Recently in bushwhacked Category

There are 10 kinds of wrong in this article.

Saudi Arabia is building a fence on their border to keep illegals from crossing into their country from Iraq? A fence? The Saudi's see Iraq as a terrorist training ground?

After 9/11, I had a lot of questions. Who were these Al Qaeda people? Where did they come from? What was their motivation?

Our government's answer to these questions? They were "killerz" who "hated freedom." We circled the wagons and branded anyone with questions as an "enemy of freedom."

This morning I read a letter to the WSJ by Newt Gingrich. Even though I dont see any similarities between Presidents Bush and Lincoln, Gingrich raises some interesting points (and some confused arguments).

I agree that we arent winning the "war on terror" the President started 5 years ago. I also agree that the problem is not a matter of time and that "stay the course" is not going to get the job done. (It is interesting to see how Gingrich argues that stay the course is a failure but blames the "government bureaucracies" not the president for its failure.)

Rather then go through the whole article, I realized that it raises an issue that I started to write about just last week. Winning.

I've been on the fence about Iraq trying to make up my mind about our "war". Watching Meet the Press today, I have finally come to a conclusion. Today I, Vaitkadamas, will go out on a limb with a bold prediction:

The war is over. We lost.

The next months will turn into years and we will continue to fight (and die) over there, but the outcome has been determined. Sectarian violence will continue to worsen until it reaches full blown civil war and the county will eventually break up into three pieces. Sure we got Saddam, but in his place we destabilized the entire region, which will see increasing terrorism and decreasing stability as Iraq continues to be a lawless breeding ground for terrorists.

Nice job, George. You really showed your dad how easy it was to take Iraq!

The last week I've been thinking about unintended consequences of strategic errors. Can one ever come back from a failed strategy?

Of course, I am talking about the USA in Iraq and Israel in Lebanon.

When I first heard that some of the President's religious supporters unconditionally take the side of the Israeli government because they believe it is the next step to Armageddon and the return of Christ, I laughed. (There is a similar argument for why we dont need to worry about global warming since the people that matter wont be here much longer anyway.)

But as I have watched our elected leaders spread the bloodshed from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to the Palestinian territory, to Lebanon and now to begin threatening Iran and Syria, I have begun to think this idea is a less of a joke and more of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why are we struggling in Iraq? Why is there more, not less, violence in the Middle East every month?

Well it couldn't be the result of our mistakes, misjudgments and incompetence. No sir, it must be the result of a "hidden hand"! And that hidden hand is Iran!!

When your President is incapable of introspection, every problem must be the result of someone else, an enemy. Iran may be pursuing its own interests and those interests may conflict with out own but that doesn't make them the boogey man, behind every setback. There is plenty of blame to go around in our own naive efforts.

Is it 2008 yet?

And now Hezbollah. We sure have learned a lot of exciting new words since Bush took office!

After a week of headlines, I find myself asking: what the fuck is going on here?

Ever since the income tax was started, there have been steady changes in who pays the bulk of the taxes the government needs for spending. This year it looks like the rich and corporations are paying more taxes because they are the only ones making more money.

Of course our deficits are still insanely high, the federal government is spending more than ever before in history, and I find it highly questionable that the "rich" are making more money because they are "working harder."

The White house just lost their most recent case regarding "detainees" before the Supreme Court.

And I want to be the first in line to commend the President. It takes a big man to extend basic human rights to a total stranger. Normally when I meet a stranger, especially one that looks a bit funny, I try to kill him. Unless of course she's pretty, in which case I might rape her before I kill her. And dont even get me started on guys with dark skin and beards; I always want to torture those guys before I kill them.

Are you curious about Iraq but not sure if you can trust the White House press releases or the US media to give you a good picture? (After all, neither of them leave the Green Zone.)

If so, check out this blog from an actual Iraqi citizen living in Iraq. He appears to be risking his life to tell the world about life in this wonderful new Democracy President Bush created.

Healing Iraq

If you watched Michael Moore's movies or read the papers the past few years, you would have the impression that Bush helps his friends and never forgets (or forgives) his enemies. It seems however that some friends are friendlier than others.

Take the case of Friend of Bush, Katherine Harris. One could question whether Bush would have become President in 2000 without Harris' questionable behavior in the 2000. Yes when it comes time for her payback, there isn't one coming...

This is an entertainting article. Harris sounds like quite a character, right out of a Carl Hiaasen novel.

This is an older article but I held onto it because it makes me laugh.

We like to think of our country as a meritocracy. The people with the most talent will rise to the top through skill and hard word. They will get rewards because they deserve it.

Yet there are many people that fly in the face of merit. These people have no skill, no hard work, no ability. These people bring other people down. When these people are involved, two heads are actually less than one.

Um, why is Rove (and the President) acting like a guilty man who just got off scott-free? Shouldn't he be saying "Of course I got off; I am innocent"?

What a joke.

Your ideas may sound good on the golf course or in a classroom but they work in the real world any more than the Neocon fantasy that we would be "greeted as liberators in the street" did.

The Supreme Court decisions makes perfect sense in an actual war but we are not at war. The concept of a "war on terror" is rhetoric and describing our efforts in war-terms continues undermines our actual chances of winning such a "war".

The terrorists on 9/11 did not attack us with our own passenger airliners as the first wave of an invasion. They have no army, no uniforms, no government, no flag and no intention of capturing NYC or taking any US territory.

Al Qaeda are terrorists which makes this a police matter, plain and simple. And soldiers dont make good police. They arent trained to be police and people dont see them as police.

These suicides and the government's reaction to them is more proof that they just dont get it. How can anyone succeed if they dont understand the problem in the first place? We cannot kill our way out of this mess.

4 years have passed. We have spent $300B of tax dollars and over 100,000 people have been killed by our troops or terrorists and yet we still dont seem to be any closer to the end of this so-called war.

Iraq has become the very haven for terrorists that we said we wanted to prevent. Nice work.

Haditha.

On the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer last Friday, Brooks discounted the killings in Haditha. "In past wars there have been bigger massacres." "Massacres like this always happen in wars." Blah, blah, blah. In so many words, Brooks said it was no big deal.

If the way we "win" this war is by winning the "hearts and minds" of the people of Iraq, this is a HUGE deal. No matter how much good we do, it will all be undermined by scandals and coverups like Abu Ghraib and Haditha. People like Brooks dont want to see that but we can see it right here in our country when companies cover up scandals.

How is Enron's reputation these days? What about Anderson Consulting? Remember when people died taking Tylenol? What would people think about Tylenol if the company had covered it up and said it was "no big deal"? What about Merck and Vioxx. Only a few people were negatively effected, did the public think that was no big deal?

Come on, Mr. Brooks! Senseless political spin is going to get us nowhere.

It is pretty rare to see a politician say it like it is on national TV, at least rare for a Democrat. This morning on Meet the Press, Senator Biden went off! I got a strange pleasure from hearing someone call out the Bush administration on one issue after another and demand accountability with specifics, like "firing Rumsfeld Monday morning".

The second guest on the show was Hans Blix. I had never seen Hans speak before and he was terrific. Educated, intelligent, wise - all the things Harvard and Yale did not teach President Bush. It was interesting to hear Hans talk about Iraq as well as his comments on Iran - the next fiasco of the Bush administration.

MTP isnt always that good but this week was a great episode worth watching - which you can now do online. (At least you can if you dont use a Mac.)

How much are you willing to pay for the war in Iraq? $100/month? $1000/month? Are you willing to join the army and go there to fight? Have you even thought about it?

President Cheney has been able to keep this charade going for years because they have wisely kept people from facing the costs. There is no draft for troops to maintain order. There is no war tax to pay for war. Of course we arent "mobilized for war", because if we were, people would pay more attention to the President's bumbling and what it will really cost us. And it will cost us. Estimates are over $1 trillion Dollars. We will pay but thanks to the mighty credit card, Bush will be long gone before the bill comes due.

This article on General Batiste is terrific. Read it. We need more men like Batiste to speak up. There is more to courage than actions on a battlefield and someone needs to have the courage to do the right thing. Someone has to hold Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld accountable for this fiasco.

Imagine a country: After 9-11, the military concluded that citizens might be working with Al Qaeda so they began to use their resources to spy on civilian activities. Foremost among them were the so-called "peace" protests. Monitoring phone calls of millions were also used to observe people.

Where am I?

Nepal? nope. Afghanistan? nope. Iraq? no again.

This strategy is the one used by our own Department of Defense and it is really scary. (Maybe Michael Moore wasnt so paranoid after all.)

Dont feel bad, judge Luttig. This White House has taken a mile from everyone that has given them an inch, except perhaps Halliburton and the Prince of Saud. Any time you assume they are doing things for the right reason, rest assured that you will find out otherwise.

Then again, your decision on Padilla was a mistake so maybe the rest of us are better off with you at Boeing than on the bench.

Believe it or not, I was a fan of Rumsfeld reforming the military back in 2000. A smaller, more mobile (and cheaper) army seemed like a good idea and I believed him when he said his critics were just old Army guys who didnt like change.

But that was PEACETIME.

When I watched those videos of looters after the war, and Rumsfeld discounting them as the "same video clip of looting a vase over and over again", I knew things had gone wrong. Very wrong.

Two weeks ago 4 retired generals spoke out against Rumsfeld and his handling of the war in Iraq. This week 3 more generals joined in. Today we got an 8th.

What is the deal with the military? When you are in the military, you are not allowed to speak out or question orders. If you do so, you could be court-martialed. If you do so on the battlefield, you could be shot. The theory for this is that you need control on the battlefield and if you have people questioning orders, you lose control. Most Americans believe that they have freedom of speech but it is "unpatriotic" for military officers to disagree while in the service.

Based on the response to these retired generals finally letting others know what they think, it appears that a lot of people also think it is unpatriotic to criticize military strategy even when you arent in the service anymore. Apparently retired military people are supposed to toe the line as if they never left the service. Joining the military means giving up your right to voice an opinion - unless that opinion supports the current policy.

You cannot say anything when you are in the army. You cannot say anything when you leave the army. Well when the fuck ARE you supposed to give your opinion?

I have always opposed the imprisonment of people at the base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I think our actions have been un-Constitutional, against the values of law, and ultimately self-defeating.

Others have argued that it is ok because the people there are "bad" people. If we caught them, the argument goes, they must have done something bad in the first place so they deserve to be there.

Of course this line of reasoning is the exact opposite of our principle of "innocence until proven guilty" - one of the fundamental tenets of our legal system designed to protect people from government abuse. (Like that whole torture thing we will never see the end of.) We, the citizens, have no fucking clue who these people are or what they have done (if anything) and it is wrong to presume guilt.

Sunday morning means another interview (or two) on Meet the Press. This week I got to meet General Zinni (Ret.), former Commander of U.S. Central Command.

I can see why Bush got rid of the guy - He knows his shit. General Zinni called bullshit on President Cheney's call for war, the WMD argument and on our eventual "they will greet us as liberators" approach to the war. A "war" that is still costing $150M of your tax dollars EVERY SINGLE DAY, an amount that is increasing not decreasing 4 years into the occupation.

I have been watching the PBS history movie, The War that made America. As someone that disliked history in school, I find these modern retellings to be wonderful and fascinating. (The short story: George Washington (on the cover) wasnt all that great of a guy and we totally screwed the Indians and native peoples after they helped us.) It makes me think about how little most of us know of our own history and how much we could learn from history.

"History" really seems to be the history of war. Wars are the tumultuous force that shapes human society and it always has been that way.

This week the President has been talking non-stop about Iraq and his "War on Terror." Based on how things have gone right from the start, I find myself wishing that he and his staff would have watched some of these history movies first.

I know the President and his supporters publicly disdain PBS and "liberal" things like education, but their legacy is one colossal screw up after another and his speeches indicate that he hasnt learned a thing in the past 5 years. Three years into Bush's nation-building imbroglio, we are spending $150M per day on Iraq and $5 says the country will fly apart in civil war within a year.

Of course, the real question is what to do now. Last night I heard a great interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former Secretary of State, (one who seems a lot more competent than Condi Rice), who pointed out that Democrats need to do more than complain about Iraq, they need a plan.

He has a plan, and it is starting to make a lot of sense.

All Things Considered

March 21, 2006

Zbigniew Brzezinski, professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University, thinks that Iraq is not yet in a civil war. But he wonders whether the consequences of civil war would be worse than staying the course. He talks with Robert Siegel about why he favors pulling troops out by the end of the year.

listen yourself

One way to judge a man is by the company he keeps. President Bush ran his election campaign based on his "family values" and how his "character" was superior to President Clinton's. Bush hasnt had an affair but he seems to have surrounded himself with criminals and incompetents.

The irony of arresting a "conservative star", twice nominated to the court of appeals for theft is surely lost on Bush's supporters. But it's not lost on me. Which isnt to say anything about religion. All people have flaws but if you publicly identify yourself by your 'values' and hold yourself up above others because of those professed values, then you really need to be held accountable. If you are a sinner while you tell everyone you are a saint, then you get the Scarlet H from me.

Former Top Bush Aide Arrested

Claude Allen, who quit last month as domestic policy advisor, allegedly ran a retail scam. The president is 'shocked' and disappointed.

By Nicole Gaouette Times Staff Writer

March 12, 2006

WASHINGTON — President Bush expressed disappointment, sadness and shock Saturday over the arrest of his former domestic policy advisor, Claude A. Allen, who resigned in February, citing a need to spend more time with family.

Allen, 45, was arrested last week in suburban Maryland on charges he stole merchandise from Target and other stores, in what police said was a scheme that lasted months and netted him more than $5,000 in goods that ranged from a Bose home theater system to $2.50 trinkets.

The arrest marks an Icarus-like fall for Allen, a conservative star and born-again Christian father of four who rose from a working-class childhood in the nation's capital to become one of the administration's most senior African American members. Bush twice nominated Allen to a federal appeals court seat.

The charges also are another blow for the president and the GOP: Allen is the third member of the administration to face criminal charges. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has been indicted on charges related to the leaked identity of a CIA officer. David H. Safavian, who headed procurement for the U.S. General Services Administration, is fighting charges that he obstructed a federal investigation and made false statements in connection with the corruption probe linked to lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Ahh the good old days. Men were men and women were pretty and demure. Commies were the enemy. The Russians were massing troops and tanks on the borders to invade Europe while we busily built our missile defense shield to protect America the Beautiful from nuclear bombs.

The recent furor over port ownership has me thinking about who our enemies are today. Do we have any enemies or is everything about economics now? Assuming we have enemies, what do we need to protect? If no one is going to invade, are we left to protect our state secrets or intellectual property? For the past 60 years, we have spent billions of tax dollars building systems to protect ourselves from invading nations while encouraging commerce and convenience. What should we do now?

Although the nature of politics has not changed, I agree with Rumsfeld that the nature of warfare has. Part of the Administration's problems have been because they have changed some things but not others. People seem to be relying on what they know rather than what the situation calls for.

After 9-11, the President fell back on old thinking: They were very quick to simplify things by identifying an enemy and attacking them with a steadfastness zeal that would have made Joe McCarthy proud. But the War on Terror is not a war. There are no nations to fight. No armies to repel. The combatants dont even wear uniforms which legally means they arent "soldiers". It is all very confusing and our traditional WW2 mentality did not address it well. We quickly subdued Iraq's armies but that was only the beginning of our troubles.

My take-away on the port issue is that keeping us safe from terrorists has little to do with armies and the real issues arent getting much attention. It doesnt really matter who runs the port if the process itself is unsafe and easy to fool. The facts are that 95% of the 24,000 shipping containers sent into this country every single day are not checked. If a penniless immigrant family can walk into this country from Mexico, if we have been fighting the "war on drugs" for decades without stopping the flow of drugs, how hard is it for educated terrorists to smuggle something into the country? Not hard at all. B2 bombers and troops cant fix this problem any more than they helped New Orleans face Hurricane Katrina.

Part of this situation is our fault as voters. It is against our Western nature to think in terms of context or a larger system; we demand simplistic explanations and then continue to be surprised by the "unintended consequences." Moreover few citizens have any idea how food gets to their tables or what keeps the lights on; our ignorance of the systems we depend on makes it easy for our leaders to ignore the real problems and lends itself to political issues over practical ones.

When we talk about the War on Terror, we need to be thinking a lot more about our lifestyle, our values, and how much we are willing to change and pay to prevent another terrorist attack. Of course, dialog on tough issues is another thing we dont do very well.

Given that they only interviewed 944 people and we have sent hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq, one might question how much this survey represents the military as a whole. But the results of this recent Zogby poll are interesting, dare I say disturbing. Saddam's role in 9-11? Are they serious?

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

I have not heard of any "faith-based economics" but perhaps the President would do better with those budgets than he does with actual numbers. Three recent articles on Bush's fiscal legacy.

I have long wondered how fiscal conservatives, aka Republicans, reconcile their professed beliefs with the President's actions. It is a little hard to swallow the "tax and spend Democrat" epithet when one actually compares the President to his predecessor.

The bottom line is that one's political party is no guarantee of fiscal responsibility and it is high time we voters acted that way.

I know you werent there but do you remember that whole Civil War thing we had? Most American's dont know much about history, ours or anyone else's, but once upon a time, our Nation didn't feel like one people and they killed each other over it.

The news from Iraq continues to get worse. The past week has been one big bombing after another, culminating with the destruction of a holy site. Men dressed in police uniforms (who may or may not have been police) walked into one of the top 4 holiest sites in Iraq and blew it up.

This is big trouble.

Attack deepens Iraq's divide

Blasts at a major shrine set off widespread Shiite protests.

By Dan Murphy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD - An attack Wednesday that destroyed the soaring gold dome of one of ShiiteIslam's holiest shrines is being interpreted by most Shiites here as a direct attack on their faith - and has sharply raised sectarian tensions.

It's unclear if any people were killed in the massive explosion in Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. But the destruction of the shrine may be the most emotionally charged of attacks on Shiite targets thus far in the war, and could set back already hamstrung efforts to form a government of Shiite and Sunni unity.

As citizens deserted the streets of Baghdad in the wake of the attack, many said they feared this could be a seminal moment in Iraq's low-intensity civil war.

"The war could really be on now,'' says Abu Hassan, a Shiite street peddler who declined to give his full name. "This is something greater and more symbolic than attacks on people. This is a strike at who we are."

Iraq has been having a "low grade" civil war since we invaded. I hear this is widely recognized in Iraq although it is not mentioned much (until recently) by the media here and never even hinted at in the President's comments. Acts like this bombing promise to increase the intensity so that the nation either pulls together or the 3 regions pull apart. Since the USA is the main actor trying to keep the country together, I would expect the later not the former to result.

The trends in Iraq are just not good.

Despite the umpteen Billions of tax dollars we are spending, and the efforts (and lives) of our troops, Iraq is anything but "mission accomplished" even after years of trying. And things are getting worse not better. The Pentagon tells us there were 35,000 attacks last year with a 40% growth rate from the year before. The attacks continue to get more sophisticated and more deadly. (And no one even reports the Iraqi deaths. Rest assured that for every 1 American wounded or killed, some multiple of Iraqis are wounded or killed.)

And what is worse, the attacks are coming from the inside; no one seems able to tell friend from foe. When 9/11 happened, the White House was very quick to point the finger at a clear enemy, "Dont ask why we let this happen, let's go kick Osama's ass!" His actions were very effective but what are we going to do here?

More and more of these attacks are committed by men in uniforms. If you cannot trust the police, who can you trust? Another story this week talked about the Iraqi oil pipelines (which Bush told us would pay for the war) and how little oil is being produced. Apparently there are terrorists inside the oil system and they know exactly when and where to sabotage the pipelines to keep the oil from flowing. How's that for a kick in the pants?

Fresh Woes Hinder Iraqi Oil Output

Infighting, Provincial Rifts Deepen Pipeline Problems; U.S. Tussles Over Explosives

By CHIP CUMMINS in London and HASSAN HAFIDH in Baghdad, Iraq

February 21, 2006

Iraqi oil production has fallen sharply in recent months amid a series of bureaucratic and political tussles in Baghdad, raising questions about the country's ability to keep its petroleum industry from spiraling further into disrepair.

For more than two years, insurgents targeting pipelines and oil workers have stymied the recovery of Iraq's oil industry. Slow funding from Washington, poor project planning and widespread smuggling and corruption also have hindered the effort.

Since I have not been to Iraq myself, I am hesitant to have a personal opinion but things dont look good. It is hard to say if our presence really is making it worse, an argument that supports a quick pullout. It is also possible that the three regions of Iraq just dont have enough desire to become a single country and that our external influence to keep it together just isnt enough to overpower the external terrorists influence to pull shit apart.

What a mess :(

At last, President Cheney speaks. Unfortunately he spoils any sympathy with his sneaky, weirdo self.

Despite the jokes, shooting a friend is not funny. Thousands of Americans die every year due to accidental gunshot wounds, although most of those fatalities are children not millionaire attorneys. (And Republicans typically oppose gun controls that would prevent these needless injuries.)

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry. And you can talk about all of the other conditions that existed at the time, but that's the bottom line. And there's no -- it was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that is something I'll never forget.

I think Cheney was sincere when he said they it was the worst day of his life and I respect him for taking responsibility. Listening to Bush, Brown, Delay and Chertoff, one can appreciate how rare personal responsibility has become.

Why did it take 4 days?

I was feeling badly for Cheney when he went and ruined it with his old, bizarro explanations. Why did it take him 4 days to speak to the public? Why didn't the White House break the story instead of waiting for some podunk Texas newspaper? A complicated story?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, my first reaction, Brit, was not to think: I need to call the press. My first reaction is: My friend, Harry, has been shot and we've got to take care of him. That evening there were other considerations. We wanted to make sure his family was taken care of. His wife was on the ranch. She wasn't with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn't hear on television that their father had been shot. And that was important, too.

Q Well, what -- you must have recognized, though, with all your experience in Washington, that this was going to be a big story.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, true, it was unprecedented. I've been in the business for a long time and never seen a situation quite like this. We've had experiences where the President has been shot; we've never had a situation where the Vice President shot somebody.

Q Well, did it occur to you that sooner was -- I mean, the one thing that we've all kind of learned over the last several decades is that if something like this happens, as a rule sooner is better.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, if it's accurate. If it's accurate. And this is a complicated story.

Q But there were some things you knew. I mean, you knew the man had been shot, you knew he was injured, you knew he was in the hospital, and you knew you'd shot him.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katherine Armstrong. And Katherine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eye-witness. She'd seen the whole thing. Secondly, she'd grown up on the ranch, she'd hunted there all of her life. Third, she was the immediate past head of the Texas Wildlife and Parks Department, the game control commission in the state of Texas, an acknowledged expert in all of this.

If a member of the White House shoots someone, that is more than a Grisham novel, it is big news. The White House has a responsibility to say something. Cheney thought it best that a small local paper break the story because he didnt think people would trust him and because he wanted them to have all the facts? WTF? HE was there. HE shot the guy. HE has all the facts, not the newspaper. This is just such a strange response, I dont know why he would even say it...

Was alcohol involved?

I thought the matter was done but now someone has raised the issue of legalized drugs.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The five of us who were in that party were together all afternoon. Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence.

Was Cheney drunk? Was the victim drunk? Does it make a difference? I dont know if it does make a difference to me. After all accidents happen. But when the answer is not a definitive "no", the answer is probably not no.

When strange things happen to secretive people

I am amazed to find people that still talk about Whitewater as if some terrible thing happened there that Ken Starr couldnt find after years of looking but we need to know about. In the past 5 years, we have had the secret energy commission, the failure to prevent 9/11, the fictitious WMD's and Abu Ghraib. This shooting is just another in a log string of mysterious and suspicious activities of the Bush Administration that is unlikely to be explained any time soon.

Dont forget to watch the State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

But before you do, take a moment to think back to last year's speech and then reflect on the year past. How did our nation do under the President's leadership in 2005?

If you are like me, you are anxious to hear how our athletes and high schoolers are doing in their War on Steroids as well as how we are progressing on our mission to Mars.

Senator Frist was on MTP today and I guess he said pretty much what one would expect him to say.

Massive federal spending and deficits? Making tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners permanent? How about that Abramoff stuff? Was Iraq a war of choice? "Wiretaps" without a warrant? The answer to every question (except his miracle tele-diagnosis of Terry Schivo) was the war.

"We are in a time of war so [bite me] ..."

Are we really in a time of war? Did we draft any troops to fight a war? Have we raised any taxes to pay for a war? What exactly constitutes a "time of war"? When does the "time of war" end?

Reagan declared a war, dare I say Jihad, on drugs... was that a real war? is that war over? Did Clinton miss an opportunity for 8 years to defend himself by saying its not time to question things because we are in a time of war? Can you actually fight a "war" on terrorism? Isn't fighting terrorism a police matter, as the Europeans believe?

The war defense is a very tired one and yet it continues to work, year after year. God help us.

Two reports have been released this week about our performance in Iraq. One report was classified but both of them paint a negative picture of our performance under President Cheney's leadership. Apparently we didnt have enough resources and troops to sustain years of military occupation... Our troops and their families are stretched thin and there is no end in sight.

But Im with Rumsfeld on this one. What do generals know about the military anyway? Gosh, who do they think they are? 35,000 terrorist attacks in Iraq last year but we are turning the corning the corner and we can handle these terrorists just like we got those damn commies in Korea and Vietnam.

So back off you Doomsday-Democrats! America!! Fuck yeah!