Saturday, August 13, 2005

George W. Bush: Father of An Islamic Republic

Yes, folks it's true: we Americans have spent hundreds of billions of $$$ so that George W. Bush could be the father of an Islamic Republic:
The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.

"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."
Oh me-thinks these folks give themselves too much credit: they didn't seem to factor in anything at all! And now where are we? Well there's a new Islamic state on the horizon rich with oil and lots of folks angry at good old 'merica.

Best part? The title of the article, "U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq: Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says." Hilarious!

George W. Bush: building & strengthening Islamic Republics where and when he can.

Friday, August 12, 2005

Oh AmericaBlog, How We ♥ You...

Oh AmericaBlog, mighty is your comedy! We bow to your superior comedic skills:
...Americablog has obtained some exclusive peeks at what future test questions in science and math and other areas will be like in Kansas after the revamping. See how you do!

Question: What does DNA stand for?
Answer: God.

Question: What is 21 divided by 7?
Answer: God.

Question: Which came first, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence?
Answer: The Bible.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Tucker Carlson ♥ Terrorists!

Uh oh, our Liberal Media is at it again! Liberal-ACLU-Clinton-loving-Homo Tucker Carlson supports Terrorism!
CARLSON: Actually, I am objectively pro-France. You know, France blew up the Rainbow Warrior, that Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbor in the '80s. And I've always respected them...
See blowing defenseless, unarmed folks is perfectly acceptable...

But wait a minute...! Tucker is a card carrying CONSERVATIVE?? Sweet Zombie Jesus!
Telephone conversation between Tucker Carlson and Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando on 8/03/05 at approximately 4:00 pm to 4:30 pm

TC: Your letter is wrong. It was vandalism, not terrorism... Your point that I support terrorism is wrong. I don't support terrorism. It was not an act of terrorism, that is an important distinction. Since you are the head of Greenpeace you should do your research. The French Government did not intend to kill anyone, therefore it is not terrorism. This is an important distinction. Vandalizing the ship was impressive on France's part. I don't support terror.

JP: Bombing a ship is terrorism. Killing a man is murder.

TC: You should know about vandalism, you guys engage in it all the time.

JP: We are a peaceful organization that engages in no violence to people or property.

TC: Spraying paint on seals is the same kind of vandalism, blocking entrances with your bodies...

JP: So would you call Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi vandals?

TC: I don't want to make a generalization.
Uh, nice try Tuck! But no, Bombing unarmed folks, no matter how much they inconvenience you IS terrorism. Hanging signs and blocking trains is just annoying.

The weasel factor is high with young Tucker. Perhaps another round of commercials where he runs around weilding a snub nose .38? Manly!

Wednesday, August 10, 2005


The big news is Don Rumsfeld's quietly announced Jingopalooza:
The Pentagon would hold a massive march and country music concert to mark the fourth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an announcement tucked into an Iraq war briefing today.

"This year the Department of Defence will initiate an America Supports Your Freedom Walk," Rumsfeld said, adding that the march would remind people of "the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation".
Hmm, I would hardly call a walk from the Pentagon to the Mall 'Massive' or even that much of a walk. It just isn't all that far... maybe 2 miles? More of a stroll really... but these are the sacrifices we're asked in a time of war: to walk 2 miles and listen to Clint Black.
"I've never heard of such a thing," said John Pike, who has been a defence analyst in Washington for 25 years and runs

The news also reignited debate and anger over linking September 11 with the war in Iraq.

"That piece of it is disturbing since we all know now there was no connection," said Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq veteran who heads Operation Truth, an anti-administration military booster.
Rieckhoff suggested the event was an ill-conceived publicity stunt.
No, no: Tom Cruise and Katie Holms as an 'ill-conceived publicity stunt' ("Hi, Katie? It's your agent, yeah: no, still too busy working for you babe but I promise to come over to the Celebrity Center and audit a little soon... listen, hon, Warners Bros. called and, uh, they're not gonna be needing your services on Bat-Man II")

No this? This is sick.
Rumsfeld's march had some relatives of September 11 victims fuming.

"How about telling Mr Rumsfeld to leave the memories of September 11 victims to the families?" said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband in the attacks.

Administration supporters insisted Rumsfeld was right to link Iraq and September 11, and hold the rally.

"We are at war," said Representative Pete King, (Republican, New York).

"It's essential that we support our troops."

Yes, it is essential we support them by cutting their medical benefits, charging them for meals while they rehab at Walter Reed, but at least we give massive tax cuts to the super profitable oil & energy industries and by spending on things like the massive Highway Bill that sends bazillions to Alaska:
The bill funnels upward of $941 million to 119 earmarked projects in Alaska, including $223 million for a mile-long bridge linking an island with 50 residents to the town of Ketchikan on the mainland. Another $231 million is earmarked for a new bridge in Anchorage, to be named -- this is specified in the legislation -- Don Young's Way. There is $3 million for a film ''about infrastructure that demonstrates advancements in Alaska, the last frontier." The bill even doffs its cap to Young's wife, Lu: The House formally called it ''The Transportation Equity Act -- a Legacy for Users," or TEA-LU.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

War: What Is It Good For?

In one soldier's own words:
Did your beliefs change once you were participating in the war?

I think my beliefs had changed once we were on the ground. Within days we had seized all of the oil fields in northern Iraq and our primary mission was to protect them. Bush had said this war wasn't about oil, but there I was defending oil fields at all costs in the middle of Iraq. A lot of the piping and workings of the fields had been destroyed by the fleeing army and before we even started to help the people by fixing the power or water supplies, they had construction crews trying to get everything up and running on the oil fields...
Oh there's more, so take a look.