elevated level of discourse. I think they're just a bunch of pussies.

Laura Bush is a piece of Shit!

Link.

A woman wearing a T-shirt with the words "President Bush You Killed My Son" and
a picture of a soldier killed in Iraq was detained Thursday after she
interrupted a campaign speech by first lady Laura Bush.


Police
escorted Sue Niederer, of Hopewell, N.J., from a rally at a firehouse after she
demanded to know why her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, was killed in Iraq.
Dvorin died in February while trying to disarm a bomb.
As shouts of "Four
More Years" subsided, Niederer, standing in the middle of a crowd of some 700,
continued to shout about the killing of her son. Local police escorted her from
the event, handcuffed her and put her in the back of a police van.
Niederer
was later charged with defiant trespass and released.

But at least they didn't tear up her sign and make her cry. They just arrested her.

IR, Bush Style!

Here's what Annan has to say about the Iraq war:

During the past 18 months, Secretary-General Kofi Annan of the United Nations
has expressed many reservations about the war in Iraq.
He has asserted that
it was not in "conformity" with the U.N. Charter. He has "raised questions about
the legitimacy" of the action by the United States and Britain to go to war
without specific authority from the Security Council.
But Annan's radio
interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. Wednesday, in which he said for
the first time that he believed the war was "illegal," set off a tempest of
reaction and raised questions in a number of capitals about why he had chosen
that moment to adopt more muscular language about the war.

But, not surprisingly, here's what the U.S. has to say about it:

US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday that United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's comment on the Iraq war was "incorrect."

"My reaction is that the secretary general was incorrect," Powell said
in an interview with the Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes Show program.

"We believe the war was necessary and it rested on sound principles of
international law. We have made our case and we have, in our words, moved
forward directly with a spirited defense of our position, and of course, it is a
position held by Australia and the United Kingdom and all the other members of
the coalition," Powell said.

Following the end of the Cold War, the world was in a unique position to really work together and achieve a lot of things that can really only be accomplished when there is relative piece and more or less a shared vision and desire to work together to get things done. But at the point that the U.S. goes cowboy all over the globe with no regard to others, that unique position has been abandoned. We are now living in a world where the EU countries could ban together to form a couterbalance to U.S. hedgemony. Again, then, we will find ourselves locked in global standoff. Even worse, it didn't have to be this way.

Bush on the new Intel Report

Here's a story on a new intel report that says that things are going, contrary to what Bush would have us believe, very badly. Link.

A new National Intelligence Estimate, drawn up in July and representing the
distilled wisdom of the entire US intelligence community, sketches out three
scenarios for Iraq.
The grimmest is a descent into civil war; but even the
most favourable of the three foresees no better than a precarious stability,
under threat at any moment.
The conclusions of the latest NIE, first
reported by the New York Times, contrast sharply with the upbeat tone of Mr
Bush, who in campaign speeches continues to insist that progress is being made
in Iraq, deriding Mr Kerry for his alleged vacillation on the issue.
The NIE's assessment reflects the view of most nonpartisan Iraq specialists
here, that the insurgency is becoming more sophisticated and more dangerous, and
that for the US the war in Iraq is politically, if not militarily unwinnable.

I know that the polls are very close right now, and it is certainly possible that Kerry could win. However, I'm sure you've heard this before, but this race is much closer than it should be. The reason for this, I think, is that there is a significant portion of the population that actually support Bush and his leadership. This may seem obvious, but I really think that a lot of people are under the impression that the public has been duped by the GOP's big lie. Sure, that's part of it, but I think there really is some respect where these people are really willing to buy into that Big Lie.
The ultra-right is winning the battle for this country, and slowly but surely we are going to digress into a completely backward society, with a bunch of nukes and an inability to think critically. That's just dangerous.

You mean to tell me that Hannity didn't think that up on his own?

I was watching CNN the other day, right about when the CBS memos came out, but the day before they started floating the forgery story. Anyway, the conservative talking head was basically doing the standard, unsubstantiated character assasination on the guy that supposedly pulled the strings to get Bush into the National Guard. The funny thing was that he was saying nearly word-for-word the same thing as some other jackass on Fox or whatever was saying. And this is not an isolated incident. It turns out the OUTFOXED was right about the whole dissemination of RNC talking points. From Take Back the Media:

It is come to my attention that either someone in the Bush
campaign or a close contributor has been emailing various right wing radio talk
show hosts talking points. I have a source that works for the Steve Malzberg
show. The source has provided me with a copy of an email sent to Steve from
someone at the Bush campaign. The source has heard that this email has been
passed to other talk radio hosts at WABC radio 770 am including Sean Hannity,
Laura Ingram, and Rush Limbaugh. The text of the email includes instructions for
what the talk show hosts should concentrate on each week. It directs them how to
shape the arguments and how to respond to pro Kerry callers. For example in the
week following the Russian school terrorist attack it called upon them to
greatly focus on this tragedy. It stated they should link it to America's war on
terror and play up the fear that the next terrorist attack in America could be
against a school.

I hope we're gonna be turning that corner pretty soon

From the Independent:

A WEEK OF CARNAGE
Wednesday 8 September: Aid agencies prepare to
withdraw over safety concerns.
Thursday: US air assault on Tal Afar, east of
Mosul, kills 57 insurgents, according to US military sources. But provincial
health chief says 27 civilians killed and 70 wounded.
Sunday: A day of
carnage sees 110 people killed across the country. US helicopters fire rockets
on Haifa Street in Baghdad, killing 13 and wounding 61. In the west of the city
a police chief is killed by a bomb. Fighting between Iraqi forces and insurgents
kills 51 in Tal Afar and 10 in Ramadi.
Monday: US forces launch air strikes
on Fallujah, leaving at least 16 dead and 12 wounded. A village 20 miles from
Baghdad also comes under fire. Six people are killed.
Tuesday: Massive car
bomb on Haifa Street kills 47. Gunmen open fire on police minibus in Baquba,
killing 12, while US forces kill 10 Iraqis in Ramadi.

Then again, maybe we shouldn't be all that concerned about stuff like this. I mean, they're not U.S. soldiers. Plus, Saddam's not in power any more. I guess you could say that "to make an omlette, you've got a break a few eggs." And by "break a few eggs" I mean kill a few thousand people.

Yeah...That description just about nails it!

From the Guardian:

A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster
James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described
neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as 'fucking crazies' during the
build-up to war in Iraq.
Powell's extraordinary outburst is alleged to have
taken place during a telephone conversation with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
The two became close friends during the intense negotiations in the summer of
2002 to build an international coalition for intervention via the United
Nations. The 'crazies' are said to be Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz

Love them sheetmetal workers.

Here's a bit of info on that guy that interrupted Kerry's speech yesterday:

Kerry's remarks were enthusiastically greeted by roughly 650 of the party's
faithful invited to the event.
But the event was briefly interrupted as soon
as Kerry took the stage when a Foster, Ky., man seated nearby in a section --
reserved mostly for veterans and labor union members -- stood and began
shouting.
"You said you committed atrocities!" yelled Michael L. Russell.
Russell was quickly put in a headlock and forced down by a sheet metal
worker seated next to him, then escorted outside by police and Secret Service
agents.
He later complained that his neck was hurt by the man who put him in
a headlock.

Here's what Kerry had to say:

As Russell was led away, Kerry said, "I have nothing but the greatest
respect for people's right to express their opinion. I might add it's a terrific
tactic of the Bush team. They love to disrupt. They love to interrupt. They
don't want America to hear the truth."

That's a fine point. But I think it would be maybe more effective to point this out:

Republicans doling out tickets to the free event were limiting them to
people with a record of supporting the GOP— or to others willing to sign a
statement saying they support President Bush's re-election...White said the
pledge made sense to weed out people who might shout Cheney down or otherwise
disrupt his speech.

And now we hear this:

The upcoming Presidential Debates hit a potential snag today when President
Bush stated that John Kerry would be required to sign a loyalty oath before
participating in the upcoming debates. In an interview with Matt Lauer, Bush
made it clear that no "excemptions" would be made to the loyalty oath
requirement established by his campaign for all RNC campaign event attendees.
However, when pushed on the issue by Lauer, Bush left the door open by
suggesting he may be willing to waive the oath if Teresa Heinz Kerry were to
volunteer to participate in lieu of her husband. When asked to elaborate, Bush
stated he did not wish to create any divisions between his platform and his
favorite "condiminiment."

Okay, that's not actually true, but this is:

The Washington Post on Wednesday reported unnamed Bush campaign officials
saying that Bush's negotiating team wanted to opt out of the Oct. 8
question-and-answer session with undecided voters at Washington University in
St. Louis. The officials said that the team, led by former Secretary of State
James A. Baker III, was concerned members of the audience could be partisan. The
audience is to be chosen by the Gallup Organization.

Here's a response to my post on the evangelical outpost...funny

BCB,
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.4) You might be interested in Intelligent Design Quotes. Then again, you might not. But this is what some well-known scientists are saying.

And here's my response:

wrf3 says:
1) why does the design seem so unintelligent? Please design life forms and show how your designs are better. Also, see The Gods Must Be Tidy.
First, I think I did that already with the whole birth defects and natural disasters point. I guess I could make it clearer, so here goes:
It seems to me that the world would be better if it were free of all of the bad stuff, like earthquakes and deformaties and all that. So, if I were going to design the world, I just think it would be a good idea to exclude all that stuff. So, at best it's just carelessness, and this doesn't seem consistent with the whole notion of an intelligent designer. I mean he takes all this care into developing all of these super-complicated organisms but overlooks the big stuff that will result in the death and suffering of scores of people. I thought God was omniscient. Guess not, or else he would have known better. On the other hand, maybe he's just a sick jerk that gets a kick out of watching folks suffer. I'm not sure I can make my position any clearer than that without resorting to sock puppets or something. Second, as far as your whole designing better life forms position is concerned, this is really non-responsive. Of course, I would leave out all the bad stuff as mentioned above. But more importantly, at the point that you challenge me to describe how I would create a life form, you are of course insinuating that I couldn't do it because it's too hard. Therefore, it must be God. This begs the question. What I would say is that organisms and the like are created through an unguided process governed by nothing more than the blind workings of science. What's more, my world view accounts for both the complexity in the natural world and all of the screw ups. That is, because the process is unguided, it's no surprise that things go wrong sometimes. Uh-oh...my world view has greater explainitory power than yours.
Then he says this:
2) I have read Russell. He's clueless.
A brilliant and devestating rebuttal. Why, seeing as how he's been absolutely proven to be clueless, I'm just going to throw all of his books into the fire. Good Show! (I'm not taking that out of context either. That was seriously the extent of his response)
Then this:
3) Hate to burst your bubble, but if you can't rationalize your beliefs then they aren't rational.
Huh? Yeah, and if you teach a child to read, they'll pass a literacy test. Mr. President...is that you? I agree, I think.

State of the Union: Shitty

I've heard a lot of the talking heads refer to much of Bush's acceptance speech at HateFest 2004 (RNC) as something like a State of the Union address. Well, for what it's worth, here's my little shadow State of the Union.

1. The economy sucks for just about everyone but corporate America.

From alternet:

No matter how you slice it, most US workers are worse off than they were at this time last year.
The average real wage – that is, adjusted for inflation – has actually fallen over the past year. This is in spite of the fact that the economy has grown by 4.7 percent. In other words, even when the economy is growing, most of the people who make it grow aren't getting anything out of it.

And, from USAToday:

Jobs in lower-wage industries and regions are growing at a faster pace than higher-wage jobs, suggesting job growth is less potent for the economy because the majority of new work isn't accompanied by fat paychecks

And from The Detroit Free Press:

Frank Gloster's pay hasn't gone up in three years. The 60-year-old grandfather of two, a grinder for a Westland gear and machine parts maker, is frustrated, feeling he was better off years ago, if not decades ago.
"It's an awful feeling. I looked into a 401(k) and realized I didn't have the money for it," Gloster said, leaning into his workbench. "I had more spare money when I made $7 an hour back in the 1970s."
Numerous studies by the government and business bear out that sinking feeling: Wages have indeed been falling or stagnating across America during the last three years. The Labor Department, IRS and the Census Bureau, various economists and employee-compensation firms have all come to a similar conclusion.
During the last three years, total U.S. compensation, including wages and benefits, has been growing eight times slower than normal, according to one new study.
Employees and economists have come up with a new term for this current trend: A joyless recovery.

2. Iraq is a fuck up of truly epic proportions.

From The Age:

A massive car bomb exploded on the outskirts of the Iraqi city of Fallujah, killing seven United States Marines and wounding several others, a US military official said.
The attack 15km north of Fallujah - a stronghold for Sunni insurgents - destroyed two Humvees, witnesses said.
In Baghdad, three US soldiers were wounded in a roadside bombing. The explosion was one of three separate attacks on coalition forces within an hour.
The force of the car bomb outside Fallujah sent the vehicle's engine "a good distance" from the site, a military official said on condition of anonymity.
US forces have not patrolled inside Fallujah since April, when US Marines ended a three-week siege. The city has since fallen into the hands of insurgents who have used it as a base to manufacture car bombs and launch attacks on US and Iraqi government forces.

And from The Daily Star:

KIRKUK, Iraq: A pipeline supplying gas to a major electrical plant south of the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk was attacked Monday, a local police official said.
"This morning at 07:25 GMT, unknown attackers set fire to a gas pipeline in the Taza region" some 20 kilometres south of Kirkuk, police colonel Ali Mustashar al-Obeidi said.
Sabah Shaku, an official from the Northern Electricity Co, said that the attack "had serious consequences for the Bayji electrical plant which produces 400 megawatts per day and supplies the whole of northern Iraq."

And This:

Insurgents in Iraq have kidnapped more than 100 people in their campaign to drive out coalition forces and hamper reconstruction:

HOSTAGES KILLED
Twelve Nepalese workers. One beheaded and 11 shot in the head and killed in a video posted on an Islamic Web site Aug. 31. The men worked for a Jordan-based construction company.
Murat Yuce, of Turkey. Shot and killed in video made public Aug. 2. Worked for Bilintur, Turkish company providing laundry service for Jordanian firm in Iraq.
Raja Azad, 49, engineer, and Sajad Naeem, 29, driver, both Pakistani, working for Kuwaiti-based firm. Slain July 28. Group calling itself Islamic Army in Iraq said they were killed because Pakistan considering sending troops to Iraq.
Georgi Lazov, 30, and Ivaylo Kepov, 32, Bulgarian truck drivers. Militants loyal to Jordanian terror suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are suspected of decapitating both men.
U.S. Army Spc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio. He disappeared April 9. Arab television reported June 29 that he was killed but the U.S. military could not confirm that.
Kim Sun-il, 33, South Korea translator. Beheaded June 22 by al-Qaida-linked group.
Hussein Ali Alyan, 26, Lebanese construction worker. Found shot to death June 12. Lebanese Foreign Ministry says killers sought ransom, not political goal.
Fabrizio Quattrocchi, 35, Italian security guard. Killed April 14. Previously unknown group, the Green Battalion, claimed responsibility.
Nicholas Berg, 26, American businessman. Beheaded by al-Qaida-linked group after being kidnapped in April.
Enzo Baldoni, Italian journalist. Reported killed Aug. 26 by militants.

And this from the SFGate totally underscores the point that these idiots don't know what the fuck they're doing:

The Bush administration is preparing to seek congressional approval to divert $3.3 billion earmarked to rebuild Iraq's shattered infrastructure into programs focused mainly to establish law and order.
The move comes against a backdrop of steadily deteriorating public security in the country as it approaches a crucial first round of elections set for January.
Those working on the changes said the proposed reallocation amounts to nearly one-fifth of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last November to rebuild Iraq. They said the shift would delay vital electricity, water and sewage projects -- all crucial to restoring Iraq's economy and building public support for the country's struggling interim government.
Instead, the money would go to an array of other programs, including $1.8 billion to strengthen the government's shaky security organizations and additional funds to soak up unemployment. In a country where idle men with little hope for work make easy recruits for a virulent insurgency, job creation is closely linked to improved security.
In part, the changes reflect a reordering of priorities after the June 28 transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis from the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority that administered the nation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. That shift left U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, rather than CPA administrator Paul Bremer, the highest-ranking American in the country.

Oh, yeah...don't forget this either:

This Sucks!



More to come...I just can't take anymore. But I will leave you with this final thought: Looking at the poll numbers I've come to the realization that Bush may get elected, although I can't understand what the motivation is behind this decision. I'm reminded of the old P.T. Barnum saying, "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public". I think he might be right here, and I'm tempted to just live with the fact that this country is overfilled with narrow-minded dipshits that are going to regret this decision..but the hard way. I'm tempted to tell these assholes that they get what they ask for, and then watch the ship sink. The only problem is that I'm on board.

Here's a post that I put up on that horrid Evangelical Outpost Blog

Here's an argument for you. If as these ID'ers claim, that the world that we live in is the product of some intelligent design, why does the design seem so unintelligent? I mean all around me I see children born with terrible deformities, natural disasters that kill scores, and the platapus. If I were to design the world that we lived in I would be sure to leave out all this sort of stuff. So does that mean I'm more intelligent than God? I think so. You all ought to read Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm not a Christian". He'll set you straight. Moreover, I just can't believe that this argument is still around. It's been blown out of the water a million different ways by a million different people a million different times. Sure,it's managed to take on a slightgly new form in that the new ID'ers throw in a lot of scientific jargon as window dressing. The goal of all this is to show how incredibly complex the natural world is, which presumably leads to the inference that there must be an intelligent designer because it's just to complicated to happen on it's own. For example, one of the claims that I've seen is the notion that the universe must be the prooduct of intelligent design because the chances of it forming in a manner sufficient to prevent it from collapsing back on itself are next to nothing. There are a couple of obvious problems with this. First,if the universe did collapse back onto itself, and return to nothing more than that little dot the preceeded the big bang, there's nothing to prevent it from having another go at it. So, if the chances are one-in-a-million, but it has a million chances, it doesn't look so improbable after all. Second, consider this: Right now I am looking at a pizza I ordered. The probability of this pizza being created just the way it was is next to nothing. It could have a different amount of cheese than it does (no matter how slight); the toppings, or just one, could be placed just a fraction of an inch from where they are now; it could have expanded in millions of unique ways; the bubbles that appear could be form in countless ways. Given all this, the chances that my pizza is exactly like it is, and not like any of the countless other ways it could be, are incredibly remote. But do when then want to say that God must be behind the creation of my pizza. Does God work at Pizza Hut? You all should just give up on trying to rationalize this silly little notion of yours. You are more than entitled to it (although Russell has some great points about what an immoral and evil belief system Christianity is). We all have rational beliefs. But when you try to rationalize them, you just come off, sad to say, as foolish.

John Ashcroft is a putz.

From the NYT's:

A federal judge threw out the terrorism convictions of two Arab immigrants on
Thursday, undoing what the Justice Department once proclaimed was its first
major courtroom victory in the war on terror

And:

"The case fits into a broader pattern of the Ashcroft Justice Department
overplaying its hand in terror cases and making broad allegations of terror
without the evidence to back it up," said David Cole, a law professor at
Georgetown University.

You know what...it's not that he's a putz that upsets me, it's that he's a fucking fascist that bothers me.

Bush's prescription drug plan

From his convention speech:

Soon every senior will be able to get prescription drug coverage, and nothing
will hold us back.

Yeah, maybe if they rob the pharmacy and get caught. The good thing about prison is free health care. But ass-rape...uh...not so good.