Sick Sad Week: The Best of the Worst of the Week That Ended August 13, 2006

What Do You Get When Fear Eats Too Much Stupidity?

There Is Only One Really Sick Sad Piece of News This Week

And it ain’t got nothing to do with more terrorist plots in London. That, after all, is to be expected. The more Muslim terrorists we catch or kill, the more Muslims will be inspired to become terrorists. The sickest, saddest news this week has to do with news that wasn’t
 covered. Of course, the British plane bombing plot stole much of the thunder, but even during the most overly hyped of news stories CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the rest of the conservative media manage to find time to devote significant chunks of punditry and talking heads on such urgent national issues as Natalee Holloway and Mel Gibson. You would think that in between jumping to the still-unfounded conclusion that Al-Qaeda was behind the British plane bombing terror attack and taking Israel’s side in original never-ending story—violent stalemate in the Middle East—that there would have been time to air at least one of those feel-good Jeannie Moos type stories on the report that Rep. John Conyers issued this week on the war crimes committed by Pres. Bush and his White House and rubber stamp Congress.

John Conyers and the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee—the only members of the House Judiciary Committee apparently interested in the most pressing legal issue of the day—put out a 400 page report that painted in excruciating detail the multiple web of lies that Pres. Bush and his cronies spun in order to justify their bloodlust. A uniquely bloodless kind of bloodlust on their part, I might remind you, since none of these rectums-for-brains have ever even come close to putting their own lives on the line for their so-called beliefs.

Related information
  • The Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee released a report on Bush lies about Iraq.
  • Well before they invasion, Bush had highly classified CIA intelligence in his hand that showed.
  • Saddam Hussein not only had no link to 9/11, but also had no WMDs.
 
Comments 1 - 10 of 21 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Got cut off. There are times when the military option is viable, such as when your enemy is not open to dialogue (Hamas / Hezbollah calling for the destruction of Israel in their charters; al-qaeda's stance toward the U.S.). Either way, there is more common ground than one might initially think.

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 9:08:00 PM

Mark, You keep throwing out the stuff about Bush, but I've already said that there is much to complain about. When talking about violations of law, I was referring to the exact things you talk about. Yes Cunningham was guilty. I agree that it is wrong to hold prisoners indefinitely. I agree that the FISA provision for seeking a warrant 72 hours after the fact makes bypassing the court inexcusable. You ask if I want more, but we agree on these points. Not sure where you are going with this. I am content to rely on facts. I asserted that Saddam had WMD's. When he got rid of them is open to debate. I do not defend Rumsfeld or Bush when it comes to Iraq or the war on terror. I too vote across the political spectrum. Unfortunately, I too often feel that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils in national elections. And, while I agree that law enforcement functions are critical to fighting terrorism, there are times when the military option is viable, such as when your enemy is n

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 9:08:00 PM

Great line, Tim.."when fear eats too much stupidity!" Defining the Bush Admin in one short sentence..And the WMD debate may go on forever...my question is, if it was a sound arguement, why have they abandoned it? Why do they say to free Iraq, to get rid of Saddam, etc, etc..?

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 8:08:00 PM

Well, by all means, people are innocent until proven guilty. (Unless, like Ken Lay, you die before sentencing but after conviction, then it's a kind of legal limbo.) But from the known evidence, I think you can make some pretty good assumptions. Perhaps you choose not to. That's fine. The ones that have been settled are enough to talk about. Cunningham was guilty. We cannot hold prisoners indefinitely. Our "enemy combatants" status violates the Geneva Conventions. Bush was violating FISA with his wiretapping, and rewriting the law after the fact does not change this. The recent British terrorist capture was not achieved by the army in Iraq, but by police work and investigation, the methodology of fighting terrorism mocked by the Republican Party in 2004. You want more?

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 7:08:00 PM

Sorry, I followed up my "attack" on you - commenting that either your sources were wrong or you choose to ignore reality (not really an attack on you as much as your ideas) - with a factual recitation of events leading up to the war. I'm happy to debate you, I enjoy such entertainment. You'll find I do not sympathize with terrorists, nor did I like Saddam. I am not "anti-war", I am anti-stupid, needless war. I am not anti-semitic, and I feel Israel has a right to survive. I also feel Palestinians were driven off their land, and might resent it. I do not condone violence by either side. I do not condone violence for any cause except defense. I am pro-defense, and I wish we'd stop wasting our soldier's lives. I am currently a Democrat, having joined the party when I saw what the religious right was doing to the Republicans, previous to that I was a registered indy. I vote across the spectrum though, I read voraciously, I am a news junkie, I have a reasonably high IQ,

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 7:08:00 PM

As for investigations, I prefer to wait until they are complete. That is why I have repeatedly said that individuals like Delay and Jefferson should not be convicted in the media before they are convicted in court. It has also been my observation that most investigations that begin in Congress are partisan. Both parties need a "come to Jesus" moment as both have devolved into groups that would make the founding fathers sick to their stomachs. Unfortunately, the way the rules are written, incumbents have a huge advantage while newcomers face nearly insurmountable barriers to entry. Barring state action to force term limits, I'm afraid that we are stuck with the same old song and dance.

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 7:08:00 PM

Mark, as I said earlier. There is plenty to be critical of when it comes to the Bush admininstration. One would be hard pressed to find another president who disregards the law as much as he does. Just the fact that I am saying that should be evidence that I am an equal opportunity critic. While I tend to hold conservative political and social views, I do not provide a rubber stamp for the Republican Party.

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 7:08:00 PM

The defensive-attack argument can be summed up like this: when someone questions what you say you immediately go on defensive because your arguments are not based in fact. And, feeling cornered, you lash out, or attack. Maybe I'm doing a lousy job of articulating it, but it's like the cornered animal that swipes at you with his paws or bites at you.

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 7:08:00 PM

Incidently, Greg, I don't think Republicans are "evil" or inherently wrong. There are some great appeals to conservative points of view, and there are some truly awful things about liberal points of view. I always saw them as a balance - the need for discipline and the need for caring about people, each keeping the other from going too far. The current Republicans have abandoned fiscal restraint and embraced the religious right and redneck south. The Democrats abandoned their racist roots in the 60's, embraced power in the 70's, and lost a lot of their values and their way. All things considered though, Democrats by their sheer ineptitude seem to do less harm than Republicans.

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 6:08:00 PM

Further, if crimes are crimes, then how do you differentiate between partisan investigations and non-partisan ones? How do you know what is a crime until you investigate it? How do you know Conyers is just posturing? You do know that the Bush Administration has been slammed at least twice by the Supreme Court for violating people's constitutional rights thus far, don't you? That they are re-writing laws right now to allow for actions they have already taken - meaning, in short, they have broken the law. If you are open to arguments supported by facts, you must be aware of this.

Posted on 08/15/2006 at 6:08:00 PM

Comments 1 - 10 of 21 Next >>