Herman Melville

Herman Melville
Originally uploaded by Marc Wathieu

They say that the day in August (the 1st of which is your birthday) when George W. Bush was given a PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) with the title "Osama Bin Laden Set to Strike in the U.S." that Bush was reading Moby Dick.

Mr. Melville, that is an insult to you. Mr. Bush could never read Moby Dick and UNDERSTAND it (unless, of course, it was the illustrated edition for children 8 and up).

Moby Dick contained one of the truths of man's existence: revenge can tear apart a man's soul.

No, Mr. Bush could not have been reading Moby Dick.

Anne Frank at her desk

Anne Frank at her desk
Originally uploaded by rosewithoutathorn84

August 1st was the last entry in
Anne Frank's Diary.

"Who would ever think that so much went on in the soul of a young girl?"

- Anne Frank

What Anne did not know then was that the discovery and publication of her diary helped her soul transcend time: her ideals were shared by the entire world. Within her universe of that tiny secret flat, she harbored all the world's love and hope.

Thank you, Anne

Harry Potter and The Deadly Campaign

Is it just me or has the McCain vs. Obama campaign taken on the semblance of a confused battle of witchcraft and wizardry ala Harry Potter? "Spiritual Mentors" Hagee, Wright and Parsley may have acted more like the three witches of MacBeth, but throw in Rev. Jesse "I'd-like-to-cut-his-nuts-off" Jackson, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton into the brew and the campaign takes on a weird, almost fantasmagorical aura that leaves voters "bewitched, bothered and bewildered." These campaigns seem to have taken on lives of their own. Forget domestic policies. Forget rights. Forget abilities. Forget foreign policies. Forget the economy. We want to know about Obama's "true" religion. We want to know if McCain will be "raptured" after we declare war with Iran and all Palestinians. We want to know... Well, what DO we want to know? Are the campaigns giving us anything? We know they aren't giving us the whole truth. Neither of them. Obama's for "change" but he really hasn't detailed what kind of "change" it's going to be. McCain chants "experience" all over the place, but it waivers when asked "experience with what?"

The voters get to be mind-readers with this one. McCain's Straight Talk Express has landed him in some nice down-home heart-of-America places, but his record shows that he's sided with George W. Bush on most issues in the last 18 months. That's not straight talk - that's double talk. Obama has yet to clear his "liberation theology" past before talking about issues. McCain is concerned about Obama's foreign popularity (as evidenced in the latest ad - and the flack it's getting).


Instead of reading minds, however, we will have to look deep into the crystal ball of each candidate's past: political past, that is. McCain's should be easy since he has a voting record. He also has to answer some questions about being one of the Keating Five involved in a Savings & Loan scandal.

There's a lot to sift through without the media coming up every 20 minutes with some "new development." Maybe they should rate how heavily each item is relative to the campaign, but they can't do that because it's too subjective. Blah, Blah, Blah.

Let's just spirit ourselves to the voting booths now and get it over with. It doesn't look like it's going to get any better.

BFD: Belated Apologies Make Congress Sound Like The Southern Baptist Convention

The Bigotry Lingers On...And On...And On...

From characterzinging a scarf as "terrorist" to deriding a middle name, America's prejudice population always seems to crop up - or, more definitively, crawl out of the woodwork - when you least expect it. anytime. And as ridiculous as their rants seem, the ideologies behind them will stay and stay and stay.

Michelle Malkin in a rant about Rachel Ray's scarf on a Dunkin' Donuts commercial:
“The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,” Malkin wrote in her syndicated column. “Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.”

Of course, Malkin is insinuating that some of her readers ARE clueless because she makes a point of defining a keffiyeh in a way as only they would understand. Suffer the little children...

Twelve percent of the U.S. public still believe that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim. He is not. But they will think so until their dying day. "And Hussein is his middle name." They will scream that out loud and post it online, print it on placards and bumper stickers. They will photoshop turbans atop his head, and say that Michelle wears a burka whenever she is at home. Remember the flack about the fist-bump? They'll make it into a secret code of some sort, more ominous and obscure than Da Vinci's mirror writing.


These people have l--o--n--g memories for hate and, unfortunately, not much else. Many of them are the same people who will pick a verse out of the Bible to use as a weapon but can't recite the Ten Commandments in order and without help. Just ask the next "The Bible says..." placard bearer. The most virulent are usually the most clueless when it comes to their own religion.

They are also a VERY long time coming with apologies. It took the Vatican over 400 years to apologize to Galileo, and the Southern Baptists over 150 years to apologize for slavery. And, apparently, there were still some Southern Baptists in Congress who still lingered on that abusive policy, making Congress even slower:

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer Tue Jul 29, 7:05 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The House on Tuesday issued an unprecedented apology to black Americans for the wrongs committed against them and their ancestors who suffered under slavery and Jim Crow segregation laws.

The resolution, passed by voice vote, was the work of Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen, the only white lawmaker to represent a majority black district. Cohen faces a formidable black challenger in a primary face-off next week.

Congress has issued apologies before — to Japanese-Americans for their internment during World War II and to native Hawaiians for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893. In 2005, the Senate apologized for failing to pass anti-lynching laws.

Of course, according to people like Malkin, America has nothing to apologize for (I think she's currently trying to rebuild Manzanar internment camp into a resort for Japanese tourists.)

What good are belated apologies? Who cares if a pope cries real tears at Jerusalem's Wailing Wall for 1700 years of anti-Semitism? Is Congress acting nobly or just reiterating the fact that we've still got racists ion this country? They're not only apologizing for the ones we had, they're apologizing for the ones we've still got!

Slavery - forced internment - extreme anti-Semitism - overthrow of sovereign governments. Congress and the Religious Right can apologize now. Will they apologize for other acts of discrimination? I doubt it. At least not within the next 50-100 years.

And when they DO apologize, will there be anyone to accept those apologies?

Just a thought.




The photographer entitled
this photo:
Michelle Malkin's Dream

A Victim of Mysogeny: "The Other Mozart"

Maria Anna Mozart

When she was seven years old, her father started teaching her to play the clavier, and initially she seemed a potential child prodigy. Leopold took her and her brother on tours of many cities, such as Vienna and Paris, to exploit their talents. In the early days she sometimes received top billing and she was noted as an excellent harpsichord player and pianist. But from 1769 onwards she was no longer permitted to show her artistic talent on travels with her brother, as she had reached a marriageable age. (wikipedia)

Anna Maria Mozart was a gifted musician eventually shadowed by her brother, Wolfgang Amadeus. In his youth, he adored his older sister, but their father Leopold encouraged young Wolfgang only. Even for the times, however, Anna seemed unduly complacent: giving up the man she loved to a marriage of her father's choosing. She even allowed her father to rear her only son in deference to him. While Wolfgang constantly quarreled with his father, Anna acquiesced.

She married only once: to a wealthy magistrate named Johann Baptist Franz von Berchtold zu Sonnenburg. He was a widower with five children and Anna Maria bore him three more.

After the death of her husband she became (what else?) a music teacher. From all accounts she became blind and poor of health. She died on October 29, 1829. She was (for the time) the advanced age of 78.

Question: if her father and society had not forced this timid little girl to stay home until she was married to the right man, how far could she have gone in the music world? Mozart wrote some piano compositions for her. References in his letters to her show us that she composed music as well. None of her compositions, however, have survived.

How dim of a life she led compared to what she could have been we will never know.

The Face and Voice of the Working Man

Jimmy Hoffa, 1959
Originally uploaded by PopCollector

When Jimmy Hoffa disappeared, did the voice of the working man disappear as well? Today we hear a lot about the middle class family, but who does it consist of? Do the teamsters still exist? Of course they do, (with Jimmy's son as president)but their clout has been reduced to a meager lobby in Washington, a lobby that trails far behind pharmaceuticals and the NRA.

Hoffa was one of the few men whose disappearance was as sensational as his life: after 33 years, his remains have never been found. Stories and brags about his demise raged for years. They haven't really stopped. Only several things support the fact that he is now dead: today he would be 95-years-old and his connections to the mob as well as the people he crossed, well, what do you think the odds are?

"We don't get no respect!" #1 - Gay Marriage According to Rick Santorum

Well, not ALL queers are perfect spellers!

"They Don't Have Anything To
PROVE They're As Good As We Are!"

Rick Santorum to Pew Forum:

They have no studies. They have no information whatsoever about what it would do to the moral ecology of the country, y what it would do to religious liberty, what it would do to the mental and physical health of children -- nothing. They've made no case. Basically the case they've made is, "We want what you want, and therefore you should give it to us."Pew Research Forum (Shannon Price Minter)

There is not one study showing children are harmed in any way by having lesbian or gay parents. To the contrary, as Mary Cheney recently stated in response to criticisms of her decision to have a child with her female partner that every piece of remotely responsible research that's been done in the last 20 years has shown there's no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents. What matters is that children are raised in a stable loving environment.

O.K., I'll bite on the second one: what the hell is "moral ecology"? Santorum, I think, has coined his own phrase, but it's bogus. Maybe he means morals about the ecology? If so, what do they have to do with gay marriage? Do male plants want to marry other male plants? If so, what about plants and animals that contain both sexes or have role reversals? Do seahorses want same-sex rights? I think Santorum thinks he's being clever with his phrase and oh so deep...in it.

What would a man marrying a man do to religious liberty? Nothing. Again, Santorum is talking about two different things. Or maybe HIS definition of religious liberty is not freedom of religion, but freedom of a religion to espouse anything it wants without criticism. Santorum is really talking about the freedom of pulpit pimps to spew hate speech, thereby endangering others who do not share the same view.

"Mental and physical health of the children". If the Religious Right were not so deliberate in their hate by banning books educating children (e.g. "Heather Has Two Mommies") and were not so diligent in pointing out gays as "sinners" and "pedophiles" children of gay parents would have an easier time at school, don't you think?

And as far as "wanting" is concerned: what gays want are RIGHTS and not necessarily four kids, a mortgaged McMansion and two "hers and hers" SUVs.

Santorum goes on to say that for Christians, it is difficult waging the culture war because if they oppose same-sex marriage they are perceived as "intolerant" "bigots""haters". WOW! I didn't know that! Are those righteously arrogant pastors, preachers, ministers of God really Christians? And here I was, all the this time, just calling them "stupid." YES! In the case of religion, one bad apple CAN spoil a whole bunch of people. Today's ministers of the Religious Right are proud of how many people they command, as Rod Parsley would put it, as "warriors for Christ." To them, the culture war is a jihad with a "take no prisoners" policy.

So Santorum is ready to fight. He'll be the man of iron in the war. But with feet of clay.

Yes, this photo is wrong but too funny to pass up. It's a "cartooned" version of Santorum's concession speech after he lost his bid for a second term as senator.
Note: several commenters made observations that were, well, direct: why does the girl have a doll that's dressed exactly like her? And why does the boy look so ...strange? Is this the American family Santorum is fighting for? Makes you want Gomez Addams to run for office just for the sake of normalcy.

"We Don't Get No Respect": #2 Celebrities Aren't REALLY Citizens of the U.S. Are They?

These Aren't Real People! They're Just Here To Entertain Us, Right?

Celebrity Political Opinions

Hey, who cares what George Clooney or that wacko Johnny Depp thinks?

America has made it's own bed as far as celebrities go. Celebrities aren't real unless they sit down to dinner with them in their trailer. But celebrities are also PROPERTY for Americans to do with as they wish. If celebrities have lives, they are to submit them to the American public for approval or else...they won't be celebrities much longer. So if a celebrity has an opinion, their creators will listen enraptured (after all they DID create them!) or dismiss them.

The online magazine POLITICO recently interviewed Barbra Streisand. The interview is, of course, a set up on my part to reveal how some people view celebrities voicing political opinions. Most of those people are conservatives who believe that Hollywood has poisoned our minds with its liberalism.

A lot of folks object to "Hollywood celebrities" participating in political discourse. Aside from pure disagreement over certain issues, why do you think there's such a backlash when you or other well-known performers speak your mind?

On a very basic level, many people think celebrities have too much already so we shouldn’t be entitled to our political opinions. Also, the other side objects to the fact that we might be listened to. But, I see myself first and foremost as a citizen of this country. And I am outspoken about the issues I care about like healthcare, global warming, the war in Iraq, energy independence, education, poverty and so on.

I think we are all lucky to live in a country where people have the constitutional right to voice their opinion and speak their mind without punishment or penalty. Everyone should exercise that right, because it engages people in the political process and forces our candidates to be clear about their stances on important issues affecting all Americans.

Comments:

- Streisand, like alot of Americans, only look for the (D) behind the candidates name in deciding who they should vote for. She a product of the same "brainwashing" that most folks in Hollywood get from the liberal socialists that own it and manage it........sad.

- Babs, Springsteen, Sir Elton and likes should keep their political views at the kitchen table and not use their popularity to spread political nonsense.

- Another left wing nut Citizen of the world loon

"We Don't Get No Respect": #3 Does It Really Matter What Other Countries Think of Us?

That We're Dangerously Stupid

Pew Research Center:

More Americans now say that the United States is less respected in the world than it has been in the past, and a growing proportion views this as a major problem for the country. More than seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say that the United States is less respected by other countries these days, up from 65% in August 2006.

For the first time since Pew began asking this question in 2004, a majority of Americans now sees the loss of international respect for the United States as a major problem. The percentage of Americans saying the loss of international respect is a major problem has risen from 43% in 2005 to 48% in 2006 and 56% currently.

The most recent national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted May 21-25 among 1,505 adults, finds that majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (72%) and Republicans (60%) believe that the United States has lost global respect in recent years.

Since our diplomatic dimwit has destroyed at least 100 years of diplomacy and good will, please do not be surprised with the Japanese tourists who want to see if Manzanar is still standing; or the French tourists who want to taste "freedom fries"; the English tourists who ask directions to the Salem Witchcraft trials or the South African tourists who want to see the "Wild West Show".

But most of all, don't be surprised if they are suspicious and afraid of you.

While I was on a cruise during the 2004 election, I noticed that a lot of Eurpopeans on the ship were all talking about the election. I asked: "Why are you so engrossed in this election?" Their was was short, but direct: "We need to see if you are going to elect a war president or a peace president."

Our image is one that was surmised by the United Nations back in 2001 when they labeled us a "Rogue Nation." The U.N. was canny enough to realize that Bush wanted war even BEFORE he came to office. We were also kicked off the security council.

Religionists (especially Christofasctists) hate the U.N. and don't care about our international image. After all, unless the country is thoroughly Christian, they don't count.

Do they?

Just a thought.

McCain Campaign Gushes Over Oil - Just Like What's-His-Name

One is definitely a Maverick. The other may not be (as much he'd like people to think he is)

It's 1:00AM. I usually don't post anything on Sunday evening/Monday morning. Hey, it's my one day off! But I just read this and just couldn't help but comment on it:

Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling

By Matthew Mosk

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 27, 2008; Page A10

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

The article goes on to say that even oil executives treated George "Native Son" Bush differently: they gave money much earlier to Bush's campaign, and that it was natural that they would give additional campaign funding to someone who might unlock the oil resources previously barred by environmentalists.

True.

However, McCain's campaign staff is shouting "character assassination" when people find out the "surge" in giving happened almost immediately after his speech on opening those resources. Oh my! Bush may be stupid - arrogantly so - but McCain isn't that bright either: at least not on his timing. His campaign should have held the money for later disclosure or request that it be given in small increments. Not $1.1 million in a matter of days. The complicity is so obvious that it almost smacks of Cheney-ism. Of course, Obama's stance against the oil industry gave McCain's campaign contributions a boost, but a rise in contributions three times the size of previous months, and after the speech of June 16th is almost begging for some answers. And those answers won't come from McCain or his campaign.

If the allegations are true (and I think that's possible), McCain is getting to look more like George Bush than the old "maverick" people have come to admire.

Another tidbit:

According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time.

Just a thought.

Gary Bauer: The Quintessential Evangelical Warrior in the Culture War

Would You Say A Prayer For This Man?

Analysis of Gary Bauer, evangelical Christian

The following is from the Pew Research Center's Pew Forum's biannual Faith Angle Conference on religion, politics and public life. D. Michael Lindsay, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Rice University discussing his research on evangelical power in the White House during the Reagan years when Gary Bauer was domestic policy adviser to Reagan.

I knew that that ( a division of attitudes between evangelicals) existed, but I did not realize that within the same White House you could actually have significant division. For example, one of the persons I interviewed for the project was C. Everett Koop (surgeon general under President Reagan). He told me about how in 1986 he became increasingly convinced that AIDS ought to be treated as a public health crisis.Now, when Koop was nominated in 1981, many evangelicals were very excited about this. He was a symbolic appointment; and although he didn't have experience in public health, he was a world-class surgeon at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. He eventually got confirmed, even though the public health community was not very excited. But evangelicals were thrilled, and for five years he had a very good relationship with the evangelical community.

Then in 1986 he began to say the White House ought to treat AIDS as a real public-health concern. But remember, in 1986, most evangelicals saw AIDS as God's punishment against a homosexual lifestyle. One who held that position was Gary Bauer;⁵ he was serving as President Reagan's domestic policy advisor. In a matter of a few months, Bauer and Koop began to lock horns. Koop would try and get a meeting with the president; Gary Bauer's staff would get the meeting removed. And in fact, when I did the interview with Dr. Koop -- he has an institute up at Dartmouth now -- he didn't have very nice things to say about Gary Bauer. There are these tensions -- and they last.

They last.

Gary Bauer's profile is a classic description of a politically right-wing evangelical:

Pro-life
Repeal of Roe vs. Wade and abolishment of funding for Planned Parenthood
Against euthanasia, but supports the death penalty
Supports a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage
Prefers abstinence programs to comprehensive sex education programs
Against embryonic stem-cell research
Wants to "bring the message of freedom to the Arab world"
Supports the war in Iraq
Against illegal immigration and supports English-only policy
Supports tax cuts

Bauer is past-president of the Washington lobby Family Research Council and is on the Board of Christians United For Israel, headed by John Hagee. Chairman of Campaign for Working Families, President of American Values. On the home page of the American Values website:

American Values is a non-profit organization committed to uniting the American people around the vision of our Founding Fathers. We are deeply committed to defending life, traditional marriage, and equipping our children with the values necessary to stand against liberal education and cultural forces.

Liberal education and cultural forces. hmmm...

Here are some other ideas about American Values. I culled them from Flickr.

Just a thought.

In honor of the great Bob Hope who passed on this day in 2003:

"I do benefits for all religions - I'd hate to blow the hereafter on a technicality."

"We Cannot Afford a San Francisco Military!"

Actually, We Can't Afford a Christofascist Military!

July 26, 1948 – Harry Truman signs Executive Order 9981,
integrating the Armed Forces

1948. Twenty years before the Civil Rights Act was passed! Would that today's administration had the guts and foresight to do the same with gays in the military. Of course, they won't if Christofascists have their say. They got their two cents into the Don't Ask Don't Tell debate on Capital Hill this week. A lot of their prejudices came out in the form of Ms. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness.

A close look at this 501(c)3 shows that it's VERY judgmental and partisan in its views, not only on gays in the military, but feminism as well:

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness says that although certain feminists would not admit it publicly, “they’re probably quite fond” of the photo showing the Iraqi prisoner being held on a leash by a female soldier. According to the right-wing CNSNews.com, Donnelly argues that’s “because it is demeaning to a man -- any man.” Expounding further, Donnelly says such feminists are “the ones who like to buy man-hating greeting cards and have this kind of attitude that all men abused all women.

It sounds like something Pat Robertson would love to preside over:

(July 13 - Concerning the upcoming battle with Washington)

Donnelly and Sgt. Maj. Jones will expose the extent of real damage that will be done to the culture of our military if these groups are allowed to win. We cannot stand by and allow the full force of mandatory social engineering to be imposed on our men and women in uniform.

CMR has the facts, sound principle and common sense on its side, but faces large, well-funded activist groups that are devoted to one radical goal: repeal of the 1993 law, which is constantly mislabeled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

This piece is from their statement of support for military policies:

The armed forces should not be used for political purposes or social experiments that needlessly elevate risks, detract from readiness, or degrade American cultural values.

Here are some past articles. The titles alone give you an idea how right ring (excuse me, bi-partisan) they are:

Obama Disingenuous on Dissent - Flag Officers Could Risk Promotions if Opposed to Gays in the Military (April 22, 2008) SLDN Bashes Straw-Man on Capitol Hill - By Tommy Sears, CMR Executive Director (March 10, 2008)

Who Will Confront the “LGBT Left?” - Presidential Candidates Support Extreme Agenda (February 5, 2008)

Political Consequences of 1992 Push for Gays in the Military - Voters Rejected Bill Clinton’s “Cultural Liberalism” (January 29, 2008)

And here is Donnelly's Op-ed piece in the Right-Wing Washington Times (conceerning the repeal of DADT):

Add to this scenario public resistance that would hurt recruiting, potential abuse of subordinates living in close quarters, plus higher risks of HIV infection, which increase the numbers of non-deployable personnel. The result will be unprecedented disciplinary problems that detract from morale and readiness.

We cannot afford a San Francisco military.

In 1992, Republicans helped Mr. Clinton to win by not debating this issue — in the same way that some Republicans are avoiding the issue today. Will a presidential leader emerge who is prepared to defend the culture of the only military we have? The one who does so first could become president of the United States.

But Donnelly didn't fare so well in her debate with Congress:

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 23, 9:40 PM ET

Among the most arresting debates Wednesday came when Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., a first-term congressman and the only Iraq war veteran in Congress, accused a witness of implying that U.S. service members weren't professional enough to handle serving with homosexuals.

"You're saying you don't trust our military professionals to serve openly with people who might be different," Murphy said angrily to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a nonprofit that says it promotes certain military personnel policies.

"I think that's an insult," Murphy said.

Donnelly contended that if the law were repealed the number of HIV-positive service members would probably increase.

Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., a Vietnam veteran and medical doctor, called that comment "so inappropriate" and suggested that Donnelly advocate for the military to recruit only lesbians, who he said have a low incidence of HIV.

Let's see... unleashed promiscuity, more HIV infection, "military culture," morals/morale, wicked feminists - what/who does Ms. Donnelly sound like to you? mmmm.... maybe Rod Parsley? Just a thought.

God's Warrior -The Archangel Michael

Right Wing Media: Obama's Prayers Are Fair Game!

Well, It Didn't Say, "Allah, Please Destroy Israel"

"Lord - Protect my family and me," reads the note published in the Maariv daily. "Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."

The Jerusalem daily newspaper, Maariv, published a photograph of the note on its front page on Friday. It said the note was removed from the wall by a student at a Jewish seminary immediately after Obama left.

Evangelicals, of course, were praying for something a little more treasonous!

Like peace.

Don't Ask Don't Tell

Don't Ask Don't Tell
Originally uploaded by firechick

Of course, the Religious Right thinks that gays in the military is like SHOW AND TELL.

Incompetent Fool

Incompetent Fool
Originally uploaded by bobster1985

The picture to the right is an extremely accurate one, consisting of all the soldiers killed until the NYT piece on March 20. The accompanying editorial is worth a read in its entirety: log onto the archives of the New York Times.

The New York Times

March 20, 2008
Editorial
Mission Still Not Accomplished

It has been five years since the United States invaded Iraq and the world watched in horror as what seemed like a swift victory by modern soldiers and 21st-century weapons became a nightmare of spiraling violence, sectarian warfare, insurgency, roadside bombings and ghastly executions. Iraq’s economy was destroyed, and America’s reputation was shredded in the torture rooms of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret prisons.

These were hard and very costly lessons for a country that had emerged from the cold w ar as the world’s sole remaining superpower. Shockingly, President Bush seems to have learned none of them.

George W. Bush: A More Tortured Richard M. Nixon?

We Can Only Hope!

July 24, 1974 - Watergate scandal: the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Richard Nixon did not have the authority to withhold subpoenaed White House tapes and they order him to surrender the tapes to the Watergate special prosecutor.

"I am not a crook " "I did not have sex with that woman." "We do not torture."

Three lies: one from Richard M. Nixon , another from Bill Clinton, and the third from George W. Bush. Spanning thirty-four years. Lies with one very significant difference: in the end, it was Nixon who acted with honor.

Bush will not.

The irony, of course, is that Bush's lie is the most serious of the three. Nixon's concerned the Watergate break-in, questionable campaign contributions and conspiracy to keep them from the public. Clinton's was about sex. Bush's was about American honor ...and war crimes.

From today's The Washington Independent:

One of the most important building blocks in the Bush administration’s apparatus of torture became public today. An Aug. 1, 2002 memorandum from the Justice Dept.’s Office of Legal Counsel to the Central Intelligence Agency instructed the agency’s interrogators on specific interrogation techniques for use on Al Qaeda detainees in its custody. Most of the 17-page memo is blacked out and unreadable. But at least one of those techniques is waterboarding, the process of pouring water into the mouth and nostrils of a detainee under restraint until drowning occurs.

That’s certainly how it was viewed in the Nuremberg era. As the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1944: “There have been, and are now, certain foreign nations with governments … which convict individuals with testimony obtained by police organizations possessed of an unrestrained power to seize persons suspected of crimes against the state, hold them in secret custody, and wring from them confessions by physical or mental torture. So long as the Constitution remains the basic law of our Republic, America will not have that kind of government."

But America DOES have that kind of government now, doesn't it? We're holding people "suspected of crimes against the state", "hold them in secret custody" and "wring confessions by physical or mental torture."

Someone has to be accountable for all of those things and more, like "WMD lies" and extreme secrecy in foreign and national affairs. But don't look to Bush, because the buck will never stop with him. No accountability, no resignation. In their place we will encounter the obstinacy usually attributed to a petulant little boy. A boy who has very little conscience and who laughs at those who do.

So here's a CNN piece on torture. Please view it. It's ten minutes long, but it will stay with you for a long time.

Hagee Update: Lieberman Loves Him!!

god's quotable quotes
Originally uploaded by haywardART

From: Andy Sullivan
Reuters

Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent who frequently campaigns with McCain, said pastor John Hagee's support for Israel outweighed the remarks that led McCain to reject his endorsement.

...Hagee has written that events in the Middle East point to an imminent apocalypse Christians should welcome, and in several books envisions a climactic battle in Israel leading to the second coming of Jesus. Christians United for Israel takes an uncompromising stance toward Israel's enemies and opposes giving land to the Palestinians.

Hagee said that it was up to Israelis to reach their own peace terms, and said the group was not trying to bring about a biblical apocalypse in the Middle East.

"We don't believe that we can speed up the End of Days one second because we believe that God has shown that he will set the time," Hagee said.

An organization supporting a negotiated peace in the Middle East, J Street, said it had delivered a 40,000-signature petition to Lieberman's office urging him not to speak to Hagee's group.

"We don't believe..." WHAT?!!

Hagee's been trying to speed up the End of Days his whole ministerial life! Give us a break! He's got "rapturists" and "End-Timers" salivating at the thought of telling God to hurry! He wants (like Rod Parsley, CUFI's regional manager) Israel to DESTROY the Palestinians and DESTROY Islam! He wants war even worse than George Bush!

Now we REALLY have to know what's going on with Lieberman in tow! Secret meetings, endorsements from senators... things are getting worse.

Heaven help us.