Crux

Fairweather got a red nose?

The CCR claims it can prove Rumsfeld personally authorized the torture of Mohammed AlQatani and in November it petitioned the German Federal Prosector to press the case for formal prosecution. The German court has previously denied a venue for trial of this case on the grounds that the U.S. can reasonably be expected to provide appropriate intervention on its own. But since that reply from the German court, the Republican dominated U.S Congress in 2006 retroactively legalized torture and the respective crimes alleged to have been committed. Enter now Italy, which may be explicitly taking a stand and thereby bringing still more attention to the unresolved matter. With international attention increasingly focused on the alleged war crimes, and with the preponderance of evidence already in the public domain, maybe the Germans will take an active interest now and prosecute. I think such an event would clarify things for all but the most willfully confused.

Yes, there is reason for hope. We do have leaders who are inclined to seek justice and restore America to a respectable place in the free world, but sadly the popular support from Americans is not really there yet. I cite as evidence of American complacency the fact that no petition distributed by representatives to voters in order to garner attention in Congress has gathered so much as 100,000 supporters -- a number that seems almost paltry to me in a nation of over 300 million. (Ted Kennedy, for example, despite his presumably substantial base, has been able to boast only 70,000 signatures from the public in support of his bill to hold Bush accountable for future spending in Iraq.) Two years ago it appeared evident there might be two events by which the American public could be awakened: One, investigations by Congress had to expose facts about the Bush administration that are outrageous enough to defy containment by Congress or the media. Two, legal actions taken by influential nations of the free world had to take a severe turn against the Bush administration. Both of those events are now taking place.

CTD

Call me crazy, but I say never mind the 725 days. I'm betting that Bush and his buddy Cheney will be removed from office in July of 2007. (The proverbial fan is goobered up with shit, but now the blades are starting to spin.) Btw, that was five minutes more than I'd dare risk. You OK now?

Way to PICC through the DOMS

AlpineK, fwiw, last time I listened to dialogue from the floor of the United States Senate, which was sometime last week, the observation being shared was that we no longer have allies -- that we are now alone in our militarism. One might recall that's how it usually goes for the bad guys, sooner or later. Btw, anybody else notice that shot over the bow last week? China demonstrated its advancing preparedness to take out our military satellites. And oh, China has as its ally the nuclear power of Russia. Don't look now, but the guns of the world are turning. And why on Earth wouldn't they?

Word: "Christian"

For years now, I've been listening to reports (AAR) about the construction of permanent U.S. military facilities in Iraq. Now the facilities are in place and populated. The new American embassy in Iraq is the biggest U.S. embassy anywhere. It's surrounded by some of the biggest, newest, and most heavily armed military bases in the world -- and these are American bases. True, it seems obvious there was never any real intention by the Bush administration for the occupation of Iraq to be anything other than long term, i.e. permanent. Yet I hear elected representatives, and even some respectable military experts, talk about the situation as though withdrawal of direct military control is actually an option on the table. It makes me wonder. Are there really a lot of people who know a lot about the Iraqi conflict who also believe that the occupation was meant to be temporary? Or are there really well-informed individuals who now believe the decider would ever view permanent occupation as optional? If so, are these pundits and politicians just being terribly naive or are they reasonably optimistic about the possibilities for a change of direction? In short, are pleas to the president like trusting a hungry crocodile or like begging a Hitler to be nice to the Jews? I don't know. But I do know my own fear and it is as follows: I fear the current actions are aimed at Iran. I note that a second carrier battle group was dispatched to Iran by Bush just days ago. I heard Bush promise immediate delivery of missile defense systems to his remaining allies in the region during his Wednesday night announcement of troop escalation. I'm aware that in the background Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft plans for tactical nuclear strikes against Iran. And, of course, we've all been hearing the usual preparatory propaganda for some time now. Whatever its aims in the Middle East, it seems likely the failure in Iraq now compels the Bush crime family to expand the occupation to Iran, or at least to destroy it. This won't be good for Iran. It won't be good for you or me. And, even though he may think otherwise, I don't think it will be good for Bush either -- to say the least.

Doggie got a bad code?

Vaccuum != GrandCanyon Else Seagawk If Seagawk !RoosterSquirt End Else print "Seagawk = rooster shit" Loop

Neocons facing an "up or down" vote: "Bush struck a defiant note in an interview to be televised Sunday by CBS on "60 Minutes." Asked if he believes he has the authority to send additional troops to Iraq no matter what Congress wants to do, Bush said: "I think I've got in this situation, I do, yeah. And I fully understand they will … they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward." -- GOP, Democrats Skirmish Over Iraq Plan Meanwhile, about the unfolding war-crimes situation: "WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives' top lawmaker in charge of defense spending said Friday that he intends to force the closure of the scandal-plagued Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay military prisons…and that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "absolutely" supports his efforts." -- Murtha will press for closure of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib And regarding the presidency, less conspicuous in the ms news but now in the daily vernacular of Congress, impeachment itself is considered a bygone conclusion should the executive defy an expected, upcoming order from Congress directing the presidency to not embark upon any new military campaigns without explicit, new, congressional authorization. The only question to remain in the minds of the majority, should the presidency defy that law, would be the matter of how quickly to actually remove both the president and vice-president from office. Now, according to 75% of the American public today, a replacement of Bush and Cheney by legal means before 2008 could be good news. Let's see, that would make Pelosi president. But speaking of that is mere digression, and what is important is the flip side of the story, the bad news: Given it's steadfast determination to escalate the war without authorization from Congress, and given the disclosure of plans that Cheney recently endorsed for nuclear strikes against Iran, and given the peskly problems of war-crimes and exposure for treason nipping at their heals, the Neocons might reasonably be expected to take things to the next level while they are still in power. Now, about LBJ cf GWB, still sad?

Looser than you mama?

Today's lesson: Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Class dismissed. (Oh, and Cretin, please cut loose from the big wad of drivel -- you know the one, it's hanging from your mouth and mixed with words like "science" and "religion" as though they were concepts you just couldn't keep down.)

Seagawk flopping like a halibut on deck. Somebody please, with a baseball bat.

So... lemmee see, Jebus was against religion and I should provide to help bank number mine? Must... go... think... now.

There is no proof that God could piss that much.

Counterfeit balls?

Unbelievable.

As real is to fake, so are genuine definitions to you -- speaking in orthogonal terms... My fucking g0d-damn almighty! I said it! I said "orthogonal" just like a real fake! (Regarding science and religion, please see Stephen Jay Gould for edification.)

"Science is the new religion". Discuss. e.g. "Theory" of evolution taught as fact, despite significant gaps in the fossil record and supporting evidence. True that, Evolution is taught as though it were a fact. Sort of like Gravity and all that other theoretical shit. BTW, I nominate bsatch for cretin of the year award. Discuss.

Noting counterfeit about this fake -- you are the real thing: No science. No religion. Just fake.

So what will be the next suspenseful Fox News event? (Surely it will be something other than bombshell stories about Iraq or the related criminal presidency of the USA.) Will we learn, by chance, that Britney was caught pooping in the parking garage? Will the news be that Paris was caught playing with that little pile of poop? Or will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be rumored to have sucked shit directly from the anus of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? Or visa versa? Will cc.com again be the reluctantly choleric recipient of dysenteric spew from across the nation? If so, how might the story go? Speculation:

.