Americans have had enough time in the past seven years to observe and learn from George Bush's outlandish behaviors and insensitive words spewing from his smirking mouth. We have witnessed his incredible lack of conscience and caring. He is a narcissist and sociopath, a leader that does not take responsibility for his decisions and actions. He never says, "I'm sorry," or "I was wrong." George Bush views these words as a sign of weakness.
When George Bush was asked to name any mistakes he made since becoming president, he said he could not remember any. Does this sound familiar?
While Bush does not reflect having a superior intellect, he simply does not recognize its abstract qualities and tends to dismiss it entirely, unless his intellectual sycophants suck up to him in agreement or provide demanded attention. Bush yearns for flattery that reinforces his image of grandiosity. He is a skillful social player and is quite aware his greatest positive trait is being congenial, utilizing this trait at very in appropriated times and places to the point embarrassment of a faux pas. He does these unfortunate behaviors because he is not intellectually sound, and wants to make everyone into a "buddy" giving him a false sense of security. He considers them cute and affable.
Psychiatrist Jerrold Post, M.D., founder of the CIA's Center of the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior states, "The leader who cannot adapt to external realities because he adheres to an internally programmed life script...has displaced his private needs upon the state."
Applied psychoanalysis is a tool and discipline used by intelligence agencies to identify personally distortions and predict political behavior through development of sophisticated psychological profiles on world leaders.
Sounds like George Bush is a rather predictable fellow, his behaviors bear it out. And people, especially other world leaders have a detailed psychological file on him and his history. They know his predictability and how to use it.
Although lacking the data and direct doctor-patient interaction, such as analysis, Dr. Justin Frank, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, George Washington University, has applied the dicipline's methods of of observation, body language, behaviors and statements to identify some personality distortions as attributed to George W. Bush.
A lifelong "sense of entitlement" has been exhibited by Bush, described by Washington psychoanalyst Justin Frank, M.D. Specifically, Bush feels and acts entitled to disregard the laws, rules and expectations governing ordinary people. He believes he is above it.
Bush is an obsessive, rogue president with a national outlaw ethic, as seen in his flagrant disrespect of US signed treaties on global warming and nuclear proliferation. He refuses to support any efforts for an International Court. While this behavior fits his romanticized American outlaw image, it is an adolescent response in need of intellectual complex adult solutions.
Bush has legendary difficulties with language to avoid meaningful communications, he clouds or defuses meanings for tactical concealment. Since he is unable to communicate in normal ways, hewill use language as a manipulative tool--to attack, discredit, dismiss, distract and control, rather than communicate.
Dr Frank observes, "He may seem decisive, but his behavior represents the fall-back position of someone trying to manage the anxiety and not being able to think clearly."
Many observers have witnessed him violating a common principle to all societies, he feels entitled to lie without guilt or impunity. He claims exemption from the laws of personal responsibility. "I don't feel I owe anybody an explanation," he told journalist Bob Woodward.
Bush's smirk--one of his key characteristic expressions concerns his political handlers and observers is an indication of pervasive sadism. This smirk reveals a perverted pleasure in inflicting pain or defeat in others while attempting to suppress an overt expression of his internal pleasure.
George Bush is a profoundly angry, destructive man who in Dr. Frank's words, "needs to break things." Breaking a nation is not beyond his realm of distorted thinking.
"The evidence suggests that behind Bush's exterior operates a powerful, but obscure delusional system that drives his behavior," concludes Dr. Frank. Bush's grandiosity has been projected on our nation. His megalomaniac narcissism and lack of ego boundaries translates into a vision of imposing "Freedom" throughout the world, desired or not! Anyone opposing his childish motives is considered the enemy. Remember when Bush said,"If you are not with us, you are against us!"
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Washington Neocons, as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith, Perls, and Abrams resurrected the 19th Century's grandiose concepts of the right of America to impose ourselves and policies on others. they will use any perceived or manufactured threat such as terror as a rallying point. This criteria meets and fits well within Bush's megalomania.
In Dr. Frank's judgment, "The enterprise he is poised to add to his history of failures is the future of our nation. Our collective denial helped put him in that position. Our sole treatment option--for his benefit and outs is to remove him from office...before it is too late."
We cannot un-ring the bell. it is too late. We are now stuck with damage control! For the past seven years, our politicians have let this nation down by the lack of a serious effort for Bush and Cheney impeachment. Shame on you Washington Republicans and Democrats! Most of you do not deserve the loyalty and power the American people have given you. Precious few had the courage to talk about impeachment. Those of you in Washington who did not act, are as guilty as George Bush for the conditions of our country, and its reputation with foreign leaders. Why did you do nothing and allow the status quo?
Shame!
For additional detailed information on Bush's mental health by two noted psychiatrists check
http://www.squadron13.com/JackDresser/psychoanalysis.htm
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Sunday, February 17, 2008
George Bush's: Politics of fear!
Remember seven years ago, when presidential candidate George W. Bush offered his appealing promises? He will change Washington, make it a transparent government with no cover-ups, eliminate cronyism, return honesty to government, have an administration based on moral values and stop the secrecy. Sounded good, and many people bought it hook, line and sinker. The enamored media gave George a pass, didn't even vet him, hoping the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Old George, the Texas prevaricator was elected. The 9/11 attack happened, and the politics of fear emerged as George Bush's voice.
For the past seven years, whatever the Bush administration wants to accomplish, old George and his Neocon surrogates get on national TV, lies and fear mongers his doomsday rhetoric to us. Few in the media and Washington Republicans seem to fault his judgment. George Bush's rhetoric and behavior sets the American people up with his "good ole boy" shucking shoulders, chuckles, smirks and mouth spitting outright lies with a smile of a great deceiver.
We would think by his outrageous untruths and body language, the American people can see they are being set up. Many have seen past the veneer of his opaque distortions of reality, and do not like, or buy it. Bush is like the proverbial child who wants his own way, and throws a temper tantrum, shouting threats of fear, "You will be sorry," to get his way. He is amply shrewd to know people will believe a big, simple lie, rather than the complex truth. Ole George does it with a bobbing head and grin.
The politics of fear can be very powerful, but has short impact. To consistently use it against the people a president has sworn to protect, telling us it is for our nation's benefit is dishonorable, pathetic and despicable.
America deserves better, more astute leaders doing the will of the people. We deserve people in government who do not have hidden agendas, lie or threaten us for their own perverted power and gain. We deserve a better government scenario than fear and doomsday rhetoric. We want changes, we want leaders of truth. We can take it! Change permeates the political scene. As one respected democrat said in the 1930's, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." But then, he never met George W. Bush.
For the past seven years, whatever the Bush administration wants to accomplish, old George and his Neocon surrogates get on national TV, lies and fear mongers his doomsday rhetoric to us. Few in the media and Washington Republicans seem to fault his judgment. George Bush's rhetoric and behavior sets the American people up with his "good ole boy" shucking shoulders, chuckles, smirks and mouth spitting outright lies with a smile of a great deceiver.
We would think by his outrageous untruths and body language, the American people can see they are being set up. Many have seen past the veneer of his opaque distortions of reality, and do not like, or buy it. Bush is like the proverbial child who wants his own way, and throws a temper tantrum, shouting threats of fear, "You will be sorry," to get his way. He is amply shrewd to know people will believe a big, simple lie, rather than the complex truth. Ole George does it with a bobbing head and grin.
The politics of fear can be very powerful, but has short impact. To consistently use it against the people a president has sworn to protect, telling us it is for our nation's benefit is dishonorable, pathetic and despicable.
America deserves better, more astute leaders doing the will of the people. We deserve people in government who do not have hidden agendas, lie or threaten us for their own perverted power and gain. We deserve a better government scenario than fear and doomsday rhetoric. We want changes, we want leaders of truth. We can take it! Change permeates the political scene. As one respected democrat said in the 1930's, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." But then, he never met George W. Bush.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Democrats can have their political cake and eat it to...if they do not let egos get in the way.
The Democrats are fortunate, they have two historical presidential candidates that are acceptable by the majority of the party. Hillary Clinton, a woman, and Barack Obama, an African -American, have the support from most of the Democratic voters and leaders. They will accept either one as President and/or Vice President. They make a good tandem for change in Washington and the world. They have strong vision and convictions on how to accomplish that change. We need them both and their intensity. We need Hillary's knowledge, and Barack's fire.
The race for president is very close, it should probably be played out by votes before the convention. However, the Democratic leadership and super delegates know what exactly is at stake. The Democrats are in a position to have eight years , or sixteen years in the White House. The Democrats cannot afford to be their own worst enemy and pass this chance.
When Bush leaves the White House on January 20, 2009, he will leave a garbage dump of national and international problems. It appears no one will know just how deep the mess is until they walk through the front door. Suspicion is that is will take two to four years of intensive cleaning to rid the Republican stench of Bush's eight years in office and set the nation on a course of peace, prosperity and civil rights.
The question is, will their egos allow for them to work as a team in tandem for the good of the Party and Nation. As President, Hillary Clinton is better structured with the "know how" to clean up the Bush Neocon mess. She knows what it takes and how to fight powerful insurance and drug corporations to set the Nation on a strong with vital programs she a Barack Obama agree.
As Vice President, Barack Obama is the logical Democratic heir apparent for transition to the presidency if something happens to Hillary and of course , following completion of her presidency. He has the fire in the belly, the charisma to help ignite take the point and follow through on the many programs they were elected to implement. It will provide time to mentor Barack on the world stage with leaders of the world, in the subtle aspect of US foreign policy.
Will America have two Democratic, historical, people in power, or will the egos stand in the way of having a dynamic duo in the White house?
Then, there is John McCain and his vice presidential mate.
The race for president is very close, it should probably be played out by votes before the convention. However, the Democratic leadership and super delegates know what exactly is at stake. The Democrats are in a position to have eight years , or sixteen years in the White House. The Democrats cannot afford to be their own worst enemy and pass this chance.
When Bush leaves the White House on January 20, 2009, he will leave a garbage dump of national and international problems. It appears no one will know just how deep the mess is until they walk through the front door. Suspicion is that is will take two to four years of intensive cleaning to rid the Republican stench of Bush's eight years in office and set the nation on a course of peace, prosperity and civil rights.
The question is, will their egos allow for them to work as a team in tandem for the good of the Party and Nation. As President, Hillary Clinton is better structured with the "know how" to clean up the Bush Neocon mess. She knows what it takes and how to fight powerful insurance and drug corporations to set the Nation on a strong with vital programs she a Barack Obama agree.
As Vice President, Barack Obama is the logical Democratic heir apparent for transition to the presidency if something happens to Hillary and of course , following completion of her presidency. He has the fire in the belly, the charisma to help ignite take the point and follow through on the many programs they were elected to implement. It will provide time to mentor Barack on the world stage with leaders of the world, in the subtle aspect of US foreign policy.
Will America have two Democratic, historical, people in power, or will the egos stand in the way of having a dynamic duo in the White house?
Then, there is John McCain and his vice presidential mate.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Was it the surge....or has Moqtada al-Sadr's six month cease-fire quelled the violence in Iraq.
There is a restless quiet in Baghdad. Many say it is because of the 20,000 American troops Bush inserted in Iraq as the surge. John McCain, George Bush and Defense Secretary Gates agree. Or, is Iraq quieter because for the last six months a formidable enemy has refused to fight and faded into the sand.
Still, in parts of Baghdad, violence continues in the ancient back alleys. Fierce battles with Sunni insurgents take their violent toll, as their victims send messages of desperation for help to the Medhi Army. Normally, the Medhi Army, the most powerful arm of Shia Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rushed to give aid to those involved in these treacherous fire fights.
For the past six months, their frantic calls have fallen on deaf ears. Local Medhi Army commanders have been turning down these desperate calls. They can do nothing because they are under strict orders from al-Sadr not to break a brokered cease-fire.
Declared on August 29, last year by firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr is a six month cease-fire in Iraq. His Medhi Army has the strength of 100,000 men, are a well trained, dedicated, formidable force. Various reasons are given for the Sadrist cease-fire and stand down. One stated is to purge and vet the ranks of unwanted criminal elements.
One reason not stated, is the cease-fire offers Moqtada al-Sadr the opportunity to regroup, retrain, and and rearm with weapons from his ally Iran. The Sadrist ability to inforce the cease-fire is quite impressive considering they still control half of Baghdad, and at least 80 percent of the Shia areas. However, al-Sadr's rhetoric, is still crusty anti-American. Even from Iran, he has not been marginalized.
Whatever the reason, the stand down of the Medhi Army is a 100.000 man insurgent force General Petraeus did not have to deal with during the past six months. He knows it, and applauds Moqtada al-Sadr's efforts to maintain the cease-fire. It has unquestionably reduced violence by 60 percent.
While politicans like John McCain, Joe Leiberman, and Neocon Bushites are touting how well the surge is working, General Petraeus is well aware the dynamic reduction in violence and deaths is because of Moqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire. He won't say it because the Bush administration wants Americans to believe it the surge that has quelled the violence. It is not!
To think an insertion of 20,000 American troops for a short term surge, would quell the violence baffles the mind. The question begging is; "Why didn't we do it five years ago?"
Unfortunately, the al-Sadr cease-fire is due to end shortly at the end of February. No one has any idea which way it will go. No one knows what al-Sadr will decide. Even his closest commanders will not hazard a guess. We may be able to count on it as long as al-Sadr decides the cease-fire is to his movements benefit.
The Sadrist have other agendas. They are in reality the only mass movement with strong Shia cultural and social networks that provides assistance to the estimated 43 percent of Iraqi poor who cannot feed their families.
The wait for hostilities continues, we cannot fight any enemy that fades into the sand.
Still, in parts of Baghdad, violence continues in the ancient back alleys. Fierce battles with Sunni insurgents take their violent toll, as their victims send messages of desperation for help to the Medhi Army. Normally, the Medhi Army, the most powerful arm of Shia Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rushed to give aid to those involved in these treacherous fire fights.
For the past six months, their frantic calls have fallen on deaf ears. Local Medhi Army commanders have been turning down these desperate calls. They can do nothing because they are under strict orders from al-Sadr not to break a brokered cease-fire.
Declared on August 29, last year by firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr is a six month cease-fire in Iraq. His Medhi Army has the strength of 100,000 men, are a well trained, dedicated, formidable force. Various reasons are given for the Sadrist cease-fire and stand down. One stated is to purge and vet the ranks of unwanted criminal elements.
One reason not stated, is the cease-fire offers Moqtada al-Sadr the opportunity to regroup, retrain, and and rearm with weapons from his ally Iran. The Sadrist ability to inforce the cease-fire is quite impressive considering they still control half of Baghdad, and at least 80 percent of the Shia areas. However, al-Sadr's rhetoric, is still crusty anti-American. Even from Iran, he has not been marginalized.
Whatever the reason, the stand down of the Medhi Army is a 100.000 man insurgent force General Petraeus did not have to deal with during the past six months. He knows it, and applauds Moqtada al-Sadr's efforts to maintain the cease-fire. It has unquestionably reduced violence by 60 percent.
While politicans like John McCain, Joe Leiberman, and Neocon Bushites are touting how well the surge is working, General Petraeus is well aware the dynamic reduction in violence and deaths is because of Moqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire. He won't say it because the Bush administration wants Americans to believe it the surge that has quelled the violence. It is not!
To think an insertion of 20,000 American troops for a short term surge, would quell the violence baffles the mind. The question begging is; "Why didn't we do it five years ago?"
Unfortunately, the al-Sadr cease-fire is due to end shortly at the end of February. No one has any idea which way it will go. No one knows what al-Sadr will decide. Even his closest commanders will not hazard a guess. We may be able to count on it as long as al-Sadr decides the cease-fire is to his movements benefit.
The Sadrist have other agendas. They are in reality the only mass movement with strong Shia cultural and social networks that provides assistance to the estimated 43 percent of Iraqi poor who cannot feed their families.
The wait for hostilities continues, we cannot fight any enemy that fades into the sand.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
John McCain: Republican hip shooter with a forked tongue!
Senator John McCain use to be a decent senator from Arizona. He was likable, until he started shooting from the hip, and speaking with a forked tongue. The trouble with hip shooters is they leave ridiculous messes behind to be cleaned up by others. A forked tongue is one that cannot be trusted with truth.
The Republicans say McCain is a political maverick. Political mavericks are generally political independents. He is not an Independent or maverick! He is a divisive, opportunistic politico who will do and say whatever it takes to get elected. He claims to be a straight talker. However, he adroitly picks and chooses politically what he talks straight about. When his campaign was at death's door, he started kissing and kissing the right wing Conservatives and Evangelicals. They saw through his puckered lips and in the recent Super Tuesday, he was rightly snubbed. They gave their votes to Huckabee. McCain would not make a pimple on an Independents arse.
Now John McCain has to start kissing right wingers all over again. But, the Conservatives and particularly Evangelicals have long memories of betrayal. They remember the the betrayal from another kiss.
John McCain co-sponsored the "Use of Force Authorization" giving Bush a go-ahead green light and a blank check for invading Iraq. [SJ Res 46,10.3.02] He used many of the inflammatory, weightless fear arguments Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush used to advocate war. His political reputation as an senator and Iraq war hawk hangs with this sad, pathetic trio, and his vote to rush to their much wanted war.
He thinks, and vehemently states the Iraq surge is working and preaches; winning, winning, winning. But, he does not say or acknowledge the military people agree it is a war we "cannot" win. He will not talk in any detail about why the surge was done; that is to buy time for Iraq's parliament to form a constitutionally, functional government. This can only be done through a political solution.
He continuously preaches winning in Iraq while demonizing those who want to find a responsible way out of Iraq. It is a wildly false perception. McCain says, "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." Saying he is willing to stay as occupiers for a hundred years. "It would be just fine with me." He calls his colleagues who opposed the resolution for troop surge as "intellectually dishonest."[Associated Press 2.4.2007]
He jumps from issue to issue like a cat prancing on a Arizona hot tin roof. He opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the errant development and use of intelligence manufactured to lead us to war. In essence, John McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. His straight-talk, is typical McCain shooting from the hip. It is far from what American Conservatives, or Liberals consider as straight talk.
McCain is one of only thirteen senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient/outpatient care for veterans. [S Admt 3642 to HR 4939 , Vote 98, 4.26.06]
He voted against mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. So much for caring for our "brave sons and daughters" serving our nation.
He is a Bush war hawk, a war mongerer, but openly wanted to get rid of Rumsfeld. However, on 5.12.2004 McCain said about Rumsfeld's continuing as an effective secretary of defense. "Yes , I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man. " Why the flip-flop on the war directions?
John McCain is not a good conservative Republican package with wide appeal. Beneath his rancorous facade, he really offers no consistent, suitable, acceptable programs or policies or the good of the nation. He is for continuing the Iraq war, but thinks government has too much deficit spending. How can McCain be for both?
He is non-definitive, not a conservative or liberal. He is a seventy-one year old man whose time has not come, but is over. He is an often out of control abusive, angry man with a quick hair-trigger temper he often unleashes disrespectfully aimed at his critics or Republican colleagues, calling them vile, guttural names. Is this the temperament we want in a president?
McCain consistently champions and co-sponsors bills, then votes against them. He voted against the Bush tax cut saying the money should go to the lower and middle classes who need it and can rapidly feed it into our economy. Now, he is for making the tax cuts permanent. Does he need the influx of campaign funds from those wealthy people and Wall Street corporations? Probably!
For three years, McCain championed the highly controversial Immigration Reform efforts for a viable solution to our immigration problems. It was a good idea that dealt with a serious problem. Many Democrats were with him, but, it infuriated the Conservatives. When asked recently if as president would he sign the bill into law? He responded with a taciturn. "No, I would not because we know what the situation is today." The situation is political, as McCain is now the presidential Republican front-runner. He continues jumping issues like the cat on the hot tin roof.
Senator McCain ignored the recent Senate stimulus vote on whether to make 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans eligible for rebate checks as part of the package. The vote was within one, his vote could have made a difference. But, by not standing for the deciding vote, he once again showed he did not have the political guts to support his fellow seniors and veterans as part of the stimulus package. There is a huge chasm between his rhetoric and action.
The conservatives do not like him or his values, they are polarized. But quietly, they are afraid of losing the White House for at least eight years to the Democrats. He has rubbed their face in the dirt with his provocative rhetoric and votes. The liberals do not want him for the same reasons...John McCain cannot be trusted in the White House to do the will, and work of the people. He shoots from the hip and speaks with a forked tongue. Go figure!
The Republicans say McCain is a political maverick. Political mavericks are generally political independents. He is not an Independent or maverick! He is a divisive, opportunistic politico who will do and say whatever it takes to get elected. He claims to be a straight talker. However, he adroitly picks and chooses politically what he talks straight about. When his campaign was at death's door, he started kissing and kissing the right wing Conservatives and Evangelicals. They saw through his puckered lips and in the recent Super Tuesday, he was rightly snubbed. They gave their votes to Huckabee. McCain would not make a pimple on an Independents arse.
Now John McCain has to start kissing right wingers all over again. But, the Conservatives and particularly Evangelicals have long memories of betrayal. They remember the the betrayal from another kiss.
John McCain co-sponsored the "Use of Force Authorization" giving Bush a go-ahead green light and a blank check for invading Iraq. [SJ Res 46,10.3.02] He used many of the inflammatory, weightless fear arguments Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush used to advocate war. His political reputation as an senator and Iraq war hawk hangs with this sad, pathetic trio, and his vote to rush to their much wanted war.
He thinks, and vehemently states the Iraq surge is working and preaches; winning, winning, winning. But, he does not say or acknowledge the military people agree it is a war we "cannot" win. He will not talk in any detail about why the surge was done; that is to buy time for Iraq's parliament to form a constitutionally, functional government. This can only be done through a political solution.
He continuously preaches winning in Iraq while demonizing those who want to find a responsible way out of Iraq. It is a wildly false perception. McCain says, "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." Saying he is willing to stay as occupiers for a hundred years. "It would be just fine with me." He calls his colleagues who opposed the resolution for troop surge as "intellectually dishonest."[Associated Press 2.4.2007]
He jumps from issue to issue like a cat prancing on a Arizona hot tin roof. He opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the errant development and use of intelligence manufactured to lead us to war. In essence, John McCain voted against holding Bush accountable for his actions in the war. His straight-talk, is typical McCain shooting from the hip. It is far from what American Conservatives, or Liberals consider as straight talk.
McCain is one of only thirteen senators to vote against adding $430 million for inpatient/outpatient care for veterans. [S Admt 3642 to HR 4939 , Vote 98, 4.26.06]
He voted against mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. So much for caring for our "brave sons and daughters" serving our nation.
He is a Bush war hawk, a war mongerer, but openly wanted to get rid of Rumsfeld. However, on 5.12.2004 McCain said about Rumsfeld's continuing as an effective secretary of defense. "Yes , I do and I believe he's done a fine job. He's an honorable man. " Why the flip-flop on the war directions?
John McCain is not a good conservative Republican package with wide appeal. Beneath his rancorous facade, he really offers no consistent, suitable, acceptable programs or policies or the good of the nation. He is for continuing the Iraq war, but thinks government has too much deficit spending. How can McCain be for both?
He is non-definitive, not a conservative or liberal. He is a seventy-one year old man whose time has not come, but is over. He is an often out of control abusive, angry man with a quick hair-trigger temper he often unleashes disrespectfully aimed at his critics or Republican colleagues, calling them vile, guttural names. Is this the temperament we want in a president?
McCain consistently champions and co-sponsors bills, then votes against them. He voted against the Bush tax cut saying the money should go to the lower and middle classes who need it and can rapidly feed it into our economy. Now, he is for making the tax cuts permanent. Does he need the influx of campaign funds from those wealthy people and Wall Street corporations? Probably!
For three years, McCain championed the highly controversial Immigration Reform efforts for a viable solution to our immigration problems. It was a good idea that dealt with a serious problem. Many Democrats were with him, but, it infuriated the Conservatives. When asked recently if as president would he sign the bill into law? He responded with a taciturn. "No, I would not because we know what the situation is today." The situation is political, as McCain is now the presidential Republican front-runner. He continues jumping issues like the cat on the hot tin roof.
Senator McCain ignored the recent Senate stimulus vote on whether to make 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans eligible for rebate checks as part of the package. The vote was within one, his vote could have made a difference. But, by not standing for the deciding vote, he once again showed he did not have the political guts to support his fellow seniors and veterans as part of the stimulus package. There is a huge chasm between his rhetoric and action.
The conservatives do not like him or his values, they are polarized. But quietly, they are afraid of losing the White House for at least eight years to the Democrats. He has rubbed their face in the dirt with his provocative rhetoric and votes. The liberals do not want him for the same reasons...John McCain cannot be trusted in the White House to do the will, and work of the people. He shoots from the hip and speaks with a forked tongue. Go figure!
Friday, February 8, 2008
The Stimulus: A political "feel good "game!
What does our government not know about how to stimulate the economy? Move quickly and provide stimulus to the sectors and people who need it, and can inject it immediately into our economy...and keep doing it for at least a year. One shot is not enough.
A political feel good package is not the answer, but, seems to be the norm for this Neocom bunch that can't think their way out of a paper bag, and work for the good of the nation! The American people witness this fiasco, and are disgusted with Republican hidden agendas and their war on the lower and middle classes.
The senate passed a stimulus package today (2.7.2008) that is nothing more than a band aide on a gushing financial and economic wound slowly bleeding our nation of its life. It is a "feel good" package , a political game to give the Republican rich and famous corporations meat and potatoes while the people who really need a meal get crumbs. Missing are several key Democratic recommendations.
The idea of giving a one-time rebate to people who make $150-$300 thousand a year is baffling. To consider they will immediately put it into the economy is wishful thinking. It would be good if higher rebates could go to the middle class who will immediately put it into the economy. Remember these checks will not be available until around April or May. We may be looking at July before the money starts to trickle into our economy. just in time for another shot of empty rhetoric. So much for immediate stimulus. By initially taking so long they may have defeated the purpose of the stimulus.
The final vote 58-41 was just short of the required number to move the bill forward to the final vote. Eight Republicans joined the Democrats against Republican leaders and Bush over their vocifeous objections to what they refer to a costly "add-0ns" in the package.
The Democrat senators skillfully painted the Republicans into a box with a take or leave it proposal. They summoned senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to Washington for the vote, showing solidarity behind their proposed plan. Senator John McCain was in Washington, but did not vote in support of veterans and seniors , which he is both. We clearly know where his heart lies, or is it that he lies from the heart.
The Republicans blocked the vote by one, but, it opened a fissure in the party indicating something is going to give. It is a fearful message to the Neocons. They might actually have to do a little something to benefit the country (instead of holding to their agenda of wealthy and corporations first) with rebates for a larger amount of the lower and middle class, seniors , disabled veterans, heating aid for the poor, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits. They must have choked at the thought.
However, Republican leaders were greatly concerned about defections, and exerted massive pressure on Republican senators not to support the Democratic plan. Typical bipartisian crap!
Stay tuned there will be more on this recession the Imperial Bush spins as an economic downturn.
A political feel good package is not the answer, but, seems to be the norm for this Neocom bunch that can't think their way out of a paper bag, and work for the good of the nation! The American people witness this fiasco, and are disgusted with Republican hidden agendas and their war on the lower and middle classes.
The senate passed a stimulus package today (2.7.2008) that is nothing more than a band aide on a gushing financial and economic wound slowly bleeding our nation of its life. It is a "feel good" package , a political game to give the Republican rich and famous corporations meat and potatoes while the people who really need a meal get crumbs. Missing are several key Democratic recommendations.
The idea of giving a one-time rebate to people who make $150-$300 thousand a year is baffling. To consider they will immediately put it into the economy is wishful thinking. It would be good if higher rebates could go to the middle class who will immediately put it into the economy. Remember these checks will not be available until around April or May. We may be looking at July before the money starts to trickle into our economy. just in time for another shot of empty rhetoric. So much for immediate stimulus. By initially taking so long they may have defeated the purpose of the stimulus.
The final vote 58-41 was just short of the required number to move the bill forward to the final vote. Eight Republicans joined the Democrats against Republican leaders and Bush over their vocifeous objections to what they refer to a costly "add-0ns" in the package.
The Democrat senators skillfully painted the Republicans into a box with a take or leave it proposal. They summoned senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to Washington for the vote, showing solidarity behind their proposed plan. Senator John McCain was in Washington, but did not vote in support of veterans and seniors , which he is both. We clearly know where his heart lies, or is it that he lies from the heart.
The Republicans blocked the vote by one, but, it opened a fissure in the party indicating something is going to give. It is a fearful message to the Neocons. They might actually have to do a little something to benefit the country (instead of holding to their agenda of wealthy and corporations first) with rebates for a larger amount of the lower and middle class, seniors , disabled veterans, heating aid for the poor, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits. They must have choked at the thought.
However, Republican leaders were greatly concerned about defections, and exerted massive pressure on Republican senators not to support the Democratic plan. Typical bipartisian crap!
Stay tuned there will be more on this recession the Imperial Bush spins as an economic downturn.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Why must America win militarily in Iraq?
Is the concept of winning so important to Americans we cannot see the moral delemma it places us? Why must winning always be achieved ahead of a solution that does the right thing? Do we confuse winning with doing the right thing?
I am thinking about Iraq, and the reasons we are in the war. We have heard them a hundred times and they have been changed several times to suit the Republican Neocon needs. I have have never heard any involving attaining the peace with Middle East players in negotiations. We are in a war a very few people wanted, and for their own agendas. They gave us unpolished rhetoric of fear about why we should invade a sovereign nation with a premptive strike. Fear is always a good, short term tactic, but we can tire of living with it. Topping the list was our "national security or our national interests,"which equates to just one word...OIL! What other interests do we have there!
We did not invade Iraq because they were behind 9/11, that case has been proven untrue. We didn't invaded Iraq to get their WMD's, that case is false . We didn't invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, he was never a threat to us. In fact, at one time he was an American ally, we gave him chemical weapons to use in his fight against Iran. So, forget that one. We didn't go to war to free an Islamic society by giving them democracy. They do not want it and resent us for pushing it on them.
The Iraq Islamic fundamentalists are satisfied with who they are. We are not! They have had internal strife with religious, tribal frictions and a government that refuses to work with a cohesiveness that makes a sovereign nation function. The Middle East has been working, fighting together in some sort of toleration for two thousand years or more. Why do we not let well enough alone, and allow them solve their own problems without our interference! By stepping in, we insert our country into the familiar situation of what happens when a person intervenes in an argument between a husband and wife. They both gang up on the interfering person.
Most of all, let us remember we did not invade Iraq to pursue peace. our sheer American presence on their soil prevents that from happening. Occupiers are never welcome. They resent us because they consider us infidels on their sacred land. They know we want their oil. To accomplish that we have to win militarily. This is insane especially when everyone agrees no peace can be achieved by a military force. Only by a political solution can peace come about. We cannot control their oil politically. Part of the political equation we do not seem to understand is the the Iraqi's want the American presence out of their country. Period!
We have achieved all the stated reasons Bush said he went to war, now he is simply finding new ones for us to stay there. Today, the rhetoric is of winning the surge and future bases of operations in Iraq. We have overtaxed our troops with multiple rotations, we have decimated Iraq so badly we are now in a nation building posture. Putting our treasure into Iraq when these resource should be going to solve our own country's problems. The American people are sick of that attitude. They want a change!
So what are we winning? As Senator McCain intimates we will be there as long as it takes, even if it is a hundred years. (Does guarding oil wells mean anything?) As a military man he thinks in terms of winning, not in terms of a political peace. That idea is very worrisome, especially for a politician to speak of military might equating to meaning "right."
However, the military people in Baghdad do not believe we can win with a military occupation, the Iraq problem can only be solved politically. The surge is an effort to buy the Iraq government time to reach a political solution. In almost a year they have not done so. It is not realistic to say the surge, as intended is remotely working. We do not have the political guts to pressure the Iraq government to a political reconstruction solution. In five years they have refused to coalesce, knowing the Bush administration and our troops will be there to bail them out, and do their fighting, trying to win a war we cannot win. Iraq has no time ultimatum. It is open ended. We have put no pressure to Iraq's government. A little goes a very long way with Bush.
The Bush administration really does not want a political solution in Iraq. We want their oil! Perhaps that is why winning is so important that we will stay and fight to get it. It's matter of occupation, and manipulation of a sovereign nation and its people. It is a Republican Neocom game with extremely high stakes.
I am thinking about Iraq, and the reasons we are in the war. We have heard them a hundred times and they have been changed several times to suit the Republican Neocon needs. I have have never heard any involving attaining the peace with Middle East players in negotiations. We are in a war a very few people wanted, and for their own agendas. They gave us unpolished rhetoric of fear about why we should invade a sovereign nation with a premptive strike. Fear is always a good, short term tactic, but we can tire of living with it. Topping the list was our "national security or our national interests,"which equates to just one word...OIL! What other interests do we have there!
We did not invade Iraq because they were behind 9/11, that case has been proven untrue. We didn't invaded Iraq to get their WMD's, that case is false . We didn't invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein, he was never a threat to us. In fact, at one time he was an American ally, we gave him chemical weapons to use in his fight against Iran. So, forget that one. We didn't go to war to free an Islamic society by giving them democracy. They do not want it and resent us for pushing it on them.
The Iraq Islamic fundamentalists are satisfied with who they are. We are not! They have had internal strife with religious, tribal frictions and a government that refuses to work with a cohesiveness that makes a sovereign nation function. The Middle East has been working, fighting together in some sort of toleration for two thousand years or more. Why do we not let well enough alone, and allow them solve their own problems without our interference! By stepping in, we insert our country into the familiar situation of what happens when a person intervenes in an argument between a husband and wife. They both gang up on the interfering person.
Most of all, let us remember we did not invade Iraq to pursue peace. our sheer American presence on their soil prevents that from happening. Occupiers are never welcome. They resent us because they consider us infidels on their sacred land. They know we want their oil. To accomplish that we have to win militarily. This is insane especially when everyone agrees no peace can be achieved by a military force. Only by a political solution can peace come about. We cannot control their oil politically. Part of the political equation we do not seem to understand is the the Iraqi's want the American presence out of their country. Period!
We have achieved all the stated reasons Bush said he went to war, now he is simply finding new ones for us to stay there. Today, the rhetoric is of winning the surge and future bases of operations in Iraq. We have overtaxed our troops with multiple rotations, we have decimated Iraq so badly we are now in a nation building posture. Putting our treasure into Iraq when these resource should be going to solve our own country's problems. The American people are sick of that attitude. They want a change!
So what are we winning? As Senator McCain intimates we will be there as long as it takes, even if it is a hundred years. (Does guarding oil wells mean anything?) As a military man he thinks in terms of winning, not in terms of a political peace. That idea is very worrisome, especially for a politician to speak of military might equating to meaning "right."
However, the military people in Baghdad do not believe we can win with a military occupation, the Iraq problem can only be solved politically. The surge is an effort to buy the Iraq government time to reach a political solution. In almost a year they have not done so. It is not realistic to say the surge, as intended is remotely working. We do not have the political guts to pressure the Iraq government to a political reconstruction solution. In five years they have refused to coalesce, knowing the Bush administration and our troops will be there to bail them out, and do their fighting, trying to win a war we cannot win. Iraq has no time ultimatum. It is open ended. We have put no pressure to Iraq's government. A little goes a very long way with Bush.
The Bush administration really does not want a political solution in Iraq. We want their oil! Perhaps that is why winning is so important that we will stay and fight to get it. It's matter of occupation, and manipulation of a sovereign nation and its people. It is a Republican Neocom game with extremely high stakes.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
What happens when we can't trust our leaders to tell the truth?
It's a serious question!
Hillary Clinton and other members of congress did not give George Bush the tacit approval, or their vote to wage war on Iraq. Though it is referred to as the "Iraq War Resolution." She and other Democrats thought the idea of a war with Iraq was replusive, insane and dead against it. There were few in congress who did not trust Bush and refused to give their sanctions. Praise to them. For those who gave their vote for the resolution, Bush could not be trusted, he purposfully misled them. That vote was their mistake, and their trust was very human.
They gave Bush their vote, with UN sanctions to pursue inspections in Iraq for concealed weapons of mass destruction. She and the other Democrats gave Bush the approval to send inspectors into Iraq searching for the controversial charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, This was the purpose of the resolution, the White House said they would not deviate from this cited position. Senator Chuck Hagel who helped draft the resolution said, "It was not a vote for war." Bush arrogantly abused their sanctions given in good faith for inspectors, and adamatly claimed it was a vote for him to go to war. He did what he wanted, and thumbed his nose at us defiantly.
Colin Powell, a usually tranquil voice in the State Department told us weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq in his fateful UN and on national TV. The suppositions and leap of reality were so incredulous a child could see through them. He did not make the case for Americans.
Hillary gave Bush this vote or sanction because she trusted him to do what he said and given his word to her privately. She and the other Democrats are not naive, far from it. However now, she does not trust George Bush to live up to his word. He lied to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who gave their sanction.
Not only did Bush lie to the Democrats and congress, he seduced and pressured a good, respected man, Colin Powell to make an audacious presentation for the war nationally. Colin Powell has not recouped his prestige from his Neocon seduction. He resented being used and consequently resigned his cabinet post as Secretary of State. Bush quickly appointed the pliable Condoleezza Rice to succeed him.
Bush on national TV lied to the nation, and took us to a Rumsfeld/Cheney preplanned war under false pretexts and colours. There is no shame in his game. He will say anything: use anyone to get what he wants.
What is really painful is our Republican leaders go lock step with the Bush war concept and lie to us without impunity or conscience. They use Federal Departments like the CIA and Pentagon to cherry pick and create information, carefully crafting it to suit their needs.
Remember Vice President Dick Cheney told "I know for certain Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack." He also told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were located in Iraq. Why didn't he tell the inspectors? Both comments proved to be untrue and set us up for the invasion of Iraq, which is exactly what the Neocons were planning.
We believe them because we want to believe our leaders word. We like to think their "word" is held as a sacred trust. Would they lie or be untruthful? Yes, as we have seen, in a heartbeat. When they do, President or Vice President, we will see through it, and if we are smart, we will never trust them again. Shame on us for taking seven years to figure it out. However, that is what an Imperial president does. He fools, threats, misleads and cajoles the people with his megalomaniac power and control. Our crippled nation is seeing the results.
When we cannot trust our leaders to have a transparent government, do the work of the people, it is time to dramatically throw them out of office with our vote, and hold the accountable with impeachment. It may be rough and painful to our nation, but is is the only message of responsibility they understand. And, it demonstrates to the world, we will only tolorate leaders of quality in a transparent government who do the people's will and work. Otherwise, we get the government we deserve.
Hillary Clinton and other members of congress did not give George Bush the tacit approval, or their vote to wage war on Iraq. Though it is referred to as the "Iraq War Resolution." She and other Democrats thought the idea of a war with Iraq was replusive, insane and dead against it. There were few in congress who did not trust Bush and refused to give their sanctions. Praise to them. For those who gave their vote for the resolution, Bush could not be trusted, he purposfully misled them. That vote was their mistake, and their trust was very human.
They gave Bush their vote, with UN sanctions to pursue inspections in Iraq for concealed weapons of mass destruction. She and the other Democrats gave Bush the approval to send inspectors into Iraq searching for the controversial charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, This was the purpose of the resolution, the White House said they would not deviate from this cited position. Senator Chuck Hagel who helped draft the resolution said, "It was not a vote for war." Bush arrogantly abused their sanctions given in good faith for inspectors, and adamatly claimed it was a vote for him to go to war. He did what he wanted, and thumbed his nose at us defiantly.
Colin Powell, a usually tranquil voice in the State Department told us weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq in his fateful UN and on national TV. The suppositions and leap of reality were so incredulous a child could see through them. He did not make the case for Americans.
Hillary gave Bush this vote or sanction because she trusted him to do what he said and given his word to her privately. She and the other Democrats are not naive, far from it. However now, she does not trust George Bush to live up to his word. He lied to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats who gave their sanction.
Not only did Bush lie to the Democrats and congress, he seduced and pressured a good, respected man, Colin Powell to make an audacious presentation for the war nationally. Colin Powell has not recouped his prestige from his Neocon seduction. He resented being used and consequently resigned his cabinet post as Secretary of State. Bush quickly appointed the pliable Condoleezza Rice to succeed him.
Bush on national TV lied to the nation, and took us to a Rumsfeld/Cheney preplanned war under false pretexts and colours. There is no shame in his game. He will say anything: use anyone to get what he wants.
What is really painful is our Republican leaders go lock step with the Bush war concept and lie to us without impunity or conscience. They use Federal Departments like the CIA and Pentagon to cherry pick and create information, carefully crafting it to suit their needs.
Remember Vice President Dick Cheney told "I know for certain Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack." He also told us he knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were located in Iraq. Why didn't he tell the inspectors? Both comments proved to be untrue and set us up for the invasion of Iraq, which is exactly what the Neocons were planning.
We believe them because we want to believe our leaders word. We like to think their "word" is held as a sacred trust. Would they lie or be untruthful? Yes, as we have seen, in a heartbeat. When they do, President or Vice President, we will see through it, and if we are smart, we will never trust them again. Shame on us for taking seven years to figure it out. However, that is what an Imperial president does. He fools, threats, misleads and cajoles the people with his megalomaniac power and control. Our crippled nation is seeing the results.
When we cannot trust our leaders to have a transparent government, do the work of the people, it is time to dramatically throw them out of office with our vote, and hold the accountable with impeachment. It may be rough and painful to our nation, but is is the only message of responsibility they understand. And, it demonstrates to the world, we will only tolorate leaders of quality in a transparent government who do the people's will and work. Otherwise, we get the government we deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)