Fear of Clowns

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable."
- H. L. Mencken
gozz@gozz.com

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Kerry should accept accountability for statements on Iraq WMD 

THE CAPITOL BUILDING, Washington, DC, approx. 2/2/2003: "Everybody now, all together! Ooooooh, Saddam, he's got them W.M.D / And he's a threat to you and me ..."

The reason every elected leader who stated as fact that Iraq had WMD should apologize is simple. We need to rebuild confidence in present and future statements. America needs assurance that what we hear "the next time" has has more thought put into it - accountability should not go out of style when politicly expedient. If we're we hold our leaders responsible for silly mistakes like being unaware of microphones - certainly we should expect accountability for statements which informed the country during our decision between war and peace. Even if - especially if - they thought what they were saying was well-founded at the time.

I don't care if Kerry or anyone else painstakingly qualified the implications of their statements in some way: the fact is most Americans trusted the statements and simply plopped them on to their "war or not" scales. The NY Times has issued their apology. Bill O'Reilly has said he was wrong. Some members of Congress have articulated their mea culpas. Tonight is an opportune moment for Kerry to unambiguously enter the words into the record: "I was wrong."

A few of us made efforts on our own to verify the veracity of what we were hearing. But we shouldn't have to do that - it's not our job to evaluate intelligence. The White House and The Hill are wired for the Internet - that's all that was needed to determine the statements should have been more like "We think that Iraq may have threatening WMD" instead of "We know that Iraq's weapons threaten us." Just two examples:

Many politicians referred to "poison factories." With an Internet connection, everybody had the ability to read the reports and statements of inspectors that stood inside the facilities. The inspectors - which included American personall - found the buildings to be "inoperative" (1/17/2003), "dusty and destroyed", or "employed in legitimate uses" (10/29/2002). After this information became available, we should have heard from our leaders, "Uh, you know those poison factories I spoke of? Well, as at turns out, at least some of them ..."

We were told of aluminum tubes seized in transit to Iraq which were definitely intended to be used to refine uranium. The inspectors - which included American personnel - failed to find "any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets." (3/7/2003) After that information became available, we should of heard "About those aluminum tubes. Now, at least some people now think ..."

Kerry's statements generalized: that Iraq's WMD were a threat, that we couldn't allow him to have these weapons, etc, but the concept is the same.

It was correct to be unsatisfied with anything less than 100% certainty about what was going on in Iraq, but the confidence level at which the claims were made was farcical. Authoritative information was available to us that at best cast some amount of doubt on the urgency of the threat.

We need to be confident in the leadership we send to the White House and Capitol. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter. Almost all of them said these things and few of them have returned to issue corrections on the confidence levels at which they were stated.

Even if Kerry feels he was mislead, which he certainly does, he should then apologize for allowing himself to be mislead.

I believe an "I was wrong" from Kerry would score points with most Americans. It will show he holds himself accountable. It will also force Bush to make a choice: do the same thing, which would be damaging for those still trying to believe this is an honest administration - or choose not to, which would make a nice contrast between him and an incumbant who shuns accountability.

"None shall pass." 

Repubs: None shall pass.
Dems: What?
Repubs : None shall pass.
Dems: We have no quarrel with you, good Republicans, but we must cross this bridge.
Repubs : Then you shall die.
Dems: We command you as the Party of Optimism to stand aside!
Repubs : We move for no man.
Dems: So be it!

[Democratic Convention]

Republicans: Come on then.
Dems: What?
Repubs: Have at you!
Dems: You are indeed brave, fine Republicans, but the fight is our's.
Repubs: Oh, had enough, eh?
Dems: Look, you stupid bastards, you've got no arms left!
Repubs: Yes we have.
Dems: Look!
Repubs: Just a flesh wound.
Dems: Look, stop that.
Repubs: Chicken! Chicken!
Dems: Look, We'll have your leg. Right!

[Democrats cut off the Republicans' leg.]

Repubs: Right, we'll do you for that!
Dems: You'll what?
Repubs: Come 'ere!
Dems: What are you going to do, bleed on us?
Repubs: We're invincible!
Dems: You're loonies.
Repubs: The Republicans always triumph! Have at you! Come on then!

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Republicans redefine Howard Dean in "extreme makover" 

I signed up for emails from the Bush/Cheney campaign several months ago. I just received one of the more bizarre missives, ostensibly authored by Jeb Bush. He begins, "The extreme makeover of John Kerry continued last night in Boston. Centrist Democrats paraded across your television screen to praise the most liberal Senator in Washington ..." Stop. Wait. Hold it. Unless people were watching the convention using TiVo last night, they were watching Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, and another Democrat who the Republicans like to brand as a radical liberal, Barack Obama. Who is giving who an extreme makeover to who?

Jeb also reveals a new Kerry flip-flop: "[John Kerry] told Wisconsin voters he likes to go hunting with his 'trusty 12-gauge double-barrel,' but he received an "F" from the National Rifle Association." One minute, Kerry is joyfully popping buckshot and the next minute the NRA gives him an "F"? Thje flip-flopper!

Obama away! 

Illinois senatorial candidate Barack Obama sure can deliver a speech! In the afterglow, it seems the most inspiring heartfelt patriotic tribute to a progressive America I've had the opportunity to hear.

Limbaugh stumbles on Clinton Keynote 

Yesterday, I tuned into Rush Limbaugh to get his take on Bill Clinton's keynote speech at the Democratic Convention. Apparently, it's all about "one tiny part". I agree with Rush that the section of the speech he spoke of was among the highlights. I've included here two paragraphs preceding the one Limbaugh read.

Rush's response to Clinton'sa observations in the last paragraph? Lies. All lies. Rush's numbered Clinton's points, addressing each.

# 1:

Clinton: [Republicans used] "the moment of unity to push America too far to the right."

Rush's response: If Bush would have moved far to the right, he'd be "ahead by 60% in the polls."

My comment: Earlier in the show a caller asked "What? Are you believing the Democrat's polls?" to which Rush replied, quote "I don't believe any polls."

# 2:

Clinton: We "walk[ed] away from our allies."

Rush's response: We didn't walk away from our allies because Bush went to the UN and got a resolution.

My comment: and then we walked away from it, launching an invasion before the inspections mandated by the resolution we authored were complete.

# X:

Clinton: We "attack[ed] Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs."

Rush's response: Offered no response.

My comment: Of course Limbaugh offered no response because any response would have negated his response to Clinton's 2nd point.

# 3:

Clinton: We "withdrew American support for the Climate Change Treaty."

Rush's response: "Kyoto was killed four months before Bush took office."

My comment: Clinton didn't say we killed it, he said the US walked away from it. We're supposed to be the leaders of the World, so what's wrong with exhibiting leadership by accepting challenges, showing a willingness to take responsibility, building consensus ...

# 4:

Clinton: We withdrew American support for the International Court for war criminals.

Rush's response: We can't be having our soldiers being tried in a International Court for war criminals.

My comment: Of course not. Then all the effort put into fancy legal footwork rationalizing ignoring the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war would be wasted.

# 4:

Clinton: We walked away from the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Rush's response: The ABM treaty was with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union doesn't exist, so there already was no treaty. "This is the shortest version I can give."

My comment: So we all can assume he could give a longer version that may have kinda sorta made a bit of sense. Such as one mentioning the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. And explain why Bush sent a letter to Russia, as required by the ABM treaty, informing them we were pulling out of the ABM Treaty.

But here's the funniest part. While Rush was presenting his take on #1, he veered off into an extended personal attack on Clinton. When he realized he was trying to "divide the electorate" as Clinton explained Republicans need to do, he abruptly stopped himself saying, quote, "I didn't mean to say any of that, it just came out."

Clinton's speech was a masterstroke. He explained why the Republicans have to divide the electorate clearer than I've ever heard it explained before. Yes, there are Republicans who would vote for Pol Pot if he was a Republican, but to everybody else that was paying attention, Each time Repubs try to frame an issue in terms of the personalities involved, it will come back to "The republicans need a divided electorate, we don't. We all want the same things, we just see different ways to get there." The same thought disarms "Kerry is an out of the mainstream liberal." I wonder how many millions of dollars the Republicans have wasted so far informing the electorate the only way they can win is by dividing us.

Monday, July 26, 2004

While you were conventioning ... 

Interesting timing ...

It will be interesting to see who takes over the investigation - someone already involved, or someone unfamiliar with the investigation, which would delay it at best.

Saturday, July 24, 2004

You want names? I'll give you names! 

President Bush has challenged John Kerry to provide names of foreign leaders who want Bush out of office, complaining, "I think if you're gonna make an accusation in the course of a presidential campaign, you ought to back it up with facts." Following are some facts.

Former Pakistan Prime Minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali of Pakistan is attending thje Democratic National Convention.

In the UK, MP Pat McFadden is attending the Democratic Convention in Boston, Martin Salter wants to rebuild "the traditional link with the Democrats," Doug Henderson thinks "A Democratic president can bring a new mind and fresh ideas for bringing peace and stability, and that is what we need in Iraq."

Friday, July 23, 2004

Condi, Amnesiatic water girl, waiting for people to tell her what to do 

Condi was on PBS's News hour last night. I wish I could have asked her a few things and made some interruptions.

Oklahoma City bombing, 1995, 168 victims

No major attack here for 200 years! I think maybe you still need to work on imagination and maybe even more rudimentary skills, such as memory, or perhaps how to count backwards from 2001 to 1995 and come up with a number other than 200. Do you think that's a fair assessment? I'm here to help!

Well, you didn't really need to be on a "war footing" to pay adequate attention to a security issue such as a domestic hijacking, do you? Is it not expected that a National Security Advisor be on a security footing, anyway? Aw, heck, you don't need to answer that, it would be too painful. Do you have another question, Margaret?

You just said you knew the threat was very real and could come at any time and this was a very, very high priority. Yet you testified to the Commission that prior to 9/11 the White House held only a single meeting - and not until September 4 - which addressed al Qaeda (9/11 Commission Report p. 201). You held 32 Principals Committee meetings on topics other than al Qaeda, claiming that discussing al Qaeda was unnecessary because you knew al Qaeda was a "major" threat (9/11 Commission Report p. 509, footnote #174). I'm sorry, I'm having trouble swallowing this, could you explain a bit more?

Oh, well it "almost always" pointed to something abroad, so you weren't thinking that it would haven in the US. But you remarked to the Committee, "And let's remember that those charged with protecting us from attack have to be right 100 percent of the time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once." Reviewing,

  1. You say the intelligence "almost always" pointed abroad - meaning it pointed abroad less than 100 percent of the time
  2. You say you knew you had to get it right 100 percent of the time
  3. You say you knew terrorists only have to get it right once to succeed
  4. So you figured the only threats you had to worry about were overseas.

So, I get it, you were thinking it wouldn't happen here, because you lacked imagination about that 1 out of one hundered times. Wait, I don't, because on August 6, 2001 the President received a "historical" (your word) document titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" in response to an inquiry about domestic threats that stated the "view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious." That's not a lack of imagination, it's not paying attention.

You're awful fond of trying to steer the conversation to stuff overseas. The 9/11 hijackers hijacked domestic flights, and even learned to fly in US flight schools. That's the incident we're trying you ask you about. Just wanted to point that out, go on, please - I'll be back in a minute or two - I'm going to go be sick.

... (cough) I'm Back.

I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've been told by you and your colleagues that we now live in a fundamentally different post 9/11 world. It would seem to take only minimal imagination to explore the possibility of fundamental changes. Why am I getting the idea you have the habit of waiting for someone else to advise you? It seems to me an Advisor should be advising others - or at least have an opinion on an idea that's "been around" before you've officially received it publicly in writing. One of your favorite excuses is that nobody told you to do something, so you don't do anything.

Like when you testified to the Commission that Richard Clarke, who worked under you, sent you a memo which said there were al Qaeda cells un the US. Richard Ben-Veniste asked you if you informed the President of the presence of those cells. You answered that "there was no recommendation that we do something about this" and that you, quote, "really don't remember, Commissioner, whether I discussed this with the president." Do you have any initiative of your own or are you more like a marionette with a wooden head?

This forgetting is another favorite excuse of yours. When you were speaking with Tim Russert about the reference to the African uranium intelligence the 2003 State of the Union address, he reminded you that on June 8, 2003 you claimed it got into the speech because "no one knew at the time in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew - that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." Afterwards your deputy Steven Hadley told reporters that the CIA had sent two memos to you casting doubt on the quality of that piece of intelligence. And indeed the claim was removed from Bush's October speech in Cincinnati.

So Russert then asked you how it later got into the State of the Union address. Your reply? It's not a matter of getting back in. It's a matter, Tim, that three-plus months later, people didn't remember that George Tenet had asked that it be taken out of the Cincinnati speech and then it was cleared by the agency. I didn't remember."

I'm outta here. Have to go get sick again.

The 9/11 report says America is "safer"? Where? 

Watch the shiny happy spin:

The the word "safer" only appears four times appears in the report. I haven't read it in it's entirety so it may somewhere say America is safer without using that specific word, but that's certainly not the impression I've gotten so far. And the thought doesn't jive with Commission Chairman Thomas Kean's statement when releasing the report, "Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude is now possible and even probable. We do not have the luxury of time.''. Indeed, the Report recommends dozens of protections and strategies the government has failed to yet implement.

Here are the four times the word "safer" appears in the report:

This is the part the spinmeisters seem to be latching on to and misrepresenting (p. 383):

Firstly and least significantly, it doesn't read "America is safer", it reads Americans "may be safer".

Secondly, this appears as an introduction to a section recommending its meaning is"Bush acknowledges we may be safer, but terrorists plan around our protections and here's tons of stuff nobody, including the President, hasn't done."

In fact, the Report is subtly but clearly critical of major aspects of Bush's "War on Terrorism" - that the strategy is the proverbial hammer that makes everything look like a nail, (p. 363) (some emphasis added):

The report is also is (much less subtly) critical of the way the "enemy" in the "War on Terror" has been framed (p. 363),

So we know Condi agrees with her own twisted interpretation of one sentence in the Report, but I'm wondering what she (and the rest of our government) thinks of the whole of the report. It will be interesting to see.

What's disappointing to see is the lunatic contingent at democraticunderground swallowing the spin hook line and sinker, seemingly because it doesn't say "Bush did it! He made it happen!" it's a whitewash for some. There are a few things I've been surprised seem absent from it, such as the wire transfers to the hijackers from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, but on the other hand, it doesn't mention Iraq in the context of the "war on terror". More later ...

Coalition of the Defeated 

Lots of challenges and complaints from the rights regarding the notion that foreign leaders want to see someone other than Bush in the White House. The sentiment is self-evident. Heck, over half of Americans want to see someone other than Bush in the White House. Although it's not quite the same thought, I can provide evidence that foreign voters want to be led by people who aren't too chummy with Bush.

Since it's formation, fourteen nations in the Coalition of the Willing have held elections for their head of state. Here's how the incumbents have fared:

Here are details:

Winners:

Losers:

Bush wanted regime change and his prayers were answered many times over.

The resources I used:
http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html
http://www.electionworld.org/
http://www.electionworld.org/
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/2003%20incumbents

War on Terror Phase II: get the oil 

The next several posts are excerpts from the 9/11 Commission Report (big PDF) (p 335):

Recall the March 2001 Energy Task Force documents containing maps of Iraqi oil fields.

Awesome Ninjas 

(p 189)

9/11 Commission recommends a kinder, gentler war on terror 

(p 376)

Thursday, July 22, 2004

9/11 Commission "balances" ignored urgent Clarke pleas with complete crap rhetorical question to exonerate Bush administration's disinterest in terror 

(p 201) (emphasis added)

Aw, bummer. The Clinton administration tied Bush's hands by failing to pass a war on to him. A war a couple days old, (p 193):

The quality of that intelligence runs circles around the intelligence Bush used to convince the nation to launch into Iraq. But what was the Bush administration to do?

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

A non-racist and honest Republican speaks 

Well, sure, I suppose. You can go ahead and suppress the Detroit vote, just so you don't go and get all racist about it ...

The evolution of Sandy Berger's undergarments 

So by now, everybody knows Sandy Berger stuffed his socks with classified documents, right?

The report on Berger's socks seems to have originated from a "colorful" comment by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show Tuesday morning, "Tom Daschle agrees with people stuffing classified information into their pants and socks and walking off with it."

Shortly afterward, CNN's Bob Franken picked up on it, reporting "Two law enforcement officials have told CNN chief Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena that Berger was spotted stuffing some of the documents into his socks."

Later NewsMax embellishes the story by adding a third witness to the CNN report: "Reports CNN's Bob Franken: "Three law enforcement sources talking to CNN's Justice Department correspondent Kelli Arena they saw him, or that he had been seen, putting documents in his socks."

At some point FOX picked up on the socks thing, adding the twist that it was Berger himself who announced he stuffed his socks: "Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio."

By now, Limbaugh's colorful primal goo has evolved into Berger stating he stuffed documents into his underwear: "Mr. Berger (by his own admission) took several highly classified documents and shoved them in his jacket, his socks, and--yes--his underpants."

UPI can't even get a bunk story right 

Today UPI reports three nuclear warheads have been found in Iraq. The UPI story is based on a report in an Arabic language paper, al-Sabah. Al-Sabah is the Kuwaiti Royal Family's name - The Kuwaiti Royals were responsible for this false report I'm sure everybody fondly remembers, but I have no idea if this paper is related to Kuwaiti Royalty. The UPI article states al-Sabah is an "official daily" paper, this list of Iraqi papers lists it as an independant bi-weekly.

Here's a quick comparison of the al-Sabah story with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon owned UPI article:

I suppose part of the contradictions result from difficulty in translation, but come on!

PS: Story dismissed.

Scott McClellan not big fan of personal responsibility 

Comedy in the White House press room. Brought to us by Helen Thomas and Scott McClellan, of course.

The Iraq/Niger uranium fiasco in less than 800 words 

A great essay (registration required) explaining the entire Iraq/Niger yellow-cake mess - clearly and succinctly.

New justification: we went to war for Kibbles 'n Bits 'n Pieces 

Now that partisan war/Bush supporters don't have a plank left to stand on, they're sucking on table scraps,

No, Mr Warner and the Associated Press. The administration did not cite "Saddam's hunger for such weapons" nor "bits and pieces" as the reason we had to go to war, rather, among the the stated reasons were,

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Who hasn't read the report? The media? 

Recently, there have been a spate of articles claiming the Senate Intelligence report says the CIA did not alert the White House of the questionable nature of the "Niger uranium claim". They go something like,

One wonders if the authors bothered to read the report themselves, as throughout it describes many uncertainties pertaining to nearly every claim that was presented as the gospel truth, including the claim about Niger uranium. From the SSCI report, page 56:

Look, it's simple. Information coming out of our own intelligence services about the claim did not fit the White House's policy goals as well as did British intelligence. So in this case the White House chose to abandon our own intelligence in favor of another country's.

You can read (huge PDF) the report yourself. It's scathing. Here is a version (less huge PDF) which downloads quicker, scrolls quicker and is searchable.

Next time someone challenges you to prove Bush lied ... 

No way around it, Bush lied. It is a bald-faced, blatant lie - nobody can seriously argue Bush is so dimwitted he forgot about the UN inspections. And that's the only way one can argue it wasn't a lie.

Sunday, July 18, 2004

Come meet the new boss, same as ... 

In case you missed it over the weekend, a report surfaced that Iraq's US appointed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi recently and personally executed six prisoners in extra-judicial killings,

Oops, David Kay corrects Bush: no causus belli 

George Bush has frequently cited David Kay's findings as justifying the cause of invading Iraq,

David Kay disagrees with the implications of his work,

I'm so confused 

Is John Kerry the most consistent liberal in the Senate, or is he a serial flip-flopper?

Bush had doubts about Iraq intelligence 

Bush has frequently stated he was using the same intelligence Clinton used when he decided to invade Iraq, "It's the same intelligence that was used by my predecessor to bomb Iraq." (February 23, 2004)

But to Bush, that intelligence was not conclusive -as of early 2002 - with all the intelligence reports his predecessor had - he wasn't sure Iraq was developing WMD, "I expect Saddam Hussein to let inspectors back into the country. We want to know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction." (January 16, 2002)

Friday, July 16, 2004

Now God speaking through, as well as to Bush 

Man!

Example of little notice 

A "potential problem" could be a DHS alert resulting in the closure of all Manhattan bridges during the work day, disenfranchising millions of voters. Note use of heaven and earth."

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

What I didn't find in the Senate Intelligence Report 

  1. I didn't find anything about the PDB:

    • The Committee's request to review Presidential Daily Briefs (PDBs) relevant only to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities and links to terrorists was denied by the White House. (p 3)

    The Committee set out to examine

    • whether were properly disseminated to policymakers in the executive branch and Congress. (p 1)

    Pretty glaring gap without the PDB, yes?

  2. I didn't find more than one mention of Hussein Kamel. The only time he's mentioned (which was not redacted) is on page 218,

    • Other information provided to the Committee suggested that Iraq destroyed its Scud missiles in the years after the Gulf War. Intelligence reports describing debriefs of Hussein Kamel (Saddam Hussein's son in law who defected from Iraq in 1995) show that Kamel told interviewers that Iraq had destroyed all of its Scud missiles. This information was not mentioned in the NIE.

  3. In his UNSCOM interview, Kamel claimed "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." It's puzzling (maybe not?) why this was redacted (or not mentioned) as much information about his claims is already public:

    CNN interview:
    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/iraq_defector/
    St Louis Tribune article:
    http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04272003/nation_w/51824.asp
    Transcript of UNSCOM interview (PDF):
    http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf (big PDF)
    Page o' info:
    http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

  4. I didn't find any surprise in the fact that State Department speech writers were making up their own intelligence (p 252 - emphasis in original):

    • Secretary Powell said that the al-Musayyib site, a suspect chemical munitions storage site, had been used for "at least three years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field." The CIA told Committee staff that State Department speech writers crafted this statement from CIA input that "evidence of movement activity at this site went back as early as 1999." Intelligence provided to the Committee showed only that possible chemical transshipment activity had occurred at the facility and only in the spring of 2002.

    One possible shipment through the site turned into at least three years of certain shipments. Like magic!

    Let us remember that Powell introduced his spiel at the UN with "... every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Who needs solid sources when you already have great speech writers?

Here is a PDF version of the entire original report which can be searched and selected from. Scrolls a lot quicker too. And has lots more than three tidbits.

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Bush has better values. Did he come from a monkey? 

Bush is going big on values and targeting the religious vote, which for Republicans, includes a lot of fundamentalists.

Mainstream America values the New Testament and science. Fundies value the Bible as the literal word of God. Who's values does he share? I mean, think about it. Is Bush claiming he believes the Earth is 6,008 years and 156 days old and ...

"I didn't come from no monkey!"

Or is he claiming that although he's religious, he's mainstream and believes some of the Bible is metaphorical ...

"Don't misunderestimate me. I remember my Jr High geology, the world is fabulously old."

Plenty of American values left at home despite heavy exporting 

Google search synopses help you read between the lines: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:whitehouse.gov+export+american+values

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

GOP uncovers Edwards scandal! 

Kerry's choice of John Edwards as his VP may have given the GOP ammunition to pound on a scandal of epic proportion which will eclipse all the scandals swirling around the Bush White House: General Leegate. It's sizzling with many unanswered questions still - who are the Scab Duke Boys? Is Boss Hog Dick Cheney or Karl Rove? Or are they Sheriff Cletus? ... is Hillary Clinton actually Daisey Duke?

The GOP is launching their onslaught on Edwards at at KerryPicksGephardt.com. Er no at KerryPicksVilsack.com ... wait, no .   KerryPicksBiden.com or KerryPicksClark.com or KerryPicksBayh.com ... oh, no no no. It's at KerryPicksEdwards.com.

Dewey Defeats Truman! 

Ha ha ha.

Monday, July 05, 2004

Where are the the WMD? And for that matter, where are the Iraqis? 

More ...

Sunday, July 04, 2004

It's July 4th and I STILL don't "use" deodorant! 

Ten or 20 years ago, it occurred to me that I probably didn't smell awfully bad. That I wasn't odorous. So I stopped "wearing" de-odorant. That was around the time I read Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, I'm unsure if that played into my revelation.

I have trouble understanding how humans could have evolved so as to make deodorant beneficial. Sure people have a smell, but I think it's a scent, not an odor. Nobody ever objects to my fermented sweat, although my mom occasionally notes I smell like garlic. I feel so free.

PS. I'm naked.

Friday, July 02, 2004

Yesterday's satire is today's drama 

November 11, 2000

July 02, 2004

Separated at birth? 

Props to Paragon at DU for noticing the likeness.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
Listed on BlogShares