Saturday, May 31, 2008

Can We Keep The Preachers Out Of This?

I doubt it seriously. Thanks to You-tube, they are all getting their 15 or more minutes of fame or infamy as it were.

Funny about the end-timers who cannot shut-the-hell-up, because they are making big bucks promising rapture for the good and tribulation for all of the rest of us, whom they hate and want to see suffer as much as possible. What I can't figure out is how they expect to be taken seriously about the end coming soon, when they are stock piling cash faster than Bonnie and Clyde on a good day. Didn't Jesus say that it was easier for a camel to get through the eye of the needle than for a wealthy man to get into the Kingdom of God?

I'll start taking preachers like Hagee seriously when they give all they own to the poor, take up their cross and really follow the one they claim as their leader. As it stands, they don't seem even know him at all.

by Stephen Day

I lost my father a year-and-a-half ago at the ripe old age of 84. Although, as an aside, there’s no age that’s “ripe” enough when it’s your own father, is there?

For a good portion of his life, Dad was an active minister in the United Church of Christ. Eventually he grew weary of church politics, went back to school for his doctorate and became a sociology professor (where he then, of course, had to put up with academic politics, but that’s a different story). During the last 40 plus years of his life, while he remained an ordained minister and would on occasion fill in on a Sunday, he was never again a church pastor.

So I was a bit surprised when, during his final illness, it became obvious to me that while he was certainly proud of his years spent teaching, at the end of the day he considered himself first and foremost a minister of the United Church of Christ.

It was part of his essence.

And I’m pretty sure I know what Dad’s response would have been, were he still here, to the words of Jeremiah Wright and, per the latest dustup, Father Michael Pfleger: he would have dismissed the whole issue as stupid and insisted that what they say at the pulpit is between them and their congregations and denominations.

Simply put: it’s nobody else’s damn business.

And, no, Dad, though liberal, never said anything nearly as controversial as the now famous words of Rev. Wright or the increasingly famous words of Father Pfleger: his was a subtler approach.

He did, however, occasionally say things capable of causing a stir. One time, in the middle 1960s, for example, he offered a very mild comment on the Vietnam War during a sermon, causing our next door neighbor to storm out of the church in protest (they remained on friendly terms afterwards).

But most of the arguably controversial things — and there weren’t that many of them — Dad said from the pulpit were Scriptural in origin. The Christian faith, after all, has some fairly revolutionary beliefs — things right wing Bible-thumpers often try to ignore (although some are now doing better). Things, for example, having to do with the duty the materially comfortable owe to the poor.

There is very little in our current “greed is good” culture, after all, that can easily be squared with the teachings of Jesus Christ, whatever Rolex wearing televangelists may from time to time claim.

So speaking as a PK (preacher’s kid), let me let you in on a little secret. Getting under people’s skin — sometimes even saying “outrageous” things — is part of a minister’s job. Sermons are supposed to get people thinking, shake them up a little. They can be freewheeling, filled with spontaneous expression. On occasion they can even be over the top and offensive. The idea, of course, is to shake us out of our complacency.

Political correctness and preaching have very little in common.

Father Pfleger’s words about Hillary Clinton, to my ear at least, were, in fact, unfortunate and even offensive. But they were made during a religious service as part of a pastor’s attempt to make a point, whether we agree with it or not, about white attitudes of entitlement. It was not a stump speech made as part of a political campaign.

Pfleger himself is politically active, at least in the sense of being a community activist (where he has done many good things), but at the time he made the statements at issue he was preaching as a clergyman. If he went over the line in the small portion of his sermon that’s currently swimming across the Internet, that’s an issue between him and the congregation.

It’s a somewhat different story, of course, when a preacher, such as Rev. John Hagee, intentionally injects his faith into the political process by arguing that his religious visions or traditions should become the template for American political life. Where that’s true, those visions and traditions become fair game. But even then I wonder if we haven’t gone too far in the direction of flyspecking old sermons looking for something to use against a candidate associated with the pastor in question.

This is a road that will lead nowhere but to grief for both religion and public discourse in this nation. It needs to stop now.

Agreed, but it won't!


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Congressman Wexler Calls For Testimony From Scott McClellan

Impeachment it is too good for them.

Support Congressman Wexler:

The Bush-Cheney Criminal Enterprise Must be Confronted Now!

Recent revelations from the upcoming book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan cite the increasing need to confront the impeachment issue immediately.

Although we agree that the Bush/Cheney crime ring should have been busted long ago, with the only legal busting-tool available to the American people, impeachment and trial by the senate, I'm afraid it's much too late for that.

The other thought that has occurred to some of us is that, given that Clinton was impeached and tried by the senate for lying about adultery, impeachment and trial by the senate may be too good for Bush, Cheney and company. After all, how can the the crime of perjury in a civil matter possibly be compared to lying this nation into a war of aggression, outing a CIA agent for purely political reasons and to cover-up the deception and fear-mongering that built support among the people for the mother of all war crimes, making torture U.S. policy (again without the knowledge of the people), shredding our constitution and numerous other hideous crimes?

Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida has vigilantly pursued the necessity of impeachment hearings and of holding government officials, beginning with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, accountable for potential "high crimes and misdemeanors" under mandate of no less than the U.S. Constitution.

And a lot of good that has done. We have come to a general conclusion that, currently, Washington, D.C. is far too corrupt to deal with criminals in power in the executive, since a majority of the congress critters who would be holding impeachment hearings are not exactly pure as the driven snow or even the dirty snow of industrial towns in the north east, if there are any left.

As so many continue to point out, this duty to pursue commission of high crimes and misdemeanors by those charged with upholding the U.S. Constitution violates that document and deems it necessary for them to answer such charges. There is a duty to pursue such acts of grievous misconduct and, when the facts warrant, remove the responsible parties from their positions of power.

McClellan reveals that Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney lied about their roles in revealing the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, actions constituting an obstruction of justice.

Surprise, surprise! Who didn't already know that, including all or most of the Republicans in Congress, not to mention the Democrats? Nothing of what I have heard about McClellan's book, which I gather are the most sensational "revelations," are barely news worthy. The only thing that makes it news-worthy is the identity of the author, a former insider in the Bush White House and a former, Texas Bush loyalist. I guess what Scottie and others, who had known Junior for years in Texas, did not count on was Cheney and the NeoCons, who were just too thrilled to make Junior a war president, which is what he wanted.

The former White House Press Secretary also wrote that there was a coordinated effort by the Bush administration to use propaganda to inflate the case for attacking and ultimately occupying Iraq and hide the projected costs of the war from the American people. there anyone out there that did not know this? If there is, please, see a physician as quickly as possible. Chances are you need help.

Congressman Wexler stated May 28:

"Scott McClellan must be called to testify under oath before the House Judiciary Committee to tell Congress and the American people everything he knows about this massive effort by the White House to deceive this nation into war."

Who doesn't?

Last week a subpoena was issued for Karl Rove to testify before the Judiciary Committee. It appears that the former top political strategist for the Bush-Cheney team will pursue every legal action to block this subpoena.

The Congress should issue a warrant for Rove's arrest for contempt of Congress. He can be held in the basement of the capitol, in solitary and incommunicado, like the prisoners at Guantanamo. After all, Mr Rove has helped to more harm to this nation a than Osama bin laden could have ever dreamed about.

According to Congressman Wexler, "The truth is that Congress has the right - and obligation - to hold him (Rove) accountable now - not months or years from now. It is long past time to pass Inherent Contempt and bring Rove, Libby and others before Congress."

I would say, "responsibility," but who listens to me? Besides, that boat sailed a long time ago.

Congressman Wexler should consider the fate, as it were, of I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. Pardoned, for all practical purposes, was he. The only thing he lost was his law license and he does not really need that to remain on the GOP/corporate gravy train. He can be a consultant, whatever the hell that is, a lobbyist, representing some of the better known terrorist heads of state, like Charlie Black of the McCain team or, maybe, an economic hit man for a big multinational. The opportunities for a man or woman without a soul are endless in Washington. Do we want Bush to pardon Rove, after double jeopardy is attached?

Could be, Bush may well pardon everyone in his administration, including himself, for all crimes, committed or not, as he is walking out of the W.H. door. I believe that I remember it was concluded by the TeeVee legal eagles of constitutional law, that there is nothing, legally, to prevent a president from pardoning himself in the way that Richard Nixon was pardoned by Gerald Ford. Of course, what Nixon may or may not have known, though he certainly should have, as he was a lawyer himself, is that to sign such a document of pardon, which one must do if one is granted any such pardon and agrees to accept it, is a legal admission of guilt, associated in a breech of the law, perhaps international, which in this case, would go completely unstated. So, admittedly, Bush and Cheney both could shout from the roof tops and laugh maniacally, while admitting to mass murder, and there would be nothing our law could do about it, nor our elected least, not legally. Neither of them will act in such a way, because of the few Americans, out in the hinterlands or in a big urban areas who might not care about illegalities or legalities. A man, whose only son died for George's Bush's ego and a whole host of idiotic, elitists, egg-headed theories, created in the minds of men and women who have never seen a real battle ground, might just snap entirely. I've seen people snap for far less reasons, or seen the results of such mental/emotional snapping.

I would far more prefer that this gang be brought to trial, somewhere where we, the people, would not be seen as having any power nor would we have any real power to influence the trial of American war criminals at the Hague, preferably, where Saddam should have been tried.

O.K, LOL all you like, but comparatively speaking, ours' probably is one of the best when it comes to "justice." I put that in quotes, because I don't believe that mankind is capable of Justice, at least not in the essential sense of the word and not at this time in the eternity of universal time, which is well beyond the comprehension of 99.99999% of us and understandably so.

Please note that I did not say that I think there are no Americans, nor people from every other nation, who are not capable of understanding real Justice. There are many of those people, more than most people would believe. They are, for the most part, unknowns; anonymous beings who live in the poorest nations in Africa as well as the wealthiest enclaves of America and Europe. They are Scandinavian, of some variety, Dutch, Polish, English, Irish and Scottish, Spainish, Portuguese, French, German, Austrian, Lithuanian, Russian, Uzbek, Chinese, Afghans, Pakistanis, The people of the Arab Peninsula and the Middle East, Egypt and every other nation in Africa, Tibet, India, Nepal, Myanmar, Timor and all of Indonesia .......and the Australians, the Kiwis, and the people from all the islands of the pacific, in addition to all the nations of Central and South America, the Koreas and Japan and, of course, the Taiwanese. There are also the Thais, the Cambodians and, my personal favorites, the Canadians along with many other countries I didn't mention.

(I have never met a Canadian I did not like. I am, admittedly, usually no matter what, on their side about anything and I applaud them when they don't take our side about everything, when we are behaving idiotically on the world stage. Like a good sister or brother...or even a really good friend, the Canadians will simply say "no, we don't think so" when we suggest blowing our own foot off just to collect a huge reward for being the most retarded in the old prairie town, back when idiocy was still publicly funny. There are many other reasons, but I won't mention them here. Nevertheless, I luv me Canucks, if for no other reason than them living on top of the seemingly eternal powder keg, my country, and not doing something really awful to us when we weren't looking, which is far more than I would have thought given the budget for such things, both before and after 9/11/01.)

Any way, my point is, that there are some very aware, enlightened, attuned people in this world today. They are rarely what we think of as religious and are often short sold on their deeply held spirituality, because it is not recognized by those around them. They do, while others are still talking. They did, before others were even born and they will know those who come to them for help, wisdom, comfort and other simple needs of the people of a world in very deep trouble. Some are more easily found than others, but none will be found in the yellow pages.

There is hope, people, in spite of it all. Don't panic, friends. Just be still and listen, hear....more than likely what some of you would just as soon not hear and that which will cause joy in the hearts of others

Some of us will not hear, as our ears can still not hear, but that is not as important as the request for all of us to be still, now. As we move through summer, into Autumn, we need to return to our understanding of planetary time and start again to live by it. In most of the major faith traditions and/or philosophies, the cycles of life and the earth are honored in some fashion, as well they should be, if we can ever hope to live and truly prosper in peace, real Justice and unity on our planet.

Wexler believes that we cannot ignore these recent developments nor postpone serious inquiry until after the election. He realizes that there is a duty mandated by the Constitution to act under such circumstances, a necessity others in position of high trust need to also recognize and act upon with due speed and diligence.

Good luck with that, Congressman Wexler. I understand your outrage, but you are spitting into the win, Sir.

I could not care less about how this will effect the election, but it does not make sense at this very late date and for the reasons mentioned above. I believe it would be in the Democrats best interest, politically, to pursue impeachment, if not trial by jury and public hanging, but that is way beside the point. Mr. Wexler, you can shout 'til the cows come home, again and again and it will not matter. Nothing is going to be done to the war criminals in this administration and, in part because of that, Americans are about to learn what a hard life really is and what powerlessness really feels like. Excuse me, some of us are about to learn. Most of us already know.

(We took a poll of our members several months back and occasionally we post some of our findings, especially some the shocking and unexpected ones. One day, hopefully, we will post the whole thing, but at the moment it helps us make some analysis that is very important to us and our very near-in-the-future plans.

We all hardily encourage all Americans to cut their consumption of everything, especially fossil fuel, if not forgo its use entirely, if one can. We have proposed this simple idea since 2002 on numbers of other blogs; PROBABLY just about every year on various blogs all over the political blogopshere. One guy said, it wouldn't matter because the Chinese and the Indians will take up the slack at the oil pumps. I keep remembering what I thought was...."what the hell difference does that make at this point?

Don't you see, this is not the right or wrong, capitalist/ free-marketeer, magic move that will end all of our woes, such as they are, currently, that we are talking about here? This has to to with this world passing away, as predicted and prophesied by a number of fine holy men and women from just about every ancient tradition and a few modern day geeks, HOWEVER, not the end of the planet. She will sleep for a few thousand or so years, and life of some kind, again will emerge from those future days primordial ooze. That is, if we really screw up now by believing in the fairy tale that life in America will never change, because we somehow deserve to live the high life, even as the rest of the world and even people in our own country do not have enough food, no medical care, no jobs and no hope.

While it is hard to top the OMG! the night we discovered that only 3% of Americans had passports while 65% of us independent unbounders did, here is a poll number that comes close.

75% of independents we polled (out of 756 people, at the time) say it is more a moral question now than a question of survival to get off the grid entirely, if possible and cut fossil fuel consumption by at least 2/3 by the end of summer.

More than 230,000 Americans previously signed up at the site urging that impeachment action be expeditiously taken.

I won't be one of them. That boat sailed a long time ago. Congress needs to stay out of it, before they eff it up like they have most everything else.

As for the Bush administration, its response to the McClellan disclosures show that nothing has changed since the tired old strategy of Richard Nixon and Joseph McCarthy beginning in the fifties extended to more recent times with Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. When one cannot refute a message then the strategy is to form an angry pack, then loudly and persistently attack and seek to destroy the messenger.

Day before yesterday it seemed they were trying to convince everyone that Scott was Sybil. "This is not the Scott we knew." Either that, or they were trying to get us to believe that an alien had taken over Scott's body or something. It was very strange if not creepy, but typical of this W.H.

When former Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke disclosed that the Bush-Cheney neoconservatives had pursued war with Iraq from the onset of the administration, he was attacked as a disgruntled partisan Democrat. It was pointed out that this was odd since the Bush administration had invited him to remain after Bill Clinton left office.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, after leaving office, wrote that Bush had a fixation about attacking Iraq, he was deemed to be a businessman out of his depth on foreign affairs. Did this mean that he could not observe what was occurring regularly at Cabinet meetings?

When former Ambassador Joseph Wilson refuted the neoconservative charge that Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein was seeking yellow cake from Niger to enhance its Uranium potential in seeking a nuclear arsenal, he was accused of seeking to polish his credentials to become a possible Secretary of State under John Kerry should the Massachusetts U.S. Senator win the 2004 presidential election.

Wilson had a very simple and plausible explanation. He was seeking to prevent a war with Iraq waged on a false premise. Later after his wife, a CIA nuclear weapons expert, was outed by neoconservatives in a column by neocon columnist Robert Novak, he pointed out that he had a right and duty to protect his wife from death after her identity was disclosed as an act of political reprisal.

Emerging at the top of the current pack to attack Scott McClellan is Fran Townsend, former head of the White House Counterterrorism Office, who said, "For him (McClellan) to do this now strikes me as self-serving, disingenuous and unprofessional."

It would have struck her that way no matter when he would have done it. Ms Townsend is Miss Disingenuous, if you ask me. Does anyone pay any attention to her anymore?

Is it not self-serving to launch war on the basis of false intelligence? Is it not self-serving for Cheney to hold private meetings dividing up Iraq in advance for the corporate sector, including the company he once headed, Halliburton, along with longtime major player Bechtel?

Is it professional to engage in a pattern of continuing deception on behalf of an administration that launches war based on a tissue of lies and tramples long practiced, cherished constitutional liberties on the pretext of fighting terrorism when we have never even commissioned an independent investigation to determine what happened on 9/11?

Is it professional to engage in widespread torture at designated prison camps like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in violation of international law, including the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Codes?

Is it professional to kidnap citizens of other nations and, under the guise of fighting terrorism, fly them to other countries to be subjected to long term interrogation and beatings under the guise of fighting terrorism?

Is this practice of rendition professional? Is it the practice of a democratic nation?

It is if the Democracy in question is the U.S and the people being rendered are Bush officials and they are being rendered to the Hague.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Attorneys say Terrorism Trial Delayed To Influence U.S. Elections

Get over it! The Jig is up! Forget about it.

Osama bin Laden hanging on on the White House Lawn is not going to do it for the Rethugs this time, because we now know who the real terrorists are and their names are very American: Bush, Cheney, Rice and the rest of the Neocon bastards who are responsible for the deaths of millions, and millions more lives destroyed.

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Is John McCain Really Different From Bush On Telecom Immunity

Or is this just a way to get Libertarians back into the Republican fold.

We say no immunity, no way!

Senator John McCain in Denver, Colorado.

For McCain, a Switch on Telecom Immunity?

by: Jonathan Weisman and Ellen Nakashima, The Washington Post

Recent statements signal deeper privacy concerns.

A top lawyer for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign said telecommunications companies should be forced to explain their role in the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program as a condition for legal immunity for past wiretapping, a statement that stands in marked contrast to positions taken by President Bush, McCain and other Republicans in Congress. » More

Be Careful. I can think of several dozens ways they can explain their roles and what they did was still against the law and they knew it. Do they know what information was gathered and on whom? Was it Al Qaeda or the Democrats?

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Pelosi Vows To Block Convention Fight

Yeah, we will believe it when we see it.

What we would like to see is impeachment and war crimes trials? But that isn't gonna happen, is it?

05-28) 20:17 PDT San Francisco -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will step in if necessary to make sure the presidential nomination fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama does not reach the Democratic National Convention - though she believes it could be resolved as early as next week.

Pelosi predicted Wednesday that a presidential nominee will emerge in the week after the final Democratic primaries on June 3, but she said "I will step in" if there is no resolution by late June regarding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan, the two states that defied party rules by holding early primaries.

[Podcast: Listen to Pelosi's views on the presidential race, war and her legislative agenda.]

"Because we cannot take this fight to the convention," she said. "It must be over before then."

Pelosi made the comments during a wide-ranging hourlong session with The Chronicle's editorial board. She talked about the prospects for the election of a Democratic president this fall, the legacy of President Bush and the California Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

The speaker talked in depth about the party's dilemma as its primary process comes to a close after Sunday's Puerto Rico primary, in which 55 delegates are at stake, and Tuesday's South Dakota and Montana primaries, in which 33 total delegates are up for grabs.

Obama, according to the Associated Press, is within 45 delegates of winning the nomination, a number he could reach by Tuesday. Pelosi said she is confident the Democratic National Committee's rules committee, which meets in Washington on Saturday, will resolve the issue of Florida and Michigan.

Magic number

"For now, 2,026 is the magic number" of pledged and unpledged delegates needed by a candidate to win the party's presidential nomination, she said, but "if they decide to seat (Florida and Michigan) this weekend, there will be a new magic number."

While saying she believes those two states' delegates should be seated, Pelosi added that it must happen ''in a way that is not destructive to any sense of order in the party."

"If you have no order and no discipline in terms of party rules, people will be having their primary in the year before the presidential election," she said. "So there has to be some penalty."

She said the party committee will come up with a formula that is "fair and accepted by both campaigns," perhaps allowing the states 50 percent of their delegates. But "if the resolution is not appropriate, then it remains for the (Democratic National Convention) credentials committee to resolve it," she said. Then, "it will have to happen by the end of June" or she will intervene, she said.

The Democrats hold their convention in late August in Denver.

Pelosi said she has not been in contact with the Clinton or Obama campaigns on the matter because "I think it is all going in the right direction" and will be resolved "in an orderly fashion" as early as next week.

'Positive experience'

Despite the prolonged and often divisive primary process, Pelosi said it has been "a very positive experience" for the Democratic Party because of "millions of people who are attracted to this campaign, ... Hillary and her message, and the same thing for Barack Obama and his appeal."

"We will benefit from it in November," she said, predicting the party will be unified behind its standard bearer, whether it is Obama or Clinton. "People are already saying to me: I'll be ready - as soon as we have a nominee - to come around."

"(They) know at the end of the day we cannot have a Republican president, four more years of George Bush, tax cuts for the wealthy, a war without end - the list goes on and on," she said.

Pelosi, the nation's first female speaker of the House, said she is keenly aware of efforts, reported in The Chronicle this week, of the San Francisco political action committee, WomenCount, which is running full-page newspaper ads headlined "Not So Fast!" - warning against what it calls premature efforts to push Clinton from the race and crown Obama the party's nominee.

Susie Tompkins Buell, a longtime Clinton friend and one of the effort's organizers, said Wednesday the committee has raised $400,000 in the past 10 days from women across the country determined to make the case for Clinton all the way to the convention.

"God bless their enthusiasm," said Pelosi of the effort. "These women are fabulous, and I know many of them very well." But, she said, while "we all want to see a woman president ... they want me to be the chair of the convention, who is neutral. And yet they want me to be for Hillary Clinton."

But the speaker said that activist women who make up Clinton's supporters, blue-collar voters and Obama backers will come together when they realize they "have the most to lose by a Democratic defeat."

Yep, they sure do and so does the whole country. But, them go ahead blow the whole damn system up, who cares?

And she said voters, too, will be energized by the party's "progressive economic agenda to grow our economy, for real initiatives on health care," education, infrastructure, housing and other key "kitchen-table issues."

"We just won three special (House) elections that the GOP never thought they would lose in a million years," Pelosi said, referring to recent congressional races in Illinois, Mississippi and Louisiana.

"(Republicans) tried to make it about me and San Francisco values. They don't have a message," she said. "It's going to be a very bad year for Republicans."

I would not take that for granted, Speaker Pelosi. This bunch of fascist have been around a long time, since before my 60 years, and so have the theocrats. Even if it is a very bad year for Republicans, that doesn't mean the next election years will be. It largely depends on what the Democrats do and how the Republicans try and succeed to sabotage them. The Democrats, including the Clintons, had better be prepared to turn the whole rotten system on its head. Lead or get the hell out of the people's way

Pelosi addresses wide array of issues

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in her own words, in an interview with The Chronicle editorial board Wednesday:

On the new book by former White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who charged that the Bush administration bungled the Iraq war and failed to act quickly enough after Hurricane Katrina: "I totally agree ... this war is a big lie. It was a lie to begin with, and it continues to be a lie ... at some point, maybe the lies just got too heavy for him to carry."

On the California court ruling upholding same-sex marriage: "I've always been in favor of it. ... I'm excited about the new poll (showing most Californians support it) and I just hope that can be sustained and we can just put this thing to rest." Republicans "will try to use it in the rest of the country" during the election, but voters are "tired of people who will take you to war and get you involved in (these) cultural battles. ... They want to know: 'Are you getting me a job?' ... They're tired of these cultural issues being the currency of the realm."

I could not , personally, care less if Eric and Steve want to invite the law into their relationship and make Steve responsible for all of Eric's last minutes debt he ran up while suffering from AIDs of the brain. Nope, not for me. I try to keep my heart and mind as far as I can from the law, because it is usually heartless and demented.

On President Bush: "This president has caused great harm to America, and I say this with great sadness, because coming in as speaker, I'd hoped we could work together. ... He has refused to listen to the American people, (has shown) a tin ear to the American people, a blind eye to what was happening in Iraq. ... This president will go down in history as the worst, whether you're talking about jeopardizing our national security... (or) the worst record of job creation."

Is that all that's going to happen, madam speaker? You guys are truly pathetic and will get everything you deserve.

On presumed GOP nominee Sen. John McCain: "He was in the right place on immigration, and he reneged; he was in the right place on the president's tax cuts, and now he's changed his mind. I'm hoping that he doesn't change his mind on the global warming issue ... but I can't even think of a Republican president. It's simply not going to happen."

Not McCain, that's for damn sure. I can see why he and Hillary make such good drinking buddies. They will say anything to retain or gain power, and that is what we cannot abide.

E-mail Carla Marinucci at

This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Rachael Maddow has A Theory..... which is shared by many of our number of independents, quite unbound, if not totally unhinged by now.

Hillary is going to NOT accept any compromise, period, giving her the right to take her campaign to the convention, probably tearing the Democratic party to pieces. Whether or not that is her intention, it may very will be the result, especially if many of the latest democratic coalition believe that the nomination was stolen from Obama. That will, essentially, be the end of that coalition and with any luck at all, the beginning of a new political system, because we can no longer abide the corrupt one we now have, including the most corrupt of all, the Republican party, and hopefully the Libertarians will take care of them. Go, Bob Barr!

Oh joy, joy, let the whole corrupt, rotten-to-the-core system blow itself to smithereens, Glory Hallelujah, or collapse under the weight of its own stinking, scandalous immorality and its most dangerous corruption in the form of a theocratic fascism, which C.S. Lewis (theologian and scholar) prophesied years ago.

Carpus Diem, Americans of good faith and good sense!

Some of us wondered whether some of us were becoming just a bit paranoid, after all, who could possibly blame us at this point, for saying that Rachael was getting it. After reading the Bloomberg Report, seems to me that the paranoids among us were right again.


Clinton Lobbies Superdelegates Before Party Meeting (Update2)

By Lorraine Woellert and Christopher Stern

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton stepped up her lobbying of Democratic Party superdelegates today as rival Barack Obama said he is ready to start the general election campaign after the last two primaries are held next week.

Clinton, in a letter and 11-page analysis sent to the party officials and office holders who have a vote at the Democratic convention, argues that neither she nor Obama will have the nomination locked up after the last primaries on June 3 and that the superdelegates should back her because she's the better candidate against Republican John McCain.

``When the primaries are finished, I expect to lead in the popular vote and in delegates earned through primaries,'' the New York senator wrote. ``Ultimately, the point of our primary process is to pick our strongest nominee.''

Obama, speaking to reporters tonight on his campaign plane, said he is focused on snagging the remaining delegates he needs to secure the nomination. ``Once we have that number we will focus on the general election,'' he said.

``I'm sure we will have discussions with Senator Clinton and her team,'' Obama said when asked what he will do if Clinton stays in the race after June 3.

Clinton's appeal to superdelegates and Obama's positioning himself for the general election are the latest fronts in a Democratic nominating battle that shows no signs of letting up even as the primary process winds down.

Decision on Rules

The Clinton campaign distributed the letter as the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee prepares for a May 31 meeting to determine whether Florida and Michigan delegates should be allowed to participate at the convention in August.

The two states, both battlegrounds in the November election, were stripped of their delegates as a penalty for holding early primaries. Clinton and the other Democratic presidential candidates agreed last year to the sanctions imposed by the Democratic National Committee.

With Obama, an Illinois senator, leading Clinton in backing from superdelegates and in the number of pledged delegates won through primaries and caucuses, the Clinton campaign is pressing to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan and give them full votes at the nominating convention.

`A Full Vote'

``We are urging 100 percent of the delegations be seated and each delegate have a full vote,'' Clinton campaign adviser Harold Ickes said. Ickes, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee, made the comment on a conference call with reporters.

Clinton won both primaries, though neither candidate campaigned in the two states and Obama withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot. Obama's advisers say they are within 46 of the 2,026 delegates needed to win the nomination under the current rules.

This is, contrary to what the Clinton's would have us believe, not anything like debacle of 2000.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said they are willing to compromise on giving the two states representation at the convention, though not without a penalty.

``We are open to a result that gives her delegates,'' Plouffe said. ``We don't think it's fair to seat them fully.''

Obama today questioned what grounds Clinton would have to contest his right to the nomination, should he get the number of delegates needed. He noted that two lawsuits challenging the status of the Florida and Michigan primaries have ``already been thrown out of court.''

Any grounds.... Coffee grounds...burial grounds, it doesn't matter, Barack? No other candidate, let alone a woman, would have ever elbowed their way this much forward, under these same circumstances?

Odds for Clinton

Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, a Clinton supporter, said he doesn't expect the DNC to come up with a resolution that gives Clinton a better chance to win the nomination.

``It's very unlikely that Senator Clinton can prevail. I think that means we're not going to field our strongest candidate,'' Rendell said in an on Bloomberg Television to be aired later today.

Don't be so sure, Governor. You would be surprised how sick people are of professional politicians, who have never dome another damned thing in their lives but money grub, for themselves or their candidate.

Even if the full delegations from the two states were counted, Clinton wouldn't overtake Obama's lead in pledged delegates up to this point, based on a tally by the Associated Press. Clinton is counting on gaining a large majority of Puerto Rico's 55 delegates in the commonwealth's June 1 primary. Obama is favored in South Dakota and Montana, which hold contests June 3 with a total of 31 pledged delegates at stake.

In a 17-page analysis of the Michigan and Florida challenges, DNC staff lawyers maintain that the rules committee had the authority to sanction the states.

Oh God, we are so sick of this!!!!!

Setting the Penalty

One question committee members will consider May 31 is whether they have the authority to seat all Florida and Michigan delegates and fully restore their votes.

I don't have the answer to that one, but if I were the Democrats, I would be wanting to send a very strong signals to the youth and middle class the state of Florida, and believe it or not there are many of them, you had better start thinking of you futures and electing Democrats. Your state elected Jeb Bush twice and now this Charlie Christ guy, who decided to violate the Democratic part rules, set down and signed by every campaign, before the primaries ever started, back when everyone thought that the Clintons would blow everyone out of the water by, at least, Super-duper Tuesday. It was really Christ who messed you guys up, not the Democrats, nor Obama. You are now being used by the Clinton. Every vote should count

The primaries would be over and Hillary would be awaiting her coronation and headed for the White House, as anyone would have McCain is her gun sights by now and, unfortunately, all of her baggage in tow. She says she is fully vetted, but she hasn't seen anything yet, unless she has soled out. Unfortunately though I, myself, and many of my compadres here at I.U. would like nothing more than to see a woman in the White House, but from what we can see, Hillary and her husband have people around them that we don't like very much. As a matter of fact, we see them as far more dangerous enemies to the people, the constitution and the country than Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could have ever dreamed of being in their wildest imaginations.....That would be our people, constitution and country, I mean. Seems we have to make that very clear these days.

Hillary has been hanging out with people like Rupert Murdoch, Bill has been hanging out with people like Poppy Bush and Henry Mellon-Scaife and was paid 9 million by some company for consulting. Can any one possibly explain to me what anyone one on this earth could say to anyone that would be worth 9 mil? Please tell me, if you know! We are sinking fast here, I'll tell anyone who wants to know for 1 mil. That would be just about enough to pay off everything and get the hell out of this loony bin.

Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, whom, from what I can tell, is basically a Likudnik, and some one else who was big time cocaine dealer or something? What about all the potheads you put in jail, Bill, or at the very least, ruined their lives? What about all of the corporate mergers that began on your watch and the oh so glorious free trade which is another world for corporate empire. Sure, certain rules about corporations (ours or theirs) not treating people in foreign countries like slaves or share croppers are inserted into these agreements, but they are not being enforced and they cannot be enforced and until they can be, which will be never, NO MORE!!!

Hillary is saying one thing and Bill and her campaign manager, the ever so forgettable, Mr. Penn were doing quite the opposite; behind her back? Really? How much else will go on behind her back if we elect her? The other thing is, I don't give a damn how sleep deprived one is, one does not imagine having landed in a plane under sniper fire in a war zone. It simply doesn't happen. So, please, Friends of Hillary, please explain that to me (and don't bullshit me because I am a research psychologist and an applied psychophysioligist and I know what I'm talking about.). Sleep deprivation, of the kind used for torture, could make me say anything I thought my torturers wanted me to say, but self-induced sleep deprivation does not cause anyone to tell self-serving whoppers.

I know if there is one thing which binds we I.U.ers to each other is that we are all tired of pathological liars and we want not just change but stupendous change....back to where we started from? NO.... no, I don't think so.

We want to move forward, using the knowledge we have gained over the centuries. Turning a page, maybe a whole chapter or ending one; 0ne that needs desperately to end, But also beginning a new one. One that may just include our highest hopes for our world and our nation.

Our oracle on the mountain tells us that we do not have much time to decide, if we are coming to a calamitous end or if we are beginning anew.

In their memo, DNC lawyers note that party rules impose an ``automatic sanction'' of a 50 percent reduction in pledged delegates for states that don't follow the rules. The committee could cut the delegations in half pledged delegates and half super-delegates.

``Some people read that rule as limiting the RBC's ability to fashion a sanction that is not explicitly set forth in the rules,'' Ickes said, referring to the Rules and Bylaws Committee. ``You can just as easily read that as permitting the RBC as fashioning any sanction it wants.'' (Any sanction? Like what, for example, other than the most severe sanction I can think of, the non-seating of delegates, which is where we stand now.? How can it possibly get worse than that. Assassination or something? Just wondering....)

``The staff analysis is intentionally neutral; it does not make specific recommendations,'' DNC spokeswoman Karen Finney said in a written statement today. ``The analysis maintains that the RBC did have proper authority and jurisdiction in imposing the 100 percent sanction.''

To contact the reporters on this story: Lorraine Woellert in Washington at; Christopher Stern in Washington, at

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Independents Unbound and Scott McLellan

WASHINGTON — The White House called former press secretary Scott McClellan "disgruntled" after he wrote a blistering review of the administration and concluded that his longtime boss misled the nation into an unnecessary war in Iraq in a book due out Monday.

That's what they said about Paul O'Neil and just about anyone who has written or said anything negative about this appalling administration and who has been on the inside, Everyone else they just ignored, like the millions of demonstrators, most of them peaceful, world wide, who begged, pleaded and demanded that this war not happen. But as we all know, George Bush and Dick Cheney, for different and some of the same reasons, were going into Iraq if it hair-lipped hell and half of Georgia. Where, Scott, are the apologies to us; those who opposed this war in the streets and on blogs, letters to editors (which were rarely published) and letters to our congress critters. Why can't the Right ever just simply apologize to their fellow Americans who were right about this administration and this hellish war? That would go a long way toward unifying this country again. My strong hunch is that the Rights' last wish is unity. That which is referred to as the Left in this country is, more often than not, moderates who simply see things as they are and they don't like it one bit and so they move to the left. Seems the only thing to do when the Right has slipped into a very dangerous theocratic fascism that will destroy this nation just as surely as Hitler and his band of happy corporatists brought on the destruction of Germany.

"History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided — that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder," McClellan wrote in "What Happened," due out Monday. "No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact."

Scott, we are already feeling it's impact and it is only going to get worse because no matter whom we elect in November, the Bush administration has made sure that the final collapse will be on someone else's watch. But history will know who caused this catastrophe for our nation and for the Iraqi people, as well as others around the globe who will suffer as a result of being to closely tied to us and our economy (read sociopathic corporations which form this horrendous empire).

"What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary," he wrote in the preface.

So, it was a war of aggression, Just as we all said it was, the mother of all war crimes, from which other war crimes are born, like the son's of the real Whore of Babylon, the multinational corporations, which are raping and pillaging a land for no good reason, killing and torturing innocent people who have never been any threat to us. Of course, this is only the most obvious incidence of that. It has been going on for years. Just ask the people of Bhopal, India.

Scott, why haven't your blown your own brains out by now, like many of our soldiers who cannot sleep and have nightmares of wrong doing and risking their lives for George W Bush and his corporate pals? I can't help but wonder.

White House aides seemed stunned by the scathing tone of the book, and Bush press secretary Dana Perino issued a statement that was highly critical of their former colleague.

Oh who cares what that addled bitch has to say? She is simply a better liar than Scott.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House," she said. "For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad - this is not the Scott we knew."

Perino said the reports on the book had been described to Bush, and that she did not expect him to comment. "He has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers," she said.

Yeah I bet he won't care to comment. I doubt anyone but the usual 30 percent of delusional "bags of hammers" in America would listen anyway.

The volume makes McClellan, a Texan picked by the president and paid by the people to help sell the war to the world, the first longtime Bush aide to put such harsh criticism between hard covers. It is an extraordinarily critical book that questions Bush's intellectual curiosity, his candor in leading the nation to war, his pattern of self-deception and the quality of his advisers.

His adviser were mostly NeoCon egg heads who, like Bush himself, had never been in a field of battle as a soldier, actually went out of their way to avoid serving their country, even during peace time. Hell, none of them even served in the Peace corps. All of that drudgery is beneath them. yet, they have the unmitigated gall to call Obama an elitist? Black is White, War is Peace, up is down, and Eurasia has always been at war with Oceana. Orwell is spinning in his grave.

"As a Texas loyalist who followed Bush to Washington with great hope and personal affection and as a proud member of his administration, I was all too ready to give him and his highly experienced foreign policy advisers the benefit of the doubt on Iraq," McClellan wrote.

Bad move, Scottie. This should be a lesson to you and everyone else about loyalty, Loyalty is not listed among the virtues for a very good reason. Loyalty, in and of itself, is not a virtue. The Nazis were loyal too, Scott. Having faith, real faith in your own mind, heart and instincts, working in balance, and the courage to step up or down, whatever the situation calls for, is a virtue. Scott, you, like Coln Powell should have stepped down and told the American people the truth then. It doesn't do much good now. But thanks for saying what most of us already knew.

"Unfortunately, subsequent events have showed that our willingness to trust the judgment of Bush and his team was misplaced."

Misplaced isn't the word for it. This administration has committed war crimes and should be in the dock at the Hague and I'm afraid, Scott, confessions in book form, from which you will probably make a mint, won't help you if that day ever comes.

McClellan worked for Bush from 1999, when he signed on as a deputy in the governor's press office, until 2006, when he was forced out as White House press secretary.

"President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve into all the possible policy options — including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them — before making a choice," McClellan wrote. "Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq."

Which makes him an idiot, just as we have all suspected, People like him, while seeming decisive, are not. Long intellectual, insightful discussions bore him or throw him off balance because he already knows what he wants to do and he's going to do it, because the god-damned Supremes put the idiot in power. Had there been no George Bush in the White House, there probably would have been no 9/11 and if there had been, I doubt very seriously that Al Gore would have started WWIII over it.

In an interview Tuesday, McClellan said he retains great admiration and respect for Bush.

Then you, Sir, are as big an idiot than he is. Why don't you tell that to the grieving families and friends of our fallen.

"My job was to advocate and defend his policies and speak on his behalf," he said. "This is an opportunity for me now to share my own views and perspective on things. There were things we did right and things we did wrong. Unfortunately, much of what went wrong overshadowed the good things we did."

Just following orders, eh? That didn't fly to well at Nuremberg, as I recall.

He said the Bush administration fell into the "permanent campaign" mode that can cripple a White House and has tainted much of Washington.

Of course it did, because from the get-go, it was all about power and creating a one party rule for generations to come. Just ask Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Junior made a very good cheerleader and that was, essentially, his job....well, that and firing any general that disagreed with him.

In the book — subtitled "Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception" — McClellan said that Bush's top advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "played right into his thinking, doing little to question it or cause him to pause long enough to fully consider the consequences before moving forward," according to McClellan.

"Contradictory intelligence was largely ignored or simply disregarded," he wrote.

Or intercepted by Cheney

Bush's real motivation for war

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

So, that is why we now have the deaths of millions and their blood on our hands? The man is a twisted sociopath, one of the most narcissistic people I have ever encountered. He should be tried for murder, right along with Cheney, Rice, and all the rest that aided and abetted this insane individual.

The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

Of course we wouldn't. Because, it is not our place to transform anything or anyone. We can assist a peoples' own efforts to over throw a cruel dictator and to join with other countries in stopping genocide, But the very thought that this war was about re-creating the middle-east is nothing more than a NeoCon wet-dream and it is sickening. Furthermore, the NeoCons should be treated as just what they are: Real modern day Nazis who feel that it is quite OK to murder millions of innocent people because they have a theory of how wonderful things will be, once the enemy, which seems to be the entire Muslim world, gives up the fight and does what they are told.

Well, problem is, you murderous egg-heads, you don't know your enemy. They won't give up, You can nuke them, and they still won't give up. These people have seen evil empires before. They have seen shock and awe before. All you have done is manage to cause more and more people to hate Americans. You should all be rounded up and put on trial, just like the Nazis, because that is who you really are.

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."

Oh screw all that. They flat out lied to the American people and to Congress, over and over again. Deception and fear-mongering like I have never seen before was on the news every damned day. Calling anti-war people traitors and questioning everyones' patriotism, while all the while, shredding the Constitution and habeas corpus. If I had my way, you would all be hanged on the National Mall, an example to any other presidential candidate and any future administration: The American people will not put up with international criminals in power in this nation, nor enemies of our constitution.

"President Bush managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option," McClellan concluded, noting, "The lack of candor underlying the campaign for war would severely undermine the president's entire second term in office."

Well, of course he did, because he was planning to invade Iraq long before he was even selected. Get real Scott! Do you really believe that he told his public spokesperson the truth about everything? What president does that?

Bush's national security advisers failed to "help him fully understand the tinderbox he was opening," McClellan recalled.

He would have fired them if they did. Just look at all the fired generals, you know the ones he always claims he listens to? General who know w heel of a lot more about war than the slackers in the White House.

"I know the president pretty well. I believe that, if he had been given a crystal ball in which he could have foreseen the costs of war — more than 4,000 American troops killed, 30,000 injured and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead — he would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today," McClellan wrote.

He would have busted it into a gazillion pieces and gone to war anyway, because he wanted to be a war president. He told any one who would listen that that is what he wanted.

'Plenty smart enough'

In a summation, McClellan said the decision to invade Iraq "goes to an important question that critics have raised about the president: Is Bush intellectually incurious or, as some assert, actually stupid?"

"Bush is plenty smart enough to be president," he concluded. "But as I've noted his leadership style is based more on instinct than deep intellectual debate."

Then, he isn't smart enough. We should not think with our gut. That is not the purpose of the gut, Scott.

McClellan also expresses amazement that Bush seemed flummoxed by a query by NBC's Tim Russert in February 2004 as to whether the invasion of Iraq was "a war of choice or a war of necessity."

"It strikes me today as an indication of his lack of inquisitiveness and his detrimental resistance to reflection," McClellan wrote, "something his advisers needed to compensate for better than they did."

How in the hell can anyone compensate for a stubborn mule who believes he is God's chosen president, with help, I'm very sure, from the TheoCons, and therefore can make no mistakes. No one can compensate for someone who is truly delusional. Besides, they did not want to compensate for it, as his delusion played right into the NeoCon vision as plainly laid out in the Project for the New American Century. Like Mien Kemp, any one who had read the PNAC document, knew exactly what was coming the minute Cheney was chosen as Vice President. I knew when Bush was selected that we would be in Iraq within two years. Afghanistan slowed Bush down a bit, but it would have been hard to ignore Osama all together. That would have seemed too strange even for the most retarded among us, especially the vengeance seekers.

McClellan tracks Bush's penchant for self-deception back to an overheard incident on the campaign trail in 1999 when the then-governor was dogged by reports of possible cocaine use in his younger days.

The book recounts an evening in a hotel suite "somewhere in the Midwest." Bush was on the phone with a supporter and motioned for McClellan to have a seat.

"'The media won't let go of these ridiculous cocaine rumors,' I heard Bush say. 'You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember.'"

"I remember thinking to myself, How can that be?" McClellan wrote. "How can someone simply not remember whether or not they used an illegal substance like cocaine? It didn't make a lot of sense."

That's not all that odd for a full blown alcoholic at a young age, when still partying hardy. He may well have blacked-out regularly. There is no memory trace made-while a person is in a blackout from bathing their CNS in a sedative anesthetic on a regular basis and in large quantities. Of all the insanity that has gone on in the Bush administration, this is run-of-the-mill stuff for an alcoholic. It would have been a good thing to know that he said that before he was president, but now the damage is done.

It is however another plank in the platform for the public demanding that anyone wanting to run for president or vice president have a thorough mental work up, and then every two years, if they should win. If campaigns are so damned rigorous that it causes people to imagine they were under sniper fire when they weren't, just think what the presidency must be like. I would like to be told whether or not he is off his rails. This administration, if not a number of them in my lifetime, convince me that we need reports on the president's and vice president's complete health. This is especially true of a president and vice president who are in office when something terrible does happen, like 9/11.

Bush, according to McClellan, "isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie."

Not unless he has to. He would prefer to leave the lying to others. Plausible deniability and all that, don't you know.

"So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true, and that, deep down, he knew was not true," McClellan wrote. "And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious — political convenience."

Uh huh. That's the reason for everything all of you did because the main goal of this administration, other than the NeoCon thing, was holding power in the Republican party forever.

In the years that followed, McClellan "would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment." McClellan likened it to a witness who resorts to "I do not recall."

The greatest deceiver of all is the deceiver who first completely deceives himself. Scott, you are a Bible-toting republican. Do you remember who the great deceiver is?

"Bush, similarly, has a way of falling back on the hazy memory to protect himself from potential political embarrassment," McClellan wrote, adding, "In other words, being evasive is not the same as lying in Bush's mind."

Of course not, because he is a liar. People who aren't born-liars, like most really good politicians and corporate officers are, know that a lie of omission is as bad as a lie of commission, as long as it is intentional and meant to deceive for personal purposes of self-gain or protection and we know by now that Bush lies are intentional because, you see, they are always done to further his goals or to protect his political power.

And McClellan linked the tactic to the decision to invade Iraq, a decision based on flawed intelligence.

A decision, based on ignored intelligence - not so much flawed as ignored, Scott. Here's the question for you, Scott. How come we all knew, and in "we," I include Obama? We all know that the chances of Saddam having a nuclear weapon within the next 20 years was almost nil and that's the one that always scares Americans witless and your bosses knew that Scott. Americans have a huge fear of karma, especially the nuclear kind, as well we all might. When our very own government uses that against us, then our very own government can be called terrorists. Then they also played the vengeance card, Scott. Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and was tennis partners with Osama at the Baghdad country club or whatever. It was ludicrous, absolutely, ludicrous, and anyone who had the good sense to educate themselves about Islam and its history, after 9/11, would have known it, but you guys count on us being anti-intellectual, dumb-bells, totally incapable of picking up a few books and reading them or even, God forbid, asking Muslims to educate us about what they knew about their own religion and its laws or being capable of understanding anything longer than a sound bite. Didn't God say, "vengeance is mine," Scott? Oops. So, much for the moral high ground, let alone the Christian one.

"It would not be the last time Bush mishandled potential controversy," he said of the cocaine rumors. "But the cases to come would involve the public trust, and the failure to deal with them early, directly and head-on would lead to far greater suspicion and far more destructive partisan warfare," he wrote.

Partisan warfare? If you ask me, there was far less partisan warfare than I would have liked to see, but then I don't trust either of the political parties any further than I could throw Dennis Hastert, and the whimpy way the dembulbs have behaved just proves my point. Anytime some president, I don't care with which party he or she identifies him or herself, makes a lame attempt to lie the American people into an illegal, unjust war, all hell should break lose. The opposing party should go crazy and the news media should go ballistic. (That's how you get the average American's attention.) It isn't patriotic to keep mum at a time like that, nor is it in the best interest of this country or her people.

'Too stubborn to change and grow'

The book also recounts Bush's unwillingness or inability to come up with a mistake he had made when asked by a reporter to do so.

"It became symbolic of a leader unable to acknowledge that he got it wrong, and unwilling to grow in office by learning from his mistake — too stubborn to change and grow," McClellan concluded.

God' chosen president does not make mistakes, Scottie.

The next president had better know how to admit mistakes, because there are a number he will have to admit to, on behalf of our nation. We cannot fix anything until we admit there is a problem. We cannot possibly expect to regain the trust and friendship of the world until we admit that Iraq was not only a huge blunder but was a crime as well and that we, as a people, intend to do all we can to see justice served and the people of Iraq are safe from outside interference at the point of a gun and it's borders secured by a multinational force, including their neighbors, and be able to re-build there own country with the help of the world community. They are a damaged but proud people. What's more, they are a part of the same human family that the we all belong to.They must be protected from those who would harm or steal from them, while they decide what kind of government and life they want for themselves and their progeny. If that is some form of democratic socialism, so be it. The Scandinavians seem to do that well. They are a lot better off than we are.

Capitalism (or the worship of capital) is not the only economic system that goes well with democracy. As a matter of fact, we are seeing that it does not go so well, when it becomes corporatism or fascism, which are the same thing and where capitalism goes off the rails with greed gluttony and lust for power fascism is the result, just as when socialism goes too far, it can become a totalitarian communism that is just as bad for the people. Odd, isn't it, that it is almost always the same "cardinal sins" that push any economic system over the edge; greed is always number one and lust (for power), a close second.

A page later, he recounts what he perceived as a moment of doubt by a president who never expresses any. It occurred in a dimly lit room at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, a room where an injured Texas veteran was being watched over by his wife and 7-year-old son as Bush arrived.

The vet's head was bandaged and "he was clearly not aware of his surroundings, the brain injury was severe," McClellan recalled. Bush hugged the wife, told the boy his dad was brave and kissed the injured vet's head while whispering 'God bless you' into his ear.

"Then he turned and walked toward the door," McClellan wrote. "Looking straight ahead, he moved his right hand to wipe away a tear. In that moment, I could see the doubt in his eyes and the vivid realization of the irrevocable consequences of his decision."

Scott, if you were much of a history student, you would know that Hitler, the greatest evil in modern times, one would think, although I can name quite a few more, could not bear to look at the soldiers coming home from the eastern front, the opening of which was a stupid move on his part. Maybe looking at them made him question his own wisdom, as it certainly should have and perhaps it also made him sad. (Of course, Hitler, was a delusional psychopath, made that way by years of self-hatred, a terribly dysfunctional family, fighting in WWI and, finally, the people who surrounded him as he rose to political power, who fueled Hitler's delusions until he thought that he was sent by God to spread the "glories of Nazism" and get rid of what was then called the "Jewish problem."

But, he added, such moments are more than counterbalanced by deceased warriors' families who urge him to make sure the deaths were not in vain.

Since when does more blood honor those already fallen in a senseless war such as this. The best way to honor our fallen is to try our own war criminals or, even better, send them to the Hague and then make it really plain, once and for all, that there will always be a band of citizens watching this government and that a similar fate will befall other leaders who lie to their people about something as serious as war crimes. When America is restored as a nation, a true democratic republic and not a corporate empire, and the people who created this mess are held up before the world and punished according to the roles they played, these soldiers will not have died in vain.

Rice, Cheney not spared from criticism

McClellan's criticism of Rice — who he pegs as "hard to get to know" — is blistering.

"I was struck by how deft she is at protecting her reputation," he wrote. "No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean, even when the problems related to matters under her direct purview, including the WMD rationale for the war in Iraq, the decision to invade Iraq ... and post-war planning and implementation of the strategy in Iraq."

With the outstanding exception of Richard Clarke who nailed her big time in his testimony before the 9/11 commission.

McClellan predicts a harsh historical review of Rice.

We are not fooled by her one iota, so don't worry Scott. When war crimes trials are held, she will be right up there with the big boys. If war r=crimes are not held, she will be on someone's hit list.

"But whatever her policy management shortcomings, Rice knew public relations well. She knew how to adapt to potential trouble, dismiss brooding problems and come out looking like a star," he wrote. "Few performed better under the spotlight, glossing over mistakes with her effortless eloquence and understated flair."

In other words, she is intelligent evil, the worst kind.

McClellan brands Vice President Cheney as "the magic man" mysteriously directing outcomes in "every policy area he cared about, from the invasion of Iraq to expansion of presidential power to the treatment of detainees and the use of surveillance against terror suspects."

"Cheney always seemed to get his way," McClellan wrote.

Cheney is a pit viper, slithering around the back halls of power, accountable to no one, unavailable to the press, except for Faux News, almost as evil as he is.

The book is so critical that it becomes difficult to imagine a future scene that Bush predicted on the day that McClellan's forced resignation was announced.

"One of these days," Bush, with McClellan at his side, told reporters that day, "he and I are going to be rocking on chairs in Texas, talking about the good old days and his time as the press secretary. And I can assure you, I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, 'Job well done.'"

Maybe McClellan no longer cares to hang out with this bunch. I know I wouldn't be wanting to, especially after they leave the White House.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.