Frustration, Presidential Style

I had a good laugh over this fun paragraph coming out of Tony the Snow-job as he was aboard AFOne on the junket to the G8 (more taxpayer dollars out the window on W's behalf, btw):

Q Was the President frustrated, too?

MR. SNOW: No, the President doesn't give into frustration. To be frustrated is to waste your time stomping and fuming, and when you're President of the United States your chief objective is to get things done. So as the facts on the ground change, you try to figure out proper ways to get people working in concert to get the result you desire.

I don't know why I found this so humerous, but I'm still laughing. Should I be in tears instead?

Oh, and I found another fun and humorous set of sentences also from the same press gaggle:

Q Speaking of Russia, 14 months ago the President visited with President Putin in Russia. What's changed from then? Should President Bush still trust President Putin? We haven't had reforms that we'd like to see, some things haven't been done. What's changed in 14 months?

MR. SNOW: That's a gigantic question and it also happens to be unanswerable, but let me try to reshape it a little bit.

President Bush and President Putin still maintain a friendship. They also have made it clear that they have their own interests and that their chief obligation is to their publics. And so President Bush and President Putin I think have a very clear understanding of the ways in which they operate and how they can work together. And I think they're going to work very hard to get constructive results. I think it's important to President Putin to have a successful summit. We would like to help him have a successful summit.

But to try to encapsulate, oh, I don't know, in a gaggle what's gone on in the last 14 months is beyond my powers.

"Beyond his powers?" That's a good one. I love it. New and improved tools for dodging questions.

By the way, what are the poor folks having for dinner this eve?

Q Has the President ever had wild boar, as far as you know? Apparently that's going to be part of the barbecue in Germany.

MR. SNOW: No, nor do I know if he's going to be called upon to catch it. (Laughter.)

The Doctor Crosses Social Boundaries

In case you didn't notice, I have started another blog called, "The Doctor Is In." It appears that there is only a small amount of interest in my opinion. That's okay, I'm not offended. Here's my second opinion:

Shea, over at Constantly Amazed asks a perennial favorite:

"Do these pants make me look fat?"

One Dollar's Worth of Windspike's opinion:

This and similar questions, usually posed by a significant other of some variety, are a trap. The real and truthful answer to this question is rarely what the asker seeks. In truth, the pants only make you look fat if you think they do.

Befuddled spouses and friends realize very quickly that they are ethically caught between lying or being truthful as they work their brains around a suitable reply. Really, the individual who poses the query should invert the direction and seek an inner solution.

Only you have the power to remedy the answer to your own question. Moreover, the only answer to your question that matters is your own.

If you have an idea, tricky situation, concern, or troubling dilemma that you need a second brain to cogitate for a bit, pop on over to The Doctor Is In and rent my brain.

Imagine If Your Child Was Kidnapped By A Foreign Country

The president's handlers put in front of the foreign press today. They were very easy on the man and sidetracked by the W's favorite topic (himeself, turning 60) on a number of occasions. But, imagine this: The Shrubmeister trys to portray himself as a grand humanitarian but fails to look in the Gitmo mirror:

You know, one of the most moving moments of my presidency came when the young -- when the mother of -- young daughter was kidnapped by the North Koreans. Imagine. Anybody got children here? Imagine if some foreign nation ordered your child to be kidnapped, just removed. And never -- they never heard from the girl again. They went -- she was telling me, she was wondering whether she was murdered, and they searched everywhere. It's unbelievable, isn't it? It turns out that they believe that she was in North Korea, a regime that just felt like there was no accountability and no regard for human rights, and just took this young child.

So the mother was sitting there in the Oval Office with me. It was incredibly emotional. After all these years, she still felt this pain in her heart. And my point is, is that there's a better way forward than that, to live in a society like that. And the choice is his to make, in North Korea's case. I hope he makes the right choice. It's important for all of us to continue to make that very clear. If he chooses the other way, he'll be isolated and his people won't benefit.

Okay. Thank you all. I enjoyed it.

Sure, the folks are grown individuals, but some are innocent and certainly, they have parents (if they were not already killed in Iraq) that care about them.

Let's Have A Look At What The President Is Smoking Today

A little of this:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thanks for coming. The White House is the people's house, and I'm here to talk about the people's money. We're glad you're here. As you know, every year my administration produces a budget that lays out our priorities and our goals. And every summer the Office of Management and Budget releases a report called the Mid-Session Review that tells the American people how much progress we're making towards meeting our fiscal goals.

And, A little bit of that:

We also said, let's just be patient about solving this federal deficit; we're not going to take money out of your pocket; let's grow our way out of it; let's keep -- let's set priorities when it comes to spending, and keep the people's taxes low, and these revenues will catch up into our Treasury, and they have. And we're reducing that federal deficit, through the people's hard work and the wise policies in Washington, D.C.

And, some more of that:

Today is a good day for the American taxpayer. Tax relief is working, the economy is growing, revenues are up, the deficit is down, and all across this great land, Americans are realizing their dreams and building better futures for their families.

"A Topic, A Cancer, A Fetid Miasma"

I can't believe I missed this commentary from Friday's SFGate location. A friend sent along the whole article cut and pasted into an email. Have a slice or a two and let me know what you think:

It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.

Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.

George W. Bush is just like that...

...I was having cocktails recently with a group of people, among whom were two lifetime Republicans, each in his 60s, corporate businessmen, one admittedly slightly more moderate than the other (to the point where, after once hearing a senator read off a long list of Bush's hideous environmental atrocities, actually let his conscience lead his choice and ended up voting for Kerry) but nevertheless both devoted members of the party.

Bush came up, as a topic, as a cancer, as a fetid miasma in the air...

...What a difference a handful of years makes. Now, overseas, we are a joke. A threat. A toxin. We are considered reckless and arrogant and ignorant, dangerous not just to the rest of the world but to the overall health of the planet. No one anywhere understands how a man like Bush can be the leader of the Free World, stolen election or no...

...Which is just another way of saying we are currently stuck. We are swirling around the bottom of the drain, clinging on to anything that might hold us from going under for just a little while longer. We have to let the neocon disease run its course, and just pray that at the end of it all the scarring and the pain and damage will not be so permanent, and so hideous, that we can't be seen in public for a decade.

This is where it stands: Bush can in no way risk alienating the ultra-right-wing bonk-job contingent that put him in office (they are, considering Bush's 32-percent approval rating, the only ones left even remotely supporting him -- even though, according to many estimates, they're starting to abandon him, too), and hence all policy and all agenda items from here on out will be even more vicious and desperate in an attempt to shore up the base. Hence trying to mutilate the Constitution to ban
gay marriage. Hence attacking the New York Times and claiming newspapers are endangering American lives.

In other words, Bush's latest nasty, Rove-designed salvos and upcoming attacks to save a sliver of power and pride and sneering GOP control are just the beginning.

However -- praise Jesus and pass the scotch -- they are the beginning of the end.

My First Opinion

For those who regularly read this blog, you may not have noticed that I have started another. Maybe I have fallen into blog abyss. On the other hand, maybe I have found a new way to do it. Here's the first opinion I posted there: Thanks to Jim Joiner at the An Average American Patriot for tossing this one into the hopper.

Setting the stage:

Jim said...

Opinions are like assholes, every body has got one. The trouble is when you are both an asshole and opinionated.

One dollar's worth of Windspike's Opinion:

Indeed, it is problematical if you have or some one you know has a proclivity to open two sphincters simultaneously. One should really practice and try to use only one orifice at a time. Exercising both ends at the same time may shroud an otherwise decent opinion in some serious stink. Moreover, the receivers of said opinion most likely will remember only the shit you stirred up and left behind. The opinion is almost always overpowered (and not in an olfactory way) by the asshole.

"What Good's Religion, When It's Each Other We Despise"

I've been listening to Placebo a good deal as of late. Perhaps it is because their lyrics are very poignant and powerful. Maybe it’s the melodic underpinnings of the tunes, but here's a sample of the lyrics from one of their 2003 tunes off the Sleeping With Ghosts album and the eponymous song from that album. In particular, it says a whole lot about our current geopolitical situation:

This one world vision
Turns us in to compromise
What good's religion
When it’s each other we despise
Damn the government
Damn the killing
Damn the lies

The President Contradicts Himself Again: Predicting the Future Is Like...

Americans are living in times of great hope and great opportunity. By keeping our taxes low, keeping our country competitive, and keeping this a welcoming nation, we will add to our prosperity, and we will create a better America for future generations.

Again, simply because the president says it's so doesn't turn a correlation a causal relationship:

No one can predict every turn in the months ahead, and I certainly don't expect the process to be trouble-free

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

Windspike's Weekend Sentence Completion Contest:

• Finish this sentence:

• "Predicting the future with the president is like..."

Winners recieve honor and recognition from the entire blogisphere.

Blog on all.

America: In A Precarious Legal Position

So, when the American people get sued because of the actions of the W, Rove and Co. and that law suit results in more and greater expense because some people have legitimate claims on the US of A, who will the reichwingers blame? No doubt: "activist judges." But here's the point:

"I don't think the Constitution has to be gutted to achieve our objectives" in the war on terrorism. "I felt it was my duty as an American to take a stand for the constitutional rights guaranteed to all Americans."

Moreover:

"Human rights monitors note that the vast majority of the over 15,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq have never been charged, tried, provided counsel, or allowed to challenge their detention in court, and over one-fifth of them have been detained for over a year in this manner," according to the suit.

In addition, the suit cites a 2004 Red Cross report that said military intelligence officers of coalition forces acknowledged "between 70% and 90% of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been arrested by mistake."

So, the bigger question, is how do we hold the real culprits responsible for the mess we are in? I say, it's never too late for the beginning of impeachment proceedings. Now, if we only had some Democrats with a spine to get the proceedings off the ground.

The Doctor Is In

Well, after listening to my spouse tell me that I squander too much time blogging, I decided to see if I can make a buck doing it. I have opened a little side blog and have already proven that I can (one dollar earned so far, thanks to Jim Joiner over at An Average American Patriot). If you are looking for an opinion on a particular situation or scenareo or problem, I would be happy to review your story and give you an opinion. I figure a buck is about all it's worth, but you can feel free to contribute more if you believe my opinion is worth a bit more. Here's how I set it up on the first post to this location:

Here's what I'm thinking. First, my spouse has been yammering on at me for spending way too much time blogging. Moreover, she has always told me that I have an opinion about everything. I thought, hey, what better way to make a dollar than by selling my opinion.

So, here's how "The Doctor Is In works. You send me an email for which you describe whatever it is that you would like my opinion on. You send me a buck, via pay pal - see right column and click the paypal button to do so. I review your case and give you my opinion via a post at this location. The rest of the world can view both your situation/dilemma/problem/curiosity and my opinion and then chime in.

I don't claim to be giving out psychiatric advice, direction, or even a good solution to very practical problems. But what I will do is give you my opinion; naked and honest. What you choose to do with my opinion is your own responsibility.

Is Our Hero Fitzy Going To Get His Ass Canned For Doing His Job?

This was an interesting question at the President's "press availability today. What do you think it means for our man Fitzgerald doing the scouring of the lurking leakers in the W, Rove and Co ranks?

Q Thank you very much. Mr. President, the work of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in prosecuting alleged corruption is well-known here in Chicago, as well as nationally. It's my understanding that technically, he hasn't been reappointed to his position, and serves at your pleasure. Do you have any plans to formally reappoint him to the post, or any position at Department of Justice?

THE PRESIDENT: As a special prosecutor?

Q And would you give us your assessment of the job that he's doing?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have any plans to reappoint him because I haven't thought about it. I will now think about it, now that you brought it up.

The only -- I can give you an assessment of how I thought he handled the case in Washington. I haven't been following the cases here. I thought in Washington he handled the case with professionalism, he was very professional about it. You didn't see a lot leaks, you didn't see a lot of speculation, you didn't see a lot of people kind of dropping a little crumb here for the press to chew on. And I really thought he handled himself well.

But as far as reappointing him as a special prosecutor, I don't know whether the Attorney General is going to do that, or not. That's his choice to make.

Georgie Says, "See, Here's The Problem" But He Is Not Seeing Too Clearly

Looks like the President is looking for a way to wiggle out of the fact that he broke the law and the Geniva Convention all in one wack. What's to stop one of the newly released innocent folk from Gitmo to sue the pants of W and the American people for doing so?

Q Hello, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q I'd like to ask you to speak on the broad implications of that recent Supreme Court case -- not the specifics of the case. But the justices said that you overreached your authority. And your critics have been saying that, too. Given your support and respect for the Court, are you willing to rethink how you use your presidential authority?

THE PRESIDENT: I am willing to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said that in this particular case when it comes to dealing with illegal combatants, who were picked up off a battlefield and put in Guantanamo for the sake of our security, that we should work with the United States Congress to develop a way forward. They didn't we couldn't have done -- made that decision, see. They were silent on whether or not Guantanamo -- whether or not we should have used Guantanamo. In other words, they accepted the use of Guantanamo, the decision I made. What they did say was, in terms of going forward, what should the court system look like? How can we use a military commission or tribunal?

And we'll work with the United States Congress. They have said, work with the Congress. I have been waiting for this decision in order to figure out how to go forward. I want to move forward. First of all, I stand by the decision I made in removing these people from the battlefield. See, here's the problem: These are the types of combatants we have never faced before. They don't wear uniforms and they don't represent a nation state. They're bound by an ideology. They swore allegiance to individuals, but not to a nation. The Geneva conventions were set up to deal with armies of nation states. You've got standard rules of war.

So this is new ground. This is different than any President has been through before, in terms of how to deal with these kind of people that you're picking up off a battlefield and trying to protect the American people from.

So we have about 600 or so there, and 200 have been sent back home. We'd like to send more back to their countries of origin. Some need to be tried, and the fundamental question is, how do we try them? And so, in working with the Supreme -- in listening to the Supreme Court, we'll work with Congress to achieve that objective.

And so your question is slightly loaded, which is okay, I'm used to it. But the idea of making the decision about creating Guantanamo in the first place was upheld by the courts. Or let's say, the courts were silent on it.

I am sure he is thinking, aw shucks, its too bad we can't affix some kind of signing statement on a SCOTUS ruling.

"We Want To Solve All Problems Diplomatically"

Q Thank you, sir. Some experts say North Korea may be launching missiles to attract more concessions. Are you prepared to offer any more concessions beyond that already offered in the six-party format? And have you ruled out the possible military option in responding to them?

THE PRESIDENT: As you know, we want to solve all problems diplomatically. That's our first choice.

But not when you are trying to generate a "central front in the war on terror." I'm not buying this shit any more, are you folks?

Sure you can say you are going to complete the mission, but can you and is it worth the cost? What, by the way, is "the mission" in the "war on terror?" Any one have a guess?

I spend a lot of time worrying about the war on terror. I think about it every single day. My biggest job, frankly, is to protect the American people, and this is a dangerous world and there are people out there lurking who are trying to figure out ways to hurt us. I know some dismiss that as empty rhetoric; I'm just telling you it's the truth. And therefore, we're doing a lot of stuff in Washington. We're reforming our intelligence services to be able to react better. The FBI is now focusing on counter-terrorist activities. The CIA is developing more human intelligence, which will make it easier to be able to do our duty.

We're also on the offense against the terrorists. We'll keep the pressure on them. We'll bring them to justice before they hurt our people.

The central front in the war on terror is Iraq. And I know Iraq is on the minds of a lot of people here in Chicago. It's hard work. It's hard work because we face an enemy that will keep innocent people in order to achieve an objective, and their objective is to drive us out of Iraq so they can have safe haven from which to launch attacks against modern Muslim nations, so they can spread their ideology of hate. They want us to -- they believe capitalist societies and democracies are inherently weak. They do not believe that we've got the capacity to do the hard work necessary to help the Iraqis succeed.

And they're mistaken. They're just wrong. Success in Iraq is vital for the security of the United States, and success in Iraq is vital for long-term peace. And so, therefore, we'll complete the mission.

Later on in the press conference another reporter tries to nail W down and he squirms out of it again:

Q Mr. President, a lot of people here in Chicago tell us that they see an incongruity in your foreign policy. We're involved in a shooting war in Iraq; yet we have a leader in North Korea who has announced his affection for nuclear weapons and no hesitation to use them against the United States. Is your policy consistent between the way you have dealt with Iraq and the way you have dealt with North Korea? And if so, are we headed toward a military action in North Korea? And if so, can this nation sustain military action on three fronts -- Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea?

THE PRESIDENT: I have always said that it's important for an American President to exhaust all diplomatic avenues before the use of force. Committing our troops into harm's way is a difficult decision. It's the toughest decision a President will ever make. And I fully understand the consequences of doing so.

All diplomatic options were exhausted, as far as I was concerned, with Saddam Hussein. Remember that the U.N. Security Council resolution that we passed when I was the President was one of 16, I think -- 16, 17? Give me a hand here. More than 15. (Laughter.) Resolution after resolution after resolution saying the same thing, and he ignored them. And we tried diplomacy. We went to the U.N. Security Council -- 15-to-nothing vote that said, disarm, disclose or face serious consequences.

I happen to believe that when you say something you better mean it. And so when we signed on to that resolution that said, disclose, disarm or face serious consequences, I meant what we said. That's one way you keep the peace: You speak clearly and you mean what you say.

And so the choice was Saddam Hussein's choice. He could have not fooled the inspectors. He could have welcomed the world in. He could have told us what was going on. But he didn't. And so we moved.

And we're in the diplomatic process now with North Korea; that's what you're seeing happening. Remember, remember, we put a coalition together at the United Nations that said, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. It was 15 to nothing. It wasn't a U.S., 1 to 14. It was 15 to nothing; other nations stood up and said the same thing we said.

So we're now working the diplomacy, and you're watching the diplomacy work, not only in North Korea, but in Iran. It's kind of painful in a way for some to watch because it takes a while to get people on the same page. Everybody -- not everybody thinks the exact same way we think. There are different -- words mean different things to different people, and the diplomatic process can be slow and cumbersome. This is why this is probably the fourth day in a row I've been asked about North Korea -- it's slow and cumbersome. Things just don't happen overnight.

But what you're watching is a diplomatic response to a person who, since 1994, has said they're not going to -- he's not going to have a weapon.

Q Do you believe the United States --

THE PRESIDENT: I don't accept that hypothetical question. You're asking me a hypothetical. What I believe is we can solve the problem diplomatically.

But really, if it takes time to do things diplomatically, what has the W, Rove and Co accomplished in four years since W proclaimed North Korea as a member of the Axis of Evil? Watch W get all tangled up here:

Q Mr. President, if I could follow up, you say diplomacy takes time --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it does.

Q -- but it was four years ago that you labeled North Korea a member of the "axis of evil." And since then it's increased its nuclear arsenal, it's abandoned six-party talks and now these missile launches --

THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question. It's increased it's -- that's an interesting statement: "North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal." Can you verify that?

Q Well, intelligence sources say -- if you can -- if you'd like to dispute that, that's fine.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not going to dispute, I'm just curious.

Q Our intelligence sources say that it's increased the number -- its nuclear capability --

THE PRESIDENT: -- dangerous -- it has potential danger.

Q It's increased is nuclear capabilities. It's abandoned six-party talks, and it's launched these missiles.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Why shouldn't Americans see the U.S. policy regarding North Korea as a failed one?

THE PRESIDENT: Because it takes time to get things done.

Q What objective has the U.S. government achieved when it comes to North Korea? And why does the administration continue to go back to the same platform process if it's not effective in changing North Korea's behavior? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Suzanne, these problems didn't arise overnight, and they don't get solved overnight. It takes a while. Again, I think if you look at the history of the North Korean weapons program, it started probably in the '80s. We don't know -- maybe you know more than I do -- about increasing the number of nuclear weapons. My view is we ought to treat North Korea as a danger, take them seriously. No question that he has signed agreements and didn't stick by them. But that was done during -- when we had bilateral negotiations with him, and it's done during the six-party talks.

You've asked what we've done. We've created a framework that will be successful. I don't -- my judgment is, you can't be successful if the United States is sitting at the table alone with North Korea. You run out of options very quickly if that's the case. In order to be successful diplomatically, it's best to have other partners at the table. You ask what we've done. We got the six-party talks started. And that's a positive development. It's a way to solve this problem diplomatically.

Q Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: I just thought for a minute you might have known more than I do about -- when you say, definitively say he's increased the number of weapons. I don't think we know that.

Q Maybe you know, but you're not telling.

THE PRESIDENT: That's an option. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, you said some time ago that --

THE PRESIDENT: Maybe I don't know and don't want to tell you I don't know. Anyway. (Laughter.)

Ah Ha, the truth slips out. I love W unscripted. It's when he tends to be more honest, if that's possible for a man who is living a perpetual lie (re: Y2K elections that he stole rather than won).

Civil Rights Lost: "The Debris That Stands Between Us And A Better Future"

Try not to get your underwear in a twist if you can when you read this statement from the President's spokesmodel...It's a doosy:

Q I want to ask a question that I asked yesterday. How is civil rights the cornerstone of this administration?

MR. SNOW: The President has always talked about civil rights as a cornerstone in a number of ways. It is clear that in this nation, there have been people who have been left behind, that there was long history of discrimination in this nation that has been a stain, that American people have to work together to figure out not merely how to blot the stain, but how to heal the wounds. And the President has tried to reach out with faith-based initiatives. He's tried to do it by talking about not only No Child Left Behind, but also initiatives to allow people the choice to go to the best available schools.

And I think the way you try to deal with civil rights is to try to create an atmosphere in which people can lay aside old prejudices and also try to remove that debris, because that is debris that stands between us and a better future. And you do that in a number of ways. You do that by building a stronger economy that can offer jobs to more. You do it by trying to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to be educated and trained in such a way as to take full advantage of it. You try to do that by doing family initiatives, because in many poor neighborhoods in this country there is one feature that stands out, and that is single-parent households where people toil heroically, but there is a difference -- and to try to rebuild families safe and whole.

It's important, when you talk about crime, that somebody can walk the streets without having to worry about random acts of violence and shooting. In other words, civil rights is an extension of common sense, which is, in common sense, what you want to do is to build a society where young men and women have the opportunity to grow up in safe neighborhoods, attend good schools, be embraced by parents who love them and whose love they can count upon, and to do it in a way to know that they are not going to be victimized because of their race, because of their skin color, and because of their background.

Civil rights is built around a whole series of programs, and they extend those same benefits to everybody. But for those who have never had them before, it is the hope that that is going to help transform their lives. If you talk about -- there are job training programs. There are reconstruction programs. There are business grant programs. There are attempts to do targeted grants. We're going to be seeing some of this, as well. And that's how you build civil rights.

In many ways, the infrastructure that says bigotry is illegal has been constructed. But now comes the business of removing the barriers that still remain in the way, so the American Dream can be accessible to all.

Q Did Hurricane Katrina divert the laying of that cornerstone of civil rights?

MR. SNOW: No, I think what Hurricane Katrina did was to expose some ways -- to wake everybody up to the difficulty, not only of dealing with natural disasters, but their aftermath.

Got to go, guys. Thank you very much.

Wow! Thoughts?

What Happens To Ken Lay's Victims Now That Kenny Boy Is Pushing Up Daisies?

Holy Shit - I thought the government was supposed to be "for" the people:

Q And this one, I don't know if anyone could answer this, but it seems outrageous -- I mean, I'm sorry Ken Lay died, sorry for his family, but I don't understand why the creditors can't somehow sue the estate, just because he died. There's nothing the White House can do to help those poor people out?

MR. SNOW: As I said yesterday also, when it comes to legal matters, the White House, we give duly constituted legal authorities who do their work, and we will allow the court system to process in whatever way, to probate the estate as it sees fit. I am not going to just --

Q The slate is wiped clean because he died.

MR. SNOW: Well, I can't help you with that.

Preposterous Questions?

Was this question preposterous? I don't know...perhaps Tony the Snow-job is practicing his hyperbole for fun.

Q Before North Korea launched its missiles on July 4th, the President said the U.S. would attempt to shoot down any missiles headed towards U.S. territory, but it was civil -- but it was Cold War policy of launch on warning that kept the uneasy peace between the Soviet Union and U.S. for 40 years. And my question, has the U.S. abandoned its launch on warning policy?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into the vagaries of --

Q -- if I could finish. Is it not a signal of weakness to our enemies, many of them stateless terrorists, to suggest the U.S. will absorb a first strike before retaliating with their own nuclear weapons?

MR. SNOW: That's one of the all time great preposterous questions. (Laughter.)

Q Coming from the network. And I don't think it's preposterous.

MR. SNOW: Well, memo to boss is, send the weak stuff back. No, look, I do think it's preposterous. And it's one of these things where this is something that has not come into play, and I'm not going to -- the United States reserves all options to defend itself. And I am going to go no further than that.

Stopping WMD

You all know about North Korea, but I have a question - What does it say about an Administration when they select to invade a country that has no WMD, but they can not stop an "evil" dictator for test firing six missiles that may very well have carried nuclear warheads, all the while a press briefing about the subject is being conducted?

MR. SNOW: Steve, did all five fall in the Sea of Japan?

MR. HADLEY: I have one piece of news. There has been a sixth.* The fifth missile was a Nodong, it hit the Sea of Japan. It was launched at 6:31 p.m., eastern daylight time, impact at 6:36 p.m. There has been a sixth launch. This is also from a Nodong, also from the Kittaeryong facility. We don't have an impact location or time at this point.

Of course, I can see Kim Jung Il taking the Whitehouse's statment very seriously, no?

On the afternoon of July 4 (Washington, DC time), the U.S. detected multiple missile launches from North Korea, including the Taepo Dong 2. The United States strongly condemns these missile launches and North Korea's unwillingness to heed calls for restraint from the international community. We are consulting with international partners on next steps. This provocative act violates a standing moratorium on missile tests to which the North had previously committed. Regardless of whether the series of launches occurred as North Korea planned, they nevertheless demonstrate North Korea's intent to intimidate other states by developing missiles of increasingly longer ranges. We urge the North to refrain from further provocative acts, including further ballistic missile launches.

The September 2005 Joint Statement at the Fourth Round of the Six Party Talks offered the North Korean government and the North Korean people a better path. North Korea's actions only serve to further isolate North Korea and harm its people. While the United States remains committed to a peaceful diplomatic solution and to implementation of the agreed upon Joint Statement, the North Korean regime's actions and unwillingness to return to the talks appears to indicate that the North has not yet made the strategic decision to give up their nuclear programs as pledged to the other five parties. Accordingly, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect ourselves and our allies.

We will be seeking to address this matter in discussions in New York and with our allies and regional partners.

To Whom Does The "Decider" Go For Permission To Make A Decision?

I was finishing up my coffee this AM and heard an interesting interview of Jane Mayer (New Yorker Magazine) conducted by Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air. They were talking about a man who's name I had not heard before - one David Addington. In an article that is in print as of yesterday, but not on line just yet (at least not those who haven't paid for a subscription like myself),Mayer exposes the "Hidden Power" that drives all decisions directly through the Vice President's office. In particular, she fingers Addington as the brains and yes man that has liberally deployed the stamp of legal approval of all things illicitly executed by the W, Rove and Co.

Yes, indeed, David Addington - a lawyer who was never elected by any person to serve us - was appointed by the Big Dick Cheney (and their relationship goes way back to the days when they actively supported the Vietnam War) to assuage the W, Rove and Co.'s collective conscience (if they have one)because David has a propensity to think through, design,circumvent the legalities and rationalize things like Gitmo.

My bet is that the American people have no knowledge of who this man is and what damage he has done to our Constitutionally chartered system of government. I suggest that we in the blogisphere rectify this problem and do as much as possible to expose this man (apparently no picture has been published of this man, nor has he ever been interviewed for the record). Much like Uncle Karl, Addinton has his tentacles in many a problem, but his fingerprints are hard to find on anything. Slippery beasts.

Kenny Boy Slips Through The Mighty Fingers Of Justice

In case you haven't already heard, Ken Lay died. Heart attack. Slipping through the fingers of justice, no doubt, Lay skates swiftly across the river Styx to the gates of hell for an extended stay anxiously awaiting the arrival of his pals in the W, Rove and Co.

Any conspiracy theorists care to wager if Kenny Boy was offed to stop people from making a stronger connection between Enron and the Whitehouse? Remember, the State of California asked the W, Rove and Co to step in and stop the price gouging, and W said he couldn't do it....hmmmmm...

It's All Quiet In A Coffin: The Hypocritical Difference Between Rhetorical And Action

Glenda, over at the Land Of Oz has a little Independence Day thing she is calling "Post for Peace." I popped on over to Pissed Off Patricia's Morning Martini for a double and came up with this comment that should suffice as my "post for peace."

It's all quiet in the coffin. For some, death is the only way to achieve peace. But in the days rich with the rhetoric spawned by the "culture of lifer" types, can't we think of a better pathway to peace that doesn't involve killing? In many ways, the W, Rove and Co's "war on terror" is the antithesis of their espoused pro-life ideology?

Certainly, Ghandi was right and smarter than all the politicos in charge these days, wasn't he?

"The rishis who discovered the law of nonviolence in the midst of violence were greater geniuses than Newton. They were themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness, and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence but through nonviolence."