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.