Barack Obama: "Thumbs Up". I created this blog giving him the thumbs up few years back, and I spelled his name wrong. Well, not that wrong. To make matters more complicated, his middle name is Hussein. And, yes, at one point he went to a madrasah. We all did. Madrasah means "school". He is smart, inspiring and a great symbol of hope. He should be the next President of the United States.

Ron Paul: "Hands Off". Someone has to get the Republican nomination, I suppose. How about this Texas doctor and congressman, a self-professed "Stickler for the Constitution" who believes in reality-based foreign policy? Watch this interview. I don't like his domestic stances, but Ron seems to be a genuine American patriot and a real Republican.

Hillary Clinton: "Stop, Hillary Time". What did we just learn (2001-2007) about dynastic presidencies? They don't work. The Clintons owe too many people too many favors. And Hillary appears hell-bent on gaining power at any cost. This article summarizes some of my issues with her. Watch this frightening video of her stump speech.

Rudy Giuliani: "Wiggle Fingers". Looks like he's gonna do it. He's running for President of 9/11. What a piece of dung! Not even the top Firefighters Union is endorsing him. Read this explosive letter where they blast him. If this "terrorism expert" gets elected, this country is in trouble.

John Edwards: "That's Not My Finger". Edwards can thank Ann Coulter's latest homophobic antics for reminding the world that he still exists. Of course, she was trying to do the same thing for herself. An original co-sponser of the Iraq War, Edwards should not be quarterback of this country after making such a bad play. Now, John Edward is another story. What the hell happened to that guy?
*UPDATE* Edwards' advisers say they pushed him to support the war.

Mitt Romney: "Karate Chop". Moments after declaring his intentions to run for President, Romney scurried off to the Middle East where he flirted with hawks and discussed the prospects of attacking Iran. He also thinks we need to double the size of our Gulag at Guantanamo Bay. Is this guy even real? He seems more like an actor playing the role of the conservative politician on the Sci-Fi Channel or something. Ugh.

Joe Biden: "Invisible Head Massage". If Biden manages to bungle his campaign within minutes of launching it, then surely he is not fit to be President. I saw him on the Daily Show that night, and he didn't even bother defending himself. And he has some plan to turn Iraq into the Balkans. Hey, at least he has a plan. But that's one messed up storybook, man.

John McCain: "Lobster Claw". McCain is unflinching in his support for the Iraq debacle. In fact, he supports war every time. He was originally the Neocons' golden boy back in 2000, before Bush won the nomination. Attack Iran? Of course he would. He may even want to settle the score with his old Vietnamese captors if he becomes Commander in Chief. Maybe just a few carpet bombings for old times sake. I don't buy his pseudo-independent persona. He hugs Bush a little too hard, if you ask me.

Newt Gingrich: "Deflection". I really can't stand this slimy creature. While trying to impeach Bill Clinton for having an affair with an intern, Newt was cheating on his second wife, who had cancer. Read about Newt's wandering eye. Also, read about how GinGrinch believes the government should stifle free speech. What a repulsive little amphibian he is.

Chuck Hagel: "The Box". Way too conservative, but Hagel is at least right about Iraq. He fought in Vietnam and then built his own multi-million dollar business from scratch. Hagel thinks for himself and cares about this country. His media technique is a bit odd. Yesterday, he made a formal announcement that he had no formal announcement. A fake pass. Um. Touché?

*UPDATE* Bill Richardson: "Invisible Basketball". I forgot about Richardson. I like him. He's qualified. He cares. A good speaker. But he desperately needs someone to say something offensive about him if he wants to stay in the game. Where's Biden? I mean ya' got the first mainstream Hispanic who is articulate and bright and clean and speaks English...

Previously, on Politicking Timebomb:

Before Americans can even begin to wake up from the haze of 9/11, an even more pressing question to ask is this: When is our military going to leave Iraq?

Like the characters on the show Lost, I am constantly challenged by mysterious occurrences in the world, the unraveling and understanding of which only seem to yield greater questions. It's the omnipresence of these fundamental questions, with the hope that their answers reveal a greater truth, which makes me stay the course through the long, hard slog of being an American under the Bush administration, post-9/11. This blog (despite sometimes extended breaks between new episodes) slogs on as well. In Lost, a character asks: "Where are we?" It's a good question. Trapped on an island with a creature made of black smoke, underground hatches, and what appears to be a grand experiment called the DHARMA Initiative, the characters, which include a former Iraqi soldier known as Sayid, uncover increasingly intricate layers of perplexity each time they think they've made progress. Lost began its first season with a dramatic plane crash. Ever since, the survivors have sought to learn where they are, what is happening around them, and if they are ever getting off the island. This blog asks these questions for the citizens of this country. For the US, the dramatic plane crash is 9/11. The mysterious island on which we have ourselves lost is Iraq. This post serves as an introduction, a pilot, if you will, to a new series Politicking Timebomb is embarking on. The question I seek to answer is "Where are we?" Stick with it. Obviously, it's going to be a long, hard blog.

Republicans Lose House & Senate in Stunning Defeat!

I will attribute this victory to the catastrophuck of Iraq, YouTube, self-denial among Republicans, bloggers, and the American People. God Bless America and Democracy. This, of course, doesn't change that much. But for now, let's celebrate anyways:

Bush has been a busy man these days. In the span of a week, Bush has gone to Congress and the United Nations with two seemingly divergent yet coinciding requests. First, Bush asked our lawmakers to turn the US into a Totalitarian state, demanding that Presidents should no longer require warrants when spying on their own citizens. Apparently the number of warrants he would need to continue his domestic wiretapping program would be a big pain in the ass, considering that millions of American citizens (I suppose with connections to "Al-Qaida") are already being monitored illegally. Since the NSA ignores the Fourth Amendment regardless, Bush's new wiretapping bill would just be impeachment insurance by providing him retroactive immunity. Changing the laws to immunize himself from crimes he has committed against his own citizens? Haven't we seen this before somewhere? Well, of course Bush doesn't stop there in his quest to become a dictator. In addition to bypassing the Constitution of the United States, Bush is also seeking to wipe his ass with the Geneva Conventions on torture. What Totalitarian leader could be complete without authorizing kidnappings, secret prisons, and unbridled torture? The thought of this torture is very disturbing - not just in trying to imagine what goes on in these black sites that we don't hear about - but that they do it in our name, under our flag. Again, Bush seeks to protect himself and others from prosecution for these horrendous acts and violations of Geneva Conventions in the rare event that Diebold fails him and Democrats win the House and Senate and actually act like a real opposition party. So in light of these bold attempts to legalize violations of the Geneva Conventions, a move which even members of his own party are trying to trim down a bit before rubberstamping, Bush stood days later in front of the United Nations pretending like he cares about human rights in the Middle East. He even had the audacity to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the very acts he had just asked Congress for a free-hand to do to people. But I suppose this is his tortured logic, that as long as the threat from "extremists" exists, then nobody can have freedom: neither our own citizens and nor people in countries we decide to invade. And of course all of this will bring Bush's poll numbers up - in some ironic way it makes Bush appear visionary and presidential to those who haven't figured out that the extremists who truly threaten this country are in our seats of power, currently dismantling our Constitution.

Former Governor of Texas Ann Richards, who died yesterday at 73, was a great American. In her keynote address to the 1988 Democratic National Convention, she famously said George Bush Sr. was born with a "Silver Foot in his Mouth". Her speech is one the most articulate expressions of American and Democratic ideals, in addition being witty and hilarious.

Listen to it here.

President Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation, January 17th, 1961:

"....We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Bush, private and uncensored, is even more of an embarrassment to the United States then we could ever have imagined. At the G8 summit last week, Bush forgot to turn off his microphone. No, he didn't act like Lieutenant Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun and go use the bathroom with it still on. What he did was much worse. He acted like George W. Bush. As Russian TV filmed shots of the summit, they inadvertently recorded him conversing with other guests, including the Prime Minister of China and poodle Tony Blair. I have written an accurate transcript of the video with my own comments added in brackets. This is not satirical but an actual transcript of the entire video found here. As the recording begins, Bush answers a question about an upcoming speech he will give at the summit.

Bush: I'm just gonna make it up. I'm not gonna talk too damn long like the rest of them. Some of these guys talk too long.

[Then we hear Bush asking the Prime Minister of China about his post-G8 plans]

Bush: How 'bout you? Where you going? Home?

[Prime Minister Hu Jintao's reply is inaudible]

Bush: This is your neighborhood. It don't take you long to go home.

[Bush isn't aware that Beijing is almost 4000 miles from St. Petersburg, Russia]

Bush: Eight hours???

[Bush turns to Russian President Vladimir Putin]

Bush: It takes him eight hours to fly home!

[A waiter attempts to give him a coke]

Bush: No, Diet Coke, Diet Coke....It takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so is China.

[Bush has just learned some interesting geographical factoids. ENTER Tony Blair]

Bush: Yo, Blair. What are you doing?

Blair: I'm just...

Bush: You leaving?

Blair: No, no. Not yet.

[Blair attempts to talk about a trade issue. This doesn't interest Bush]

Bush: Hey thanks for the sweater! I know you picked it out yourself.

Blair: Absolutely. I knitted it.

[Bush then complains to Blair about UN Secretary Kofi Annan calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah]

Bush: I don't like the sequence of it. His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything is settled. But. Know what I'm saying?

Blair: [stuttering] Yeah. No, I think the-the-the-the-really-the-whole-thing is really is that we can't stop this unless you get this international presence agreed.

[Blair then explains that he wants to go the Mideast immediately to begin negotiating an international troop presence to stop the fighting. Bush interrupts him]

Bush: I think Condi's gonna go pretty soon.

Blair: Right, well, that's, that's all that matters.

[Blair then begs for Bush's permission to go to Israel/Lebanon immediately, before Condi Rice. Bush, with a mouth full of crackers, interrupts him again]

Bush: I told her your offer too.

[Blair, Bush's poodle, seems to realize he has begged his master too much. He goes into submissive mode]

Blair: Well it's only if it's, I mean you know, she's gotta.. Or if she needs the ground prepared, as it were. Because obviously if she goes out she needs to succeed, whereas I can go out and...

[Bush again interrupts his babbling, begging British poodle]

Bush: See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it's over.

[Bush didn't know that Russia and China were "big" countries, nor does he know the definition of irony, but now he is an expert on the politics of Hezbollah]

Blair: [referring to Syrian President Assad] Look, what does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel/Palestine, if Iraq goes the right way...

Bush: He's through.

Blair: He's had it. And that's what this whole thing is about. It's the same with Iran.

[Blair is saying that Syria and Iran know they will become targets if the other conflicts in the region are resolved]

Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to go get on the phone with Assad and make something happen. We're not blaming Israel. We're not blaming the Lebanese government.

[Blair then sees the microphone is turned on and switches it off]

Eugene Robinson, in the Washington Post, expressed my sentiments on this uncensored sneak-peak of Bush being a "world leader" at the G8, and he offered a good assessment of Bush's response to Israel's latest war. Very rarely do I post other people's writing, but his piece reminded me of a previous post, and he really hits the nail on the head:

As Israel simultaneously bombards Lebanon and Gaza, the Bush Administration has a declared the United States' support for the two-pronged assault and essentially green-lighted a major escalation of war in the Middle East. The vetoing by John Bolton of a UN resolution condemning Israel's assault on Gaza, coupled with Bush's statement about the attack on Lebanon saying "Israel has a right to defend herself", follows closely the policy that allowed the US to be currently digging into Iraq: engaging in a major war by choice, as long as it benefits Israel. Israel's defending herself is actually a response to a border clash and what is being called the "kidnapping" of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza. First of all, soldiers in a conflict get captured, not kidnapped. During Israel's occupations of Gaza, West Bank and Southern Lebanon, Israel has captured tens of thousands of Hamas and Hezbollah fighters who were, in their minds, defending their land from a foreign invader. If these were kidnappings, then all the milk cartons in the occupied territories wouldn't be sufficient to report the missing. The capture of Israeli soldiers is actually a very rare occurrence, and in the past has resulted in prisoner exchanges, which was Hezbollah's and Hamas' plan this month. However, the Israeli response has not been a swap, but rather a full scale war on two fronts resulting in the death of over eighty Lebanese civilians as well as Palestinian civilians including children. While collective punishment of the Palestinians in Gaza is a typical Israeli tactic, Lebanon, with a pro-US, mostly-Christian and Democratic government, is new to "shock and awe" bombings by the US's favorite ally. The crime that Lebanon committed is not doing enough to disarm the pro-Syria Hezbollah forces who formed in 1982 to fight the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. But how soon Israel forgets the Cedar Revolution of 2005, when hundreds of thousands of Lebanese rose to the streets and demanded the withdrawal of Syrian troops, despite opposition by Hezbollah. Israel is now forcing Beirut back into a bloody civil war between pro and anti-Hezbollah factions like we saw in the 1980s. And the US and Israel are clearly not afraid of an escalation of the conflict to include Iran and Syria. The US National Security Council's official statement sounds as if its coming directly from the Israeli government: "We condemn in the strongest terms Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers. We also hold Syria and Iran - which directly support Hezbollah - responsible for this attack and for the ensuing violence". The bombing of Lebanon is an unnecessary and disproportionate retaliation for the actions of a group that Lebanon can't control. This provocation is aimed at drawing pro-Hezbollah Syria and Iran into a conflict with Israel and the United States, which happens to be building long-term bases in Iraq right now. With Saddam Hussein out of the way, Iran and Syria remain the last two outposts of opposition to Israeli domination of the Middle East. However, as the invasion of Iraq has been wrought with lives lost, billions of dollars wasted and now an insurgency threatening to keep US troops trapped for decades, following the Israeli road again is a mistake. I think the neocons used to say about the Mid-East peace process that "the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad". Yet here we are three years into the occupation of Baghdad and any chance of peace between Palestinians and Israelis is all but gone. I guess maybe they had the wrong map. I'm sure now they'll say the road actually goes through Damascus and Tehran. In any event, Israeli Defense Forces just blew up the actual road the Damascus. So let's not go that way.

"Iraq certainly is a country with incredible resources. We've said all along we're very interested in ultimately going into Iraq."

-James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, speaking at a forum this week

You have to appreciate the candidness of oil executives: they're always after more opportunities to drill oil, and a bloody insurgency, or even having a name that rhymes with a part of the female body, is not going to stop them. Mulva has exceptional cause for wanting to drill Iraq's rich oil reserves. His company is lagging behind Shell, BP, Cheveron, Total and Exxonmobil in the conquest to be the world's largest oil corporation, if not the world's largest corporation period. With the exception of Total, these oil giants are British and American-owned and have been barred from drilling in Iraq since Iraq nationalized its oil fields in 1972. Not until 2003, when American and British troops invaded Iraq, were these firms no longer hindered by Saddam Hussein, who had previously only allowed contracts with Total, a French corporation. Now, the firms are hindered by another problem: the Insurgency. Why is this of key importance? Because we're not leaving Iraq until the oil does. Now, this is not a segway to a "Blood for Oil" rant. Of course the United States had a strategic interest in freeing up Iraqi oil. Is that the end of the story? Absolutely not. As we begin to see the real picture about why we invaded Iraq, we must not blur reality through cliches like "Blood for Oil", especially as they suggest Bush was just looking out for the few hundred million Americans who use gas. The truth about this war is much more complicated. But in the initial interest of preserving our democracy, the national debate should first be focused on the ease with which the Administration sold this war to public, which was, in fact, a major motivation for war in the first place. But before Americans can even begin to wake up from the haze of 9/11, an even more pressing question to ask is this: When is our military going to leave Iraq? Regardless of why they are there, we aren't leaving until the oil is property of these large American and British firms. This will likely involve the formation of an Iraqi government that will agree to the privitization of Iraq's oil, foreign investment and "Product Sharing Agreements", whether or not this is the will of the Iraqi people or not. To drill and manufacture oil on a massive scale, the Iraqi government would require billions in capital of the big firms, who will insure they essentially become the new owner's of Iraq's oil through PSAs. Sure, Iraq will be in the Iraqis' hands, but what lies underneath them will be in Mulva's hands. So want to know when we'll leave Iraq? Wait until Iraq's oil starts reaching your gas tank.

Finally, Bush found someone to replace Claude Allen as domestic policy advisor. Those were tough shoes to fill. Claude Allen was a very good Bushie until he resigned last Feburary. Described as a "ferocious" opponent of abortion, he supported abstinence-only sex education and was an enemy to groups working to fight the spread of AIDS. As the deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, Claude prevented a 21-year-old rape-victim from getting an abortion, you know, just because he felt like it. That sort of behavior got Claude a nice position in the Bush Administration, that is, until he got caught scamming Target. That incident, which brought his character into the spotlight, made him last March's Playerhater of the Month. [Note: The difference between a "playerhater" and a "playahata" is explained here] So who should this month's Playerhater of the Month be? I say Claude's new replacement: Karl Zinsmeister, editor of the American Enterprise Magazine, and author of several books about the Iraq War. Mr. Zinsmeister has already been busted pulling a scam. Here he is in a candid interview for college newspaper doing a profile of him in 2004:

"People in Washington are morally repugnant, cheating, shifty human beings. The mom who charters a bus for her kids to go to a rave is as bad as the lady with the crackpipe. We have sickness at the top and bottom of our society and we have a big middle, sensible with common sense and decency and morality"

Zinsmeister, according to the reporter who interviewed him, was very pleased with the article about him when it was published. So much that he posted the article on his own website, the American Enterprise Online. Except before he put it online, Zinsmeister made some revisions and alterations. Here is Zinsmeister, intentionally misquoting himself:

"I learned in Washington that there is an 'overclass' in this country stocked with cheating, shifty human beings that's just as morally repugnant as our 'underclass.' The mom who charters a bus for her kids to go to a rave is as bad as the lady with the crackpipe. We have sickness at the top and bottom of our society but we have a big middle that is full of common sense and decency"

So is this paramount to pulling a refund scam at Target? I say it's worse. Target deserves to be scammed. The average size of a Target is 125,000 square feet. They are hideous, urban sprawl-causing freak shows. Let them be robbed. But Zinsmeister's revisionism? How about we look at what he said in the first place: People in Washington are morally repugnant, cheating, shifty human beings. As a person in Washington, I resent that. And poor people are "sick" and "morally repugnant"? Give me a break. Zinsmeister is completely out of touch. This is the same idiot who concluded about Iraq in June, 2005, that: The War is Over, We Won. That's funny. I could have sworn the war is still raging. Why else would US Marines massacre 24 civilians in Haditha last November? Maybe the civilians were "morally repugnant, cheating" members of the Iraqi underclass, therefore, they deserved it. In any event, Zinsmeister will probably revise the little incident in Haditha to sound better next time he writes a book about the Iraq War. Man, this guy is such a hater.

"[The United States'] defense budget in absolute figures is almost 25 times bigger than Russia's. This is what in defense is referred to as 'their home - their fortress'. And good on them, I say. Well done! But this means that we also need to build our home and make it strong and well protected. We see, after all, what is going on in the world. The wolf knows who to eat, as the saying goes. It knows who to eat and is not about to listen to anyone, it seems. How quickly all the pathos of the need to fight for human rights and democracy is laid aside the moment the need to realize one's own interests comes to the fore. In the name of one's own interests everything is possible, it turns out, and there are no limits"

-Vladimir Putin addressing Russia May 10th

So the Russian President didn't actually use any Duran Duran lyrics in his latest speech, but he does have a known nostalgia for the 80s. Although the Cold War seemed to have thawed out, 80s-style trends, like acid-wash, cut-off jeans miniskirts and arms races between the US and Russia, are making a comeback. Last week, Putin called for renewed, smarter defense spending to make Russia a global superpower again. He called America a "wolf", referencing an old Russian joke about a man and his pet sheep who fall into a pit. When a wolf falls into the pit as well, the frightened sheep begins to cry out. The man then asks his sheep: "What's with the bah, bah, bah? The wolf knows who to eat".

Putin longs for the days when Russia was more like a bear, and less like a man trapped in a pit with his pet sheep (Afghanistan, Iraq?) and, of course, a hungry wolf (that would be us). The wolf metaphor has some bearing to it. 9/11 and the Taliban may have justified the invasion of Afghanistan, but the invasion of Iraq was done out of a ferocious hunger to dominate the Middle East. Cheney and the neocons (like Wolfowitz) knew who to invade and weren't going to listen to anyone. Putin also took a swing in his speech, rightly so, at the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration for calling for human rights and democracy while at the same time rounding up people into secret prisons and committing abuses seen in Abu Ghraib prison. The fact is the Bush Administration has no moral highground to criticize Putin's clamp-down on democracy. Just this week, we have learned that the National Security Agency has been spying, warrantlessly, on tens of millions of Americans. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Perhaps Putin, a former KGB spy, is simply jealous of the totalitarian state that post-9/11 America has become. If Putin had an equivalent to Bush's "War on Terror" and Fox News, just think of all the strategic territories Mother Russia could "liberate". It's like another old Russian saying: If the Bear is hungry, the Bear will eat. Ok, that was actually Steve Pontius from Jackass after being asked whether he likes boys or girls. The point is that Putin would love for Russia to rise again. America, in his eyes, is a tired, stuffed wolf, and Putin sees this as a chance to get out of the pit. Maybe Putin might even try to capture the wolf, using a little birdie to distract him while Putin catches him in a lasso. Well this is another Russian fairytale, Peter and the Wolf. I think the geopolitical Putin and the Wolf may be a tale yet untold. But maybe this is the analogy Putin really was hinting at. Iran would be the little birdie, Iraq the duck inside the wolf's belly, and Putin as the little Russian boy who captures the big, bad wolf at the end. Putin can dream, can't he?

The Prime Minister of Iran has decided to break the tradition of the last 26 years (Yowsers, it's been that long since the Islamic Revolution?) and make contact with Washington through a letter dropped off at the Swiss Embassy in Tehran today. The letter (read it here) questions American policies in the world, speaks of the failure of "liberalism and democracy" and essentially asks Bush "What Would Jesus Do?". While I am certainly not interested in having a religious government of any kind (maybe a Scientologist State would be acceptable, assuming Tom Cruise is the Grand Idiotolla), nor do I believe democracy has failed (unless you are talking about Bush's neoconservative "Bombs & Ballots" campaign of Iraq), I have to give credit to Prime Minister Ahmadinejad for this act of genius. The letter strikes directly into the heart of the Bush's Christian crusader semblance that convinced pious Americans that he was doing "the right thing" by invading Iraq. Ahmadinejad points out that such policies are in direct contrast to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I had previously wondered whether Dick Cheney and the neocons were planning on bombing the Shia-t out of Iran. There is no doubt this gentle call for shared religious devotion (you've got your God, and we have Ours) and mutual understanding on the issue of Iranian nukes will at least stop the bombs from dropping on Tehran anytime soon. Remember that 700-ton Bunker Buster they were going to test in Nevada? Just today they reported the test has been delayed. Maybe this means Dick "Don't Aim Just Fire" Cheney has ruled out an attack. I doubt it. But at least for the moment, and thanks to Condoleezza Rice, we look like the assholes.

Porter Goss, acting head of the CIA, has resigned from his position. This must be related to the growing DC hooker scandal that now appears to be lighting up. Donde hay humo hay fuego. But before we make assumptions: Porter Goss was hated at the CIA since he took over after Tenet. Was this a set-up? More on this firestorm coming up.

The White House visit log of super-sleazy, mafia-connected lobbyist Jack Abramoff will be made public next week, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act. The F.I.A. previously exposed the White House visit log of Jeff Gannon from 2003-2005. Gannon, a.k.a. James Dale Guckert, a.k.a. "Bulldog", was a gay prostitute who worked for the Bush Administration as a pro-Bush media plant until being exposed. Despite his fake-name and basically fake Talon News, Gannon was given virtually unlimited White House access. According to his visit log, Gannon came in the backdoor all the time. He would stay at the White House for hours, sometimes until the next day. All this entering and exiting points to Gannon having a very special relationship with the Bush Administration. But it is possible that the Secret Service just aren't very strict about their logs. Nevertheless, Gannon has a very large log for a lowly journalist. One can only wonder how large Abramoff's log is. I'd say its likely that Abramoff's log has been snipped at one point. That's just my gut-feeling. McClellan has already said it probably won't be complete. And he would know too. In any event, people will be examining Abramoff's log very carefully. Regardless of its length, Abramoff's time at the White House was probably a whole lot dirtier than Jeff Gannon's.

This is how Tony Snow, Fox News guy and brand new White House mouthpiece, elegantly made Cheney into the victim after he shot a 78-year-old man in the face back in February. According to Snow, the real culprit was the Press:

"Political hacks and members of the press forgot the importance of behaving as human beings, rather than velociraptors. When people leap to exploit misery, they create sympathy for the miserable. Meanwhile, the news media must be careful not to become the Noise Media. In this case, some reporters, openly gleeful about Cheney's predicament, became unwittingly Shakespearean - fools telling tales, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

When its not dealing with Cheney's drunken hunting accidents, the Bush Administration is finding other ways to shoot itself in the foot. Former foot-in-mouthpiece McClellan had said that anyone responsible for leaking classified information would "no longer work in this administration". When it turned out Bush was the one who authorized the leak, Bush was technically supposed to fire himself. Of course that didn't happen, although McClellan got the pink-slip. Now they need a new voice who won't make promises to the Press like that ever again. They need a devout Bushie who, rather than answering questions, will ask the Press Corps to look within and see who they really are: not defenders of freedom of speech, truth and democracy, but small, pack-hunting dinosaurs. Enter Tony Snow, or as Bush likes to call him: Antonio Nueves (I believe Bush was intending to say Antonio Nieve, or Tony Snow en espanol). Nonetheless, this Zorro-like defender of the Bush Adminstration and Fox News veteran should be prove to be an interesting Press Secretary. I just can't wait for someone else to get shot.

Scott McClellan announced today he is resigning as Press Secretary. Big whoop. It caused quite a stir. But McClellan was just a voice of the administration, not a key player. The real news was Karl Rove losing his policy advisor position. Sure, Karl is still sticking around the White House to do some midterm election skullduggery, but his time as Bush's Brain has come to an end. Last year, I met Rove at the Whole Foods in Tenleytown. Yes, Rove shops at the same place where liberal DC vegans buy their tofu (Whole Foods is a Texas-based company, and the CEO is no liberal, although he is a vegan). Anyways, Rove and I had a nice little chat. He eventually asked for the URL of my blog, which I wrote down for him, and then I immediately went home and wrote about how terrible he is for this country. A few days later, my blog mysteriously disappeared like a prisoner in the War on Terror. That is the "Mark of Rove". Whatever he touches, he destroys. Which is why it makes sense for Rove to focus on the midterm elections. Then he can continue planting fake documents and destroying careers like he did Dan Rather's. But Rove will no longer tell Bush what to think. That will be up entirely to Cheney now. It wasn't the explosive ending to Rove I had hoped for, but its quite momentous. Of course Rove wouldn't let the Press make a big deal of it. He knew McClellan's resignation would give him some cover. He is always thinking. That's why I love Karl Rove.

"The bearded man, wearing blue jeans and a white T-shirt that said 'God Bless America,' jumped the fence outside the White House and ran across the north lawn while repeatedly yelling, 'I am a victim of terrorism!'"

-Associated Press, 4/9/06



Is it safe to say Sean Hannity and Fox News are to blame for this?

"Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution"

-Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) on voting against authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in 2002

For every Democrat that voted against allowing Bush to invade Iraq, there were two that voted in favor of it. This was amazingly stupid. Bush would have gone to war regardless of how the Democrats voted, even if they stopped the resolution from passing. A vote in Congress was just another form of casualty insurance for Bush. Perhaps down the road, if things didn't go well in Iraq, he could always say to his critics: "But you voted for it". And sure enough, Bush filed such an insurance claim in a 2004 debate with John Kerry, as millions of Americans watched:

"What my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force"

Somehow the Democrats, especially Kerry, blew a historic chance to cash in on the Right's greatest failure: Iraq. Obviously, Democratic hawks like Zell Miller or Joseph Lieberman would have sided with Bush no matter what. But the rest of bunch, not just a few patriots such as Robert Byrd or Barbara Boxer, should have bought the Party some excellent "We told you so" coverage. But, alas, the Dems failed. Just like they believed the hype about WMDs being manipulated by the White House and its associates, the Democrats thought they would be punished by the public if they didn't vote in favor of war. That's like buying insurance for the event that something bad doesn't happen. Moronic logic. The Dems should have voted as a party to "stop, look and listen". All it would have taken was more votes like Robert Byrd's, and less like Kerry's or Tom Daschle's. Unfortunately the vote of a Byrd in hand wasn't worth two in a Bush's pocket.

"President Bush and Vice President Cheney sounded more presidential than their Democratic counterparts. Senator John F. Kerry seemed the most depressed or suicidal. And Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, sounded the most like a 'girly man'... Kerry's language also was most like that of a depressed person, followed by Edwards. Edwards also was the most likely to use feminine speech patterns and 'female' words (Bush was a close second), while Cheney sounded most like a man's man..."

-Washington Post's Richard Morin on analysis of speech patterns before the 2004 Election



Lesson for '08: It's not what you say, but how you say it. Americans don't actually listen to the words that come out of your mouth. Can you name one thing Kerry or Edwards said on the campaign trail? I really can't. If you want to win, don't make long-winded, detailed speeches in a soft-spoken manner. If you actually have something important to say, the point is lost to Americans. Plus, its depressing. The thought of listening to Kerry do a speech makes me want to aim a shotgun at my mouth and pull the trigger with my pinky-toe. And sounding like a pansy never works, especially when you are doing the Republican-lite thing. Just be a strong man (or woman) and stick to your guns, even if it means yelling at the top of your lungs. I still don't understand why Iowa didn't pick Howard Dean. He would have been better than the Ambiguously Gay Duo.

"Mr. Cheney wanted me to focus on the briefing, primarily about Iraq, and what our policy was toward Iraq, what our military analysis was, security analysis was, of Saddam Hussein at that time, and not to give a so-called around the world briefing, which is standard operating procedure for incoming presidents"

-Sec. of Defense William Cohen on Cheney's specific demands for briefing President Bush

Dick Cheney is a very particular person. He prefers his room to be exactly 68 degrees and the TV must be showing Fox News. Oh, and he likes to control what the President thinks and does. So when Bush was sworn into office in 2001, Cheney wanted the outgoing Secretary of Defense to tell him about one thing, and one thing only: Iraq. Apparently, Cheney was tailoring Bush to become obsessed with Iraq in the first few days of his presidency. Much like Mugatu took advantage of the intellectually-challenged Derek Zoolander, Dick Cheney encouraged Bush to invade Iraq from day one. By December of 2001, Bush was already planning to go to war. By January of 2003, the invasion date was penciled in. Diplomacy and UN resolutions? They were insurance in case the invasion didn't go as planned. When Bush said war was his "last choice, last option", he was lying.

The idea to invade Iraq came about in the late 90s, with the creation of the Project for a New American Century, of which Cheney is a founding member. PNAC had called for a preemptive US military attack on Iraq beginning in 1997. But it wasn't until 9 months after Bush's inauguration, with Cheney in control of the White House, PNAC hawks like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in control of the Pentagon, and the events of 9/11 that made the dream became a reality. Even though Saddam had nothing to do with that day, two-thirds of Americans were convinced otherwise. Bush didn't even need to use the old "paint a plane blue, write UN on it, and let Saddam shoot it down" trick; most Americans supported a preemptive attack.

So what are the lessons we can learn from this? Why should we be concerned about how we got into Iraq? Iran is currently ignoring UN demands to halt enrichment of uranium, just test-fired a missile that can take out a US warship, and is basically pointing its middle-finger directly at the United States. To say that Dick Cheney isn't considering an attack on Iran would be naive. Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker believes a war has already begun. But besides the occasional threat, the administration and the pro-war media and think-tanks are relatively quiet on Iran. Surely, neocons like Cheney must be scrambling to come up with a plan of attack. Afterall, they only have so much time before Iran goes officially nuclear, or Bush's term runs out in 2008. Will Cheney attempt to strike Iran's underground bunkers spread across its vast terrain? In June, the Pentagon is testing a 700-ton bunker-buster bomb somewhere in Nevada. I imagine that will be pretty loud. Until then, the silence is deafening.

Britney Spears, represented in "Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston", by Sculptor Daniel Edwards:

Read Peter Bergen's new piece in the New York Times, Enemy of My Enemy. He asserts that the "overwhelming evidence" leaders like Cheney used to justify the invasion of Iraq is essentially "nothing". Recently, the US Military released documents they "captured in Iraq", which includes some Afghan heresay about a connection. Here is their disclaimer, which kind of made me laugh:

The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations....

What I don't find shocking is that, even with the strategically timed release of these documents, many of which are likely forged anyways, we end up with, well, nothing to back up this Saddam-Qaida assertion. Yet why do people still cling onto it? I think it is clear that three years into the Iraq War, the supporters of this war have very little to go on. George Tenet's WMD "slam-dunk" got rejected like Denham Brown's three-point shot against George Mason last Sunday. And spreading freedom and democracy by building an Islamic State? Even your most "patriotic" war-supporter is probably aware that the role of women has been knocked back about 100 years since we took out Saddam. Perhaps the return to "Saddam was connected to al-Qaida" is due to the war-supporters (like Jay Ambrose and a little fly who buzzes around my comments section) coming full circle. With no clear mission in Iraq, they must keep us blind, frightened and confused in the smokescreen of false intelligence and hearsay. Then, over the next ten years, the US will be able to finish its real mission: building 14 long-term American Military bases in Iraq to be used for future attacks against oil-rich nations in the Middle East. Dick Cheney can't say it out loud, but that's been the real mission all along.

Jay Ambrose is a whack-job who wants you to love the War in Iraq, which, according to Bush, will be a problem for "future Presidents" to deal with. So of course Ambrose was overjoyed that only a few thousand people showed up to protest the 3rd Anniversary of the War. To him, that meant Americans must have finally accepted the Totalitarian Propaganda used to justify the invasion, namely the suggestion that Saddam was the secret mastermind of 9/11, which is an absolute fantasy. Anyways, here is his column followed my response. Excuse the scanning job on Ambrose's column, I couldn't help it from slanting to the Right.

I was published in the Examiner today. Download the print edition, and look on Page 14.

More on this later. I need to actually do some real work for a few minutes.

"I mean, I didn't ask for this job. I didn't campaign for it. I got drafted. And delighted to serve."

Last Sunday Dick Cheney assured Face the Nation that, despite his low poll numbers, he would never back down from being Vice President of the United States. What a courageous man he is. With an approval rating at 19%, it takes a lot of balls not to cut and run. Cheney has long proved himself a man of service to his nation. Except of course during the Vietnam war, when he applied for and received five (5) deferments to avoid the draft. Five. But let's not pass judgement here. Cheney would have happily served in Vietnam, assuming the following were true:

1. The Viet Cong were domestically bred, wing-clipped birds.
2. Before raids, the Viet Cong were removed from cages and stuck upside down into thick brush where they remained stunned and motionless.
3. U.S. troops were driven to the exact spots where the Viet Cong had been placed into the brush.
4. After stirring them from the brush using barking dogs, U.S. troops were allowed to mercilessly fire upon the Viet Cong with M-16s as they attemped to flee.

Given those circumstances, our Vice President would have bravely fought in Vietnam, with only an occasional friendly-fire incident to blemish his otherwise valiant service to this nation.