READING BETWEEN THE LINES

December 20, 2007

Press Conference by the President

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

THE PRESIDENT:

Good morning. I hope you all enjoyed the holiday reception at the White House as much as Laura and I enjoyed it. We took an inventory of the silverware, and this year only a few pieces were missing (SINCE MY UNNECESSARY PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IN IRAQ HAVE TAKEN ALL OF THE OTHER PIECES).

Congress passed a good energy bill. The legislation I signed yesterday will reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil by increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources and increasing fuel economy standards. It demonstrates America's leadership in confronting climate change.

(AND IT COMES SEVEN YEARS AFTER I WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT BECAUSE DICK'S FRIENDS AT HALLIBURTON AND MY OIL CRONIES WANTED TO MAKE AS MUCH DOUGH AS POSSIBLE FROM THAT BLACK GOLD!)

Finally, Congress reached agreement on a spending bill to fund the day-to-day operations of the federal government. They passed this bill without raising taxes.

(BUT YOU CAN BE AS CERTAIN AS MY WAR THAT TAXES WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO BE RAISED TO PAY FOR MY TWO TRILLION DOLLAR LIE!)

I hope the members of Congress enjoy their holiday break; I intend to enjoy mine. We have a great deal of work in the months ahead. Next year is an election year, but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to carry out the people's business. The American people did not elect us to govern in odd years (NOR ELECT ODD LEADERS TO GOVERN IN EVEN YEARS.)

They expect us to get things done. (LIKE SPYING ON THEM AND TAKING AWAY THEIR HABEUS CORPUS.)

And now I'll be glad to answer some of your questions, starting with AP man.

Q:

Mr. President, there's ambiguity in the statement that you have no recollection about the existence and destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes. Why can't you say yes or no about the tapes and their destruction? And regardless, do you think the destruction of the tapes was a responsible thing to do?

THE PRESIDENT:

It sounds pretty clear to me when I say I have -- the first recollection is when Mike Hayden briefed me. That's pretty clear (BUT CLARITY IS NOT NECESSARILY VERITY.)

Secondly, I am confident that the preliminary inquiry conducted by the AG and the IG of the CIA,

(I JUST LOVE THESE ACRONYMS!)

coupled with the oversight provided by the Congress (AND THANK GOODNESS THAT THEY SEE THAT ALL OF MY DEMANDS ARE MET OR ELSE) , will end up enabling us all to find out what exactly happened. And therefore, over the course of these inquiries and oversight hearings, I'm going to reserve judgment until I find out the full facts.

(SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT LIKE WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE VALERIE PLAME CASE, DOESN’T IT?)

I know I'm going to be asked about this question a lot as time goes on. I'm just going to prepare you; until these inquiries are complete, until the oversights are finished, then I will be rendering no opinion from the podium.

(OR FROM THE POOPDECK AND SLAUGHTERHOUSE)

Q:

Vladimir Putin has just been named Time Magazine's Person of the Year. And he has signaled that he intends to become prime minister. You said once that he had been wily about his intentions, but now that he's made those clear, what does it say about the state of democracy in Russia?

THE PRESIDENT:

You know, I'm looking forward to seeing him (AND LOOKING INTO HIS EYES AND SEEING HIS SOUL AGAIN) at the alumni meeting of the "men of the year," or the "persons of the year." I don't know when it's going to be, but -- look, I presume -- I haven't read the article, but I presume they put him on there because he was a consequential leader. And the fundamental question is, consequential to what end? What will the country look like 10 years from now?

(AND WHAT WILL AMERICA LOOK LIKE 5 YEARS FROM NOW?)

My hope, of course, is that Russia is a country which understands there needs to be checks and balances

(AMERICA WRITES A LOT OF CHECKS BUT DOESN'T DO ENOUGH BALANCING), and free and fair elections (WITHOUT TAMPERING WITH VOTING MACHINES OR INTERVENTION BY A SUPREME COURT), and a vibrant press (THAT DOESN'T KOWTOW TO THE CORPORATE STATE OR RUBBER STAMP ANY HEAD OF STATE’S ACTIONS); that they understand Western values based upon human rights and human dignity are values that will lead to a better country (A COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T TORTURE).

That's my hopes.

(AND IN CORRECT English, THOSE ARE MY HOPES.)

Q:

Mr. President, a year ago when you had your year-end press conference, the Democrats had just taken control of Congress; they said that one of their main goals was to end the war in Iraq, they were talking a lot about very contentious times ahead. As you just said, the Congress has now passed again, without strings, money for the war, and you've achieved a lot of your goals and have gotten a lot of things you wanted from Congress, without a lot of give-and-take with them by talking tough with firm veto threats. What does this say about the Democratic leadership, the way they're running Congress and your relations with the leaders?

THE PRESIDENT:

You know, I don't view -- I just don't view life as zero-sum (OR ZERO-DUMB).

So there's plenty of credit to go around (AND PLENTY MORE CREDIT TO SPEND).

And we got a lot of priorities for next year. And one of my priorities -- this is -- I understand this is a bone of contention, but one of the priorities is to make sure they don't run up the taxes on people (ONLY SPEND, SPEND, SPEND LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW). And my attitude is, if you run them up on one area, it will become a habit that will be hard to break, and then they'll try to run them up on other areas. (LIKE MY CAMELS AND ARMADILLOS DO WHEN I LET 'EM RUN LOOSE AT CRAWFORD).

And the reason I feel strongly about that is I don't want to undermine the economy by raising taxes

(THE ONLY UNDERMINING I'LL DO IS TO CONTINUE INCREASING THE PENTAGON’S EXPENDITURES.

AIN'T CREDIT JUST GREAT?)

Q:

Mr. President, despite the military success of the surge, there's no evidence that one of its intended benefits, making it easier for the Iraqis to form a unity government, has had any effect. Refugees won't come home from Syria. There was an opinion poll this week which said that most of the Iraqis surveyed blamed us, said things would be better when the U.S. leaves. What benchmarks can the Iraqi government meet that would change this? What do you want them to do?

THE PRESIDENT:

Well, first of all, I don't agree with your premise that there's no politics taking place in Iraq. There is a functioning government.

(ARE THE SEWERS FUNCTIONING? ARE THE GENERATORS PRODUCING ENOUGH ELECRICITY? IS THERE A FUNCTIONING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM?)

They did pass a budget last year, and they're in the process of passing their budget this year. I am pleased to report that there's been two readings of a de-Baathification law to the Council of Assemblies.

(I WONDER IF DE-BAATHIFICATION MEANS ONLY SHOWERS ARE ALLOWED?)

Q:

You've been in office for seven years now. You must have some pretty strong opinions about what it takes to sit in the Oval Office. What is important to you? Is experience in government important? Are a candidate's religious views important to you?

THE PRESIDENT:

What's important to me will be this: the principles by which people will make decisions.

(TAKE A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT MY PRINCIPLES.)

And I would be very hesitant to support somebody who relied upon opinion polls and focus groups to define a way forward for a President.

(OR SUPPORT SOMEBODY WHO RELIED ON TAKING ORDERS FROM GOD TO DEFINE A WAY FORWARD...OH, I FORGET, THAT'S WHAT I’VE BEEN DOING.)

And secondly I would say, how do you intend to get advice from people you surround yourself -- who are you going to surround yourself with?

(WILL IT BE WITH LIARS AND SCAPEGOATS?)

Because whoever sits in that Oval Office is going to find this is a complex world, with a lot of issues coming into the Oval Office -- a lot -- and a great expectation in the world that the United States take the lead. And so my question would be, how do you intend to set up your Oval Office so that people will come in and give their advice?

(WHEN I'M AT THE RANCH I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ALL OF THIS.)

Q:

It sounds like you think the principles are more important than experience or specific religious views.

THE PRESIDENT:

No, sometimes you develop your principles as a result of experience.

(AS I HAVE DONE.)

I just want to know whether or not somebody has got a sound set of principles from which they will not deviate as they make decisions that will affect the peace and security of our country

(MY OWN DEVIANT DECISIONS HAVE GREATLY AFFECTED THE PEACE AND SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD.)

Q:

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.

You've announced a review of the situation in Afghanistan. The last time the American people heard about a review of the war, it ended up in a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. Can the U.S. expect a surge of U.S. troops in Afghanistan? And do you agree with many analysts who say that the real problem in Afghanistan, or a major problem, is that the NATO allies are not getting it done or avoiding the fight there?

THE PRESIDENT:

It is -- it makes sense for us to constantly review our strategies in a variety of theaters (SPEAKING OF THEATERS, HOW ABOUT THAT NEW MOVIE WITH WILL SMITH? GOTTA SEE THAT ONE.)

That's what -- that's what good governance is: You analyze the situation a year after the previous strategy to determine whether or not -- what worked and what didn't work

(AND YOU KEEP ANALYZING THE SITUATION YEAR AFTER YEAR UNTIL THE STRATEGY STARTS TO WORK; AND IF A STRATEGY DOESN’T WORK, YOU KEEP ANALYZING IT, YOU KEEP CATAPULTING THE PROPAGANDA.)

Now, it takes a while for societies that have been brutalized by tyranny and wracked by war to meet expectations. So the questions I ask on Iraq and Afghanistan are: Is there progress? Are people feeling better about life?

(OR DEATH)

And of course, we press their governments to work to come together and get budgets passed, or in Iraq's case, de-Baathification law (TAKE THOSE SHOWERS!) or oil laws.

(MORE MONEY FOR OUR CORPORATIONS!)

And those are all important. But also what's important is the human condition

(LIKE THE CONDITION IN WHICH MILLIONS OF IRAQIS HAVE LEFT THEIR HOMES IN IRAQ AND THE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHO HAVE DIED BECAUSE I WRACKED WAR UPON THEIR COUNTRY TO LIBERATE THEM FROM A BRUTAL TYRANNY).

Q:

Mr. President, thank you. If I could return a minute to the CIA tapes. I realize you don't want to discuss it at this point, but given your remarks about the struggle against ideology, how concerned are you that your administration once again faces criticism, questions from people around the world about the handling of a terrorist suspect?

THE PRESIDENT:

You know, you're trying to get me to prejudge the outcome of this inquiry. And let's wait and see what happens. Let's wait and see what the facts are. And -- look, we get criticized a lot for a variety of reasons. We're asking people to do hard things, for starters, which is intercept and find terrorists and to spread freedom

(NOT MANURE.)

And there's isolationist tendencies in this world.

(MY UNILATERAL PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IN IRAQ IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.)

People would rather stay at home.

(OR STAY AT THE RANCH LIKE I DO.)

People would rather not aggressively pursue people overseas (AS I HAVE DONE), and aggressively pursue freedom.

I understand that. We got people like that in our own country.

(I GOT WORK MORE WORK TO DO ON MY GRAMMAR, TOO.)

And the fundamental question facing whoever sits in the Oval Office is, will you use the influence of the United States to advance a freedom agenda to help others realize the blessings of liberty and yield peace?

(OR USE BOMBS AND DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS TO ADVANCE THE DESTRUCTION OF THEIR COUNTRY AND CITIZENS?)

So I don't want people to get the wrong impression of our country. (EVEN THOUGH I HAVE GIVEN THEM ONE.)

Listen, thank you all. Have a wonderful holiday season. Appreciate it.

IT'S THE OIL STUPID!

From

Dickheads of the Year

My picks for the biggest assholes of 2007 by Bill Maher

Come on, no list of assholes and fuck-ups could be complete without the Dipshit in Chief. Who will tell this president what everyone but him already knows? The theory of evolution. And the times tables. And where the sun goes at night. And that Iraq is going to be three different countries. And that everyone hates us and we've run our military into the ground and the Taliban is back and we still haven't caught bin Laden and the economy is tanking and we wasted eight years blowing the oil companies while the Earth is melting. We had a pretty nice house when this Cat in the Hat of presidents came in and made the mess of all time. And who's going to clean it all up — Rudy Giuliani?

DIAPERS CROSSES AND HALLUCINATIONS ON THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

One candidate mentions the word change so much it sounds like a diaper commercial.

Another candidate believes the past tense form of the verb to see means something other than what the eyes do.

Truth is in the eyes of the beholder?

In addition to wearing U.S. flag lapels, a few candidates have chosen to bear crosses wrapped in flags.

“In Jesus’ name, let me be your next president!”

We, the people, don’t want to vote for anyone to become the next president of the United States who is cross-bearing (or cross-dressing), hallucinating or diaper-wearing.

We are tired of demagogues.

We are tired of rich liars who, in order to stay rich and obtain power, must obey and do what their corporate masters want them to do.

IT’S THE OIL STUPID!

JINGO BELLS IRAQ

John McCain is no longer singing:

Bomb, bomb Iran

Bomb, bomb Iran.

He's now singing:

Jingo-bells, Jingo-bells

All the way to Baghdad

It's basically the same tune.

War hero McCain is waving his Victory flag and singing the Jingoism jingle.

Bush lied and led America into Iraq, and McCain is willing to continue to carry out the Liar-in-Chief's disastrous and costly pre-emptive war.
The prominent propaganda now, to justify the occupation of Iraq, are the postive proclamations that conditions are improving in Iraq. As with everything...time will tell. But Professor Juan Cole wrote this:

The guerrilla movement in Iraq is generating a steady 600 attacks a week using bombs, small-arms, mortars and sniping. This number has not changed during the past six weeks, and although it is lower than the rate in September, it is a very significant number of attacks. Roadside bomb attacks in specific are down, but there is no change in the number of over-all attacks. The Iraqi government statistics show 600 civilian deaths a month (the US military's statistics are lower).

The US troop escalation that began last February seems to be implicated in the displacement of over one million Iraqis to Syria between March and October of this year, adding to the nearly 450,000 that fled there in 2006. This is according to projections from a United Nations weighted survey of nearly 800 refugees. Some 78% of those interviewed in Syria said that they came from Baghdad.

The United States military in Iraq has arrested and imprisoned 30,000 or so Iraqis, the majority of them Sunni Arabs. That is 0.1% of the entire Iraqi population! Marine Maj. Gen. Doug Stone says he fears that many of those detained are moderates or simply fought because they were paid to, and that holding so many of them together for very long may actually create more hardened terrorists.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

http://www.juancole.com/

Informed Comment
Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Patriotism is McCain's theme song for his race to the White House.

He, like Bush, is appealing to the fear factor:

Fear the Al-Qaeda terrorists even more even though there are fewer in Iraq;

Yes, the Iraq war is messy, and it is still a challenge---but to leave now would leave America at even greater risk.

America will stay there for a long, long time.

Those are my words, but they reflect Mr. McCain's ideas.

It is what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and their followers have done to America in order to bomb Iraq that is their most despicable and damning CRIME, notwithstanding the causation and motivation of 9/11 itself.

Among all of the GOP presidential candidates, John McCain is now the number one cheerleader for the continuation of the occupation of Iraq.

McCain wants to be the hero-savior sword-bearer of the Pentagon's geopolitical and national security interests in Iraq.

McCain doesn't feel that it is a bad or wrong war, but only that it is a war that was waged badly.

If that isn't twisted logic I don't know what is.
But to say that the United States of America is jingoisic is to risk being called unpatriotic. Everybody has to keep singing that same tune, to the same beat...
Jingo Bells Iraq.

So keep those taxes coming in, America.

The war in Iraq is going to go on and on.

Jingo-bells

Jingo-bells

All the way to Baghdad...

Forever in Iraq.

Obviously, I have to talk to you about the war in Iraq. All of us---all of us---are frustrated. All of us are angry because of the mishandling of the war. All of us are saddened by the loss of our most precious asset, and that’s American blood.

Even so, the costs of retreat would be higher, fueling chaos in Iraq and drawing terrorists to U.S. shores. I want us to have patience. I want us to succeed.

John McCain

What Bush will almost surely be pushing for is permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, enshrined in a pact he can sign a few months before he leaves office. And here, as they used to say, is the beauty part: As far as Bush is concerned, he doesn't have to seek congressional ratification for such an enduring commitment of American force, treasure and lives.

If the dividing line between the two parties is that one backs Bush on Iraq and the other does not, the Republicans might as well give up the ghost and nominate Dick Cheney as their presidential standard-bearer. Bush's policy legacy, in short, poses a serious threat to what one presumes he wishes his political legacy to be -- a thriving Republican Party.

The president who waged a preemptive war now wants to lock in place a preemptive occupation. Only this time, instead of preempting a foreign nation, he is seeking to preempt Congress and his successor. It's the logical conclusion for his misshapen and miserable presidency, and I doubt the American people -- if they have any say in the matter -- will stand for it.

From Bush's Next Preemptive Strike

By Harold Meyerson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Thursday, November 29, 2007; Page A25

Impeachment is the elephant in the room. Everyone knows that this country is being run by a criminal syndicate that has rigged elections, hidden its knowledge of the 9-11 attacks, lied the country into war, plotted to out an important CIA undercover operative and then obstruct a criminal investigation into that act, subverted most of the articles of the bill of rights, emasculated the Congress and the Courts (which it has also shamelessly packed with shameless hacks), betrayed veterans, surrendered a major American metropolis to the devastation of a hurricane, plotted to enable the declaring or martial law, tortured and kidnapped people in violation of international law and obstructed efforts to deal with the unprecedented crisis of global warming for an unconscionable seven years.

From The Corporate Media Means No Real News

When Impeachment is Out of Print

By DAVE LINDORFF

December 18, 2007

www.counterpunch.org

No rational person can deny that Iraq never had any connection whatsoever to the 9/11 attacks, especially given that none of the 9/11 attackers were even from Iraq. Yet, countless Iraqi people are now dead or maimed and their entire country is destroyed. One might easily say that Iraq is the federal massacre of Waco magnified a million-fold. The whole situation in Iraq brings to mind the famous dictum of Tacitus: "They made a desert and called it peace."
Nothing, not even "peace" in Iraq, will ever be able to morally justify a war of aggression against a nation whose people were totally innocent of the 9/11 attacks. Nothing, not even some warped definition of "terrorist," will ever be able to morally justify killing Iraqis who were doing nothing more than trying to oust their country of an illegal invader who had invaded with a thirst for vengeance and regime change relying on fake and false rationales for its invasion. Nothing will ever be able to morally justify the killing of even one single Iraqi, much less hundreds of thousands of them, given that neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States.
Neo-con supporters of the U.S. government's war of aggression against Iraq are undoubtedly holding their collective breath in the hope that U.S. military forces have finally smashed any further violent opposition to their conquest of Iraq. The attitude would then be, "You see, this shows that we were right after all to invade and occupy Iraq and kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people."
Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that U.S. soldiers have found mass graves next to a torture center north of Baghdad. In the torture center, chains were attached to blood-spattered walls while a metal bed was attached to an electrical shock system.

Where is Our Tacitus?
Nothing Can Morally Justify the Invasion of Iraq
By JACOB G. HORNBERGER

December 21, 2007

http://counterpunch.com/hornberger12212007.html

IT'S THE OIL STUPID!

WORDS WORDS WORDS

I love words.

I suppose every writer does and must.

I like poetry and non-fiction these days more than novels and short stories.

I remember in 12th grade, however, how much I enjoyed reading short story masterpieces.

I haven't found the paperback that my English teacher placed into my lucky hands, but sometimes I'll come across a few stories that I really liked.

Nowadays I look for poems that slipped by me or ones that I have overlooked.

I like to re-read the great poems; but I won't mention which ones or which poets right now.

My focus is on words.

I like to discover where words "come from".

The where and the how---

the when is important, too, but I enjoy the first two the most.

Over twenty years ago I bought Ernest Weekley's etymology dictionary called

An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English.

I suppose one impetus for purchasing this two-volume work, if not the main impetus, was because D.H. Lawrence had run off with Professor Weekley's wife Frieda.

I wanted something to connect me to D.H. Lawrence.

Simple words will do when writing.

It's how they're used, and not how big and fancy.

But I also like those big words.

Strange words.

I used two strange words last week to describe two of my students.

They were not complimentary words, but neither were the students.

Immediately after using these words which had been elicited by how my students were behaving, I thought to myself,

"Gee. I wonder where these words came from?"

I also thought,

"I haven't used these words in many years."

So...

Here...

As I type...

I will find and share with you the etymologies for these two words.

Oh...

The words!

They are pipsqueak and numskull (and later I will have a couple of bonus words).

pipsqueak: 1910, from the trivial noise a young or weak creature makes.

What a big disappointment.

I wanted to know more, and have more history on this one.

I'll look elsewhere and get back to you on this word.

numskull: 1717, from num (see numb) + skull. Numskulled (adj.) is attested from 1706.

This wasn't much better, but it says

Look up skull at Dictionary.com and gives this:

c.1225, probably from O.N. skalli "bald head, skull," a general Scand. word (cf. Swed. skulle, Norw. skult), probably related to O.E. scealu "husk" (see shell). But early prominence in southwestern texts suggests rather origin from a Du. or Low Ger. cognate (e.g. Du. school "turf, piece of ice," but the sense of "head bone framework" is wanting). Derivation from O.Fr. escuelle seems unlikely on grounds of sound and sense. O.E. words for skull include heafod-bolla.

At least one part of the word, skull, was specified.

I really like the O.E. words for skull: heafod-bolla.

"Can't you get it through your heafod-bolla!"

Now for the bonus words.

They are caucus and coccyx.

The Presidential primaries are in full swing, and so the word caucus is in the air and on the airwaves.

Strange-sounding word, isn't it?

Caucus...caucus.

When I hear it being said I think of the word coccyx.

I know that they aren't pronounced the same.

But now I’ll dig into their etymologies:

caucus: 1763, Amer.Eng., perhaps from caucauasu "counselor" in the Algonquian dialect of Virginia, or the Caucus Club of Boston, a 1760s social & political club whose name possibly derived from Mod.Gr. kaukos "drinking cup." Another candidate is caulker's (meeting). The verb is from 1850.

O.K. That's kind of interesting.

coccyx: 1615, from Gk. kokkyx "cuckoo" (from kokku, like the bird's Eng. name echoic of its cry), so called by ancient Gk. physician Galen because the bone in humans supposedly resembles a cuckoo's beak.

Voilà!

Very Interesting.

I hope that all of you have enjoyed this little exercise.

I just love words.

Don't you?

IT'S THE OIL STUPID!

CLICHES CATCH PHRASES AND CANARIES ALREADY GOT ONE PAW ON THE CHICKEN COOP

I hate clichés and catch phrases as much as my dad hated cats.

He began hating felines after one killed his canary.

But I have lied, or at least have misled, when I said that I hate clichés and catch phrases.

I am constantly using them.

Here are some that I have used in the past month (I could also tell why I said them, but won’t):

We’re all in the same boat.

Beggars can’t be choosers.

Big Brother is watching.

Here is one my mom said a lot:

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NICE TO SAY, DON'T SAY ANYTHING AT ALL.

The early bird catches the worm.

Quit horsing around!

Wishy, washy.

Bump on a log.

Cover my (your) ass.

When pigs can fly.

Zip it!

Button it up!

The long and short of it.

Bite your tongue.

See the glass as half empty or half full.

I am constantly repeating this one to my students:

Wake up and smell the coffee.

These are clichés I must like since I am always saying them.

There is one cliché I REALLY DON’T LIKE (and I’m not pulling the wool over your eyes):

Been there, done that.

Then there are some clichés I never knew existed.
A few of them are fairly obnoxious, and some of them border on the profane:

As horny as a three balled tomcat.

Tighter than a gnat's ass.

As useful as tits on a bull.

Busier than a one armed paper hanger.

Horny as a three peckered Billy goat.

A face like a bulldog chewing on a wasp.

Our world is filled with clichés.

Even the sentence "Oh, that's such a cliche" is a cliché.

All I want to say is:

Touché

To

The

Cliché!

IT'S THE OIL STUPID!

HONEY-GLAZED CHICKEN SWIMMING ENHANCED TECHNIQUES AND AN ALTERNATIVE SET OF PROCEDURES

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies.

Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (1925)

"This government does not torture people."
George W. Bush

What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt-for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.... So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to understand.

Justin Frank, MD, psychiatrist, professor at George Washington University Hospital, and author of Bush on the Couch.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Senator Bond a little bit about this issue of weatherboarding. And let me describe for our viewers first to remind them what it is. It's when there's a piece of cloth that's placed over the mouth of a person who's been strapped down, and water is poured on their face so they feel like they're inhaling water, and it gives a sensation of drowning. Do you think that's torture?

I just would like to -- but do you think that weatherboarding, as I described it, constitutes torture?

SEN. KIT BOND: There are different ways of doing it. It's like swimming, freestyle, backstroke.

[PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer/December 12, 2007]

Here are my ruminations about how a U.S. citizen views water boarding (In the thug voice of Jon Stewart):

You know, it’s like when water goes up your nose and you don’t want it to go up there, and you cough and you try to get the water out.

Yeah, it’s uncomfortable, but it won’t drown or kill you.

America can tolerate a little torture if it means a safer homeland; if it stops another terrorist attack.

It isn’t you or me being tortured, so what’s the big deal?

Now if 9/11 was not an Israeli or Saudi-Arabian sponsored “operation”, then the end (SAVING AMERICAN LIVES and STOPPING TERRORIST ATTACKS) might justify the means (water boarding).

But the above if remains an unsolved mystery. There are plenty of people who believe that it is not unsolved, only unrevealed and unexposed to the public.

I no longer disbelieve the diabolical possibility that 9/11 was foreknown and preventable.

A gathering "storm" of data will eventually show how 9/11 was not a fortuitous tragedy.

I don’t believe that this lying administration was that inept.

Inside job?

Probably not.

It was both outside and inside.
But that's another matter for history's posterior to uncover.

"Did the Bush administration know in advance about the impending attacks that occurred on 9/11, and allow these to happen, to provoke pre-planned wars against Afghanistan and Iraq? These questions demand immediate answers."
"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."

Scholars for 9/11 Truth

[Scholars for 9/11 Truth is headed by Brigham Young University physics professor Steven E. Jones and University of Minnesota Duluth distinguished McKnight professor of philosophy Jim Fetzer. The group has 50 academicians and others. They include Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program, and Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor in President George W. Bush's first term.]

The Associated Press
April 12, 2004

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- President Bush was told more than a month before the Sept. 11 attacks that al-Qaida had reached America's shores, had a support system in place for its operatives and that the FBI had detected suspicious activity that might involve a hijacking plot. Since 1998, the FBI had observed ``patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks,'' according to a memo prepared for Bush and declassified Saturday.

IT'S THE OIL STUPID!

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Mr. Spitting-and-Licking his comb Paul Wolfowitz is back in the wolf pack at the White House.
A subservient, hard-working, tax-paying nation of sheep needs new shepherding and swindling.
(Mr. Wolfowitz fits the bill.)
I guess the illegal, ignoble, and fabricated Iraq war has left Mr. Wolfowitz with an empty feeling.
He needs to fill up his emptiness with more fabrications like the ones that he whipped up at the Office Of Special Plans.
Congressional confirmation is not needed, and thus no confrontation will occur about Mr. Wolfowitz's latest appointment as Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board.
This newly anointed and appointed position gives Mr. Wolfowitz new opportunities to be in charge of eschewing facts, manipulating data, and devising deceptions required to put the plans of Decider Bush and Shooter Dick back on track.
In other words...
IRAN…
HERE WE COME !

Prior to the Iraq war, Wolfowitz established the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon to skirt the intelligence community and peddle the most egregiously false claims of Iraqi WMD. In a Jan. 2003 speech, Wolfowitz referenced “Iraqi efforts to procure uranium from abroad” despite the fact that the claim had already been discredited by the CIA. A few months after the Iraq invasion was launched, Wolfowitz admitted that claims of Iraqi WMD was used as a political tool to achieve consensus for the war:
The truth is that, for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason [to go to war].

IT’S THE OIL STUPID!

THE EAGLE THE DRAGON AND A BURNING WORLD

 Enigma by Gustave Doré

China and the United States want to continue their industrial expansion.

That is only natural…well, actually, it isn’t natural, but quite man-made.

They want to continue to be the biggest PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS and POLLUTERS.

I suppose both believe that future technologies will undo the present pollution.

Maybe.

But in the short term---not in fifty or even ten years---but now---

the earth's ice caps are falling into warmer water.

Super Storms are getting bigger.

Weather patterns are becoming weirder and wilder.

Wait and see.

Study the problem.

Like the Beatles said,

We can work it out.

While the earth coughs, sweats and drowns.

IT’S THE OIL STUPID!

China, U.S. reject binding caps on emissions

BALI, Indonesia (AP)-12/9/07-The world's top two polluters, the United States and China, say they are not ready to commit to mandatory caps on global-warming gases at the U.N. climate conference on Bali.

Its preamble notes the widely accepted view that industrial nations' emissions should be cut by 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and that global emissions need to peak in the next 10 to 15 years and then be dramatically slashed to half of 2000 levels by mid-century.

The two nations are the largest emitters of climate-changing gases, though scientists do not always agree which tops the list.

READING BETWEEN THE LINES

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I appreciate the fact that the United States Senate is going to take up the free trade agreement with Peru today. This agreement will level the playing field for American goods and services. It will create new opportunities for investment. It will strengthen our friendship with a fellow democracy. The House of Representatives has passed this bill; I congratulate the House leadership. And I certainly hope the Senate will pass it, as well. This will be a very positive step.
But Congress still has a lot to do, and doesn't have very much time to do it.
[And neither do I.]

Congress expects Americans to pay their taxes on time, and the least the Congress can do is make sure Americans get their refunds on time.
Americans also expect their tax dollars to be spent wisely.
[But don't use my administration as an example.]

The holidays are approaching and the clock is ticking for the United States Congress.
[You might call it a ticking time bomb.]

Based on the record so far, Americans could be forgiven for thinking that Santa will have slipped down their chimney on Christmas Eve before Congress finishes its work.
[My Iraq war gave you the slip when I shoved it down your chimneys.]

Q:
Mr. President, a new intelligence report says that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, and that it remains frozen. Are you still convinced that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb? And do the new findings take the military option that you've talked about off the table?

THE PRESIDENT:
I think it is very important for the international community to recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they could transfer to a clandestine program it would create a danger for the world.
[Just as the Internets transfer this information and it's a danger for the world.]

The best diplomacy, effective diplomacy, is one of which all options are on the table.
[Options that include Shock and Awe and Pre-emptive bombing.]

Q:
Mr. President, Iraq's WMD turned out not to be there, and now Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003. Are you concerned that the United States is losing credibility in the world, and now may be seen as the boy who cries -- who called wolf?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I am
[The wolf]---
I want to compliment the intelligence community for their good work.
[Except for 9/11].
Right after the failure of intelligence in Iraq [But its successful fabrication], we reformed the intel community so that there was a lot of serious considerations of NIEs in a way that would give us confidence
[And more cover for future cover-ups].

One of the reasons why this is out in the public arena is because I wanted -- and our administration believed that, one, it was important for people to know the facts as we see them.
[And the facts as we need them to be seen.]

Q:
Mr. President, when you talked about Iraq, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud; then there were no WMD in Iraq.
When it came to Iran, you said in October, on October 17th, you warned about the prospect of World War III, when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in '03 had already come to light to this administration. So can't you be accused of hyping this threat? And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?

THE PRESIDENT: David, I don't want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week.
[Butter him up first before I lambast his credibility and then baste 'em with my own lies.]

In August, I think it was [I do think sometimes] Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze. Why would you take time to analyze new information?
[To give me time to talk about WWIII.]
One, you want to make sure it's not disinformation. You want to make sure the piece of intelligence you have is real. And secondly, they want to make sure they understand the intelligence they gathered: If they think it's real, then what does it mean? And it wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
[I wonder who really believes me anymore?]

And the second part of your question has to do with this. Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
[It's like a quote that says that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.]

And the best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the future is for the international community to continue to work together to say to the Iranians, we're going to isolate you.
[And then bomb the hell out of you.]

Now, the Iranians -- the most difficult aspect of developing a weapons program, or as some would say, the long pole in the tent, is enriching uranium.
[I hate that word poll...long or short.]

Q:
Mr. Bush, how can you say nothing has changed? You may see it this way, but the rest of the world is going to see the lead as the fact that the nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.
[But I don't give a damn about what the rest of the world sees.]

Q:
When you first saw this, weren't you angry? You didn't know about Syria. In 2005, you had the same assessment, "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons." And now, quite the opposite. How can you possibly think the rest of the world is going to continue -- to the degree it did -- to rally around you and your intelligence?

THE PRESIDENT: Because many in the world understand that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, the world would be a very dangerous place.
[But the world is not a dangerous place when peaceful and freedom-loving democracies like ours, Great Britain and Israel develop nuclear weapons.]

And I think this is a -- it's a -- to me, it's a way for us to continue to rally our partners. That's why I'm working the phones and Condi Rice is working the phones.
I'm having such a good time, I forgot what passed.
[Was it gas?]

Thank you very much.

IT'S THE OIL STUPID!

"Our badly misguided foreign policy has already driven this country's economy to the brink of bankruptcy with one war based on misinformation. It is unthinkable that despite the lack of any evidence of a threat, some are still charging headstrong into yet another war in the Middle East when what we ought to be doing is coming home from Iraq, coming home from Korea, coming home from Germany, and defending our own soil. We do not need to be interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and waging war when honest trade, friendship, and diplomacy are the true paths to peace and prosperity."

Rep. Ron Paul

12-11-7