if you listen to all the reasons why people support bush, you begin to notice something wicked. they all believe in lies. they believe bush never changes his mind. they believe that bush doesn't need world support to engage in a war.

don't they read the newspapers? or watch the television? maybe they do, because newspapers and television is clearly in bush's corner.

tim russert, you're BUSTED big boy.

general abizaid was reading a script. clear as day. anybody watching could see it. how you think you could get away with this deceptive tactic, especially after the right-wingers were screaming for rather's head, is beyond me.

but suffice it to say, it was a blog that started rathergate, and it'll be a blog that starts russertgate.

i feel like i'm listening to a republicon commercial while i'm holding for mediacom to pick up. the lady that keeps repeating how to change an email password, and stating that a representative will be with you momentarily. i'm not 18:36 into this. i stayed on hold for 45 minutes last night before i just hung up.

can not connect to upload.mchsi.com. bastards. i'm not fowarding farpoint around to krak again.

looks like the raids are producing little in the way of weapons, much less intel. is this incompetence or what. i bet they are relying on street-iraqi intel, and we all know, or at least those of us who grew up in the street, you can not rely on street-wise intel for operations that involve national security.

the new term for telling the truth: bushbashing.

God is not who _they_ say He is, but who You say He is.

saw a good explanation of how to explain kerry's 'vote to go to war', which really wasn't a vote to go to war, but a vote to use the threat of war. anyway, the comparison made was to a power of attorney. if i give the power of attorney to someone, and he abuses it, do i have no recourse to criticize his actions?

i think now i'm comfortable in saying, on record, that the failure of iraq will be because of the utter failure of the reconstruction effort. like the 9/11 unity, corruption and greed once again, a golden opportunity has been wasted by someone who touts such as an accomplishment.

one week from tonite eh. what john kerry needs to do is get on line, and dont get off it. none of this sidestepping, elaborating, and other such yale-ish yadda yadda. hit the damn target and score a bullseye the first debate. the other two will be icing on the cake.

shit, i just lost my train of thought. watching racicot on jon stewart. the guy can lie like a rug, and actually believe it, so it sells. supposedly. amazing. the reality that jon makes him aware of, becomes something he ignores and believes that his fantasy world will come some day. amazing really. off his meds?

nah, what could result cause such hallicinations that would be treatable?

jon is laughing in his face, and he still doesn't get it.

amazing.

a BIG *GIGGLE* this time, because they have succeeded! they have succeeded in pissing off Dan Rather. and they are going to regret it, deliciously.

*guffaw*

ever notice that when they show the car bombings in iraq on tv, you always see a bunch of people just milling about? it's not like they're all afraid and running away. and they certainly do not look like terrorists.

if you were to see a car bombing up front, wouldn't you be running away? wouldn't that be the normal reaction of people who 'aren't into that sorta thing'?

when was the first time a married couple on tv shared the same bed in a bedroom scene?

now when have you ever known a married couple in real life to not share the same bed?

Americans accepted the scenes knowing that reality was a different story. could they be in the same frame of logic today? could there be this humongous denial that's pervasive like the plague about what is really happening in the world today in the hopes that if they don't think about the bad, the bad really isn't there?

and isn't that dangerous thinking?

are my eyes playin tricks on me? aaron brown just showed a clip of bush at the U.N. and he was the only one standing at a table of at least a dozen dignitaries, doing a toast. and boy was it awkward. it was almost as if he was asking 'where's MY seat'.

really. will have to follow up on this.

ya know what with all thise 'he voted to go IN' shit, then in the same breath bring up vietnam, i'm wondering... would bush have gone into vietnam at the timne?

new anti-kerry ad, repeating the same lies that some other 'voterfund' shit were spewing, only this time they're targeting 18 year olds. in fact, it's almost childish, like their target is 13 year olds, who i guess will influence the family. who knows what the rationale is behind these reich-wing conmen. but kerry needs to target that same group in the same way, only show that he's the honest one.

how can the polls say that America needs to change, and yet show their support for someone who boasts of 'staying the course' without appearing flawed?

so sludgedrudge is reporting that they're demanding sheiffer to be replaced at the debates.

i say only if jon stewart gets to replace him.

has anybody ever bothered to ask: what has george w bush sacrificed for this country?

why?

i bet i can tell you the answer.

looks like CBS is going to admit to being duped. the memos were a setup, directed to ms. mapes, who broke the abu ghraib story. see any connection for revenge here?

if kerry would to succeed to defining bush as a destroyer, while he is the builder, that would go a long long way at reversing 'the trend' we're seeing in the polls.

moved from krak to blogspot. so what the ad is there. its a useful bar. i shuld put a counter on this thing.

edwards needs to come out with some .. a lot more... face time. make some news buddy.

too bad cnn won't do a poll with the following question posed:

do you think that had mccain gotten the republican nod in 2000, and ended up in the whitehouse, would we see the divide we see in America today?

having just seen the man in cheney's event practically get muffled and tackled by some old whitehair guy with glasses, reminded me of that brute behavior in florida. more and more republicans are getting aggressive, forceful, and in-your-face physically when the only reason for it would be supporting another candidate for president.

this is what outrages me. to no end. politics is all talk. but when it gets physical, then we have a serious problem.

fuckn net is abyssmal and slow tonite.

bush is like a driver, who drives straight into a wall. what makes him special in the eyes of his followers is that he didn't even blink.

killian-gate on cbs is getting hotter than a snitchbitch's mouth full of crackcloud.

from truthisfreedom on DU (no link because it's a php scripted board):

Mrs. Knox's very credible position that the documents are fake, but he can't use her opinion without also making her credible for her observations and memories of bush's refusing a direct order.

but, if he attacks her as an old, unreliable witness who doesn't remember, then he's suggesting that she's not correct or reliable about the memos being recreations!

this was a brilliant and strategic manoever on the part of CBS. they aren't scared... instead, they have allowed rove and the bushies to paint themselves into a new corner!



brilliant!

so the people are ready for no more excuses, and no more promises?

fuckn eh. i still have to clean up the html tho, because for some reason, i have to put the frame="something" in there. fuckn domain forwarding shit.

first pic using that 'hello'

bloggerbot. yeah. about friggin time.

the incident in baghdad yesterday, er rather incidentS, made clear of one thing. when iraqis get killed, how many times are there witnesses disputing the account given by American dittoheads?

sooo, if the witnesses were just makin up these statements, wouldn't they have done it EACH AND EVERY other time?

listening to 70's music on cable. oh the memories. one of these days, boy. i'll tell a story that'll make the hair of its readers stand on end.

before they cum. :)

looks like george gave osama everything he wanted:

1)split up the Western alliances

2)turned Western "Democratic governments" against the popular will of the majority of their citizens

3)provoked the US into spending obscene amounts of money on armaments, neglecting social programs for the citizens. (This is what killed the Soviet Union

4) Inspired enough reactionary paranoia to allow the fascist elements to begin deconstructing the Constitution.

5) United the World against the US.

i need a list of adjectives that the right-wing use in how they describe their king.

resolute, decisive, steadfast
i know there are more and will add them as i bring them to mind.

more: clarity of vision and purpose


more: moral rectitude

the truth is not partisan politics.

it's a matter of trust. let me demonstrate.

bush is in a hall speaking to a bunch of his sympathizers. he tells the crowd that the sky is yellow. they believe him, without going outside to look, even though he was told that's not true. he maintains that it is. then, everybody comes outside and sees that the sky is not yellow. but bush still maintains that he said what he said because of good intelligence. that he KNEW for sure, there was NO DOUBT that his information was correct. even when he was told he was wrong before the crowd went outside, he chose to believe what he wanted to believe and hence tried like hell to make us all believe it.

would the crowd trust this guy again? when is a lie a lie?

i think i figured out how they keep the 'inflation' rate down, and the spending numbers up. it's because of supply and demand or any of that gobbledygook, but rather people are spending about the same, but for less, so they have to buy more often. groceries comes to mind.

ya know what the high bush numbers tell me?

thast there's a whole lotta people that are easily frightened.

the choice is rather simple: who is profitting more from terror? i doubt john kerry's name would even be mentioned. his opponent however, had made billions for his buddies. i didn't think we elected presidents so that they can enrich themselves.

this must be what trickle down economics is all about. they think that if the owners save money, that the money saved will be pumped back into the business creating more for all.

nice theory. only, it's not reality. considering the average CEO pay raise this year alone was over 50%, many in the 70's... and with the common worker pay raise about 2.5%, one can not with a straight face say that the more a company profits, the more the company will distribute back into the business.

sure, there are companies that are doing this... of course. but there are many, MANY more that aren't. considering outsourcing. qwest outsources their services, eliminates say 1000 jobs. the profits saved by that is instead being dumped into more luxuriious accommodations for the elite. how else would you explain why businesses are nabbin up humvee's instead of ford rangers? they get more of a write off on the humvee. so what happens to that write off? it goes into the pocket of the CEO. or it's spent on new offices for them. if it was going back into the business, say like with new equipment, safer conditions, or even raises (god forbid), businesses would be doing so much better than they are.

like the union guy said tonite: how can you expect a worker to lose his job to india, and go work at mcdonalds or wal-mart, and pay for that caddy? this will bite the greedy echelon on the butt if they don't change course.

now that the bushies have admitted to making mistakes about iraq, especially in the aftermath, but who knows, maybe they thought saddam was going to fight harder too. there were reports out that had the two coming to some kinda agreement, but i don't know. however, given the history of what we've laid witness to already, i wouldn't put it past these sick bastards. look at how they're handling osama. nobody's heard from him for months, probably as long as iraq has been happening. which makes you wonder. the paks are to hand him up in october. everybody's layin odds on what day. i say the 18th. why? i have NO idea. it's close enough to the election so that the lapdog obedient presscorp won't get bored with their excitement. isn't it strange how osama will win george the election.

but still, why is nobody looking at WHY they thought the iraqis would be throwing flowers instead of bullets. whatever gave them this impression must have made a BIG impression since they obviously ignored the right advice about needing more troops. i'm sure that had we done 3 things differently in iraq, things wouldn't be this bad, if bad at all.

1. make sure the soldiers are trained in how arabs live. this would alleviate the occupation conundrum.

2. make sure the money FOR IRAQIS that has been requested, and received, from congress GETS SPENT on things FOR IRAQIS. and while we're at it, EMPLOY IRAQIS to do it.

3. get rid of the neocon men behind the curtain.

come to think of it, arnold schwartzenegger's screaming of how 'girley-men' economics is ruining us all, is kinda strange coming from someone who played a pregnant mom.

how can anybody claim that we are now safer than we were before 9/11? are they completely out of their collective minds? the fact that we're more aware of terrorists who are more determined now than ever to strike us again shouldn't be an excuse for george to claim that he's making us safer.

because of him, is why the terrorists want to hurt us. that was true before 9/11, and that's true today. i'm not saying that we get rid of george that we will be immune to a terrorist attack... but our chances sure dive in a heartbeat.

why? because we'll have the real international cooperation that we need to defeat terrorism. and actually, staying true to my rule that terrorism isn't something you can bomb to win, you have to use education to win. and to use education, requires intelligent people doing intelligent things. and we all know intelligence and the bushies are about as foreign to each other as martians are to humans.

one of george's promises in 2000 was to cut taxes.
then cheney uses 9/11 as an excuse to cut taxes (to revive the economy that was "already sliding but fell off the cliff"), wouldn't it make perfect logic to assume that 9/11 isn't the tragedy for bush as he would have America believe? where is his sacrifice?

the problem isn't what george did after 9/11, it's what he DIDN'T do before 9/11. would America have the same adoration for this guy if they knew he expected 9/11 to happen and didn't do what he should have done?

how can America accept that bush is this fighter he projects himself to be, when he holds a history of being a coward? because the media helps to project this image, that's why. there's no other sane reason to support the complete success the ultimate CONjob.

well, the speech was just that. all talk, and no walk. kerry has taken the gloves off, i think. i hope.

God, I hope.

lipstick on a pig folks.

when will people start interrupting this "created a million new jobs" line the bushististas shove down everybody's throat? i mean, c'mon. a million new jobs at wal-mart & burger king maybe. that STILL leaves 1.5 million lost overall.... and those that have been lost were much higher paying. a double whammy if you will.

which is better? being honest about being immoral, or being dishonest about being moral?