Bit burned out

... on politics today.

There is a ton of really unbelievable stuff out there today, but I don't have the inclination to rant about it right now..

How about a roundup..

The NY Times is reporting that a 3rd member of the administration leaked Valerie Plame's identity. It's not just Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There will be a "special election" next week in Ohio to fill a vacant Congressional seat. The Democrat candidate is Paul Hackett, a Marine Corps Major, and an Iraq war veteran.

The Republicans are trying to "swift boat" him. Documentation on the slime tactics here:

There is more to the swift boating, but that's just a start. It's so amusing how the Republicans claim to be the "support the troops" party, yet their actions are anti-troop in just about every way. They just know how to wave really big flags.

Oh.. and in case you're not familiar with "swift boating", that's a Rove inspired tactic which confronts the opponents strength head on, by lying about them. The swift boat crew attacked John Kerry's service in Vietnam - which by any measure, regardless what you think of the veracity of the attacks, was far more honorable than George Bush going missing from the Guard, and Cheney collecting a stack of deferments. They also did it to John McCain in the 2000 primaries. The guy spent years in a POW camp in Vietnam and Rove/Bush still attacked him with smears and lies.

Anyway - here's a picture of your typical Republican pulling a swift boat maneuver. This shot was taken at the RNC last year. Notice the purple heart band-aid, which mocks John Kerry's purple heart awards.



The Republicans hate soldiers so much that they will not campaign on political ideas, but attack the honor of a decorated veteran instead.

But - notice everything about that picture.. I mean really look at it. That is the face of the Republican party.

In the past, I would have said that an Iraq war vet with terrific qualifications would be a slam dunk, but I've said that about a number of elections where it turned out I was wrong (that is, if you believe the voting machines). I'll never again underestimate the American voters ability to be dumb as a box of rocks, and completely uninformed.

After all, just look at that picture to see who's voting, and you know why Bush is in office.

Soooo.. moving a long.. the NY Times is reporting that the military really didn't want to torture prisoners.. which is not terribly surprising eh? The military really does have an honorable ethic. That is tradition...

But our current Attorney General opined for the Bush administration, and the administration forced it's will on the military. It's really outrageous.. A few quotes from the NY Times report.

Rear Adm. Michael F. Lohr, the Navy's chief lawyer, wrote on Feb. 6, 2003, that while detainees at Guantanamo Bay might not qualify for international protections, "Will the American people find we have missed the forest for the trees by condoning practices that, while technically legal, are inconsistent with our most fundamental values?"

Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler, a senior Marine lawyer, said in a Feb. 27, 2003, memorandum that all the military lawyers believed the harsh interrogation regime could have adverse consequences for American service members. General Sandkuhler said that the Justice Department "does not represent the services; thus, understandably, concern for service members is not reflected in their opinion."

Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig, the Army's top-ranking uniformed lawyer, said in a March 3, 2003, memorandum that the approach recommended by the Justice Department "will open us up to criticism that the U.S. is a law unto itself."

Once again, none of these things will get much media coverage. We clearly see here that the military understood the value of the Geneva Conventions - but the right wingers didn't think the "terrorists" deserved them. Rush Limbaugh called the abuse a "fraternity prank". Countless right wing blogs (like our favorite freeper Oxen) accused liberals of coddling terrorists, yet here we have the military saying exactly the same thing the liberals have been saying since the beginning of this war.

And the silence from the wingers is deafening.

They truly are imperialist stooges, and stand opposed to everything this country values. They do not fight the war. They do not support those who do. They do not respect the rule of law. They do not respect the value of human dignity, or the concept of honesty and fair play.

All they respect is wealth and political power, and they will do anything for it.

The campaign of Paul Hackett is simply more evidence. He's a Democrat, therefore regardless of his service to his country, they will lie about him, and slime him, and denigrate him. What they won't do is have a honorable campaign and debate qualifications and ideas. Why? Because they will get crushed if they do - and they will not go down without exhausting any means to win.

I've written here a number of times that those of you reading my blog are liberals, even if you don't want to admit it. I'll append that to say that it's possible you might not be - if you buy into this American imperial hubristic (is that a word?) and pragmatic approach that is selfish and self serving. I always assume a person has personal integrity, but it's quite possible that you might not care about "doing the right thing".

In fact, I think there's likely a mental disorder related to it. Example: our favorite freeper (god he's a great example) recently wrote "...continue to carry my gun on me and if I see anyone in a bulky coat (ie..homicide bomber) here in FL yelling "Allahu Akbar" I'll just do my part and put a bullet in their head."

They take a certain glee in the violence, and bask in it. It's a really sadistic trait. What are the odds of that situation ever presenting itself? I'd imagine it would have to be extraordinarily low - but he's planning for it anyway.

Surely that type of thinking and behavior must be borderline psychotic - along the lines of a Ruby Ridge type "militia".

Got a bit side tracked there.. but another classic Republican trait is a total disdain for those not willing to step into the jack boots and strap on the side arm. We had a great bit of evidence of this yesterday.

Our President walked by a gathering of news media, turned a corner, and headed away from them. He then felt compelled to shoot them the middle finger. This is not a joke - Jay Leno played the video last night, and you can see it for yourself here:



That really isn't just for the news media. That's for all of us and the rest of the world. That's what they represent - that sort of "fuck you if you don't like it" attitude.

Can you imagine a President actually doing that? It's crass, and it's appalling - but not terribly surprising. That is George Bush. That's his nice family values.

And that's what America has come to.

I guess I did end up ranting.. oh well.. probably all I'll do today..

** update **

I'm looking closer at the Bush picture, and it's possible the "finger" is just a light source in front of him. There is a similar looking light slightly up and to the right of the finger.

Still, it's kind of odd that he would just raise a fist like that.. but whatever.. His actions scream "fuck you", even if his finger does not.

** update 2 **

I take back the take back. The still image is not definitive, but if you look at the video, it clearly is his middle finger. If it was a light source in front of him, it wouldn't move around with his hand.. dumb me.. sorry about that.. it is the President shooting the bird..