2008 May « One Little Victory

Quick Slants for May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008 — Rick

Actually, I make no promise that these will be quick today, but I thought I would merge several possible posts into one.

Fallout from McClellan

Well that was quite the political storm in DC this week, after Scott McClellan’s book came out slamming the Bush administration on everything from Iraq to Katrine to torture to running a permanent campaign rather than governing. The loyalist response has been exactly what I expected; “he is a disgruntled past employee.” Is he disgruntled? Sure he is. He was blatantly lied to and as a result made comments that undermined his own credibility. Press Secretaries must have credibility in order to be effective at their jobs.

The only surprising thing to me is how muted the official response seems. I am speculating that there are two causes for that. First, the less attention they pay to it, the quicker they hope it will fade from public view. Um, yeah, good luck with that one. The second reason for a relatively muted response is that anyone actually in the know realizes that everything McClellan is saying is true, and they either don’t want to be affiliated with that later, or they want to cash in and write their own books.

The other night I cast a vote for McClellan as being the first person I presented a “Today’s Smiley” to. Since that time many people have come out slamming McClellan’s intent behind writing the book and questioning his patriotism for not sounding such alarms while employed in the White House (Note; one former staffer supports McClellan on this point). I stand by the idea that McClellan is a good patriot. While he still believes in what Bush campaigned on prior to the 200 election (thus demonstrating that he and I are still on very different political pages), the fact is that he needed some distance from the White House to be able to reflect on everything that took place and to put it into appropriate context. Ultimately, I believe that the more McClellan considered what took place, the more he couldn’t stomach the manner in which the administration was conducting his business. Good for him.

There is also an allegation that he is trying to impact the 2008 election. Again, good for him. If McCain has been supportive of this president, and if there is any hint that McCain would govern in a manner similar to this president, then we need such people to step up and point this out.

I understand that McClellan may be motivated to some degree by the paychecks he will get for writing the book and then for speaking on it. Truthfully, I don’t care about that. While McClellan’s revelations are late in coming, they are timely in creating a demand for public accountability while this president is still in office. If McClellan knowingly provided falsehoods during his tenure, then shame on him. But I suspect he would fare no worse than Ari Fleisher, Tony Snow, and Dana Perino… the other three people who have held this position under George W. Bush. At least McClellan stood up to be counted.

Here is McClellan’s appearance the other night with Keith Olbermann (five parts).

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Bill O’ blows another gasket

When Bill O’ couldn’t strong-arm Scott McClellan into coming on his show BEFORE going on Countdown and being interviewed by Tim Russert, Bill lost it again… similar in tone to the “We’ll do it live” gasket-blowing that was previously posted here. How this man is allowed to stay on the air is just beyond me. He is completely disrespectful and unprofessional whenever someone who comes on dares to do anything other than parrot the views of Bill O’. That is fair and balanced? We report, you decide? Oh, and Bill O’s guest this coming Monday? Scott McClellan. I can’t wait to see how he gets vilified there.

What’s wrong, Bill? Couldn’t get a real job at a real news network? Welcome back to the Momo club.

Here’s a clip:

Just to bring the point home…

Is Scott McClellan the only one who realized that something was very wrong in the Bush administration? Not even close. It turns out that the FBI had actually opened up a “War Crimes” file for members of this administration, including both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

FBI files indict Bush, Cheney and Co. as war criminals
By Bill Van Auken

The most stunning revelation in a 370-page Justice US Department Inspector General’s report released this week was that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had formally opened a “War Crimes” file, documenting torture they had witnessed at the Guantánamo Bay US prison camp, before being ordered by the administration to stop writing their reports.

The World Socialist Web Site, together with human rights groups and other opponents of US militarism and repression, has long insisted that the actions of the Bush administration—the launching of wars of aggression, assassinations, the abduction and detention of civilians without trial and, most repugnant of all, torture—constitute war crimes under any legitimate interpretation of longstanding international statutes and treaties.

To have this assessment confirmed, however, by the IG of the Justice Department, the only senior official there not answerable directly to the White House, and by agents of the FBI, an agency not known for its sensitivity to questions of democratic rights, is an indication of the rampant character of these crimes as well as the crisis they have engendered within the US government and America’s ruling elite as a whole.

The report makes it absolutely clear that torture was ordered and planned in detail at the highest levels of the government—including the White House, the National Security Council, the Pentagon and the Justice Department. Attempts to stop it on legal or pragmatic grounds by individuals within the government were systematically suppressed, and evidence of this criminal activity covered up.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House on these new revelations. Responses from other agencies directly implicated in the crimes at Guantánamo were indicative of the general atmosphere of impunity in which the torture detailed in the IG’s report continues to this day.

“There’s nothing new here,” said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. A State Department spokesman, meanwhile, described the charges contained in the report as “pretty vague.”

Full story here…

Pretty vague? If you read the rest of the story, there is nothing at all vague about the charges, and they are consistent with other reports of human rights abuses and the murder of detainees in U.S. custody. The fact that they are coming directly from an FBI report should scare the hell out of anyone who believes in human rights and who also believes that the United States must be a role model, not a street thug. We will never, ever with the “war on terror” through force. Force has its applications… in this instance look no further than Afghanistan. Our invasion was warranted based on the September 11th attacks. And had we carried out that mission successfully and completely, we would likely have brought more people to justice and still maintained both our standing in the world and the relative sympathy that most of the world felt for us after 9/11. Instead, we have botched the job in Afghanistan and are now playing “catch up”, we have become mired down in an unnecessary and illegal war and occupation in Iraq, and likely would have brought more of al Qaeda’s leaders to justice, rather than serving as a recruitment ad for them.

Time to make the donuts…

Is this for real? Let’s see if I have this right… Michelle Malkin (Harpy, Jr.) went on some rant against Dunkin’ Donuts because an ad with Rachel Ray showed her wearing a scarf that “looked” like it was from the Middle East. And of course, by natural extension, that must mean that the ad was some form of covert jihadist message. WTF?

But that’s Michelle Malkin. By now I have come to expect that kind of noise from her. The real stunner was when Dunkin’ Donuts yanked the ad. That’s right, they caved to a wacko. All because of the appearance of a scarf.

You know, I like watching The Twilight Zone late at night on the Sci Fi Channel whenever I can’t sleep. Apparently, I don’t have to anymore… we’re living there.

Here is Stephen Colbert’s very funny take on it, as well as his comments on Scott McClellan.

Finally, here is another blogger’s take on “Michelle Malkin and the Scarf of Doom.”

That’s all I’ve got for now… time to go work on my lit review.

Posted in Bill O'Reilly, Corruption, Countdown, Dunkin' Donuts, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Fox Noise, George W. Bush, Keith Olbermann, Michelle Malkin, Scott McClellan, Torture, War Crimes. 2 Comments »

Trotta apologizes for assassination comment

May 28, 2008 — Rick

Now don’t get me wrong… I don’t believe for a second that this is a sincere apology. But this woman is at least ahead of Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff, who still believe the Clinton didn’t do anything wrong when referring to RFK’s assassination in justifying her continued candidacy, and thus inviting grotesque comparisons for Barack Obama.

Apparently the “color” of this political season that Trotta refers to is red, and I don’t mean Republican Red.

So good for Liz for fessing up, whether she meant it or not.

Posted in Barack Obama, Fox Noise, Liz Trotta. No Comments »

The Real McCain 2

May 28, 2008 — Rick

this is straight talk?

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, John McCain. No Comments »

McClellan throws Bush under the bus

May 27, 2008 — Rick

We have known for some time that former White House Press secretary Scott McClellan was going to be critical of George W. Bush in his coming book (due out next week) “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”. But no one knew he was going to be as honest as the excerpts now being released. As Keith Olbermann noted tonight on Countdown, if one were to read the words without context, one would believe they were coming from a liberal. But they are in fact coming from a Bush loyalist.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. No doubt as time marches forward more people will come out with open condemnations of Bush, Cheney, Rove and the crew. But this is the first real salvo that will stick. I would like to believe that this work might result in some measure of accountability being forced upon the Bush White House, but we all know better than that by now. Most certainly this work will help cement Bush’s status as the worst president in American history.

And we all had front row seats. Charming.

One other note that I enjoyed was McClellan’s assertion that the “liberal media” was eating out of Bush’s hand during the build up to the war and didn’t properly do its job.

Helloooo… McFly? Now you know why I get most of my real news off the internet.

For his efforts, McClellan will likely be denounced harshly by the administration, but I am sure that the seven figure check he is enjoying from the book eases some of that pain for him. None the less, I am picking tonight to introduce a new OLV feature… The “Smiley”… awarded to those people who do the right thing in a significant manner and/or under difficult circumstances. And since McClellan is demonstrating the courage to be the first real insider to come out of the White House and blow the whistle, I’ll go out on a limb and award it to Scott McClellan five days before I will even be able to read his book. The excerpts alone make it clear that this is going to be a real look into the shame and corruption of this administration. So thank you, Scott.

Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House
By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08 6:18 PM EST

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.

A few reporters were offered advance copies of the book, with the restriction that their stories not appear until Sunday, the day before the official publication date. Politico declined and purchased “What Happened” at a Washington bookstore.

The eagerly awaited book, while recounting many fond memories of Bush and describing him as “authentic” and “sincere,” is harsher than reporters and White House officials had expected.

Full story here…

Posted in Countdown, George W. Bush, Keith Olbermann, Scott McClellan. No Comments »

Conservative values…

May 25, 2008 — Rick

…apparently include murder, at least if you listen to this:

So apparently the good people at Fox also find the thought of assassinating Obama not just amusing, but appealing.

Today’s newest MoMo… Liz Trotta of Fox Noise.

I wonder if she would find it so frakking funny if someone were saying the same thing about McSame. Or maybe about Liz Trotta.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Assassination, Barack Obama, Fox Noise, Liz Trotta, Moron of the Moment. 2 Comments »

Why I support Barack Obama for President

May 24, 2008 — Rick

Regular readers know that I have been torn for some time over who to support for the presidency. My initial candidate was Dennis Kucinich, because our views are very similar. After Kucinich left, I think my favorite choice would then have been John Edwards, given his populist approach. Since Edwards withdrew, most people know that I have been torn between Barack Obama and Ralph Nader. Hillary hasn’t factored in for some time, given her horrible conduct during the campaign and my belief that she is, quite frankly, not that much different than John McCain.

So whom to vote for between Nader and Obama? I agree with Nader on almost every issue and find Obama too corporate… too willing to cater to special interests. I agree with him on most of his views, but he doesn’t go far enough for me, at least not as a candidate.

And that is what I must remember. How he campaigns and how he governs may well be very disparate. Obama has the right background… he wasn’t brought up in a wealthy environment. Obama has the right instincts… when he could have worked anywhere in the nation as a Harvard Law grad, he chose to return to Chicago’s South Side to advocate for the poor. And Obama has the intellect… listening to him on the campaign, his remarks are thoughtful but real, nearly blunt. John McCain may pride himself on “straight talk” while delivering double talk, but with Obama what you see is what you get.

While I am a supporter of a complete revolution to fix our government, the truth is that in this day and age change has to come from within and must be steady and incremental. And while I very much support third parties and consider myself an Independent rather than a Democrat, it is my view that the election of an Independent would not bring the change that we so desperately need in this nation.

I admire Ralph Nader. I agree with Ralph Nader on almost all of what he says. And I strongly support the emergence of third parties in the American political landscape. I see these parties as vital to insuring that, after we fix our government, that it won’t get broken again anytime soon.

But we have to fix it first, and Ralph Nader cannot accomplish this as President. He is far more effective as an external advocate, rather than from the Oval Office. Think about it… if Nader were inaugurated on January 15th, he would become a lame duck the very next day. The changes he offers threaten the status quo of both major political parties, and such change won’t be accepted from outside the party structures. It must come from within.

And if there is anyone in the current landscape that can bring this change, it is Obama. McCain pretends to be a reformist but is simply an extension of the failed politics of George W. Bush. Clinton is completely owned by special interests and has shown her husband’s knack for convenient political maneuvering. Obama, on the other hand, has talked about positions with consistency. He has tried to distance himself from special interests publicly, but it is clear that his campaign would not be succeeding without corporate support. My take? He has the right instincts to push through reform but won’t campaign on it, and won’t start Day One of his presidency with sweeping reforms. But four or eight years of Barack Obama, in my view, would net significant gains that could begin to take some of the corporate lobbyist dollars out of politics. And that is to me, the greatest single threat we face as a nation. So in a nutshell, change under Obama won’t be as sweeping as it would be under Nader, but stands a far greater likelihood of actually happening.

I don’t begrudge Nader in his effort to be president, and won’t blame him if Obama should lose to McCain. As Nader rightly pointed out in an interview with Tim Russert, if the Democrats can’t win this year, of all years, then they should just fold up tent and call it a day as a party. Similarly, I wish Libertarian nominee Bob Barr great success as well. If he can siphon off votes from McCain, perhaps Nader’s impact on Obama will be dampened.

In my view, the top issues in this nation right now (in order of immediacy) are:

1. Corporate influence in American politics and ending corporate welfare
2. Restoring civil liberties to American citizens that have been lost during the Bush administration
3. Leaving Iraq, completing the task in Afghanistan, and restoring American prestige
4. Turning the American economy back in the right direction
5. Establishing nationalized health care for all U.S. citizens
6. Taking immediate and decisive action to improve the global environment
7. Investing substantially in alternative and renewable energy sources
8. Taking care of the veterans who have fought at the order of the current administration
9. Reforming public education in a way that does not penalize minorities
10. Healing the racial divide in this nation
11. Creating a rational immigration policy as it applies to illegal immigrants

Please note the complete absence of social wedge issues. For too long has the Republican Party utilized these issues (gun control, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, etc.) to divide our people and to convince many hardworking Americans to vote against their own economic interests. This must come to an end if we are to make real progress on the real issues facing us.

With these issues as my determiners, it is clear to me that in a race between Obama and McCain, Obama is the only choice for making substantive progress that would be in the interest of the people rather than the corporations. While I believe that Obama has the right instincts, he still has to demonstrate that he has the will, the savvy, and the ability to get the job done.

This is the most significant presidential election that I have seen in my lifetime. It will almost certainly be a pivotal time in American history, so we need to choose well. Voting for Barack Obama requires a leap of faith, but the opportunities presented in an Obama administration can have a tremendous and positive impact on American society. And we can not afford to elect John McCain to be our President. In many ways, McCain’s views will offer us more of the same, truly a third term of the Bush administration. And where he differs with Bush some of his views are worse. A John McCain presidency would likely be a disaster for our nation… one that we simply can’t afford.

Thus, I have to select the most likely person to defeat McCain, and one that I can believe has the character and ability to disrupt the status quo of American politics while pursuing a progressive agenda. Obama’s agenda may not be as progressive as I would like, but it stands a fighting chance of being turned into rational policy, something we need desperately. And that’s why I will cast my ballot for Senator Obama this November. The motto of his campaign is “change we can believe in”. This is change I have to believe in, because the alternative is simply unacceptable.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Endorsement. No Comments »

Clinton commits political suicide

May 23, 2008 — Rick

Just watch this:

Disgusting. Simply disgusting.

Using Robert Kennedy’s assassination to justify her continued campaign? This comment is absolutely unacceptable. The immediate inference that has to be drawn is that she is waiting in the wings until someone assassinates Barack Obama. Again, utterly disgusting.

Seeking to distance herself from her own comment, Clinton later explained:

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever,” the former first lady said. And her campaign’s responses were not any more productive than that.

That’s it? I regret that other people might be offended? How about… “I’m sorry… I completely screwed up.” Where is the apology here? It seems that Senator Clinton is incapable of taking responsibility for her own comments. If previously she was torturing her own political career by engaging in “scorched earth” tactics against Obama, then she completely killed her career with her thoughtless and grotesque remarks. Even in the absolute worst case… if a candidate were killed during the election process, it is not as though the Democrats would fail to nominate someone. And Hillary Clinton knows this. Given that she made a similar (but not as direct) comment to Time Magazine earlier this year, clearly it seems that Clinton is staying in the race hoping for Obama’s assassination.

Regular readers know that I normally save my strongest comments for Bush, his lackeys, or other neocons who manage to engage in incredible acts of ignorance or maliciousness. This act, by a Democrat, contains both stupidity and maliciousness, and is perhaps the worst offense that I have commented on in two years of blogging.

To Mrs. Clinton… you are an intelligent and driven individual, and I have no doubt that in some ways you have the best interests of this country at heart. But your reckless statements and actions throughout this campaign have made it very clear to me that you are not fit to serve as President of the United States. Worse for you, today you ended any speculation that you might be fit to serve as Vice President. Essentially, any greater ambitions that you held died today. Today you showed that you are right on par with Mike Huckabee, who also earlier found humor in the thought of a gun being aimed at Senator Obama.

Moron of the Moment? This gets you Moron of the Year.

UPDATE: Here is Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment on Clinton’s remarks. It is worth watching in its entirety. Watch specifically at the end as Keith notes the litany of things for which Hillary Clinton has already been forgiven for during the course of this campaign, and why she cannot be forgiven for this thoughtlessness. I don’t think Keith will be having tea with Bill and Hillary anytime soon. Good for him for saying what needs to be said.

Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, Assassination, Barack Obama, Countdown, Hillary Clinton, Keith Olbermann. 3 Comments »

So much to blog, so little time

May 22, 2008 — Rick

Lots going on in the world, and I’ve just had very little time to sit down and write. So I’ll hit some highlights.

McCain ends his love affair with Hagee

So John McCain didn’t have much choice but to retract his acceptance of the Rev. John Hagee’s endorsement. Like he had a choice. A new Hagee video describes Hitler as a “hunter” who was carrying out God’s will in carrying out the Holocaust. WTF? Well John, it only took you a few months, but at least you finally got it right.

And McCain couldn’t even do that with class, feeling the need to bash Barack Obama in the process. Yo McSame… I can understand Obama having a personal relationship with Jeremiah Wright that blew up in his face. It seems a bit more unsavory that the only connection between you and Hagee is that you intentionally sought a political connection with him by kissing up for his endorsement. Who’s judgment is worse, I wonder?

And while we are at it, exactly when is McCain going to recuse himself of the Rev. Rod Parsley’s endorsement. McCain went so far as to call this man a “spiritual guide” while the man advocates for the annihilation of Islam. Classy.

Way to support those troops, John

Well, at least McSame didn’t flip-flop on this issue. Instead, McCain chose not to show up at all.

Today, the Senate voted to expand the GI Bill and improving benefits to troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The last time around, McCain voted against the measure. This time, while many of his Republican colleagues scrambled to get on the right side of the issue. The measure passed 75-22. One of the three Senators not in attendance? That’s right, Senator McSame. We was too busy at two California fundraisers.

You know John, just because you served in the military doesn’t mean that you support the troops. As a matter of fact, your voting record suggests otherwise. Smart vets will know to look at your record before casting a ballot this November. If you can be troubled to continue supporting the war, maybe you might want to consider actually supporting the people who have to fight it.

McCain and Black

One of McSame’s key political aides, Charles Black, has a rather black past it seems. Black has served as a long time lobbyist. His client list though is rather interesting; it includes Jonas Savimbi (UNITA), former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Nigerian Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, and Somali President Mohamed Siad Barre. Basically, it’s the Who’s Who of African and South Asian thugs.

So when McCain promises more of the McSame in the White House, he isn’t kidding.

Joe Conason has written an even more in depth Truthdig article on this topic with even more of the client list.

Turd Blossom gets served

The House Judiciary Committee today issued a subpoena to Karl Rove as part of an investigation into the Department of Justice and politically-motivated prosecutions.

No doubt Turd Blossom will ignore this message from Congress, knowing full well that Congress will need the support of the Justice Department to actually file contempt charges against Rove.

But hey, at least they are trying.

A belated MoMo

This is old news already, but I just have to present a Moron of the Moment Award to former Republican presidential candidate (and possible VP nominee) Mike Huckabee, who last week jammed hi foot into his mouth about as far as he could possible get it.

During a speech, Huckabee heard a crashing sound somehwre backstage and launched into a stupid ass joke that it was Barack Obama, who saw a gun aimed at him and dove for the floor. You can see the video here.

Classy, Mike. I mean, what’s funnier than an assassination joke directed towards a black Presidential candidate. The Golden MoMo was meant for classy moments like this one.

That’s it for now, but I’ve got a good one coming soon… I promise.

Posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Joe Conason, John McCain, Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee, Moron of the Moment, Rod Parsley, Truthdig, U.S. Troops. No Comments »

Bush hammered from the right, and even for the right reason

May 20, 2008 — Rick

God knows that I don;t agree with a lot that Pat Buchanan has to say, though I do think he is a very sharp political analyst. But this piece is just priceless… even Pat Buchanan, from the right wing of the Republican Party, knows to hammer Bush for his idiotic comments last week in front of the Israeli Knesset. I will write more later about this… hopefully tonight… but just had to share this wonderful read. Even Pat knows that forward-thinking nations negotiate with their enemies, despite Bush’s cry that this is appeasement.

Bush Plays the Hitler Card
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: 05/19/2008

“A little learning is a dangerous thing,” wrote Alexander Pope.

Daily, our 43rd president testifies to Pope’s point.

Addressing the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s birth, Bush said those who say we should negotiate with Iran or Hamas are like the fools who said we should negotiate with Adolf Hitler.

“As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement. …”

Again, Bush has made a hash of history.

Appeasement is the name given to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich in September 1938. Rather than fight Germany in another great war — to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule they despised — he agreed to their peaceful transfer to German rule. With these Germans went the lands their ancestors had lived upon for centuries, German Bohemia, or the Sudetenland.

Chamberlain’s negotiated deal with Hitler averted a European war — at the expense of the Czech nation. That was appeasement.

German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson’s 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.

From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

In that same speech to the Knesset, Bush dismissed the idea we could ever successfully negotiate with Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them that they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before.”

But did not Ronald Reagan’s negotiations with the Evil Empire, as he rebuilt America’s military might, bear fruit in a reversal of Moscow’s imperial policy and an end to the Cold War?

Richard Nixon went to China and toasted the greatest mass murderer of them all, Mao Zedong, when Maoists were conducting a nationwide purge: the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Yet, Nixon ended a quarter century of implacable U.S.-Chinese hostility. Was Nixon’s trip to China useless?

Three years after Nikita Khrushchev drowned the Hungarian revolution in blood, Ike had him up to Camp David. John Kennedy ended the most dangerous confrontation of the Cold War, the Cuban missile crisis, by negotiating with that same Butcher of Budapest.

Were Ike, JFK and Nixon all deluded fools? For the dictators they negotiated with — Khrushchev and Mao — were far greater mass murderers and enemies of America than is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Bush’s father negotiated with Syria’s Hafez al-Assad, the Butcher of Hama, and made him an American ally in the Gulf War.

Was President Bush’s father a deluded fool?

The president’s own diplomats negotiated an end to the nuclear program of Col. Gadhafi, who was responsible for the air massacre of American school kids over Lockerbie.

Bush’s own diplomats are negotiating with Kim Jong-il’s North Korea, a state sponsor of terror. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is negotiating with Iranians in Baghdad. Egypt is negotiating on behalf of Israel with Hamas to retrieve a captured Israeli soldier. Are they all deluded fools?

Bush refused to talk to Yasser Arafat because he was a terrorist. But four Israeli prime ministers negotiated with Arafat. Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin shared a Nobel Prize with him. “Bibi” Netanyahu ceded Hebron to him. Ehud Olmert offered him 95 percent of the West Bank.

Were all four Israeli leaders deluded fools?

True, the Chamberlain-Hitler summit at Munich proved a disaster, as did the FDR-Churchill-Stalin summits at Tehran and Yalta, and the JFK-Khrushchev summit in Vienna. But JFK’s diplomacy in the missile crisis may have averted a nuclear war. And Eisenhower, Nixon, Gerald Ford and Reagan all met with foreign dictators with blood on their hands, without loss to America, and sometimes with impressive gains.

What has Bush’s refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?

Posted in Appeasement, George W. Bush, Pat Buchanan. No Comments »

Olbermann to Bush: “Shut the hell up”

May 14, 2008 — Rick

Wow. What a commentary. Keith weaves together the Idiot in Chief’s assertion that the election of a Democrat to the White House will lead to another terrorist attack (notwithstanding the fact that the most horrific attack in our history came on his watch) with Dubya’s statement that his sacrifice in this war… to show solidarity with the American people, was to give up golf. And he wasn’t even accurate in that.

Keith hits all the highlights in this commentary, pulling together the lie-based war, the war profiteering, the development of al Qaeda in Iraq, and places it all right where it belongs… on the shoulders of Mr. Bush. Not that it will stick. The man proved long ago that he has no conscience. All of this is a great game to him… to line the pockets of his corporate friends like Halliburton and to push the agenda of the neocons, Mr. Bush will do and say anything. He holds now only to the delusion that some historians won’t brand him simply as “W - Worst President Ever”.

Personally, I have another title I would like to see bestowed on him; convicted war criminal. But for now, he just gets another Momo. And kudos to Keith Olbermann. Mr. Olbermann, you are a true hero and patriot.

Part One (10:00)