After you wipe the sarcasm off your screen, read this snippet courtesy of Juan Cole at Informed Comment:Also credit to ePluribus Media
Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?
"No, I don't think so. We tried [...] We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution."
Let me repeat this: "We Tried!"
After hearing this confession, how can anyone ever again take seriously Fox News or any of Murdoch's other instruments of bias? How can News Corp. continue to pretend that they are "fair and balanced?" How can any other media company exhibit the slightest expression of respect or patronization
That's a confession and outright lie all in one concise sentence, Rupert. The only way you've been critical of the execution of the war is by criticizing Democrats......Nevertheless, the admission is quite breath-taking for Fox...
Juan riff's on those quotes in a way that resonates deeply with me, and I suspect, with the vast majority of our local party members. The snippets:
"Murdoch's remarks are a good reason for which the news conglomerates should be broken up so that a wider range of views can be published..."
and the "money shot"::
Murdoch's media have done more to cheapen American values and drive the country toward fascistic ways of thinking than anything since the McCarthy period in the 1950s. The airwaves belong to the public, and this man only licenses them. When will the public take them back and use them for purposes of which Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin would have approved?"
A lot has been written in other blogs, and truthfully other blogs which are far more attuned to the legal aspects of Journalism and First Amendment rights than I, about reinstituting the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE which was summarily wiped out during the Reagan Administration. Appparently , the doctrine was originally upheld by the Supreme Court according to Wiki:
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC [1] (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum.
There has been a lot of talk about reinstating the doctrine, especially from Dennis Kucinich,who seems to be making it "his" cause, and I recall seeing something about a version of it going through Congress last week, but will it end the abuses of Fox News? Of Rush Limbaugh? Of Michael Savage?
Give me your thoughts on the matter.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Oh-oh....
Take a look at this from the article by Andrew Cockburn over at Counterpunch
Last week, Tehran reminded us of its ability to make life unpleasant for US forces in Iraq by hosting Moqtada al Sadr for a high profile visit, in the course of which he obligingly pledged that his militia, the Mahdi army, would retaliate for any American attack on Iran. His spokesman quoted him as telling his hosts "If any Islamic state, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, is attacked, the Mahdi Army would fight inside and outside Iraq."
Okay, so if the United States is foolish enought to attack Iran, Al Sadr would either join the Iranian forces against our troops in Iran, or, in the case that Bush and his merry band of elves decided to us just air power against Iran, Sadr would order his troops (militia) to attack US troops in Iraq...
I read that pretty much as a lose/lose proposition for our side.
Also...do you consider it odd that the meeting between Al Sadr and the Iranian government went unreported in the U. S. Press? That mainstream media didn't say much either.
Last week, Tehran reminded us of its ability to make life unpleasant for US forces in Iraq by hosting Moqtada al Sadr for a high profile visit, in the course of which he obligingly pledged that his militia, the Mahdi army, would retaliate for any American attack on Iran. His spokesman quoted him as telling his hosts "If any Islamic state, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, is attacked, the Mahdi Army would fight inside and outside Iraq."
Okay, so if the United States is foolish enought to attack Iran, Al Sadr would either join the Iranian forces against our troops in Iran, or, in the case that Bush and his merry band of elves decided to us just air power against Iran, Sadr would order his troops (militia) to attack US troops in Iraq...
I read that pretty much as a lose/lose proposition for our side.
Also...do you consider it odd that the meeting between Al Sadr and the Iranian government went unreported in the U. S. Press? That mainstream media didn't say much either.
A troubling bit of information comes from Glenn Greenwald over at Unclaimed Territory.
His post details the appearances of Edwards and Clinton at the AIPAC meeting in New York. Here's what's troubling as Glenn describes it
Then, the Sun emphasized how vital it was for presidential candidates to attract contributions from New York Jewish groups generally, and how such contributions (as is true for all interest groups) are available only to those candidates who support those groups' so-called "pro-Israel" agenda: A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton 's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always draws a parade of politicians.
New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."
And, according to the Sun, what do presidential candidates have to do in order to ensure access to "the ATM for American politicians" -- the "large amounts of money from the Jewish community" in New York? What is the "issue that matters most to them"? Belligerence towards Iran:
Indeed, how to deal with Iran is likely to be the next majority foreign policy conundrum the 2008 presidential candidates face.While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran.
The Sun also highlighted how vital (what it calls) "the circuit of influential Jewish donors" is to Hillary Clinton specifically:Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for Aipac, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has "an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro- Israel community.""She is an extraordinary leader on those issues in the United States Senate," he said
So....this then becomes "the house that Jack Built"...in American politics.
You need mega dollars to run
Those have the money also have "issues"
To get the money from those who have it you need to make their issues YOUR issues.
If you get elected, THEIR ISSUES which you have made YOUR ISSUES become NATIONAL ISSUES.
NATIONAL ISSUES BECOME POLICY
And sometimes, policy becomes war......
Tell me again why we don't need public financing of political campaigns. McCain-Feingold was watered down so badly that it was ineffective in taking big $$$ out of the political system. I'm not sure that's there is any way short of public financing that we can be assured that our politician are elected on the basis of their positions and not on the positions of those who contribute to their campaigns.
Some time ago a District Federal Court ruled that Money=free speech. Bullshit!
His post details the appearances of Edwards and Clinton at the AIPAC meeting in New York. Here's what's troubling as Glenn describes it
Then, the Sun emphasized how vital it was for presidential candidates to attract contributions from New York Jewish groups generally, and how such contributions (as is true for all interest groups) are available only to those candidates who support those groups' so-called "pro-Israel" agenda: A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton 's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always draws a parade of politicians.
New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."
And, according to the Sun, what do presidential candidates have to do in order to ensure access to "the ATM for American politicians" -- the "large amounts of money from the Jewish community" in New York? What is the "issue that matters most to them"? Belligerence towards Iran:
Indeed, how to deal with Iran is likely to be the next majority foreign policy conundrum the 2008 presidential candidates face.While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran.
The Sun also highlighted how vital (what it calls) "the circuit of influential Jewish donors" is to Hillary Clinton specifically:Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for Aipac, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has "an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro- Israel community.""She is an extraordinary leader on those issues in the United States Senate," he said
So....this then becomes "the house that Jack Built"...in American politics.
You need mega dollars to run
Those have the money also have "issues"
To get the money from those who have it you need to make their issues YOUR issues.
If you get elected, THEIR ISSUES which you have made YOUR ISSUES become NATIONAL ISSUES.
NATIONAL ISSUES BECOME POLICY
And sometimes, policy becomes war......
Tell me again why we don't need public financing of political campaigns. McCain-Feingold was watered down so badly that it was ineffective in taking big $$$ out of the political system. I'm not sure that's there is any way short of public financing that we can be assured that our politician are elected on the basis of their positions and not on the positions of those who contribute to their campaigns.
Some time ago a District Federal Court ruled that Money=free speech. Bullshit!
Friday, February 02, 2007
Scientists: "Oops, My bad!
Thaat's pretty much the summary of the findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
A summary of the conclusions are that:
1. Global warming IS taking place at a rapid pace
2. Humans ARE primarily responsible.
3. Warming will continue for 100s of years
4. The effects are goiing to be fewer but more devastating hurricanes, longer and more devasting heat waves, droughts and a rise in sea levels....
There isn't much that can be done at this point but slowing emissions will perhaps slow the effects.....
I talked with a meteorologist today who, like most good scientists, has tried to stay above the political fray and rely on the science to settle the matter. Today, he considered the matter settled. I asked whether he thought that the argument would now be about whether it's actually "worth the effort" to try to mitigate the change. He was very unscientific in his answer but profound nevertheless: "Not doing anything is like saying "See ya in hell!" He's right I think.
But even as the words of the report start to spread around the world, the "deniers" are busy at work. Look at this article from The Guardian. It seems that our favorite right wing "think tank", The American Enterprise Institute, has put out a notice that it will pay $10,000 to any scientist who will contridict today's report. (Olbermann reported on this tonight but the video
isn't up yet) Here's a snippet:
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Later on in the article we find that somewhere around 20 AEI employees have been consultants to the Bush Administration. It doesn't take much of a memory to recall that the AEI is the favorite venue for Bush and Cheney to deliver speeches hyping their policies....that's because the policies were most likely written by the AEI in the first place.
AEI "Fellows" are all over the place. The one who irks me most is CNN's Chief Political Analyst who is sometimes identified (in his credentials) as an AEI Fellow.....that's fair...
The point is, AEI is not an honest broker in any sense. They aren't there to analyze the news, they there to spin the news...
I hope the exposure the Guardian article and Olbermann gave them today makes them less likely to confuse the issue again.
A summary of the conclusions are that:
1. Global warming IS taking place at a rapid pace
2. Humans ARE primarily responsible.
3. Warming will continue for 100s of years
4. The effects are goiing to be fewer but more devastating hurricanes, longer and more devasting heat waves, droughts and a rise in sea levels....
There isn't much that can be done at this point but slowing emissions will perhaps slow the effects.....
I talked with a meteorologist today who, like most good scientists, has tried to stay above the political fray and rely on the science to settle the matter. Today, he considered the matter settled. I asked whether he thought that the argument would now be about whether it's actually "worth the effort" to try to mitigate the change. He was very unscientific in his answer but profound nevertheless: "Not doing anything is like saying "See ya in hell!" He's right I think.
But even as the words of the report start to spread around the world, the "deniers" are busy at work. Look at this article from The Guardian. It seems that our favorite right wing "think tank", The American Enterprise Institute, has put out a notice that it will pay $10,000 to any scientist who will contridict today's report. (Olbermann reported on this tonight but the video
isn't up yet) Here's a snippet:
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Later on in the article we find that somewhere around 20 AEI employees have been consultants to the Bush Administration. It doesn't take much of a memory to recall that the AEI is the favorite venue for Bush and Cheney to deliver speeches hyping their policies....that's because the policies were most likely written by the AEI in the first place.
AEI "Fellows" are all over the place. The one who irks me most is CNN's Chief Political Analyst who is sometimes identified (in his credentials) as an AEI Fellow.....that's fair...
The point is, AEI is not an honest broker in any sense. They aren't there to analyze the news, they there to spin the news...
I hope the exposure the Guardian article and Olbermann gave them today makes them less likely to confuse the issue again.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
ROAD TRIP!!
Well, actually just a short one....be back this pm
in the meantime:
A sad note: Rest in Peace Molly Ivans....your words spoke both wit and wisdom and I will miss you.
The Rude Pundit sums it up well...
From sad to ....well...just plain stupid...
look at this:
again, TheRudeOne sums it up best:" Somewhere, Orson Welles is giggling his fat ass off."
in the meantime:
A sad note: Rest in Peace Molly Ivans....your words spoke both wit and wisdom and I will miss you.
The Rude Pundit sums it up well...
From sad to ....well...just plain stupid...
look at this:
again, TheRudeOne sums it up best:" Somewhere, Orson Welles is giggling his fat ass off."
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Seeing a mirror within a mirror within a mirror
Barring a miracle, or, more accurately, a veritable flood of miracles, the Republican Party in 2008 will end up wearing George W. Bush around its neck as igniomouslly as the Ancient Mariner wore the Albatross.
That is, unless they can find some way of distancing the Republican party from Bush and his disastrous policies....
Surprise.
They're already doing it. But there is more, in fact, much more to it than a simple campaign ploy. Let's start the journed by looking at this from yesterday's Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory:
snip
This cry of victimization was the principal theme at the so-called "National Review Institute conservative summit" held this weekend, at which one conservative luminary after the next paraded on stage to lament that the unpopular President and rejected GOP-controlled Congress "abandoned" conservatism and failed for that reason.
As usual, Glenn granulate does an excellent analysis of this rather weighty subject. (Let's face it, discussing political philosophy in depth isn't exactly front-page material for newspapers these days because it actually requires "thinking" and as we all know, "thinking" is hard work.)
While Greewald notes that this theme of victimhood is becoming the favorite theme of Republicans today, that one of the early pioneers of Bush-bashing by "real conservatives" was done by none other than Conservative Blogger par exella'nce, Andrew Sullivan. Glenn takes a little excursion into a review of Sullivan's book, The Conservative Soul which eventually brings us to these points:
One of the principal flaws of Sullivan's book is that it speaks of "political conservatism" in a way that exists only in the abstract but never in reality. The fabled Goldwater/Reagan small-government "conservatism of doubt" which Sullivan hails -- like the purified, magnanimous form of Communism -- exists, for better or worse, only in myth.
He goes on here to a phrase which eventually trips a trigger with me:
All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes -- vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader -- are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.
That is, unless they can find some way of distancing the Republican party from Bush and his disastrous policies....
Surprise.
They're already doing it. But there is more, in fact, much more to it than a simple campaign ploy. Let's start the journed by looking at this from yesterday's Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory:
snip
This cry of victimization was the principal theme at the so-called "National Review Institute conservative summit" held this weekend, at which one conservative luminary after the next paraded on stage to lament that the unpopular President and rejected GOP-controlled Congress "abandoned" conservatism and failed for that reason.
As usual, Glenn granulate does an excellent analysis of this rather weighty subject. (Let's face it, discussing political philosophy in depth isn't exactly front-page material for newspapers these days because it actually requires "thinking" and as we all know, "thinking" is hard work.)
While Greewald notes that this theme of victimhood is becoming the favorite theme of Republicans today, that one of the early pioneers of Bush-bashing by "real conservatives" was done by none other than Conservative Blogger par exella'nce, Andrew Sullivan. Glenn takes a little excursion into a review of Sullivan's book, The Conservative Soul which eventually brings us to these points:
One of the principal flaws of Sullivan's book is that it speaks of "political conservatism" in a way that exists only in the abstract but never in reality. The fabled Goldwater/Reagan small-government "conservatism of doubt" which Sullivan hails -- like the purified, magnanimous form of Communism -- exists, for better or worse, only in myth.
He goes on here to a phrase which eventually trips a trigger with me:
All of the attributes which have made the Bush presidency so disastrous are not in conflict with political conservatism as it exists in reality. Those attributes -- vast expansions of federal power to implement moralistic agendas and to perpetuate political power, along with authoritarian faith in the Leader -- are not violations of "conservative principles." Those have become the defining attributes of the Conservative Movement in this country.
But conservatives have to perpetuate the myth, so Sullivan critiques the Bush administration in terms of its "infidelity" to "conservative principles" to wit:
Sullivan's general critique of the Bush administration, and his specific complaint that it has fundamentally deviated from the abstract conservative principles to which people like Lowry (columnist and talking-head Rich Lowry)profess fidelity, is both accurate and persuasive. Along those lines, Sullivan cites the borderline-religious belief in tax cuts, depicted not as sound policy but as a moral good, to be pursued "unrelated to any empirical context of consistent rationale," and thus imposed even in the face of suffocating deficits and the virtually unprecedented expansion of government spending.
What seems so strange to me is that Republicans and conservatives in this country still persist in the myth of the principles of the conservative movement. It is the banner under which they rally the troops for each and every election cycle.
But the conservative principles which they profess to represent are a lie.
The real conservative principles the use of the power of government to implement their moralistic and/or religious ideals, the absolute power of their chief executive, unfettered capitalism (bordering on crony capitalism) free market economics. All of those principles would be roundly defeated by the voting populace so they have to tell the noble lie of "conservative principles" to get elected.
Deeply troubling is the concept of the noble lie first proposed by the great Professor of Political Science (and father of present day Neocons) Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago. His disciples included, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Cheney and even William Kristol. The so-called noble lie is necessary, because, obviously, if the voters knew the real conservative values, the Republicans would never get elected. Here's what Strauss had to say about "noble lies" (according to Wikipedia ):
Noble lies and deadly truths
Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are "myths" needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men and women dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche's language, those "deadly truths", flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately, and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth. Strauss has been interpreted as endorsing "noble lies;" myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society. [1] [2] [3]
So the myth of "conservative principles" is still part of the neocon culture and is being played out today in preparation for the rise of another neocon to the Presidency......another "noble lie" so we can be told more "noble lies"
Not if I can help it.....
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Among other things.....
There is just so much going on in the political blogosphere that it's hard to keep up.
Fortunately there are enough bloggers out there to keep up with everything and let us "5th tier" (I only claim to be 5th tier because I don't think there's anything lower) bloggers pick and choose what we want to write about.....
I'll start with what I think is the most under-reported story of the day....Bush and his Presidential Executive Orders. The story appeared in this morning's New York Times and here is a snippet to explain it...
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.
In case you haven't noticed, that's absolutely breath-taking in its scope....."each agency" will now be controlled by a political appointee as a gatekeeper to carry out the president's priorities....." And we were foolish enough to think that Bush is a lame duck.
Getaclue......
Bush has no intention of being a lame duck. In fact, there have been other blogs reporting that Bush and Company (known in the blogosphere as Bushco) plan on spending the last two years doing the Haagar the Horrible routine on Government....Haagar the Horrible being Rape! Pillage! and Plunder!
He seems to think that he can do this because we can't touch him. We can't impeach and even if we try he can do an awful lot damage (pillage) before we get to him....I'm beginning to think impeachment may be a worthwhile endeavor.
This was under-reported (in my view) because most of the blogosphere has been focusing on the "Scooter" Libby trial. Okay. Scooter's trial is important because it is shinning a light into the dark, dark recesses of the Bush Administration and specifically into the even darker recesses of the heart (alleged heart) of Dick Cheney....
Judith Miller was on the stand today and probably will be tomorrow too. I'll have to go "surfing" to find out where I saw it, but somebody posted today about a couple of radio announcers in Africa who were found guilty in court of murder because their radio broadcasts encited violence against the Tsusti....In a way, that's exactly what Judith Miller did....she encited violence against Iraq by being a willing tool of those who wanted war under any circumstance...truth didn't matter....neither did international law...or christian values (which they claimed to possess.) I've wondered if Judith Miller knew she was being fed bs by top ranked administration officials...I know that she was trading her journalistic integrity for fame
but I have to wonder if she ever once questioned the validity of the information she was being given....he she ever thought to get a second source...a confirmation ...anything that would have lead to the truth? You think?
....and another thing...I caught Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" tonight. It was about the four examples of "foiled terrorist plots" that Bush took credit for in the SOTU...
Surprise!
They were all phoney!
Crooks and Liars doesn't have it yet but here's a link to the preview
breaking news...MSNBC is reporting that it has gained access to a secret Pentagon report claiming that IRAN was behing the ambush and killing of five American Soldiers last week...
crap....
they've got their f-ing GULF OF TONKIN incident/
I'm really pissed.
Fortunately there are enough bloggers out there to keep up with everything and let us "5th tier" (I only claim to be 5th tier because I don't think there's anything lower) bloggers pick and choose what we want to write about.....
I'll start with what I think is the most under-reported story of the day....Bush and his Presidential Executive Orders. The story appeared in this morning's New York Times and here is a snippet to explain it...
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.
In case you haven't noticed, that's absolutely breath-taking in its scope....."each agency" will now be controlled by a political appointee as a gatekeeper to carry out the president's priorities....." And we were foolish enough to think that Bush is a lame duck.
Getaclue......
Bush has no intention of being a lame duck. In fact, there have been other blogs reporting that Bush and Company (known in the blogosphere as Bushco) plan on spending the last two years doing the Haagar the Horrible routine on Government....Haagar the Horrible being Rape! Pillage! and Plunder!
He seems to think that he can do this because we can't touch him. We can't impeach and even if we try he can do an awful lot damage (pillage) before we get to him....I'm beginning to think impeachment may be a worthwhile endeavor.
This was under-reported (in my view) because most of the blogosphere has been focusing on the "Scooter" Libby trial. Okay. Scooter's trial is important because it is shinning a light into the dark, dark recesses of the Bush Administration and specifically into the even darker recesses of the heart (alleged heart) of Dick Cheney....
Judith Miller was on the stand today and probably will be tomorrow too. I'll have to go "surfing" to find out where I saw it, but somebody posted today about a couple of radio announcers in Africa who were found guilty in court of murder because their radio broadcasts encited violence against the Tsusti....In a way, that's exactly what Judith Miller did....she encited violence against Iraq by being a willing tool of those who wanted war under any circumstance...truth didn't matter....neither did international law...or christian values (which they claimed to possess.) I've wondered if Judith Miller knew she was being fed bs by top ranked administration officials...I know that she was trading her journalistic integrity for fame
but I have to wonder if she ever once questioned the validity of the information she was being given....he she ever thought to get a second source...a confirmation ...anything that would have lead to the truth? You think?
....and another thing...I caught Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" tonight. It was about the four examples of "foiled terrorist plots" that Bush took credit for in the SOTU...
Surprise!
They were all phoney!
Crooks and Liars doesn't have it yet but here's a link to the preview
breaking news...MSNBC is reporting that it has gained access to a secret Pentagon report claiming that IRAN was behing the ambush and killing of five American Soldiers last week...
crap....
they've got their f-ing GULF OF TONKIN incident/
I'm really pissed.
