:: Da' Militant One's Lair ::

:: Thursday, April 29, 2004 ::

Blinders

Some white republican conservatives remind me of a horse pulling a buggy with "blinders" on. The only thing they can see is the direction that they want to go. One more time, not all of the rest of the world wants to be like America. Other people have their own cultures and traditions. What does it take to get that through your skulls? You are led by emotion and ideology and you are destroying this nation. You say you are Christians, where are your works? You got rid of Saddam? Well since you put him there you were only making things right. You believe in tough love for liberals and minorities. Yet white conservatives get passes from you. For example, Bill "The $8 Million Gambler" Bennett; Rush "The Oxycotin Man" Limbaugh; George "Mission Accomplished" Bush; Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney; Sean "I was not called to serve" Hannity; Tom "I don't remember if I was the CEO" Delay, and on and on. A bunch of frauds who get passes from folks in the "red" states. Then you have Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima, I mean Colin and Condi. What? I shouldn't have said that? Go back and look at slave life. Massa always had a couple of "Negroes" who they trusted and who would stay by Massa no matter what. That Colin Powell can be uppity and virtuous at times really riles some of you. Until you look past your own narrow world you will never achieve that which you seek. Face it, the entire government is run by conservative white republicans and where is our country. Who in the world can we count on? Who can count on us? How many soldiers must die in Iraq before your bloodlust has been satisfied? I have stayed clear on talking about race in certains contexts until recently. However, now is the time to question white, conservative republicans in the same manner that they question liberals and minorities with labels and contempt. Who is really blind, the man with eyes who refuses to see or the man who is blind and can not see?

:: DM1 4/29/2004 11:36:00 PM [+] ::
...

Dick Bergen and George W. McCarthy

The "Dummy" is about to speak and give Unka' Dick's version of their sit down routine with the 9/11 Commission. What is really galling is that he didn't have the moral courage or leadership to appear before the Commission by himself. nor has he ever taken responsibility for any of the failures that have occurred on his watch. Folks like to call the "Big Dog" (Bill Clinton) a disgrace, but you are looking at the true definition the word in George W. Bush. What's really bothering me is that I voted for his father and would again tomorrow, but this apple has fallen far from the tree. He's been a slacker his entire life and if it wasn't for hhis daddy and his daddy's friends he would be dumpster diving for a living. I wonder if Bush sat on Cheney's knee during the interview and if one could see Cheney's lips move. A more important question is if Bush did sit on Cheney's knee where did Cheney place his hand? I'm sure that you know where I am going with this. If Cheney did place his hand where I think he did, did he first have to remove Bush's head? Stay with me, I don't want this blog to get censored so I have to talk around the subject some what. Now the "dummy" is out in the Rose Garden reading what Rove and Unka' Dick have placed in front of him. Thoroughly pathetic. It's time to end this side show. John Kerry, it's time for you to "ruck up" and stop being a statesman. If you want to beat this crowd you are going to have to get in the gutter with them because that is where they do their best work.

:: DM1 4/29/2004 01:27:00 PM [+] ::
...

Well, well, well.

I just posted a comment about the looming fight in Fallujah and I run across this. Just a taste of the article.

April 25, 2004
Bush's Decision on Possible Attack on Falluja Seems Near
By DAVID E. SANGER
and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, April 24 — Facing one of the grimmest choices of the Iraq war, President Bush and his senior national security and military advisers are expected to decide this weekend whether to order an invasion of Fallujah, even if a battle there runs the risk of uprisings in the city and perhaps elsewhere around Iraq.

Did you get that? The Bush Administration is going to decide if Fallujah is going to be attacked not the military commanders in the field. All we can hope for now is that the military is able to carry out what is a twisted and poorly thought out strategy. It is folly send the marines house to house because death will be behind many a corner. How about airstrikes, first? Understand that you will have to destroy Fallujah to save it. Bottom line. I sure hope that I am wrong, but looking through my columns I have been right most of the time. I hope for the sake of the Iraqis and the American soldiers that I lose this one.

:: DM1 4/24/2004 08:24:00 PM [+] ::
...

WWSD

I wonder what Saddam would do if he was faced with multiple uprisings. Oh, yeah that's right he killed those who were uprising along with many civilians. Now what is the U.S. getting ready to do? How about killing those who are uprising along with many civilians. Wait a minute, we took out Saddam because he was suppressing and killing his people. We are killing and suppressing Saddam's people because we are trying to liberate them. What? How bizarre is it that we are doing exactly what Saddam would do? Only Saddam did it better. If folks were shooting at Saddam's troops from a Mosque, Saddam would have had the Mosque blown up. See that is how war is fought. I am so glad that in Fallujah we have given the Iraqi rebels many days to reinforce their positions and coordinate their tactics. Can you say more dead Americans? I am so glad that the Bush Administration is making sure that this war is a quagmire. Keep tying the military's hands and it will get worse. Say what you will about Saddam he had a docile electorate and he didn't have to worry about uprisings. Could he have been on to something or did he realize that the Shia, the Sunnis, Baathist and the Kurds would never live together under one flag unless forced? Pandora has left the building and she is raising some big time hell. What to do, what to do? The question that should be asked now is whether or not Iraq is worth saving in it's current form. Like I said, "WWSD"?

:: DM1 4/24/2004 08:09:00 PM [+] ::
...

I See Dead People

I've been mulling ovee the pictures of the coffins of American soldiers. Should they be shown? Why not? Loudmouth couldn't wait to "prance" across that flight deck last year and imply that the worst was over. Major combat operations over? I think not. I don't know if there is a conflict in history where more folks were killed AFTER major combat operations. I don't think that I can take another day of the Iraqis loving us. The country is a killing zone and American soldiers are the target. Dauphin, what is the frequency? No plan and no exit strategy, thousands wounded and killed. And that's why the coffins should be shown, daily.

:: DM1 4/24/2004 07:54:00 PM [+] ::
...

One Reason Why Afghan President Hamed Karzai is Known as the "Mayor of Kabul"

From the Seattle Times:

Woodward book tells of Bush's march to war in Iraq

By The Associated Press and The Washington Post


WASHINGTON — President Bush quietly ordered creation of a war plan against Iraq in November 2001 while overseeing a divided national-security team, including a vice president determined to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, a new book says.

Journalist Bob Woodward, in "Plan of Attack," says Secretary of State Colin Powell believed Vice President Dick Cheney developed — as Woodward puts it — an "unhealthy fixation" on trying to find a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush dismissed such characterizations of Cheney.

Another key revelation: Bush in mid-2002 secretly approved the diversion of hundreds of millions of dollars meant for Afghanistan to projects that would set the stage for a massive deployment of U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf region.

Did you get that? Bush secretly diverted hundreds of millions of dollars FROM Afghanistan to Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was supposed to bring democracy to the country and culminate in the capture or killing of Osama Bin Laden. Instead Bush chose to chase Saddam. Didn't he tell us that we would get Osama "dead or live"? I bet you all thought he meant it. Now you find out that he half-a**ed it. Basically told you anything he wanted to and then went behind your back and subverted the march to victory in Afghanistan. Now Hamed Karzai walks, and very quickly I might add, around the streets of Kabul trying to appear presidential. This I might add is striking similar to what Bush has been doing in the U.S. Bush diverted milions and millions of dollars away from our efforts to capture or kill Public Enemy #1 Osama to go after Saddam. Not one Iraqi was among any of the hijackers of 9/11. I submit that this revelation as well as other proveable breaches of the public's faith call for a strong response from the citizenry and Congress. Can you say impeachment? The only WMD that the republicans were looking for in the 90s belonged to Bill Clinton and when they found it they impeached him. The only person who was attacked by Clinton's WMD was Monica and she has the stained dress to prove it. Bush's search for nonexistent WMD in Iraq has caused thousands of U.S. and Iraqi casualities and deaths. It is time for this embarassment as a president to leave office. We need new leadership and I don't care which John Kerry shows up on election day, either one of them is better than what we have now, the boy who would be king.

:: DM1 4/18/2004 07:56:00 AM [+] ::
...

My Take on Bush Latest Press Conference

What can I say? I already had low expectations going in and Bush did not disappoint. This is the man that the republicans want to lead this nation? Yeah, I know that Bush is an average guy, which is why we should be looking for above average people to serve as president. I mean he was on vacation and had a chance to prep for any and all questions. It was as some have said "very painful" to watch. Bush has conviction, but limited intellect and reasoning ability. While some of the questions put Bush on the spot, that he could not finesse them speaks volumes on his ability to fully serve in his capacity as president. He doesn't have a clue and is a significant hinderance to our country's ability to be taken serious and believed by the rest of the world. The folly of invading Iraq was an open secret. Any prudent reading of the Middle East and Iraqi history would have underscored the difficulty not of taking Iraq, but of holding it. That Bush and his underlings seem to have no historical perspective has been a tragedy for the country and their policies are leading to the needless deaths and grevious wounding of thousands of soldiers. And now Bush wants the U.N. to step in. What did Bush call the U.N. just last year? Irrelevent? I think the country and the world are finding out who is really irrelevent. For all his bluster and tough talk, Bush is now relying on events to shape the Iraq policy instead of truly developing a plan. Bush's performance at the press conference was par for the course and as usual we are all the poorer for it.

:: DM1 4/16/2004 06:11:00 PM [+] ::
...

Arrogance

Can someone pleas tell George W. Bush to tone down the arrogance! In what was the worst week of fighting in the war since the Spring of 2003, GWB was no where to be found. A "War President", please. Can you for once stop your vacation go to the White House and do some work. The country was wobbled last week and where were you? Gone fishing. That pretty much sums up your actions when your country needs you. Alright, you did a GREAT job after 9/11 even I prayed for you and hung out a flag. Your approval rating was at 90% and what do you do with the consensus? Squandered it. Now there is no consensus and don't not blame the democrats for i t was they who put you at 90%. They continued to support you even while watching their leaders fall under your boot. Then came Iraq. You could have given inspections a couple more months, but no, it was your your way and your way only. Now what. How about going before the United Nations and the American public and asking for a new partnership in pacifying Iraq. Now understand that the people of Iraq have a history of altering even the best laid plans. Go to Iraq and talk to the top clerics. Give them your word personally. You will be surprised how a little diplomacy goes a long way. Next, get rid of Dick Cheney. You've been listening to him all along and he is getting you screwed. Stop dodging responsibility. You were president for 8 months prior to 9/11. You should have stepped up. Nothing Bill Clinton did prevented you from letting the public in on the warnings that preceded 9/11. Maybe a more alert public could have provided authorities with the missing intellgence. Stop sending poor Condi out to spin your actions and positions. You should be taking the heat. How is it condi has to appear under oath in public by herself and you get to appear in private, unsworn and with Dick Cheney by your side? It makes you look weak and unable to defend yourself. In short, dispense with the arrogance. You are no better than the rest of us. You should be working with all of America not just the extreme right. You still have an opportunity to get it right. Now let's see if you have the ciourage.

:: DM1 4/12/2004 08:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

Laziest White Man I Ever Saw

Here's an article from the Houston Chronicle:

Neither war nor inquiry keeps Bush from R&R

Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

It's Easter weekend, and that means President Bush is at the ranch, nevermind that U.S. troops last week struggled to put down an uprising in Iraq or his national security adviser was being grilled about who knew what and when before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Bush makes the pilgrimage to his Central Texas spread every year for Easter, when the wildflowers are in full bloom and the mesquite trees are sprouting fresh, iridescent green leaves.

Last week, the president gave a tour of the ranch to leaders of hunting rights, recreational sports and gun rights groups. He later sat down for an interview with Ladies' Home Journal.

Bush has now made 33 trips to Crawford since becoming president, bringing his total to more than 230 days at the ranch in a little more than three years, according to a tally kept by CBS News.

Add his 78 trips to Camp David and five to his family's compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has spent all or part of 500 days -- or about 40 percent of his presidency -- at one of his three retreats.

There is an episode from "All in the Family" where Archie is talking to Meathead. In a particular scene, Archie is savaging Meathead for not working and contributing to the upkeep of the house. Archie then exclaims that MEathead was "the laziest white man I ever saw". After George W. Bush's tenure in the White House, I think Meathead has been downgraded to number two.

:: DM1 4/11/2004 11:19:00 AM [+] ::
...

Shouldn't This Be The Other Way Around?

US soldiers in Iraq asked to pray for Bush

They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush.

Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush.

"I have committed to pray for you, your family, your staff and our troops during this time of uncertainty and tumult. May God's peace be your guide," says the pledge, according to a journalist embedded with coalition forces.

The pamphlet, produced by a group called In Touch Ministries, offers a daily prayer to be made for the US president, a born-again Christian who likes to invoke his God in speeches.

Sunday's is "Pray that the President and his advisers will seek God and his wisdom daily and not rely on their own understanding".

Monday's reads "Pray that the President and his advisers will be strong and courageous to do what is right regardless of critics".


How arrogant and self-important is the Dauphin? Shouldn't he be praying for the soldiers AND asking their forgiveness for his incompetence that has put them all at extreme risk? It's bad enough that the military has to carry out his failed policies, but now they have to pray for him? Just disgraceful!

:: DM1 4/11/2004 10:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Latest New York Times Article

April 10, 2004
Bush Was Warned of Possible Attack in U.S., Official Says
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and DAVID E. SANGER

ASHINGTON, April 9 — President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.

The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a "closely held intelligence report" that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford.

The disclosure appears to contradict the White House's repeated assertions that the briefing the president received about the Qaeda threat was "historical" in nature and that the White House had little reason to suspect a Qaeda attack within American borders.

Members of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks have asked the White House to make the Aug. 6 briefing memorandum public. The A.P. account of it was attributed to "several people who have seen the memo." The White House has said that nothing in it pointed specifically to the kind of attacks that actually took place a month later.

The Congressional report last year, citing efforts by Al Qaeda operatives beginning in 1997 to attack American soil, said that operatives appeared to have a support structure in the United States and that intelligence officials had "uncorroborated information" that Mr. bin Laden "wanted to hijack airplanes" to gain the release of imprisoned extremists. It also said that intelligence officials received information in May 2001, three months earlier, that indicated "a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives."

Also on Friday, the White House offered evidence that the Federal Bureau of Investigation received instructions more than two months before the Sept. 11 attacks to increase its scrutiny of terrorist suspects inside the United States. But it is unclear what action, if any, the bureau took in response.

The disclosure appeared to signal an effort by the White House to distance itself from the F.B.I. in the debate over whether the Bush administration did enough in the summer of 2001 to deter a possible terrorist attack in the United States in the face of increased warnings.

A classified memorandum, sent around July 4, 2001, to Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, from the counterterrorism group run by Richard A. Clarke, described a series of steps it said the White House had taken to put the nation on heightened terrorist alert. Among the steps, the memorandum said, "all 56 F.B.I. field offices were also tasked in late June to go to increased surveillance and contact with informants related to known or suspected terrorists in the United States."

Parts of the White House memorandum were provided to The New York Times on Friday by a White House official seeking to bolster the public account provided a day before by Ms. Rice, who portrayed an administration aggressively working to deter a domestic terror attack.

But law enforcement officials said Friday that they believed that Ms. Rice's testimony before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks — including her account of scores of F.B.I. investigations under way that summer into suspected Qaeda cells operating in the United States — overstated the scope, thrust and intensity of activities by the F.B.I. within American borders.

Agents at that time were focused mainly on the threat of overseas attacks, law enforcement officials said. The F.B.I. was investigating numerous cases that involved international terrorism and may have had tangential connections to Al Qaeda, but one official said that despite Ms. Rice's account, the investigations were focused more overseas and "were not sleeper cell investigations."

The finger-pointing will probably increase next week when numerous current and former senior law enforcement officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, testify before the Sept. 11 commission. In an unusual pre-emptive strike, Mr. Ashcroft's chief spokesman on Friday accused some Democrats on the commission of having "political axes to grind" in attacking the attorney general, who oversees the F.B.I., and unfairly blaming him for law enforcement failures.

A similar accusation against the commission was also leveled by Senator Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican with ties to the White House, in a speech on the Senate floor Thursday.

"Sadly, the commission's public hearings have allowed those with political axes to grind, like Richard Clarke, to play shamelessly to the partisan gallery of liberal special interests seeking to bring down the president," Mr. McConnell said.

The charges and countercharges underscored the political challenge that the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks has become for President Bush as he mounts his re-election bid. The White House sought this week to defuse the situation by allowing Ms. Rice to testify before the Sept. 11 commission after months of resistance. But her appearance served to raise new questions about the administration's efforts to deter an attack.

The White House on Friday put off a decision on declassifying the document at the center of the debate — the Aug. 6 briefing, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." But the administration appeared ready to release at least portions of the document publicly in the coming days.

The memo from Mr. Clarke's group in July 2001 about F.B.I. activities adds another piece of evidence to the document trail, but it is unlikely to resolve the questions over whether the administration did enough to deter an attack.

White House officials, who spent several weeks attacking Mr. Clarke's credibility, said Friday that they believed the memo from his counterterrorism group was an accurate reflection of steps the White House took to deter an attack. But they questioned whether the F.B.I. executed the instructions to intensify its scrutiny of terrorist suspects and contacts in the United States.

In April 2001, the F.B.I. did send out a classified memo to its field offices directing agents to "check with their sources on any information they had relative to terrorism," said a senior law enforcement official who spoke on condition of anonymity. But with the level of threat warnings increasing markedly over the next several months, there is no indication that any directive went out in the late June period that was described in the memo from Mr. Clarke's office.

That summer saw a string of alerts by the F.B.I. and other government agencies about the heightened possibility of a terrorist attack, but most counterterrorism officials believed an attack would come in Saudi Arabia, Israel or elsewhere. Many also were worried about a July 4 attack and were relieved when that date passed uneventfully.

For months, the F.B.I. had been consumed by internal problems of its own, including the arrest of an agent, Robert P. Hanssen, on espionage charges, the disappearance of documents in the Oklahoma City bombing case and the fallout over the Wen Ho Lee spy case. Moreover, the bureau was going through a transition in leadership, with its longtime director, Louis J. Freeh, retiring in June 2001. He was replaced by an acting director, Thomas J. Pickard, until the current director, Robert S. Mueller III, took over in September, just days before the deadly hijackings. All three men will testify at next week's commission hearings and are expected to face sharp questioning about whether the F.B.I. did enough to prevent an attack in the weeks and months before Sept. 11.

At this week's appearance by Ms. Rice, several commissioners sharply questioned whether the F.B.I. and the Justice Department had done enough to act on intelligence warnings about an attack.

"We have done thousands of interviews here at the 9/11 commission," said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the panel. "We have gone through literally millions of pieces of paper. To date, we have found nobody — nobody at the F.B.I. who knows anything about a tasking of field offices" to identify the domestic threat.

The apparent miscommunication will probably be a central focus of the commission's hearing next week. Scrutiny is expected to focus in part on communication breakdowns between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. that allowed two of the 19 hijackers to live openly in San Diego despite intelligence about their terrorist ties.

Another Democratic panel member, Jamie S. Gorelick, said at Thursday's hearing that Mr. Ashcroft was briefed in the summer of 2001 about terrorist threats "but there is no evidence of any activity by him."

Such criticism led Mark Corallo, Mr. Ashcroft's chief spokesman at the Justice Department, to say Friday that "some people on the commission are seeking to score political points" by unfairly attacking Mr. Ashcroft's actions before Sept. 11.

"Some have political axes to grind" against Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Corallo said in an interview, naming Ms. Gorelick, who was the deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration; Mr. Roemer, a former congressman from Indiana, and Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor.

While insisting that he was not speaking personally for Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Corallo said he was offended by Ms. Gorelick's remarks in particular. Offering a detailed preview of Mr. Ashcroft's testimony next week, he said the attorney general was briefed repeatedly by the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. on threats posed by Al Qaeda and was told that the threats were directed at targets overseas. "He was not briefed that there was any threat to the United States," Mr. Corallo said. "He kept asking if there was any action he needed to take, and he was constantly told no, you're doing everything you need to do."

Several commission officials denied in interviews that there was any attempt to treat Mr. Ashcroft unfairly. Al Felzenberg, a spokesman for panel, said that Mr. Ashcroft would be warmly received.

Ms. Gorelick said she was surprised by Mr. Corallo's comments and puzzled by assertions that the attorney general had no knowledge of a domestic terrorist threat in 2001.

"This appears to be a debate within the administration," she said. "On the one hand, you have Dr. Rice saying that the domestic threat was being handled by the Justice Department and F.B.I., and on the other hand, you have the Justice Department saying that there did not appear to be a domestic threat to address. And that is a difference in view that we have to continue to explore."

The commission also heard testimony Friday morning behind closed doors from former Vice President Al Gore.

Former President Bill Clinton appeared before the panel in closed session on Thursday, but a Democratic commission member took issue Friday with Mr. Clinton's assertion that that there was not enough intelligence linking Al Qaeda to the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole to justify a military attack on the terrorist organization.

"I think he did have enough proof to take action," Bob Kerrey, the former senator from Nebraska, said on ABC's `Good Morning America.'


Philip Shenon, Adam Nagourney and James Risen contributed reporting for this article.

Well, well, well. So Bush did have information warning of Osama and possible attacks inside the U.S. The lies of the left are turning out not to be too far off the mark. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al., all of you have taken the left to task for basically refuting your lies and telling the truth. Can you say "zero credibility"? For all of your pontificating and indignation, it seems that you all are the liars and the frauds. Oh to be white, conservative, rich, and clueless!

:: DM1 4/10/2004 10:19:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Druggie Speaks about Race

This is the Latest From Rush Limbaugh's Web Site

The Crown Prince of Relevance

April 8, 2004

“Only in Washington when the girl is a Republican and a black can you beat up on her. Couldn't do this if she were representing a Democrat administration regardless of her color, but especially given that she's black.”

“Ben-Veniste thought he was in a moral dominant circumstance, that Dr. Rice would be submissive. You're supposed to know that when he asks a question, you're not supposed to answer it; you're supposed to sit there in due reverence and take whatever he dishes out. She said, 'Screw this.'”

All of a sudden Condi Rice is black. So much for "color blindness. I thought Rush wanted everybody to be judged by the "content of their character". This is a prime example of the phoniness of the conservative movement. Now we see that Condi is just a black woman getting shafted by the Man.

:: DM1 4/10/2004 10:09:00 AM [+] ::
...

Another Blast From the Past

[10/16/2002 7:35:57 PM | Jamie Starr]
Ten Questions for the Chichkenhawks:

If Saddam is such an immediate threat answer the following questions:

1. Why did Bush take a 30-day vacation in August?
2. Why is not the threat assessment at RED, the highest alert?
3. Why now a month before the mid-term elections and not earlier in the year?
4. How many casualities are acceptable?
5. What are the costs?
6. What is the time frame?
7. How long the occupation?
8. What if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel strikes back with nuclear weapons?
9. What happens if Syria helps Iraq?
10. What happens if the democrats take Congress?

:: DM1 4/10/2004 10:00:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Death of a Soldier

I saw it coming from over the hill
and I knew that it was coming for me
I said my prayers and ducked my head
and scooted behind a tree.

But still it came and called my name
It said that I was the one
and when it hit I spun around
and dropped my helmet and gun.

I sank to the ground and started to grab
my neck to stop the bleeding
but still I bled and bled and bled
and started to lose all feeling

As I close my eyes a final time
Please do not mourn for me
For now I see another soldier
waiting for death behind that very tree

:: DM1 4/10/2004 09:38:00 AM [+] ::
...

The War President

Thank God for George W. Bush. We need his strong leadership at a time like this. By the way, where is the Boy King? MR. War President, where are you? Iraq is going to hell in a hand basket, an Afghan Warlord has taken control of several provinces in Afghanistan, and North Korea says this morning that the U.S. and North Korea are at the "brink of nuclear war". Mr. War President could you find time in your busy schedule between clearing brush at your ranch and attending fundraisers to come back to the White House and provide some leadership on these minor issues. Of course all of this is Bill Clinton's fault, but still as president for more than three years I humbly submit that YOU should be doing something. I know Unka' Dick is out of town, so if you are not sure what to do just finish eating your ice cream and take a nap. One more thing Mr. War President, what is happening now is the result of your ineptness as a president and a leader. I know that you are not use to being held accountable for your actions, but I think it's time for you to start acting like a responsible adult. So go back to the White House and start leading. Of course, finish your glass of milk and cookies first.

:: DM1 4/10/2004 09:30:00 AM [+] ::
...

Did Bush Know

Recall that in August 2001, George W. Bush went on vacation for a month. Since 9/11 some have accused Bush of knowing about the 9/11 attacks beforehand. The title of Bush's August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing was "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States". This was 35 days before the attacks. I don't know how clearer the answer can be. Of course, Bush knew that Osama was going to strike in the United States. Now Bush is being honest if not self-serving by saying that if he had known that terrorist would hijack planes and crash them into buildings, he would have done everything in his power to prevent it. Who doesn't believe that? The question is knowing that Osama was determined to strike inside the U.S. what did Bush do to try and avert the attacks? The answer is obvious and Bush's biggest problem is not being straight about his lack of action. IT is up to the voting public to judge Bush and his leadership. Bush should respect our democracy and start to be candid and honest. I happen to think that Bush is unfit for the presidency because I disagree with his policies and his arrogance. Now there are those of you who love Bush and think that he is a great president. At some point each of us will have to weigh the facts and cast our votes. I will tell you that my view is that Bush has by his behavior forfeited the privilege of a second term. The mess that is Iraq is reason enough, but there has been a facade taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Bush's own people do not trust him to testify at the 9/11 Commission. He's going to appear with Dick Cheney? What is that all about? As president he should be able to stand on his own and give a full accounting of his policies and actions. That he is incapable of doing so (See Bush on Meet the Press a couple of months ago.) impugns any rationale he may give for seeking relection. At some point it has to be about the good of the country. Granted John Kerry has "stuff" with him. He will probably be able to cobble together a real coalition to deal with some of the terrorism problems of the world. As far as the economy goes with $500 billion in deficits as far as the eye can see, Kerry would have to be a real idiot to do worse. I report, you decide.

:: DM1 4/08/2004 08:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

The Height of Arrogance

I just heard George W. Bush taking questions. The first reporter was a gentleman from Associated Press. The reporter had the nerve to refer to Bush as "Sir". Bush shot back "Who are you talking to?" The reporter then referred to Bush as "Mr. President". Only then could the mini press conference continue. What an arrogant so and so. This episode illustrates the problem with Bush, too much hubris and self-importance. I know that we can do better. You know, Bill Clinton was worried about his legacy. I predicted in January 2001 that Bush would ensure that Clinton's legacy would be secured. Bush solidifies Clinton's legacy daily. Clinton for all of his personal failings came from "hard scrable". He had to work for everything he got. His father died months before he was born, and Clinton was able to perservere with his mother's guidance. Compare his story to Bush. Bush grew up in privilege and never had to stand on his own. A "Bush hater" you say?" Then why is Bush insisting on appearing in front of the 9/11 Commission with Unka' Dick by his side. Bush has never had to answer for any of his actions and is unworthy of the Presidency. You sheep may be foolish enough to reelect Bush, but his record of failure and arrogance is clear. It is time for a change.

:: DM1 4/05/2004 08:02:00 PM [+] ::
...

Iraq: "Where is the Love?"

Unka' Dick said that you would welcome us. The Dauphin said that you deserved democracy. For the last year his Fraudulency's administration has told us that it's only a few who oppose U.S. policies in Iraq. What happened? My fellow white Americans let me be clear, "Some folks do not want to be like you." You have to understand that people in other places see you as insincere, cunning, and not to be trusted. Look at the problems we have between blacks and whites in the States and we have lived together for centuries. Hell, we celebrate the same God, the same American traditions and the same ground. Look how much we our at each others throat. That being the case, what makes you think that people from a civilization that is thousands of years older than ours are going to listen to you? If you insist on conquering greater Arabia (the Middle East) you have to realize that these people will continue to resist for centuries to come. They can not be brought into submission. George Bush #1 understood the folly of occupying Baghdad from a historical perspective. The metrics, as Donnie "the Flash" Rumsfield likes to say, have not changed. The Dauphin because of his privileged upbringing, uncurious mind, ignorance of history, inability to discern, arrogance, and hubris disregarded the reality of the situation. As such there are more than 600 U.S. families that have one less place at the table. More than 3,400 U.S. families are nursing broken relatives, many with multiple missing limbs. White folks wanted to show Saddam who was boss and you sure did. Now you are reaping the bitter dregs of your actions. You have to understand that most Arabs do not like the U.S. because of our unquestioned support for Israel, period. There is nothing that the U.S. can do to gain any significant support its Greater Arabia policies as long as it unconditionally supports Israel. Also, missiles and bombs can only get you so far. They took us to Baghdad and now they are useless. What was the mission as first stated? Get rid of WMDs and Saddam. Well there are and never were WMDs and Saddam is sitting in a cell, a broken old man. So why are we still in Iraq? Nation building? Democracy? Have you been watching the television. It looks like thousands of Iraqis are marching in the street killing Americans and each other. Can you say "Civil War"? Declare victory and go home. We can't afford to experience another year of "success" in Iraq.

:: DM1 4/04/2004 09:42:00 AM [+] ::
...