I Don't Think Jeb Is The Smart One

I don't think there is a smart one.

Jeb Camp Weighing More Prominent Role For George W. Bush In S.C.:

Jeb Bush's campaign is considering giving former President George W. Bush a bigger role on the trail in South Carolina as the campaign looks to give the former Florida governor a boost in the key primary state of South Carolina, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

According to the Times, campaign advisers in South Carolina have asked for George W. Bush to visit South Carolina in a more public capacity -- the former president has only appeared at private fundraisers so far. The campaign must decided whether the boost from George W. Bush's popularity in the state would be worth risking painting Jeb as a legacy and opening him up to more attacks from Democrats.

Ass Biting Lies

From Why Do So Many Christians Support The Iraq War? by Kyle West:

If one supports the war, one is also inadvertently supporting the lies that made it possible. It's ironic that Christians, among the strongest supporters of the war, have supported an administration of liars.

And if one supports letting the Bush administration off the hook for this, then the inadvertent support of the lies will continue into perpetuity and continually come back to bite us in the ass.

Update:
My ass is beginning to hurt more. Is yours?

'Tis Folly To Be Wise

From Corruption threatens "soul and fabric" of U.S.: FBI by Pascal Fletcher:

Addressing businessmen in Florida, where financial fraud cases jumped by 42 percent in the last year, FBI Miami Division Special Agent in Charge John Gillies said failures in personal ethics and integrity sowed the initial poisonous seeds of corruption in a society.

Gillies said transgressions by high-profile public servants and even perceived social role models, like top golfer Tiger Woods, currently embroiled in allegations that he had extramarital affairs, sent the signal to young Americans that cheating and stealing were acceptable.

"Where do our children learn this? They see us, their elected officials, their sports stars, they see how they act and they figure, 'well it's OK,'" he said, citing the case of Woods, whose early morning car accident in Florida last month triggered a storm of media questioning of his clean-living reputation.

"Money can't buy everything," Gillies said in a speech to the West Boca Chamber of Commerce in Boca Raton, Florida.

In one of the most capitalistic and religious countries on the planet I’m sure that many blame the liberals, socialists, and atheists for the lack of morality described here. Or all three combined.

Even though Sarah Palin seems to me to be even dumber and more religious than George W. Bush, I look forward to the day when she will save us all from our great moral decline. Pray for her. Please ignore the fact that Americans have been praying since the beginning of our country, and that corruption seems to be at an all time high in spite of so many prayers. Please ignore the fact that some of the most religious are also some of the most immoral (child abusing Catholic priests anyone?) and corrupt (George W. Bush anyone?) of all. I want you to fall on your knees and pray for an end to this corruption. Oh, and please send me five dollars for me to continue to show you the true way to bliss. Thank you.

I'd Be Happier If He Wiped It Off

From a Kyle Michel Sullivan comment at Hullabaloo:

People never learn. Bush fucked Afghanistan up but it'll be Obama's fault when we don't win it. Bush fucked the economy up, but it'll be Obama's fault if it doesn't turn around before 2010. Bush destroyed America's credibility around the world with his policies of kidnapping and torture, but it'll be Obama's fault for not throwing every member of Bush's vile cabinet into jail. Yet Obama's acting like we can still all just get along. Obama stepped into shit, but it IS his own damn fault he hasn't wiped it off his shoe. And once again, he's allowing the shit to stay right where it is by escalating the war in Afghanistan, and history be damned for daring to show no one can win in that part of the world. Period.

Over There

From Here We Go Again by Robert Scheer:

It is already a 30-year war begun by one Democratic president, and thanks to the political opportunism of the current commander in chief the Afghanistan war is still without end or logical purpose. President Barack Obama’s own top national security adviser has stated that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan and that they are not capable of launching attacks. What superheroes they must be, then, to require 100,000 U.S. troops to contain them.

“Over there, over there, send the word, send the word, over there,

That the Yanks are coming, the Yanks are coming,

The drums rum-tum-ming everywhere

So prepare, say a prayer, send the word, send the word to beware

We'll be over, we're coming over,
And we won't come back 'til it's over Over There!” George M. Cohan

"We're fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here.” George W. Bush

Should Obama change his name to George to fit in? Perhaps, King George the Second?

Isn’t there something incredibly immoral about fighting our battles on someone else’s turf? I simply raise the question. I’m not saying that I want the battle to be fought in the United States. I also am not saying that nothing should be done. I simply ask the question. By way of explanation, here is another question. Why should the lives of the civilians of Afghanistan count for less than the lives of the civilians of the United States?

Will it ever be over, over there?

Adoration Of An Asshole

Isn’t this some kind of violation of the first and second commandments? (If you’re Catholic or Lutheran, then just the first commandment applies here.)

Why Does This Not Surprise Me?

A George W. Bush fundraiser is now embroiled in an alleged $1 billion scam

Wonder if Bernie Madoff contributed money to the Republicans as well? Turns out, he liked Democrats. Go figure.

A Question

"How is it that it will take 'decades' for history to judge the Bush administration yet we know already that the Obama administration is a failure?"

Catapulting The Biblical Propaganda

I really wish that I believed in the devil and hell when I hear news like this. Then at least I would have the satisfaction of believing that the entire Bush administration would eventually be burning for eternity. Alas, if only it were true!

From Iraq war briefings headlined with biblical quotes, reports US magazine by Daniel Nasaw:

One of the top planners of the US war in Iraq gave President George Bush secret intelligence briefs headlined with biblical quotations, in a bid to boost his standing with the deeply religious president but one that risked sparking a conflagration in the Muslim world if the papers leaked.

In the days surrounding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld prepared top secret briefing papers for the president adorned with triumphant images of US military personnel and adoring Iraqis, along with the quotes, according to a new article in GQ magazine.

Rumsfeld, said to be personally disinclined toward ostentatious displays of piety, included the quotes because he believed the religious message would appeal to Bush, whom he knew frequently to quote the Bible, journalist Robert Draper wrote.

Rumsfeld and other top military aides brushed aside complaints that the quotes were an inappropriate injection of religion into intelligence matters and ignored fears that if the documents leaked to the media, they would touch off worldwide fear that the US had embarked on an anti-Muslim crusade.

The previously unreleased documents are a shocking and unusual admixture of the two realms. The cover of one intelligence briefing shows US soldiers kneeling in prayer, headlined with a selection from the book of Isaiah: "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?/ Here I am Lord, send me!" The same page is covered with the classification codes and handling instructions typical to secret US government documents.

Other cover sheets released by the magazine feature images of US military vehicles and troops trudging through desert landscapes, manning a machine gun emplacement, and US soldiers inside what appears to be a posh palace once belonging to Saddam Hussein. One shows an image of Saddam speaking into a television camera and quotes 1 Peter 2:15: "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

I believe that I do some good. Why have I not silenced at least a small portion of the ignorant talk of the foolish men of the Bush administration?

So, it appears that while Bush was busy catapulting, that he himself was being catapulted. Again, I wish we could catapult them all to hell!

What Has Changed?

As far as I know the Bush/Cheney administration is the only administration in the history of the United States to condone torture. It is the only administration to have its lawyers “fix it” so that torture appears to be legal. Even Saint Ronald McReagan did not officially condone torture.

We went up against Hitler without officially sanctioning torture. We went up against Stalin without officially sanctioning torture. What has changed? Is Osama Bin Laden worse than Hitler and Stalin? Or is it that the Bush/Cheney administration is worse than Hitler and Stalin? After all, Hitler and Stalin never succeeded in destroying the ideals that the United States stands for. Bush and Cheney have come too damn close.

Broken Promises?

Rick Santorum doesn’t like it when Obama does what Bush did, even though Santorum liked it when Bush did it.

From The Elephant in the Room: Following Bush's playbook by Rick Santorum:

In spite of Obama's apology tour in Europe and his inability or unwillingness to defend America against socialist despots at last weekend's Summit of the Americas, most of his administration's national-security decisions have been downright Bushian.

He has almost unilaterally escalated our military presence in Afghanistan. He has launched Predator attacks on al-Qaeda in Pakistan. (Preemption, anyone?) He has found that, just as the Bush administration claimed, Guantanamo meets Geneva Conventions standards. And he has said he would hold the worst enemy combatants captured overseas without trial. And - the greatest broken promise of all - he continues to maintain Bush-like troop levels in Iraq.

Knowing Right From Wrong, Knowing What Works And What Doesn't

The latest right-wing talking point is that torture is immoral, but the “big” question is: Does it work? Supposedly, the right-wing dunderheads think that it does, or that maybe it does. So it was OK that we did it.

What is the next step here. Stealing is immoral, but it works. Murder is immoral, but it works. They get the job done. By the logic of the right-wing dunderheads we all should be stealing and murdering. They get the job done. And that’s all that matters. Right?

Actually, stealing and murder make more sense than torture. They work. They are effective. Torture doesn’t work. It is not effective. No wonder Bush and Cheney like it so much. Remember the last eight years and how effectively they ran the country? Is it any surprise that that the king fuck-ups of all time actually prefer something that doesn’t work?

From Have we really sunk so low as to seriously ask, Does torture work? by P.M. Carpenter:

On the other hand, despite recent revelations that Bush-Cheney's architects were grossly unschooled in the historical background of torture's efficacy in wringing accurate information, they, as reasonably well-educated people, had to understand the simple logic of duress = gibberish.

Why, then, torture? Why extract reams of unreliable information which sends thousands of other operatives scurrying about the globe in futile attempts to nail it down, especially when actionable intelligence was already being extracted through other interrogative means?

Why? I can think of no reason other than nakedly brutal revenge -- a deep-seated animalistic urge to inflict pain for pain caused. True confessions, false confessions, good information or bad information -- all of it, to the architects, at their deepest inhuman level (scarier yet, perhaps all too human), was essentially irrelevant. They just wanted the emotionally primitive satisfaction of savage payback.

Maybe there are throngs of behavioral psychiatrists that would tell me I'm all wet. But I doubt it. So as committees convene and hearings commence in the bewildering pursuit of answering the staggeringly malignant question, Does torture work?, perhaps they should first ask: Why even ask? At its root is sadistic barbarity, which was not, last I looked, a founding principle of this nation to be defended.

Update:
From Reclaiming America’s Soul by Paul Krugman:

It’s hard, then, not to be cynical when some of the people who should have spoken out against what was happening, but didn’t, now declare that we should forget the whole era — for the sake of the country, of course.

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws.

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

Torturing The Law To Death

From How Obama Excused Torture by Bruce Fein:

Obama has set a precedent whitewashing White House lawlessness in the name of national security that will lie around like a loaded weapon ready for resurrection by any Commander-in-Chief eager to appear “tough on terrorism” and to exploit popular fear.

He also sets a bad example for the rest of us concerning the rule of law. This is a dangerous thing at a time of increased gun sales and shootings.

The Bushisms Continue

"I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened." George Bush

John Boehner Tells A Big Lie

John Boehner reacting to the Obama Budget:

On Tuesday, the president called to Congress to make fiscal responsibility a priority, and Republicans agree. That’s why it’s ironic that on the very next day, House Democrats would pass a $410 billion appropriation bill, 8 percent above last year’s levels, and including some 9,000 earmarks. I think we’ve just got to admit it. We’re broke, and we can’t continue to pile debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids. The president campaigned against wasteful spending, and he ought to veto this bill.

As you know the president sent his budget to Congress today. Middle class families are making sacrifices and cutting their expenses. It’s time for Washington to do the same. We need to do that by stopping out-of-control federal spending.

The American people know that we can’t tax and spend our way to prosperity. That’s just the formula that appears the president’s budget is relying on. The era of big government is back, and Democrats are asking you to pay for it. The administration’s plan -- I think, it’s a job killer, plain and simple. And it raises taxes on all Americans while we’re in the middle of a recession.

Perhaps Boehner doesn’t think that any Americans make less that $250,000 dollars a year. What a bonehead Boehner is. Obama wants to cut taxes for those Americans that make less than $250,000. Stop lying, Mr. Boehner. The American public is tired of all the lies.

Why didn’t Boehner speak out against his former boss when George W. Bush piled “debt on the backs of our kids and grandkids.” We are broke. Whose fault is that? Why not take a look in the mirror, Mr. Boehner? It is not the fault of Barack Obama. We were broke under George W. Bush. Why didn’t you complain then, Mr. Boehner? It is better to tax and spend, than to not tax and spend.

The era of big government started a long time ago. George W. Bush and John Boehner did nothing to make government smaller. It is misleading to say that Obama is responsible for big government.

Update:
From Obama unveils $3.6 trillion budget for 'new era' by Robert Schroeder:

Tax increases for the wealthy -- those individuals making more than $200,000 and families whose incomes are over $250,000 -- wouldn't kick in until 2011, Obama's budget director said Thursday, rejecting charges that the administration is raising taxes during a recession.

"That's just factually wrong," budget director Peter Orszag told reporters. "We're not doing that."

Jaw Dropping

Here is some of what Mary Matalin said on the Today Show this morning:

I, I, well, this is a different kind of presidency, isn’t it? Although these are old-timey policies, the likes of which, though, at this, of this magnitude we’ve never seen. And to pay for this, we are going to not just raise taxes on the rich — two-thirds of whom are small business owners who create three-quarters of all the jobs — but now we’re gonna eliminate tax deductions for that same class of people. We are absolutely going to discourage investment, savings, job creation, and we’re going to — he says he’s gonna reduce the deficit, cut it in half, which is still a greater deficit than George Bush ever had. It is, it is jaw-dropping. That’s a good word for it, Meredith.

Old-timey policies? What the hell does she mean by that?

Like George W. Bush, Mary Matalin does not know what a small business is. It is small, it is not large. The rich are large business owners. The poor and the middle class own small businesses. If two thirds of the rich “are small business owners who create three-quarters of all the jobs” then why do we care so much about the possible failure of large banks and large automakers? Let the big businesses fail, let everyone go work for all the small businesses.

Who cut taxes drastically for the rich? George W. Bush. Who screwed the economy and left it for Barack Obama to try and fix? George W. Bush. Who kept things like the wars off the books to try and make himself look better? George W. Bush. Bush screwed everything up terribly. Bush let rich people get even more rich and what happened? Nothing trickled down to the poor and middle class, and the banks tanked, and the home builders tanked, and the mortgage lenders tanked, and the auto makers tanked, and the economy tanked. Obama is trying to undo the damage Bush has done, and Mary Matilin doesn’t like it? She wants to continue doing the same things that Bush did? What is wrong with her?

I hope that Matalin’s jaw drops far enough so that it falls off. Then we won’t ever have to listen to her mindless drivel ever again.

Update:
The right-wing-nuts love to lie in concert.

From Matthews did not challenge Ehrlich's false suggestion about small business taxes:

On MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews did not challenge former Gov. Robert Ehrlich's false suggestion that President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers expire would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses. In fact, Obama has proposed raising marginal income tax rates and reducing income tax deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, and according to the Tax Policy Center, just 2 percent of tax returns that reported small business income in 2007 are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected.

Living Our Values

Do we all share the same values?

Overall I liked Obama’s speech last night. Here is my favorite part:

To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America. And that is why I have ordered the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and will seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists, because living our values doesn't make us weaker. It makes us safer, and it makes us stronger.

I trust that when the president says “our values” he means the “values” that are the exact opposite of the “values” of George W. Bush. That is my audacious hope. Telling lies, killing people, invading other countries, taking from the poor to give to rich, ignoring people in desperate need, and so on, are not my values.

More Numbers

Barack Obama is trying to not be the liar-in-chief. I don’t think that George W. Bush ever told the truth about anything. Except for the time he talked of the need to “catapult the propaganda.”

From Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise by Jackie Calmes:

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

But the biggest adjustment will deal with revenues from the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax system enacted in 1969 to prevent the wealthy from using tax shelters to avoid paying any income tax.

Even with bigger deficit projections, the Obama administration will put the country on “a sustainable fiscal course” by the end of Mr. Obama’s term, Peter R. Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Thursday in an interview. Mr. Orszag did not provide details of how the administration would reduce a deficit expected to reach at least $1.5 trillion this year.

Mr. Obama’s banishment of the gimmicks, which have been widely criticized, is in keeping with his promise to run a more transparent government.

Fiscal sleight of hand has long been a staple of federal budgets, giving rise to phrases like “rosy scenario” and “magic asterisks.”

The $2.7 trillion in additional deficit spending, Mr. Orszag said, is “a huge amount of money that would just be kind of a magic asterisk in previous budgets.”

“The president prefers to tell the truth,” he said, “rather than make the numbers look better by pretending.”

Good for Obama. Now if we can get the corporations and banks to follow suit…

I Know The Feeling

That smirk, combined with the jokes about serious matters, are two of George W. Bush’s worst qualities. (Of course, there are many more.) Instead of throwing shoes, which would have only broken my television, I frequently gave Bush the finger. It made me feel better. I feel empathy for Muntadher al-Zaidi. I have never felt empathy for George W. Bush.

From Iraqi shoe thrower: Bush's 'soulless smile' set me off:

Muntadher al-Zaidi, the Iraqi journalist on trial for throwing his shoes last year at then-President George W. Bush, said the former American leader's "bloodless and soulless smile" and his joking banter provoked him.

Al-Zaidi threw both of his shoes at Bush during a December news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Baghdad. Neither shoe hit the president, and other people in the room quickly knocked al-Zaidi to the ground before security officials arrested him.

He explained his actions in an hour-long appearance on Thursday at the Central Criminal Court of Iraq. Asked if anyone pushed or motivated him to do this, al-Zaidi said he was spurred on by the "violations that are committed against the Iraqi people."

"I could only see Bush and feel the blood of the innocents flow under his feet, as he was smiling that smile -- as if he had come to bid farewell to Iraq and with the last support and more than 1 million martyrs," al-Zaidi said. "At that moment, I felt this is the man who killed our nation ... the main murderer and the main person responsible for killing our nation."

"I had no intention to kill the commander of the occupying forces ... even if I had a weapon ... I was expressing my inner feelings and those of all the Iraqi people from east to west and north to south and the feelings of hatred they hold for him," he said.

Al-Zaidi told the judge that he had intended to humiliate Bush in the past. As Bush listed the gains made in Iraq during the mid-December news conference, al-Zaidi said he was thinking about the millions of civilians who had been killed, widowed or displaced. He talked about the sanctity of mosques being violated, the rape of women and daily humiliations.

"I don't know what accomplishments he was talking about. The accomplishments I could see were the more than 1 million martyrs and a sea of blood," al-Zaidi said. "There are more than 5 million Iraqi orphans because of the occupation. ... More than a million widows and more than 3 million displaced because of the occupation."

I can’t help but think that it is unlikely that I would be arrested if I went to one of my local town meetings and threw my shoes at my mayor because I was upset with him. Where is the justice in this world if Muntadher al-Zaidi is punished for a non-crime and Bush is never punished for his many crimes?

Update:
Some people simply refuse to listen to what others have to say if it doesn’t fit their point of view.

Bad Obama

From Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas by Charlie Savage:

Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies.

From Charlie Savage on Obama's embrace of Bush/Cheney "terrorism policies" by Glenn Greenwald:

We don't place faith in the Goodness and kindness of specific leaders -- even Barack Obama -- to secretly exercise powers for our own Good. We rely instead on transparency and on constant compulsory limits on those powers as imposed by the Constitution, by other branches, and by law. That's what it means to be a nation of laws and not men. When Obama embraces the same abusive and excessive powers that Bush embraced, it isn't better because it's Obama rather than Bush wielding that power. It's the same. And that's true even if one "trusts" Obama more than Bush.