Rove Should Eat Crow - Sub Title - Come On People, Uncle Karl "Just Wanted To Have Some Fun."

Proving that Rove is nuts, he blew his lid at Sheryl Crow, for no good reason other than that he wanted to display his true plumage. Why Rove shows such disdain for the American People is beyond me, but symptomatic of all that is wrong with the current administration.

In his attempt to dismiss us, Mr. Rove turned to head toward his table, but as soon as he did so, Sheryl reached out to touch his arm. Karl swung around and spat, "Don't touch me." How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow? Unfazed, Sheryl abruptly responded, "You can't speak to us like that, you work for us." Karl then quipped, "I don't work for you, I work for the American people." To which Sheryl promptly reminded him, "We are the American people."

Let's have a look at Dana Perino's interpretation of the event:

Q Dana, can I ask you, there's been a lot of chatter over the last couple days about this confrontation that Karl Rove allegedly had with a couple of celebrities about global warming, climate change. What was Karl Rove's reaction to being confronted at the dinner in this way?

MS. PERINO: I think Karl Rove just wanted to have some fun on Saturday night. And I think he wasn't the only one.

Excuse me, the GIs are getting filleted on a daily basis in Iraq, and Uncle Karl Goes off on some citizens because he want's to have fun?Oh, and Karl as victim is really not going to play well in any other circle than the reichwing blogset.

I think that it's unfortunate that people who have an impassioned view about a topic don't take the time and afford the President the same respect that they are asking for. The President's record on climate change is very strong. I do not understand why they can't take "yes" for an answer. The President has acknowledged, since the beginning of his term, that climate change is real. He has a different approach of how to help solve the problems, but that doesn't mean he hasn't acted.

Excuse me Ms. Perino, but they were talking to Karl, not the President, and he had no right to go off on these concerned citizens.

We have provided billions of dollars, in terms of resources, to develop the new technologies that are not only going to help solve that problem, but will also help lift people out of poverty from around the world because they need the clean energy that everyone else needs in order to help their economies grow.

Really? Prove it.

Q But it was not until this last State of the Union that he mentioned climate change, right, so --

MS. PERINO: Absolutely not.

Q He did not mention it directly.

MS. PERINO: In the State of the Union?

Q In the State of the Union. I thought this was the last --

MS. PERINO: Well, in the State of the Union, but that doesn't mean that people weren't actively working on things. I could point you back to the 2003 State of the Union, in which he announced the FutureGen project, which is a zero-emissions coal-fired power plant, which is currently underway, in terms of its development, and it's a 10-year plan. And what we would hope is that once we get that technology, we will be able to transfer it to developing countries that are going to use coal, like Mexico and South Africa and China, which, by the way, is building one power plant a week that uses coal.

Okay, so raping the earth for more coal to be burned, but reduce the emissions is a solution to global warming and fixing what we perpetrate against the environment is your solution?

So we have big climate change challenges ahead of us, and I just wish that they would channel some of that Hollywood energy into something constructive, rather than baseless finger pointing.

Baseless? I don't think so.

Q Did Rove leave early because he was angry because of this?

MS. PERINO: Rove left to get in the motorcade to go home. (Laughter.) That's what we all have to do if we're in the motorcade. I got to stay behind.

So, Uncle Karl stomped off like a spoiled child would if he didn't get his way. So sorry to burn up your night of fun with a dose of reality Karl, but you really do work for more American People than the one's you suggest you represent.

Meanwhile, With The Presidential Propaganda Catapult Fully Loaded, Grand Rapids Gets A Full Dose Of Whitewash From The Whitehouse

I haven't been clicking on presidential speeches as of late as W has not been forthcoming with the Q & A. I don't necessarily enjoy reading the scripted portions of his PR junket speechifying as it's usually more of the same.

Unscripted, W continuously reveals himself for who he really is. Fortunately for us, on his weekend gallivant to Grand Rapids, MI sponsored by your taxpayer dollars, he exposes himself again, albeit to a very friendly audience. Really, have a look at these softballs (Q's only as the As only serve to further the W, Rove and Co Agenda):

Q How do you think the new Democratic Congress will (inaudible)?

Q Thank you, Mr. President. What's the next step for the United States, or even the United Nations, in dealing with the belligerent behavior of Iran with regards to nuclear development?

Q I think that's a great idea. I was wondering, we did have a group -- a commission, I believe, here, that was discussing how to solve our Iraq problems, but we really haven't implemented the advice from --

Q -- Baker-Hamilton commission. I was wondering how we were going to be able to convince the countries that participate in this conference in Egypt that we will actually consider implementing their advice --

Q Mr. President, thanks for coming to the west coast, first.

Q You mentioned in your comments, sir, about the American patience. What's the Prime Minister's take on that? What is his understanding of American patience?

There were a couple of inaudible questions mixed in there, but you get the idea. These folks look like plants from the GOP.

Lucky for us, they let one subversive in who got to ask the last question. Have a look at W's response and you can see how twisted his logic is.

Q Mr. President, I really appreciate your emphasis on the universality of freedom. I'm wondering if and how the United States can promote liberal democratic reform in countries like Saudi Arabia, and whether you could address specifically whether it is, perhaps, American support for these autocratic regimes that are creating such an Islamic backlash against the United States?

Now that seems like a complex and legitimate question, no? The President of the United States aught to have something cogent to stipulate as an answer. Let's have a look.

THE PRESIDENT: That is a -- boy, I don't want to be Mr. Gratuitous, say, fabulous question, but it's really one of the fundamental questions that has caused a lot of debate in Washington, D.C. about my freedom agenda.

There are some who say that promoting democracy and liberty in the Middle East is a waste of time.

Your "freedom agenda?" Hmmm... Well, for a minute there I thought he was going to delve into the complexities of the issue. But of course, W sets himself up to begin his first point of argument with the usual Rovian straw man. Really, whom is W referring to by suggesting some would say promoting democracy and liberty is the wrong thing to do? Name that person?

What a ridiculous argument. No one argues with this, it's the means by which you think you can accomplish this that are in contention...but let's let W continue to plow forward...

I happen to believe that, kind of, managing stability doesn't address the root cause of the problems that caused 19 kids to get on an airplane and kill 3,000 of our citizens.

What? I don't think the Nine Eleven hijackers were kids, were they?

And so part of our strategy to defend the country is the promotion of freedom around the world.

So, that is a logical and cohesive cogent connection?

I also, in my second inaugural address, believe in the interests of the United States to challenge tyranny wherever we find it.

Right, and that's exactly the point of this person's question, which you are not really answering...but I digress.

As an aside, and I'm not suggesting my friends here, the scribblers over here are saying this, but some have called him hopelessly idealistic to believe in the power of freedom to transform parts of the world that seem impervious to liberty.

What? Is W, moving to the Dole mode of referring to himself in the third person? What does he mean, "the scribblers over here?"

I believe it is the only realistic way to protect ourselves in the long-term, and that is to address the conditions that create hatred, envy, and violence.

Okay, but that's why the person asked the question the way s/he did, no? Might we not be engendering the hatred by our continued relationship with the repressive regimes in the Middle East?

The other thing that's important to note is that societies, depending upon their past, take a while to achieve freedom as we define it. In other words, some move at snail's pace, some move, obviously, quicker. And all the societies will reflect their own traditions and histories. So when you hear me talk about the freedom agenda, it's not like, I expect Jefferson democracy to be blooming in the desert.

Huh? Jeffersonian Democracy? Blooming in the Desert? What kind of democracy are we expecting from our allies in Saudi Arabia?

Secondly, friendship with leaders makes it easier to have a frank and candid discussion in a way that doesn't offend. And my friend -- I do have a good, very close relationship with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and I'm proud of that relationship. It gives me a chance to be able to share with him ideas about -- in a private way, obviously not so private now -- (laughter) -- why I believe giving people move voice in the affairs of their government is in the interests of their government. Same with my friend, President Mubarak, of Egypt. I have made it clear, for example, that -- and by the way, the Egyptians had a presidential election that was quite modern and different. And I don't believe that it's going to be possible to be able to have a less-free presidential election during the next round.

Friendship leads to frank conversations? Then why not go talk to folks in Iran, Syria, etc....why blame Nancy Pelosi for opening a dialog that was stagnant and stymied by the W, Rove and Co?

And so there is progress being made toward more liberty, in a part of the world that most people said had no chance to be a place for democracy to take hold.

Really, and who would "those people be?" Shall we take W at his word here?

I will give you the -- in Yemen there was an election that was supervised by international bodies. They came out and said, it's a fair election. There are women now serving in Kuwait parliament. Jordan, the King of Jordan is making moves toward liberalizing his society. I think, slowly but surely -- and by the way, this is a long process. Remember, I talked about the aftermath of the Korean War. This is like -- we're talking 55 years later. It takes a while.

Is it me, or does it seem to me like he is really just making up excuses for bad performance here? Would your boss accept this kind of explanation for not getting your job done on time, or would you get fired?

And the fundamental question facing the country is, will we be engaged in the Middle East helping moderates defeat and fight off radicals -- hopefully not militarily every single time, hopefully rarely militarily -- but by defeating an ideology with forms of government.

Huh? Is it really possible to defeat ideology with a form of government, let alone one that was bolstered and built only by military might?

And it's really going to be an interesting debate. I have staked my claim for the first part of the 21st century. I will tell you, I am worried about our country becoming isolationist and protectionist.

Really, so again I ask, why did you protest Nancy Pelosi's visit to the Middle East? Did that look like isolationist behavior?

We have been through isolationist and protectionist spells in our history. One of my concerns is that people say, it is not worth it to be engaged as heavily as we are in parts of the world, particularly the Middle East. I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned because I believe it will be missed opportunity to help people realize that -- if you've got a Muslim brotherhood doing a better job of providing health care and education, the way to deal with that is to do a better job than they are, as opposed to ignoring the realities on the ground.

Okay, W's losing me here. What is he trying to say? Can you figure this out?

And that's what open societies that have got an election process force people to do.

What? Excuse me, Mr. President, but we just had an election here. You may remember it, no? The will of the American people, it seems, is directly contrary to your vision for us. Why do you shun this election result so vehemently when you suggest elections are such righteous things.

I was criticized by some that upon insisting that the Palestinian elections go forward. I believe elections are the beginning of the reform process, not the end. I believe elections have the capacity to show the elite what's right and what's wrong.

And so, why do you refuse to listen to us, the people who voted in the last election here in America?

And I believe the Hamas elections in the Middle East made it clear that the Palestinians are sick and tired of corruption, and government that was not responding to their needs.

Sound familiar? I, for one, am sick of the corruption and unethical operation of the American Government.

I wasn't happy with the outcome of the election -- sometimes that happens, you're not happy with the outcome of elections. (Laughter.)

Really, you can't have your cake and eat it too, Mr. Bush. If you think that elections are meaningful in one country, they should likewise, be meaningful her in the good old U.S of A.

But I was inspired by the fact that the Palestinians went to the polls and said, in the fairest way possible, we're sick of it. Arafat has let us down; no peace. We want to live in peace. Where's the prosperity? Let's get us another bunch in there and see if they can do the job.

Here, here. Regime change begins at home.

The problem is, is that the new crowd they have in there refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, which runs contrary to our policy. And, therefore, we will continue to take the posture we're taken, because we're interested in peace.

The problem is, the W, Rove and Co refuse to listen to the American people.

I'm interested in helping the Palestinians develop a Palestinian state. It's all along the same agenda, by the way, which is the freedom agenda.

And by the "freedom agenda," we mean if you don't like our way, we will squash you and kill your civilians...

I believe the only way for Israel to have secure peace in the long run is for there to be a democracy living side by side with Israel in peace. I'm afraid that Israel will ultimately be overrun by demographics in order for her to remain a Jewish democratic state.

What exactly does it mean to be "overrun by demographics?"

And yet, Hamas wins. And you can't expect an Israeli democratic elected official to negotiate with a group of people who have avowed to destroy them.

But is there another pathway to peace here? If so, we are all ears.

And hopefully, at some point in time, the situation will get clarified, if the people have another right to express themselves, and that right ought to be, are you for a state or not for a state?

Oh, I see, hope is the strategy and what else?

Are you going to have people that prevent a better future for emerging from you? By the way, this all started with the elections. And they said, oh, you shouldn't have elections, you shouldn't have been fighting against them. Why would I fight against elections? I'm for elections. I think elections are important for society. I think -- and I think they're equally important here as they are in the Middle East.

Oh yes, hope and elections. That's the pathway to peace in the middle east? By the way, did I mention we had an election here in 2006 that appears to be meaningless to the W, Rove and Co. Why is that?

And the fundamental question, really, facing in the long-term on this is, will the United States believe that the value system that has enabled our country, by the way, to emerge -- and it took us 100 years to get rid of slavery, for example.

Slavery? I don't think this person asked about the emergence of democracy in America, but slavery? Why is W bringing that up?

Far be it from us to say we're perfect. We had a great Constitution,

I think it may be a slip of the tongue, but he may be right here - we "had a great Constitution," until his administration tore it to shreds

...but our history has been scarred by treating people like chattel, with slavery, which is an abhorrent part of our past. But nevertheless, it takes a while. And it takes patience. But it also takes great faith and certain value systems to help societies emerge.

So far, for the "Freedom Agenda," we have hope, elections, faith, and "a certain value system" to make it work. Isn't W forgetting something?

The other question is on trade. And by the way, I happen to believe isolationism and protectionism go hand in hand.

Oh, yes, that's right. The "Freedom Agenda is about trade, and above all, this person really was interested in getting some information about isolationism and protectionism.

As you know, I'm an open-market trader. I believe in free trade. I think competition and trade not only helps the United States, I think it's the best way to alleviate poverty around the world. And that doesn't mean you don't enforce trade agreements. Recently we've enforced trade agreements with China -- not trying to shutdown trade, but trying to enhance trade, trying to make trade more palatable to people in the United States, recognizing that there is such thing as fair trade, as well as free trade.

Wowie, zowie, he is really diverging from answering the question now isn't he?

But I'm concerned about people saying, well, it's just not worth it, shut her down,

The war in Iraq? I thought we were talking about terrorists and terrorism and fascist regimes in the Middle East...Nope...

let's make it harder to trade. There's going to be some interesting trade votes coming up in front of the Congress here -- free trade agreement with Peru and Colombia are coming up. And we'll find out whether or not the leadership and both Republicans and Democrats are truly committed to not only our neighborhood, but trading in a way that enhances prosperity for both sides of the equation.

Really. How did you make the transition from the "Freedom Agenda" to Free Trade, or is Free Trade part of the "Freedom Agenda?"

Oh, I see how you got to the discussion of tyranny in the Middle East and trade, there's a WTO conference coming up in Doha

We're in the middle of negotiations on the Doha round of WTO. I hope some of you are concerned about world poverty. I certainly am. And the best way to deal with world poverty is to encourage prosperity through trade and opening up markets. And we're in complex negotiations, and I'm dedicated to getting this round completed in a way that meets our interests, but also meets other interests.

This was not a question about poverty, now was it folks?

I want to share with you one other thing, then I've got to get out of here. You know, Laura says, you get up there and all you do is talk and you love to hear yourself talk. (Laughter.) I want to share one other aspect of our foreign policy. I believe to whom much is given, much is required. And I want to share something about this great, generous nation, for which you deserve a lot of credit.

I see, you are trying to make a smooth exit from a complex question that you didn't really answer. Smooth, very, very smooth, Mr. President. Let's see, how are you going to divert our attention from the fact that you didn't answer the question at all...

Whether it be on HIV/AIDS or malaria, the United States is in the lead. And when I got elected, I was deeply concerned about the fact that an entire generation of folks on the continent of Africa could be wiped out by a disease that we could not cure but halt.

Ah, AIDS and Africa, which have everything to do with terrorists, terrorism and our relationship with flawed regimes in the Middle East.

And I set up what's called the Global Fund for AIDS. And yet it kind of sat there empty. It was a deal where everybody could contribute, and then the United States would match to try to encourage commitments, but it didn't fill up. And so I went to Congress and asked that they spend your money on a unilateral initiative where we would take on I think the 17 most or 19 most affected countries in the world and deliver antiretroviral drugs.

W is, of course, setting himself up for a wonderful close. Drum roll please...

Foreign policy is more than military.

What?

It is more than just spreading freedom.

Really?

It's also, in my judgment, in our interest to base it upon that admonition, if you're blessed, you ought to help others.

And...

And as a result of the American people, we spread antiretrovirals or got antiretrovirals to 850,000. That's up from 50,000 in three years.

Gee willikers Mr. President, why do the terrorists hate us so if we are so magnanimous and benevolent?

We're all interconnected in this world. What happens overseas matters here at home, from a security perspective, but I also believe it matters here at home from the perspective of keeping our spirits strong.

Thanks for the pep talk Mr. President.

It's in the interest of this country that we be engaged in freeing people from tyranny, the tyranny of government and the tyranny of disease and hunger.

Oh, I'm so convinced now, Mr. President. You are right and your policies correct, and I am wrong. Holy shit, did you just see him go from Saudi Arabia to terrorism to the freedom agenda to aids and to the fact that we should now be fighting tyranny around the globe? Well, folks, I suggest we start that fight right here at home.

I appreciate you giving me a chance to come and visit with you. God bless. (Applause.)

Will History Be Kind To The President?

When the President is engaged in the full tilt process of trying to assuage his own conscience, he bathes himself in the same manure he's been using for a great long while. Have a look:

“Let me put it to you this way,” Mr. Bush said. “When it’s all said and done, when Laura and I head back home — which at this moment will be Crawford, Tex. — I will get there and look in the mirror, and I will say, ‘I came with a set of principles and I didn’t try to change my principles to make me popular.’ ”

He was responding to a question from an audience member who had said he admired the president’s “stay-to-itiveness,” but wondered “when you go to bed at night, and you see these polls — everybody and their brother does a poll now — how does it make you feel?”

Polls are not asked about the President's principles, are they? I don't know about you, but the kinds of history I read, review, and understand is based primarily on fact and actions perpetrated by historical figures, not the principles that drove them to action. Although principles, if you can gather what they were, do add a layer of texture and context to the historical record. It's the actions that count most.

If you look at the W, Rove and Co, currently unraveling at an alarming rate, I think history will judge this administration as one of the worst. Moreover, they will have set the bar lower than ever before on how lame a lame duck can get. This leads me to...drum roll please...

Windspike's Weekend Presidential Query

• Please answer the following question: Will History be kind to the president? Explain...

What Would The World Look Like If The "Terrorists" Won?

As the W, Rove and Co unravels in front of our eyes, we can observe a few things and ask, at least in the hypothetical, one very important question. Business as usual for the W, Rove and means continuing to lower the bar on ethics and performance to subterranean levels. First, lets examine the ethical standard bar:

Q Can I just follow up on one thing? I think I had you saying the President has full confidence in Attorney General Gonzales, and then the President has confidence in Paul Wolfowitz. Is there a distinction there?

MS. PERINO: No.

The larger question remains, if the AG wasn't an integral player in the decision to fire the judges, who was? Oh, and it's okay for people to promote and give bonuses to their mistresses/girlfriends and still have the full confidence of a man who suggest he stands for family values?

Now let's look at performance, in particular the current status quo approach of the President's much loved "troop surge." There are some questions to raise here:

To the Editor:

Why not give the president what he wants — a blank check to finance the troops. Oh, by the way, let’s do it on a pay-as-you-go basis.

No big fuss, just adjust the tax rates up to pay for the troops and their activities.

Then let’s see who wants to support the troops! That will bring the cost of the war into everyone’s sight!

Dick Orenstein

Sarasota, Fla., April 15, 2007

Well, we know that won't happen as the President is not in favor of universal sacrifice for his war. He's in favor of you sacrificing your sons and daughters and increasing the tax burden on future generations to pay for Iraq. He certainly wouldn't want to inconvenience himself for his war.

But let's get to the thrust of this particular post. At times, it's readily apparent that some comments on my posts are substantially more brilliant than the original post. There have been occasions where I take an opportunity to elevate some person’s comments to the front page because, well, I couldn't have said it any better.

Toward that end, here's a question for you from an anon commentator. Lets' wrestle with this one for a bit: What if the Terrorists "win?" What then?

Man shall not live by bread alone - Matthew 4:4

Nor can terrorists live on terror alone. At some point they have to deliver.

Terrorists don't deliver security or municipal services like sewer, water, schools, and welfare.

Attacks on the West don't provide anything tangible for terror constituencies. Breaking other people's crockery is essentially pointless. But terror provokes Western counterattacks from which spring more terrorists.

If terrorists aren't smart enough to learn that terrorism doesn't get them anything, we should be smart enough to learn that counter-terrorism doesn't produce anything but more terrorists.

A terror-state, were such a thing to be encouraged into existence, would force terrorists to be responsible. A terror state would also make a nice target should terrorists prove irresponsible.

A fool who has something to lose is easier to deal with than one who has nothing to lose. We need to find a way to give terrorists something to lose. Terrorists have yet to face up to the problem of, 'What happens if we win?' We should encourage that kind of thinking.

Truth, Justice And The American Way

The last few days, I've been sidetracked by jury duty. It's been an education. I have served on one civil case a long while back, but this is a criminal case. Thus, I find myself ensconced in an environment riddled with criminal trial lawyers, police, thieves, and other nefarious characters. Oh, and not to mention your ordinary innocent American citizen doing his or her civic duty.

I do apologize for not being on top of it, but I have to squeeze in the work around the edges. As usual things at the office don't stop because I have been summoned.

One thing that strikes me as odd is the opportunity costs involved in our judicial process. If you add up the number of salaries collected in the room, all gathered to prove or disprove a person's innocence, it seems like a costly endeavor. On the other hand, it’s a small price to pay for truth, justice and the American way. Part of what separates our society from others is this judicial process. And if I can sit and do my part, I've added value.

The point of it, however, as you may have been guessing, is that there is a political twist to this post. Specifically, it appears that for some, the playing field is not level. And, in the end, if justice is unevenly meted out, does that prove our system is working? Of course, there are those who would suggest the system is not perfect, but it’s the best we have. In the end, if justice is served, then we all win, no? Of course, there are others who would suggest, if you really want justice, you should contact the mob; all others are fools.

President Bush: Master Of The Obvious?

Looks like the president is trying to become the compassionate role model he has always suggested he was. Does America take comfort in his words?

Laura and I have come to Blacksburg today with hearts full of sorrow. This is a day of mourning for the Virginia Tech community -- and it is a day of sadness for our entire nation. We've come to express our sympathy. In this time of anguish, I hope you know that people all over this country are thinking about you, and asking God to provide comfort for all who have been affected.

But alas, can a man who has caused so much loss of innocent life in Iraq be looked to as the harbinger of comfort in a time of extreme violence? I think not. I do not take comfort in his words, nor his presence. Condolences only go so far if one's actions preclude one from being thought to have any belief in peacefulness.

"A Tragedy of Monumental Proportions"

The tragedy that befell Virginia Tech today proves the point that it is impossible to stop terrorists from perpetrating such heinous acts. No doubt the grief on that campus is thick, but the echo should reverberate around the country.

Oddly, it makes me wonder what kind of charade the Global War on Terror really is because it (and Homeland Security) can't stop such tragedies, much less stop some one from walking into a cafeteria in a well protected space from blowing themselves up in front of the masses. Like the DC snipers and the as of yet unsolved anthrax cases, we know how lethal and terrorizing humans can be. To assume that the Army can protect you from people like this is really to live your life in denial.

Here's a short pod cast of the Va. Tech President’s official statement. My heart goes out to the families of the fallen and the entire campus community.

P.S. - 3:33 PM update:

A quick romp around the blogisphere reveals that this partiular incident has sparked a nerve. Parents of children attending Va Tech, students at Va. Tech, and every brand of blog is sayin' something about this event. As the facts unfold, an even better question might be can we avoid the knee jerk reaction that results in some kind of retrenchment of our liberties and freedoms for the sake of the charade of security? On the other extreme we have even the gun lobby blaming the anti-gun laws for this. Now if that isn't irony, I don't know what is. For example:

It's time to bury the pernicious myth that disarming good people can save them from evil.

Like Arming them will?

One Million Six Hundred Fourteen Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Two: Subtitle - Did you Know Lynne Cheney Works for the American Enterprise Institute?

Do you think the Cheney's are worth slightly over 1.6 million this year for the way they are operating?

Vice President and Mrs. Cheney filed their federal income tax return for 2006 today. The income tax return shows that the Cheneys owe federal taxes for 2006 of $413,326 on taxable income of $1,614,862. During the course of 2006 the Cheneys paid $464,789 in taxes through withholding and estimated tax payments. The Cheneys elected to apply the resulting $51,463 tax overpayment to their 2007 estimated tax payments. The wage and salary income reported on the tax return includes the Vice President's $208,575 government salary. In addition, the tax return reports a pension benefit of $27,500, which the Vice President received as a former director of Union Pacific Corporation. The Vice President became eligible for this benefit in 2006 when he turned 65. The tax return also reports Mrs. Cheney's book royalty income, which includes a partial royalty advance on a book she is writing about growing up in Wyoming. It also reports wage and salary income from her continuing work at the American Enterprise Institute and a pension benefit of $32,000, which she received as a former director of Reader's Digest. The amounts of the pension benefits received by the Vice President and by Mrs. Cheney are fixed and will not increase or decrease based on changes in the earnings or revenues of either company.

By the way, what the bleep is Mrs. Big Dick Cheney doing working for the AEI? In case you are wondering, the AEI purposes

are to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism--limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.

Open debate? My goodness. It sure doesn't seem like the Cheney's into "open debate," now does it?

Ten Minutes With The Great White American Shills - Sub Title: Where Do They Dredge Up The Whitehouse Friendly Interviewers?

This "interview" of The Big Dick Cheney fit's squarely in the holy shit category. As in, holy shit, where do they find such friendly interviewers to respond to.

If you thought last week's "interview" by Rush was appauling, hold on to your hats, sit down, grab the vomit bag you saved from your last airline trek, and be ready to hurl.

As usual, I'm only including the Q in the Q & A becuase the A only serves to help the presidential propaganda catupult to reach a broader audiance. The link is there if you want to follow up and here the same spiel that the Big Dick usual and faithfully delivers on command.

Interview of the Vice President by Don and Roma Wade, WLS 890-AM, Chicago
Via Telephone

8:10 A.M. EDT

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good morning.

Q Good morning.

Q Good morning, and welcome.

Q I know you're coming to Chicago for a really good event, and I wanted to ask you about the funding, because this seems to be paramount on a lot of people's minds. The funding for the U.S. troops in Iraq is up in the air. The President threatens to veto the Democratic spending bill because of the troop withdrawal deadlines. How is that standoff going to end, Mr. Vice President?

Q Our son is on the U.S.S. Nimitz, headed for his third Iraq tour. And, Mr. Vice President, if the Democrats succeed in cutting off funding for the war, will his squadron's jets sit idle on the carrier because they have no fuel?

Q Our troops are extraordinary.

Q I'm wondering, Mr. Vice President, whether some politicians are -- they prefer to make political points rather than winning the war.

Q Were you heartened by Senator John McCain's speech at VMI?

Q I'm certain it would have been. Nancy Pelosi thought nothing of going to Syria's Assad with an alternative Democratic foreign policy, and, yet, balked, as we know, at meeting with our President -- as did Reid -- about funding the troops. How dangerous is this to the success of our important mission?

Q Well, Mr. Vice President, Tom Lantos has said that he would jump on a plane and go and meet with Ahmadinejad. I don't quite understand. What is this running off to meet with these tyrannical thugs? And yet they don't want to go and sit down with the President and work out a way forward to win the war?

Q Who is, in the Congress, would be the biggest stumbling block, in your mind, when it comes to success in Iraq?

Q Are you encouraged by General Petraeus' success so far, that there are glimmers of hope over there?

Q What can you tell us about the war czar position? We understand the White House is thinking about establishing a war czar. Is there anyone whose name we should recognize being considered?

Q We deeply appreciate your steadfastness in emphasizing the importance of this war on terrorism to our public.

Q Is al Qaeda strengthening again?

Q Mr. Vice President, I'm so glad we had a chance to talk to you. You act out of principle, not polls, and I know that a lot of Americans appreciate that. Thanks for coming to Chicago.

Q I hope you have a good experience here.

Q It's a great city. We welcome you.

Q We definitely shall.

Q Thank you.

END 8:20 A.M. EDT

Meanwhile, we see what the Big Dick Cheney was doing in Chicago at great Taxpayer expense - slinging Osama's message one more time for him. You can't pay for that kind of advertising, now can you Osama?

Yet the evidence is flatly to the contrary. And the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this third world war [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, bin Laden declares, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

So, we see the "reporters" above shilling for the The Big Dick Cheney, and Cheney shilling for Osama, and it's win-win all around for the Amreican people, righ? Right!

Meanwhile, Uncle Karl's Busy Deleting More Email

Really, there is no such thing as a permanent delete for email these days. The traces bounce to so many servers, they can be found fairly quickly by a savvy tech person. You have to wonder why they are not forthcoming with the email, rather than spend time on the pointless question as to intent. Surely, Uncle Karl knows full well what he is politically doing. That's his job. Do believe otherwise is to be in complete denial about Uncle Karl's position in the W, Rove and Co.

Karl Rove's lawyer on Friday dismissed the notion that President Bush's chief political adviser intentionally deleted his own e-mails from a Republican-sponsored server, saying Rove believed the communications were being preserved in accordance with the law.

Who cares what Rove believed here. A better question for these nuts is why are you not delivering them? We know they are out there some where. What are they hiding?

Of course, the Whitehouse press pool decided to pusue the same line of query today. Dana had her mitts full trying to deflect questions about Uncle Karl today. Mainly, she doesn't know a lot, admitedly. Here's a slice, of which I wonder what the double-delete function is and why was Uncle Karl's account change this Jan? Any one out there know?

Q Okay, unknown. In 2006, alone among White House staffers with GWB accounts, Karl Rove's account is changed from -- so that he is not able to use the double-delete function. That double-delete function remained in for the other White House staffers with GWB accounts.

MS. PERINO: That I'm not sure of, but I will check into, to make sure I have that right. I know for sure for Karl, but I don't know about the others.

Q Do you know at what point in 2006 this subsequently changed?

MS. PERINO: January.

Q January 2006. And do we know what the impetus was for that change?

MS. PERINO: That's what I don't know.

Q You're going to work on getting the answers to those?

MS. PERINO: We're working on getting them. I'll do what I can. And, again, there is a review that's ongoing by our Counsel's Office. And there may be some things that I'm not going to be able to provide answers to while that process is ongoing. I will do my best.

Q Did he know that the double-delete didn't work for him in 2006?

MS. PERINO: I don't know and will try to find out.

Oh, and on a funnier note, here's a fun Mark Fiore video revolving round Uncle Karl's MC debut.

F Iraq, It's "Cheeper To Kill 'Em All" Than To Continue the War

A friend of mine pointed me to an article that indicates the US Taxpayer is paying Iraqi families $2K, on average, per civilian unjustly killed by US Forces in Iraq.

Interesting way to soothe the pro-life soul, don'tchya think? Or, is this whole Iraqi extravaganza worth the investment. My friend said,

At $2000 per dead Iraqi it would be cheaper to kill them all (25m Iraqis * $2k = $50b) than to continue the war. But to whom would we pay the money? Check my math for yourself.

Really, I'm not advocating genocide here. This is yet one more piece of proof that the W, Rove and Co has no justification at this time for all the mayhem they have caused the Iraqi people. Have a look at a slice of this report.

They represent only a small fraction of the claims filed. In all, the military has paid more than $32 million to Iraqi and Afghan civilians for noncombat-related killings, injuries and property damage, an Army spokeswoman said. That figure does not include condolence payments made at a unit commander’s discretion.

The paperwork, examined by The New York Times, provides unusually detailed accounts of how bystanders to the conflicts have become targets of American forces grappling to identify who is friend, who is foe.

In the case of the fisherman in Tikrit, he and his companion desperately tried to appear unthreatening to an American helicopter overhead.

“They held up the fish in the air and shouted ‘Fish! Fish!’ to show they meant no harm,” said the Army report attached to the claim filed by the fisherman’s family. The Army refused to compensate for the killing, ruling that it was “combat activity,” but approved $3,500 for his boat, net and cell phone, which drifted away and were stolen.

In the killings at the gas station in Balad, documents show that the Army determined that the neither of the dead Iraqis had done anything hostile or criminal, and approved $5,000 to the civilian’s brother but nothing for the Iraqi officer.

Obfuscation: Whitehouse Style - Subtitle: Gonzales Still Pleasuring The President

Dana Perino must have or be taking obfuscation lessons from Scotty McMessage McClellan. Have a look at this slice of today's Whitehouse press briefing and see if you think Dana's being forthcoming with the truth regarding how some folk (perhaps Uncle Karl) are working to prep the AG for his forthcoming Congressional grilling:

Q Is the White House -- anyone in the White House helping Gonzales prepare for his testimony next week?

MS. PERINO: Not the I'm aware. You mean somebody being over there at the department?

The press secretary using the plausible deniability ploy first identified by republican icon Ronald Reagan? Go figure! Let's see, how many times does a reporter have to ask a questions before they get an straight answer...

Q Yes. Sure.

MS. PERINO: Of course, we're in close contact with the Justice Department, but I don't know of any White House official who's been at the Justice Department in preparation for testimony.

Q No White House involvement?

MS. PERINO: Not that I'm aware of.

Hmmm...what's the difference between close contact, assisting the AG and not being aware?

Care to try again?

Q There have been all these stories about the so-called "murder boards" that he's undergone in preparation for the testimony --

MS. PERINO: That's not unusual.

Q I know, of course not. But has the White House taken no part in this?

MS. PERINO: I know that we are aware of it. I'm just saying that I don't know of any one person, individually, at the White House who has attended any of those. It's not unusual for an agency to set up sessions like that prior to a hearing.

Well, okay, that's still not a completely forthcoming answer, now is it? Just because Dana doesn't know about it doesn't mean that Uncle Karl isn't grilling the AG as we type...

Care to ask again? In case you are counting, this is going to be the fourth time asking essentially the same question...

Q I know, but I'm curious --

MS. PERINO: But the White House doesn't always send somebody to handle those. Maybe one thing that you're thinking about is when we're heading for a confirmation for an individual, we often hold those here at the White House in order to prepare, but that's because that person is not yet at an agency where they have a staff.

Q So there has been no White House involvement?

MS. PERINO: Well, again, we're working closely -- I'm just aware of no individual who is there helping prepare for the testimony.

Past practice is no indicator of current action. How about a straight answer, Dana? Lets see, can we ask this question differently? Sure:

Q Has direction been given to the Attorney General to prepare for this?

MS. PERINO: Not specifically, that I know of. I know that it's an important hearing. I think that they have been as responsive as possible, leading up to next Tuesday. And, of course, the Attorney General is a person of incredible integrity, and as long as he can go up there and have his day and talk to the members of Congress -- and he asked for this day to come earlier; that wasn't able to work out, so we'll wait until Tuesday.

I love that little "that I know of" qualifier. There is an ethical slippery line that she crosses here. Of course, the Whitehouse is preping the AG for this because they don't want him to expose the naked emperor W for what he is.

Why Dana would obfuscate about this particular issue is beyond me. What are they hiding? What's the bottom line?

Q So he still has his job?

MS. PERINO: He certainly does.

Still pleasuring the president, I suppose...

The Sick And Twisted Logic Of The Bush Administration

The following exchange proves that the W, Rove and Co has dug itself such a giant grave, that they cannot see a clear way out of the lies and political tangled web they've woven over the top of it. Trouble is, they are dragging the American people into the grave with them.

Let's break down the logic here. First, the president is threatening a veto of the Democrat sponsored "emergency" funding bill for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is purely political.

Q The bottom line is, is that it's a take-it-or-leave-it deal from this administration; there's no room for negotiation?

MS. PERINO: The President will not accept a timetable for withdrawal that forces retreat and forces failure. And he will not accept micromanagement from Capitol Hill on his generals. And it is unconscionable that they would have pork barrel spending added to it that is -- for tours of the Capitol and other such "emergencies" in an emergency spending bill when there is a budget process that's going forward in Congress on a parallel track. I think that those are principled stands that the President has had. If we can get beyond that, and talk about funding for the troops, we should. We are interested in how they think that we can improve in Iraq. If they have other ideas beyond what General David Petraeus is going, by all means, let's hear them.

Well, will the president accept a time table for withdrawal that is not forcing failure or defeat? It's really about how you interpret what imposing a timeline means for Iraq and the American people. Indeed, it is plausible to see a timeline as something positive and signaling that we have actually won.

Frankly, it would be better for us to have the W, Rove and Co to suffer through a withdrawal than leave it to the next of future presidents because it's going to be painful no matter when you execute that extraction. Better to leave the stain on the folks who started it rather than foist it on some one else. At least then we can have the W, Rove and Co. shipped to Baghdad to lead the reconstruction effort, as that would most certainly be a sign they believe in their cause, but of course, they are not going to sign up for that detail, now are they?

Of course, the trouble with that is the whole thing is not going well at all. In fact, it's going poorly and thus the president's interpretation is a sign that indeed, we are not doing much but pour gasoline on the Iraq conflagration. If you ask me, the Iraq situation was a failure for the get go. It has now become a matter of selecting from many bad choices.

To address another issue raised by Dana Perino, I don't think the Congress is interested in micromanaging generals more than holding W accountable and managing him because the republican controled congress has been rubberstamping the W, Rove and Co. agenda since 2001. Basically, the repubs bent over and let the W, Rove and Co have it's way with the American people until the Dems took over Congress nary four months ago. So, if this is what Congressional oversight looks like in the truly Constitutionally grounded checks and balances sort of way, then, I'm all for it.

But lets return to the Whitehouse press discourse with Dana Perino at the helm pinch hitting for Tony Snow.

Go ahead, Matt.

Q You seem to be saying that the President wants to talk to the Democrats about this.

MS. PERINO: We have an open invitation for them to come talk to us.

Q But he's actually ruling out any kind of compromise, is that correct?

MS. PERINO: This is not a meeting in order to compromise. This is a meeting to discuss the way forward, because the Democrats have to admit that they don't have the votes to override the President's veto. And at the same time, they say that they want to fund the troops. So at some point, the Democrats are going to have to come to a consensus on how to move forward. And a meeting with the President is a chance for the leaders to get together -- leadership from both parties -- to sit down and figure out how they're going to do that.

So, what Dana is admitting here is that there is no real room for compromise whatsoever. Would you walk into a meeting where there is no wiggle room at all? Nope. Why would democrats show up to such a meeting? It's a waste of time.

And then we see Helen Thomas step up to the plate and swing her cast iron skillet at the very public face of the W, Rove and Co ringing Dana's bell.

Q You said that this was a change of policy for the President, the surge.

MS. PERINO: Certainly.

Q And so escalation of the war is a change of policy?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we can go back over all the things that the President said in January, but there was a couple of key points.

Q No, no, I mean, is that what you call a change of policy, when we escalate the war?

MS. PERINO: A couple of key points. What the President said is that we needed to -- agreed with the Iraqis that we needed to try to transition power to them more quickly for their Iraqi security forces. But the key issue was that violence in Baghdad was so great that the President realized after talking to his military advisors that to leave would be very harmful to the region and to our country, but to stay and try to quell the violence in Baghdad --

Q But why? Do you mean Iraqis are going to come and attack us?

MS. PERINO: The terrorists that are seeking a safe haven in Iraq, if we were to leave, would find one, just like they had one in Afghanistan, and they could --

Q How do you know that?

MS. PERINO: -- hurt us and -- well, based on experience from September 11th. That's how we know it.

Q September 11th had nothing to do with Iraq.

Bingo! The W, Rove and Co is still very busy trying to connect the dots between Iraq and Nine Eleven spanking that tired monkey beyond reason.

Really, if the President really wanted to fund the operation, he would have negotiated this at the front end, not after the bill has passed both the house and senate. It seems like he is the one playing politics, here, to propagate his agenda.

Q When the President today said if Congress wants to make a political statement they should do so quickly -- and then you also used that phrase -- does referring to Congress's role in this as a political statement in any way diminish their part in this process?

MS. PERINO: No, I think that the point we're trying to make is that they do not have votes to override the President's veto. In order to get this bill passed, they had to add fixed time lines for withdrawal, they had to add micromanagement on the generals, and they had to have a lot of extra pork barrel spending in order to get the bare minimum in order to get the ball across the finish line.

That is the political statement that I think that the President felt that they had to make. If they have decided that they don't need to have all of those positions out there, if they've taken their votes and that they don't need to send that conference -- get together for a conference report and send a bill to the President that he has to veto, fine. But what we have to do is get a process going where they can get a clean bill to us.

Q Does the President risk using the troops when this morning he talked about if this does not go the way he wants, those troops and their families may have to wait longer for them to come home?

MS. PERINO: The President takes great pains not to politicize the troops. But what he was repeating was what the military -- Department of Defense has told him they are going to have to do, since they don't have this money.

Now you know that Dana's lying for the president. Just yesterday, he mentioned the families of KIA GIs in a political speech used to justify his agenda and "way forward." The W, Rove and Co. hypocrisy knows no bounds.

"Unbelievable Pain"

The President is on yet another PR jag, wasting taxpayer dollars trying to prop up his failing administration. Needless to say, he is still, reprehensibly trying to use KIA GIs and their families to bolster his message. Have a look:

I cannot tell you how honored I am to meet with the families of the fallen. They bear an unbelievable pain in their heart. And it's very important for me to make it clear to them that I believe the sacrifice is necessary to achieve the peace we all long for.

How he is able to look these families in the eye is beyond me, let alone the sympathy and compassion that is simply absent from W's political words. I don't think W has any comprehension about what "unbelievable pain" is. Can he?

Meanwhile, more GIs and civilians in Iraq are dying because of the Iraq conflagration that the W, Rove and Co ignited and continues to pour gasoline on.

"Stalinist Behavior" And Other Democrat Shenanigans: Fifteen More Minutes of Rush Limbaugh's Crap

In my busy work week, I nearly missed this interview conducted by Rush Limbaugh last week. Did you catch it?

Of course, by its very nature, a Rush interview is never fair and balanced. Even so, you have to wonder about how desperate the W, Rove and Co. are given their inability and unwillingness to participate in interviews that are in front of less than friendly audiences (outside of the usual suspects in the Whitehouse press pool).

Have a look at the softballs that Rush slow pitched at the Big Dick Cheney on the Fifth of April. My grandmother could have hit these out of the park when she was alive. As usual, I'm only giving you the Q of the Q & A as the A only serves to dish up the standardized political rhetoric delivered by the Big Dick and his loaded presidential propaganda catapult.

Enjoy:

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

Q I can imagine. Now, let's start talking about the supplemental funding bill for Iraq. I have to tell you something I heard last night as I'm watching some of the cable news network shows -- some of the Democrats and Democrat commentators are saying publicly now they expect that the President is eventually going to back off the veto threat because he will eventually -- he cannot be seen as defunding the troops.

Q Where do you think this is going to go? The Democrats don't seem to be in any hurry to have this go to conference, have a final bill voted upon and then sent up to the White House for the veto. How long is this going to take, do you suspect?

Q Now, you and the President both have derided the theatrics of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a number of the Democrats, and I don't know if you're being politic with the statement -- I, frankly, need to ask you if you really think it's theatrics, or is this who they really are? Is this what they really intend, to lose this war, to make sure we come home defeated?

Q Can you share with us whether or not you understand their devotion, or their seeming allegiance to the concept of U.S. defeat?

Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

Q Well, I have to think Democrats know all of this, too, which puzzles people even more, as to why they seem devoted to pulling out of there with defeat securely in hand. Not only would what you detail happen, but the next conflict, the next battle that we find ourselves in -- there will be one -- how tough is it going to be to assemble allies if they think we might just pull out in the middle of the whole thing before it's complete?

Q You have a lot of supporters in this audience, obviously, and they're chomping at the bit to help. What can people in this audience do to assist the effort to get the supplemental passed as the President wants it?

Q A couple of quick -- more things before you have to go. What's the administration view today, what's the emotion, what are you thinking about Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Middle East, specifically, the conveyance of the incorrect message to Bashir Assad in Syria about peace talks with Israel?

Q But she's not entitled to --

Q -- make policy, is she?

Q Well, how much damage has she done by conveying to Assad that Israel is ready for peace talks when Israel is not ready for peace talks, as Syria is currently constituted?

Q You are a reserved individual and very professional, and you've been doing this a long time. But I'm asking this for people in my audience, as well as me: How do you feel when -- don't you get enraged when this kind of things happens?

Q One more, and that's the recess appointment of Sam Fox. Sam Fox is from my home state, and I know Sam Fox -- he's an immigrant, a Ukrainian Jewish immigrant, whose parents would have nothing -- when they died they had nothing. He is a totally self-created man, a great American. And he was treated horribly by Senator Kerry and others on that committee, simply because he had made a political donation. They essentially told him he did not have freedom of speech in this country, until he would apologize, until he would go up to Kerry and apologize for supporting the Swift Boats. Now the President has recess-appointed him. And of course, the Democrats have said they're going to investigate this and going to look into this.

This is the kind of move that garners a lot of support from the people in the country. This shows the administration willing to engage these people and not allow them to get away with this kind of -- well, my term -- you don't have to accept it -- Stalinist behavior from these people on that committee.

Q You go on vacation, this is what happens to you.

Q Mr. Vice President, thanks for your time. It really is always a pleasure to talk to you. And we appreciate your candor when you come on the program, very much so. All the best, and have a great Easter weekend, you and your family.

Q Thank you.

END 1:22 P.M. EDT

Why folks on the right continue to lap up the lopsided, right wind ideology spewed by Rush and his pals is beyond me. Does it make them feel better about having support the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis? Does it soothe their lack of ethical soul? Your guess is as good as mine.

Weary: And Looking For Good News - Subtitle: Windspike's Monday Morning Right Winger Good News Challenge

I don't know about you all, but I grow weary of pointing out the flaws, foibles, illegal, and downright FUBAR situations caused by the W, Rove and Co. It's been easy pickings for folks who are anti-reichwing in the blogisphere. Even so, with news like this:

"We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him," said Jubouri, who is a Shiite Muslim. "Now, we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him."

How are we supposed to stay positive as a Nation?

While sifting through the rhetoric, I honestly am trying to find good news burried deep into the evil perpetrated by the W, Rove and Co and honestly can't and haven't found any. This leads to...drum roll please...

Windspike's Monday Morning Right Winger Good News Challenge

• Where as, I am trying to remain optimistic,


• It is realistic to look for hope from those in leadership positions,


• And, I have been unable to find any from the current administration,


• Please lend a helping hand and identify any source of good news that has been and can be directly attributed to the W, Rove and Co. Cite your sources as I would like to see the original. Likewise, present your rationale as to why you think it is good news.

Thank you and blog on friends, blog on all.

W Desperately Seeking New GWoT Military Recruits

Okay, I just found the Onion News Network. Here's your satirical diversion for the weekend:

In The Know: Our Troops In Iraq

Attention Gay And Lesbian Families In The DC Area

Time to bundle up the kids and get your free tickets to the Annual Easter Egg Roll held on the South Lawn of the Whitehouse. Don't know if this is as organized a push to have under-represented families to attend as last year, and I most certainly haven't heard about it on the MSM this year. Here are the specs on how to collect your free tix:

The National Park Service will distribute free tickets on two dates for entry to the South Lawn. The majority of tickets will be available beginning at 7:30 a.m. on Saturday, April 7, and a small allotment of tickets will be available beginning at 7:30 a.m. on Monday, April 9. The tickets, which are timed for entrance, will be distributed on a first-come basis at the Ellipse Visitor Pavilion (southwest corner of 15th and E Streets). A maximum of five tickets will be issued per person. Children of all ages are welcome to attend, as long as there is at least one child seven years old or under and no more than two adults per group. Tickets are required for every attendee, including small children, to enter the White House South Lawn. No tickets are necessary for access to the events on the Ellipse.

I think it's great for gay and lesbian families show up en mass to events like this to remind the Whitehouse and show the American people that there is nothing to fear about and nothing but love radiating in and around such families.

Even If Funded, It's Questionable As To If The Current Strategy Will Rectify The Iraq Conflagration

Billy Joel once sang, "we didn't start the fire..." and it seems a bit dated. But it's ringing in my head right now:

...Begin, Reagan, Palestine, Terror on the airline
Ayatollah's in Iran, Russians in Afghanistan

Wheel of Fortune, Sally Ride, heavy metal, suicide
Foreign debts, homeless Vets, AIDS, Crack, Bernie Goetz
Hypodermics on the shores, China's under martial law
Rock and Roller cola wars, I can't take it anymore...

Go figure.

But that's not the point of this post. I just have one question for the blogispher today given the news yesterday:

WASHINGTON - For just the second time since the war began, the Army is sending large units back to Iraq without giving them at least a year at home, defense officials said Monday. The move signaled how stretched the U.S. fighting force has become.

Let's get right to the point of this post. I call this...drum roll please...

Windspike's Sure Happy It's Thursday

Questions for the Blogisphere

1. Even with the "surge," is the current W, Rove and Co strategy the right way to extinquish the Iraq Conflagration?


2. If you were President, what would you do?

W: The One Trick Pony

Today, W spent an inordinate amount of Taxpayer Dollars converging in California to launch another barrage from his Presidential Propaganda Catapult. Troubling thing is the message is so stale, it's falling flat. I suppose what we have today is the proof of what happens when the President of our Fair United States turns into a one trick pony:

In other words, this is a war in which, if we were to leave before the job is done, the enemy would follow us here. That's the lesson of September the 11th. It's an integral part of my thinking about how to secure this country -- to do the most important job that the government must do, and that is to protect the American people.

I see...right, Mr. President. I'll believe that when you provide the logic that proves this will be the case. Broken logic and a sour situation in Iraq demonstrates that you are less than compassionate - particularly for the innocent Iraqis who are dying by the droves because you want to “fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here.” Since when has human life become so expendable, particularly given the rhetorical commitment to the pro-life agenda the W, Rove and Co. espouses....

W, Rove and Co. Wagging The Finger Of Blame In The Wrong Direction Again

Last I checked, the W, Rove and Co. truly frowned on playing the "blame game." Of course, they don't want others playing the "blame game" if it doesn't advance their agenda or point out flaws in their leadership. But when it serves their needs, they are all over blaming others like flies are attracted to a turd blossom.

Surely, you have heard about this, but W, is all puffed up about being able to exercise his second veto ever - this from a man who wants the president to have line item veto authority:

In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership -- Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds. The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to. That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.

There he goes again, speaking for the American people. Really, the W doesn't speak for me or for many Americans I know, but that doesn't stop him from pretending he does. Last I checked, the democratic Congress is laced with both Republicans and Dems, and if he wants a bill he can sign, they have to negotiate. That's what politics and diplomacy are about. Trying to browbeat people with guilt and fear is something that used to work, but is no longer a viable political strategy in my book.

Let's get together and tell the president to go soak his veto pen, and then he will be left with no one else to blame but himself for not funding the troops. Because, at the stroke of a pen, W will effectively cut funding for the troops, as last I checked, there was money to support the troops in the bill. If he vetoes it, then he will be effectively contributing to the problem he fingers in his wild and wooly blame game.

In The Absence Of Any "Wrongdoing." Subtitle: What Happens If You Are No Longer Pleasuring The President

The President must have spent hours with Rove and Co. crafting his message when queried about the AG Gonzales situation. Sure, the phrase, "Serving at the Pleasure of the President" has been slung around quite a bit as of late by every stripe of W, Rove and Co member. But that is a rather empty and trite phrase as it really serves as no answer to any particular question.

If you pay attention to the responses to various queries, you see it's the absence of an actual answer to very specific questions that casts a broader pall of doubt that is the shadow cloaking the inner workings of the current administration and choking off America's soul.

Have a look at today's brief foray into the wild and wooly world of the MSM that W took as he made yet another attempt sling another bunch of loaded up propaganda from the presidential catapult.

Q Sir, your administration evaluated all 93 U.S. attorneys, in part on the basis of loyalty. That was one of the criteria that was used. What role should loyalty to you play in the evaluation of those charged with administering justice and enforcing the law?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, obviously, when you name a U.S. attorney you want somebody who can do the job. That's the most important criterion, somebody who is qualified, somebody who can get a job done. The President names the U.S. attorneys, and the President has the right to remove U.S. attorneys. And on this particular issue, the one you're referring to, I believe it's the current issue of the eight U.S. attorneys, they serve at my pleasure, they have served four-year terms, and we have every right to replace them. And --

Q And what --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish, please. I am genuinely concerned about their reputations, now that this has become a Washington, D.C. focus. I'm sorry it's come to this. On the other hand, there had been no credible evidence of any wrongdoing. And that's what the American people have got to understand. We had a right to remove them; we did remove them. And there will be more hearings to determine what I've just said, no credible evidence of wrongdoing.

When W, says, "I'm sorry it's come to this," the reporters should follow up with the challenge as to what is it exactly that he feels sorry about? Did he answer the question? Nope. Does this man and his administration have any shred of integrity at all?

Actually, the reporter asked the wrong question. He should have ask, "were you playing favorites with the firing of the US attorneys and punishing them for making decisions you didn't like? The president's answer, if he was honest, would have to be, "yes." Even so, the president can fire whomever he pleases, particularly if they are no longer pleasuring the president. It may not be wrong to do so, but is it ethical?

Dick Cheney: Osama's Bitch?

You would think that the W, Rove and Co. would stop willingly opperating as the Stateside mouthpiece for terrorists like Osama bin Laden. But you know they would have nothing of an administration if it weren't for their faithful friends in the terrorist industry.

You see, it's a mutually symbiotic relationship. The threat of terrorism allows the W, Rove and Co to leverage their political agenda. If there was no threat, there would be no administration.

Thus, even as Monday rolled on, we see the Big Dick trumpeting bin Laden's message for him. Bin Laden can't pay for that kind of product and message placement. As to why the republicans lap this shit up is beyond me.

Quite the contrary, the repubs should disavow the W, Rove and Co, demand that the Big Dick to stop amplifying bin Laden's message at great US Taxpayer dollar expense, and have these folks step down in favor of people that champion freedom and smaller government. Instead, the applaud as if they had just seen Baryshnikov fly through the air on a stage for the first time.

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network. We hear this over and over again -- not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself. "The most serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War [that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

Come on Mr. Cheney. Bin Laden's message doesn't need to be amplified by the Vice President of the United States. You have become Osama's Bitch. It's okay. You can admit it. But when you become the handmaiden for the devil himself, you know it's time to step down Mr. Cheney. Today would not be soon enough.

More Evidence the Global War On Terrorism Is Working

As Al Qaeda rebuilds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, a new generation of leaders has emerged under Osama bin Laden to cement control over the network’s operations, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

Well, now wait a minute?! Is the GWOT achieving exactly the opposite of it's intended outcome? Sure looks like it.

Could it be that we need to flip everything the W, Rove and Co says in order to reveal what is really happening? Seems like it.

It's certainly a topsy-turvy situation, now isn't it?

BREAKING NEWS: Bush Says "Mea Culpa: Can I Get A Do-Over?"

BREAKING NEWS: DATELINE 1 APRIL 2007....

President George W. Bush wakes this morning having been visited by three ghosts: the Pre-1776, the post-1776, and the post-Nine-Eleven specters. Each one had thus to say about their trial for W.

Pre-1776 Specter - in knickers, tights and a white powdered wig - "Methinks, Mr. Bush would have been right at home as a Wig in the Colonies. He retains a deep commitment to the ideals of imperialism. He greatly enjoyed the Salem Witch trails."

Post-1776 Specter - in a fedora, zoot suit, and pocket watch chain dangling low - "I've tried to show Mr. Bush the perils of colonial expansionism with particular attention to McCarthy and Vietnam. Even so, I don't think he saw these things as negative, but as patriotic gambits to win friends and influence those who would otherwise be our country’s enemies. I introduced him personally to the Roosevelt family, but I don't think he saw the Roosevelt siblings enlisting in the war effort as good for America. In fact, he said, Bah...humbug...and I'm quoting here...I think my daughters have really done as much for America, if not more than Roosevelt offspring..."

Post-Nine-Eleven Specter - dressed as the grim reaper - said nothing, of course, but reports indicate that he led W to the various piles of limbs of children killed in Iraq torn from their bodies, bloody and rotting...this was the tipping point.

As W awoke from his dream state, he ran to the window and threw open the sash, shouts to a passing boy...."Excuse me boy, you there!"

The boy cowers ready to be pelted with the usual political whitewash, perhaps wishing to avoid getting swift-boated or collected and shoveled off to Gitmo for some water boarding - stammers "yyyes...yes, sir?"

W - What day is this?

Boy - Why, 'tis the first day of April, and a lovely day at that.

W - Why yes indeed. I must call a news conference and load up the presidential propaganda catapult for I have a new platform from which to aid my fellow republicans win the next election...

Boy - Well, sir, I have no idea what you just said, can you lay it out for me like you were reading me a children's story? I like "My Pet Goat."

W - Well, shoot, that's one of my favorite storifications myself. Yes indeed.

W continues - I think I need a do over!

Boy - A do over?

W - Why yes, a do over. I think that, mea culpa...mea culpa...mea cupla...(shoot, where did ah' dredge up them thar fancy Latin words), I might have made a mistake after Nine Eleven. Yes indeedy, by golly. I did, I did. So, I am going to petition the Almighty for a do-over.

W - oh, and boy?

Boy - Yes?

W - I think I own Al Gore a real hearty apology too. Ya know, for getting selected over him in Y2K. It could have gone either way...Could you go over to that solar panel shop, you know, the one down the street near the Capital Hill, and purchase a roll of solar fabric and have it shipped to Gore so he can paste it to his roof and save our environment?

Boy - Why yes, I know the one. I've been there numerous times to outfit my bicycle with wheel generated lights for commuting at night.

W - Why yes, that's the one. Here take the presidential check book and see how many bonds we need to sell to the Chinese to pay for it...don't worry, I won't raise your taxes to do this....

Boy - Okay...I'll get right on it

...and the boy rides off...

W - shouting at the top of his lungs into the April sun...Hello wonderful world....what a beautiful spring day....I was wrong about many things...and today's the day, I start to admit my sins and turn my administration around, away from fear and toward the positive.

W - further - I'm going to start with my original slogan...instead of "You're either with us, or against us" let's flip it and see the result...Yes, yes indeed! It's no longer that your either with us or against us...That's not right. It's now Your either against us, or with us....ah, I feel better already.

W - Aside from clearing some brush when I get to my ranch this afternoon, I'm going to issue a proclamation...that will say...

Whereas many republicans have made many mistakes and errors in judgment

Whereas the Democrats will need some serious help digging us out of Iraq

Whereas I've really been a divider not a uniter

Thereby I hereby proclaim today, April first in the year two thousand and Seven of our lord, that every year on this date , it will be National Hug and Forgive a Republican Day. I expect all Americans not republicans to turn to their republican brethren and give them a great big bear hug, while whispering softly in their ears, "I forgive you for your sins." And thus, we will bridge the great divide and knit this great country of ours back together, one hug at a time....

W - God bless America and her enemies too...Allah Akbar to all and to all a good night.

More Presidential Malpractice and Malfeasance

If you listen to the president and suspend your disbeliefs like you are watching some blockbuster movie on the big screen, you may actually be tricked into thinking that it was only the Dems that were against the W, Rove Co. at this point in the game. Even though the Dems have a majority in both the house and senate, they need republicans to help pass bills for the president to sign.

In today's radio address, the president gets busy blaming Dems for all the ills caused by his administration, as if the "emergency" spending package is a genuine source of evil. Trouble is, the President exposes the hypocrisy directly. Really, think about it. When the president says this:

Our Nation cannot afford such reckless taxing and spending. Under my Administration, we have kept your taxes low and restrained government spending in Washington.

Ask yourself how much the Iraq war has cost us, and why is he still asking for more money in an "emergency" funding appropriation to begin with? Is that really restrained spending in Washington? The lies are planned, purposeful, and deceitful; which makes the W, Rove and Co all the more malicious and malfeasant.

Moxiegrrl said this long ago, but I echo her sentiment - I sure wish we could sue this administration for presidential malpractice, for it sure looks like we would have a solid case here.

Gonzales Going The Way Of Rummy?

Dana Perino gets slamed upside the head with Victoria's Helen Thomas Special Cast Iron Skillet today at the Whitehouse press briefing. I love these kinds of questions that point out the W, Rove and Co. hypocrisy very obviously:

Victoria.

Q How can we have confidence in the President's 100 percent support for Secretary Gonzales, the Attorney General, when he also had support for Mr. Rumsfeld, 100 percent, right up to the time that he was fired or resigned?

MS. PERINO: What I can tell you is I spoke to the President this morning and he has -- the Attorney General has the President's full confidence.

So, judging by what we know happened in the past with Rummy, we all aught to be assuming the W, Rove and Co is fully lying about the situation with the AG or does the President really have his head that far up Rove's....oh, you get the drift...such that he can't tell what's really happening with the Dept. of Justice?

P.S. Where's Rummy, anyway? ...Can any one confirm that Rummy is still getting paid and holds down an office in the Pentagon to this day? Last I heard, we was still getting paid in US Taxpayer dollars. Inquiring minds want to know...

Shallow Presidential Apologies

W was busy trying to divert media attention from his falling house of cards by "apologizing" for the situation at Walter Reed Hospital. Trouble is, this apology seems to be ringing a bit shallow. Have a look and see what you think:

I met some of the soldiers who had been housed in Building 18. I was disturbed by their accounts of what went wrong. It is not right to have someone volunteer to wear our uniform and not get the best possible care. I apologize for what they went through, and we're going to fix the problem.

"I apologize for what they went through," is not enough of an apology if you ask me. Where's the mea culpa? Where's the admonition of staff? Where does the buck stop?

This leads me to to...drum roll please...

Windspike's Weekend Presidential Apology Apothecary

• If you were to prescribe a particular apology as a speech writer for Mr. GW Bush, what would your Rx be?

MC Rove

I don't know about you, but this clip from the Whitehouse Correspondence dinner this past week makes me ill. I can't quite figure out why. I know folks that suggest that "if you are not laughing, you don't get it."

Have a look and let me know what you think:

W The Court Jester

The funny thing about humor is that it's not funny if it doesn't have a thread of truth laced through it.



Does your Commander-in-Chief make a good Court Jester? A friend has said time and again, "what is said in jest is often meant in leisure." You be the judge.

Iraq: The "Fool's Errand"

Sometimes a comment to a post percolates up as better than the original post. Here's something from an anon. poster that is really challenging for those who support the Iraq conflagration in its current incarnation:

To make a mistake and not to correct it is to make another mistake. - Chinese proverb

On the link:

MS. PERINO: I think the President has been very clear that they don't want to pull out if it means losing. And the President has said that -- [Emphasis added]

Q How does losing -- losing what?

MS. PERINO: The President has made it clear that the goal is to make sure that we can stabilize Baghdad, especially, so that the politicians in Baghdad can do the work that they need to do in order to reconcile politically and get the economic engine going, so that the security situation can not only stabilize in Baghdad, but then spread throughout the country.

By larding on more stringent criteria, 'A chicken in every pot,' the Administration defines every pull-out option a loser.

We went to Iraq to eliminate Iraq's WMDs. That done, everything else is an Administration construct to save face over there not being WMDs. Bush sent the US Army on a fool's errand.

Why Are The Republicans Not Complaining About "Playing Politics" Now?

How many times have you heard republicans lament every time the Dems present a proposal contrary to their beliefs by suggesting the Dems are playing politics, or politicizing an issue? If I had a hundred bucks for every time that happened, I could own a share of Berkshire Hathaway Common stock by now.

But let's have a look at the republican "plan" to politicize the issue regarding "supporting" our troops. Really, when they trumpet their accusations and point the wagging finger of blame at the Dems, perhaps the finger aught be turned about and pointed inward.

As to politicizing the issue, one would get the sense that playing politics was something to be avoided. But nay, Helen Thomas get's this admission and confession from Tony Snow's replacement, Dana Perino:

Q How does the President feel about his Republicans on the Hill tossing the ball back to him and letting him hold the bag, basically, on a veto on pullout, which is against the will of the American people?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I read reporting this morning that indicated that somehow the Senate Republicans were defying the President. Actually, that's not the case. In fact, last week, when the President met with the Senate Republican leadership, they talked about needing to go ahead and get this vote over with, and get the bill to the President's desk so he could veto it, so that they could go on and get to the business of presenting the President a clean bill.

Q So it was a plan, really?

MS. PERINO: Yes, and if you look at the President's remarks on Friday, he indicated that.

Q Doesn't this go against the will of the American people who want to pull out?

So, who is really playing politics with our troops in harms way? You be the judge.

Cancer Doesn't Care If You Are Democrat or Republican

Tony Snow has undergone surgery for cancer of the liver. It can't be good.

No matter the political stripe, I wouldn't wish cancer on any one.

Here's the skinny from Tuesday's whitehouse press briefing:

I spoke to Tony briefly this morning, around 9:30 a.m. He told me he was up, walking around and comfortable. He will remain in the hospital for several days. That was already part of the plan because it was major surgery that he had. He did not have a lot more detail. I will try to answer your questions as best I can, but the ones that I can't answer I will endeavor to get you the answer, or I'll just have to tell you that we're not going to be able to answer those questions. Some of them are privacy concerns and health related...

...Q Dana, our thoughts really are with Tony, so if you would pass that on, we'd appreciate it.

MS. PERINO: Absolutely.

Q Just one quick question, if you're able to answer. During the surgery, do you know if they were able to take the area out of the liver that was cancerous? And you mentioned that it had spread to areas, including the liver. Does that mean it's gone beyond to other areas, as well?

MS. PERINO: I can -- I don't know the answer to the first question, in regards to if they did any further surgery or -- on the liver at the time. Again, if I can find that out, I'll let you know, if I can get back in touch with him today. What he told me is that the small growth that they had found was in the general area of where the first cancer had originated those years ago, and that when they went back in, even though the blood tests have been negative and the PET scans had been negative for cancer, that they discovered it was cancer, and then he said, and it had spread to the liver, and there has been some metastases -- plural. So that's as far as I can go on that.

Kevin.

Q Dana, do you have a sense of how his treatment might differ this time, versus the first occurrence of cancer?

MS. PERINO: I don't. I know that he's working with the same doctors, at least a core of the same doctors that he worked with before. And, so, obviously, they were successful in their first attempts to beat it back those couple years ago. I think it was just last month that he had reached the two-year mark of being cancer free.

So he just said that he's in consultations with his doctors, and I think that they'll -- it will take some time, I think, for them to figure out what's the best course of treatment. But as soon as I can tell you, and to the extent that he's comfortable with me being able to share that with you, I will do so.

Q Dana, where other than the liver? You said metastases, plural.

MS. PERINO: I don't know, he didn't say.

Pleading The Fifth

Forget Innocent Until Proven Guilty. When some one pleads the fifth in an investigation, it certainly suggests that at least one person thinks there has been some wrongdoing perpetrated that might very well be illegal. What say you?

Ms. Goodling’s decision to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights suggests that she, at least, believes crimes may have been committed.

Meanwhile, the President is still sucking up to the AG:

Q How does the President think that the Attorney General can be effective when the erosion of support among Republicans is growing?

MS. PERINO: I think that -- I don't know if any of you are on the Department of Justice press release distribution list, but I certainly get lots of press releases from them on all the issues that they are managing, including immigration cases and the child exploitation cases that the Attorney General has placed a priority on, corruption cases -- we saw one just last week, a member of our own administration, so -- a former member of our own administration. And so I think that the Justice Department absolutely continues on, as we all do in government. Sometimes when you're under the spotlight like that, it might be uncomfortable, and you have to have a lot of -- you have to do a lot of work on that issue in order to keep going, but absolutely, the other issues of the Department have to continue on. And from all I know, they certainly are.

Q And he's still effective?

MS. PERINO: Absolutely.

What's The Difference Between The Truth and "Making The Facts Available?"

When Tony the Snow job makes the argument that Karl Rove needn't testify under oath, he has continuously stipulated that the Whitehouse has bent over to be accommodating and compromising. Moreover, he says things like this:

You want all the facts, and we're going to make the facts available.

Now, if that doesn't sound like a slogan generated by Rove himself, I don't know what is. Listen very carefully to the rhetoric, because it is very important and reveals what you will get if you take the W, Rove and Co up on their "generous" offer.

Trouble is, there is a distinct difference between "making the facts available" and telling the truth. In the former, you may make the "facts" available, but you don't reveal the whole truth. I've said this before - it seems like they have something to hide and the whole charade is designed to cloak rather than expose the truth.

Let's unpack the W, Rove and Co argument for a bit.

Q We spoke with the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. Senate says there is no precedent for having an official of this nature come and speak to the Committee without a transcript. The House also says they can't find any precedent. Why should this case set a precedent?

MR. SNOW: Well, the fact is what they're trying to do is to establish their own set of precedents. What we're trying to do is to set a precedent for adult behavior in a way that is going to reflect well on a situation and offer an opportunity -- I don't think you're going to find any case where there has been no allegation of impropriety, no specific --

So, there is no precedent for what the Whitehouse requests, so we should swallow the pill anyway? I don't think so. You are already tapping our phones without our knowledge. I don't like it when the W, Rove and Co gets to set precedent, do you?

Q The point is --

MR. SNOW: No, here's the point, is we've set up a situation in which we think members of Congress and staffers -- this is open to members and staff, who are able to take notes, and we also believe that writing goes back to the inception of Western civilization, and the ability -- I'm not sure that they had recordings or transcripts, but they did have writing. There was writing.

Q So you want everyone to come out with their own notes -- you know how often you challenge what we've said and what we've written down, that's how you want it to be recorded?

Without the transcripts, the question mark flag gets raised every time he said what she said.

MR. SNOW: Look, first --

Q Would that be different --

MR. SNOW: Let's please put this in perspective. Here's a decision made at the Department of Justice. Any documents, any deliberations, any key players, they're available. Now, if there are additional questions about White House involvement, as people say, any communication is going to be available, any. So as a consequence --

Q You just don't want a record of what they said.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no. The record, in fact, is going to be available. So then if there are follow-on questions of a factual nature, they are going to be able to be answered.

Q Available, but without a transcript?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

And you see, the question remains...why are they deeply fearful of going on record? It has to be because they fear the truth. And that, my friends, is the difference between telling the truth and "making the facts available." In the latter, you are relieved of the burden to share the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god."

Cosing Gitmo? No!

Q So, realistically, are you saying that Guantanamo Bay will not be shut down before the end of his presidency?

MR. SNOW: I doubt it, no. I don't think it will.

Just one small question: Does the failure to see the end of Guantanamo's prison spell failure of triumph for the W, Rove and Co?

Bombs Away

Found this youtube vid on another blog:


Thoughts?