7 Facts About the Dangerous Moonbat

So today Omelas got tagged with a little chain-blog-comment. Well, it's the internet. You know it had to happen. Fitness for the Occasion. I'll drop the rules of the game next, but first I'll explain how I'm hijacking it. Part of what's happened to the word "liberal" is that we liberals don't define the story of why liberals choose to be so. Instead, the conservatives define it on a range of misguided, to thievery, to debauchery, always lacking of any fundamental values. If someone asked you what political goals you pursed, you could rattle off: reproductive rights, public education, free press, fair wages, human rights, environmental conservation. Almost a year ago, I was involved in a conversation with several liberal and conservative friends of mine, when we tried to work out definitions of the motivations of both political philosophies. What did the words "big government" mean? What is government for? What did we believe citizens were responsible for and capable of doing? When you strip out actual legislative differences, are we so distant from each other? Some conservatives love to just say, "we are fulfilling the plan of God." Here's how your moonbat defines "liberal:"

"I believe as a liberal that we can build a society and establish a government that encourages the best in people while hedging against the worst. I believe that just as we inherited from the common past, we become obligated to invest in the common future. I believe that just as we strive to be good people, we strive as a people to be a good nation. I believe that we as humans have the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the guarantee of this is the proper pursuit of the governments formed by the people. I believe in a commitment towards society will produce the foundation and security upon which individual citizens may then build a good life."

So I'm sharing seven facts about the measure of me as a liberal:

1. I used to hate Starbucks. When conservatives started hating Starbucks and equating it with being yucky liberals to drink there, my eyes were suddenly opened to the virtues of Starbucks. I now love Starbucks.

2. I honestly think if you don't recycle you aren't good enough to be a liberal.

3. Conservatives are onto something when they try to ban books that introduce atheism, people having sex outside of marriage, and liberal values, or talk about other cultures. They are right, exposure will diminish their arguments that their opinions are best. However, I feel no pity for them and they will never win the battle of ideas. I am all for using book donations anywhere to increase the number of liberals. I remember reading all those Morgan the Unicorn stories. I no longer believe in unicorns, but I still believe there is no better good than kindness.

4. A man in a uniform turns me on. Oh, soldier boy!!

5. I remember the day I could no longer squash bugs and spiders. I was the only child my mother had who was unafraid. Even my brother was afraid. My sister brought me into the basement to squash a spider on the door going out into the backyard. He face was red with disgust. The huge wolf spider crouched down when I approached it. But it sat there, awaiting it's impending doom, trapped in the hope that the door would open instead and it could go back outside. Not human hope. I don't think they have human emotions. But spider hope, it's own version of faith in how the universe works and would deliver it from this strange exile. We looked at each other for a long time, and I opened the door instead.

6. I measure my life largely against my sister. When we all went to my mother's relatives in Massachusetts for Thanksgiving, I was sulking because I was sure she'd be in a skirt, and therefor she would be the better daughter. When my mother pointed out that she had not arrived with a skirt, I was still not satisfied. All of it is a deep cover for the fact that she has children and I do not. There are books and books of photographs of her babies all over the place, and I will never give anything to my family that produces as much delight as those babies. I want to have a baby. Psychologists aren't kidding when they talk about sibling rivalry.

7. I was raped seven years ago at a college party. Not the kind, at least, with a danger of pregnancy. I'd had a lot of coconut rum and went to crash on the bed of a friend. I woke up to find her boyfriend rutting top of me. She woke up to find me kicking him. She rolled over and started punching me in the head. I pretended to fall unconscious and she stopped. Her boyfriend remarked that he guessed that I didn't like what he was doing. She replied it was still not acceptable for me to kick him. They fell asleep. I crept out. The next day he told everyone I was a good time. She pretended like I didn't exist. I never told anyone the truth. And I'm a feminist. I couldn't trust people enough to go to class, to even go to the mess hall and eat. I flunked out. I drive new friends away before they can plot against me. Even to this day I experience vivid memory flashes from that night every time I go into a stranger's home.

I believe what we experience in our lives makes us moral actors. Who knows how many of the things that happen to us slowly build up to make us the liberal that we are today. None of what I have shared can be neatly dissected into little explanations of how they cause me to be a liberal. But in them is something important. Hospitality, kindness to people in pain, understanding the universe, and even a love of babies. Some injustice, yes. And some things odd or out of place. But human. And liberal.

Blogs I've tagged: Ketchup is a Vegetable and Stealth Badger.
They get the love because they are my only semi-regular comment-girlies.

Take Military Powers Away from Blackwater and ilk

389 to 30 last week, the US House voted to extend coverage of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to cover mercenaries in the employ of the State Department, in a bill cosponsored by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). Schakowsky, who began pressuring for greater oversight of war contractors shortly after the invasion of Iraq, wrote into the bill provisions which would "require the Justice Department to disclose to Congress the number of complaints filed against contractors, the number of investigations it has initiated and the number of criminal cases it has opened, along with the results of those cases." The Illinois Democrat wrote a letter to Bush in April of 2006, asking him to explain how war contractors were held accountable for their conduct in Iraq. Since then, their numbers have increased from 25,000 to 150,000.

We don't look at the number of contractors who are engaged in military activities, we don't count the deaths of contractors. We think about 1,000 have died," but the numbers aren't official. "We don't really even scrutinize the cost," Schakowsky said.

Now she wants to go further and is drafting legislation to phase out the use of private contractors for military-like activities. "Not KP duty," Schakowsky emphasized. The Blackwater incident "helps pave the way for us to say, 'There are functions that are inherently governmental. Carrying weapons and engaging in strictly military-like activities should be done by people who are clearly accountable employees of the United States.' "

"The government has to have a monopoly on the use of force," she continued. "We have outsourced war to these people, and now we have to bring it back within the government."

Nine Iraqi civilians died in three seperate bombings across Baghdad early Sunday. One bombing targeted an Iraqi police patrol, one targeted a US military patrol, and one the Iranian embassy. All missed their targets and killed civilians instead. The work of the joint US-Iraqi Commission into the Sept. 16 shootings in Nisour Square began. Elsewhere, the US military launched a dawn raid and captured three Shiite milita fighters believed to have played a role in the May 29th abduction of four British mercenaries and a civilian computer expert. The US military still beleives the five to be alive.

Liberal bloggers fire back and forth the Los Angles Times op-ed peice "I survived Blackwater." Janessa Gans served as a US official in Baghdad for two years, and Blackwater provided her security. Gans recounts that indeed, pelting Iraqis with water bottles is a favorite past time of Blackwater mercenaries, and the harrowing speeds they observed driving in the streets. In one particular incident, the Blackwater SUV she was being ferried in, attempted to intimidate one vehicle carrying an older man, a woman, and several children. The Blackwater driver honked and motioned furiously that the slower vehicle should move out of the path of the SUV:

The kids in the back seat looked back in horror, mouths agape at the sight of the heavily armored Suburbans driven by large, armed men in dark sunglasses. The poor Iraqi driver frantically searched for a means of escape, but there was none. So the lead Blackwater vehicle smashed heedlessly into the car, pushing it into the barrier. We zoomed by too quickly to notice if anyone was hurt.

Until that point I had never mentioned anything to my drivers about their tactics, but this time I could not contain myself.

"Where do you all expect them to go?" I shrieked. "It was an old guy and a family, for goodness' sake. Was it necessary for them to destroy their poor old car?"

My driver responded impassively: "Ma'am, we've been trained to view anyone as a potential threat. You don't know who they might use as decoys or what the risks are. Terrorists could be disguised as anyone."

"Well, if they weren't terrorists before, they certainly are now!" I retorted. Sulking in my seat, I was stunned by the driver's indifference.

Another op-ed in the Washington Post outlines the arguement against outsourcing war at all. In the debate it's interesting to note that in his congressional testimony, Blackwater executive Erik Prince, when pressed for details of outsourcing's benefits, went from claiming cost-savings to pleading ignorance of his own company's profit margin. But oh, he makes about 800,000 than moonbat. Beyond the cash cow that needs to be pasturized, the contracting of the powers of war is a disaster for any democracy. Our politicians incur only private costs instead of facing public accountability. Blackwater operates in Iraq in situations where it deliberately sacrifices the US mission in order to acheive it's own goals, regardless of the consequences. And as we saw in Fallujah in 2004, private decisions have the effect of committing our generals to courses of action, taking away from our military key decision making powers in tactics and strategy. War is too important an issue for the survival of a democracy for us to allow people to buy that power.

Technorati Tags:
Blackwater, Iraq war, war, current events, politics, moonbat, liberal, war contractors

Moonbat Takes On Idiot Private Security Force

So today found moonbat off to do her volunteer work at her favorite Museum, all up in her girlie clothes and girlie heels. Of course, just beyond the front door lies the private security force and their little amateur screening area, which impresses a real Transportation Security Officer not in the least bit. One key difference between TSA and this gaggle of guards, is that unlike an airport there is no same-gender screening, which means that they have a group of 30-40 year old men waiting around to screen women who set off the alarm because they were high heels. As moonbat prefers and has done for the past two years, she yanked hers off and tossed them on the x-ray belt. One of the male officers immediately jumped forward and insisted that she had to wear them through the walk-through metal detector.

Oh yeah? There might be glass. Really? Now, if all passengers who fly on airplanes are required to remove their shoes to pass through airport security at the decision of the Department of Homeland Security, one can reasonably conclude that there are no realistic legal or saftey concerns, especially since liability rests with the Museum and not the security force. So why the eager insistance? Well... moonbat could trip. What, into your waiting arms? So, moonbat insists on a supervisor, and after it becomes apparent that no one else will be allowed to enter until one is summoned, behold, when it was insisted that none were in the building, one can be found. After listening to the presented case, and looking at the growing line of scowling visitors, the supervisor relents.

Moonbat prances shoe-free through the walk-through metal detector. She slings her now x-rayed purse up onto her shoulder and begins to put on her heels. Supervisor insists that she come with him because he is going to have to file an incident report about her behavior, so that her supervisor can councel her on cooperating with security in the future. Sure. Glad to put things on paper. Not a problem. Moonbat reaches for her other heel.

Oh no, that won't do. Even though so many concerns were sighted to prevent moonbat from removing her heels for screening, it suddenly is okay for her to walk through the museum in bare feet.... because the supervisor seizes moonbat via her purse and attempt to haul her physically across the museum whilst she puts her other heel back on her foot. Oh now it was on. A good measure of steel in "take your hands off me" and he let go, all full of apologies, and made a quick retreat to his office. Another guard waddled up and with almost 300 lbs of authority told me there was no need to have an "attitude" and took down moonbat's information on a napkin. Moonbat found great amusement in forcing a choice between allowed to use her cell phone in the security area to listen to her voicemail (which even TSA allows) and being able to give the extention of her boss. Hah! So the guard had to waddle back off to look up the correct number. Now of course, for moonbat's chance to file a grievance. Only after twice insisting that complaint forms be provided for her, were such forms produced, and she was assured she could fill them out at her station and drop them off on her way out of the Museum later. Likely there was some hope moonbat would cool off and forget. Fat chance!!

Flew through the paperwork, scanned off a copy for her dear readers and also for the head cheese, and pranced right back down to drop them off. Of course, the real sticker is that this will likely result in absolutely no discipline measures against the guard, or any productive change in screening policies, like same gender or the right to remove your heels. Though people might love to whine and complain about the security screening procedures for airports done by TSA, few consider the alternatives of using private security firms to whom politicians have to curry favor in order to get campaign contributions. If Lockheed Martin did airport screening, you can be assured that your local Congressmen could never afford to investigate any real offense that occurred... but since it's all in house, it's safe to wack away at any infraction on the part of TSA. So for all those of you who like to complain that you got screened because the wire in your bra set off the walk-through metal detector, imagine instead of a female screener, an eager 30-year-old and 6 ft tall slobering hulk. And oh, yes, moonbat always wears her Victoria Secret... even today. Cheers!!

Technorati Tags:
liberal, democrat, washington DC, security, privatization, big government, congress, homeland security, TSA, moonbat

Coulter Raises Money for Liberals

So moonbat made her first donation for the 2008 Presidential campaign in the middle of a lightening storm as deer stampeded by in a panic. Literally. As thunderstorm warnings flashed across the bottom of the television program about bad weather devestating American cities, a text message popped up on my cell phone reading: "Elizabeth Edwards took on Ann Coulter on Hardball. Hear it Now! So I texted the code back and listened to Coulter get told she's no kind of role model for kids who want to get involved in politics. True enough. Even my conservative friends consider her one of those groomed barking dogs people carry around in a gaudy purse. Of course, poison still kills even though her words taste bad for the hate. What kills are all the lies.

Look here one the fact-check verdict on Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right, and right here for another one and another. Verdict's not good. Even the Columbia Journalism Review finds it hard too choke down her level of "accuracy." Spinsainity takes apart both Slander and a following book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Even Time Magazine's lukewarm attempt to save itself from the fires by defending her as intelligently inspired falls flat. One lie in Slander takes the cake: Coulter claims that the New York Times failed to cover the tragic death of Dale Earnhardt at a Sunday race due to liberal bias for two days, when they ran a front page story on his death the very next day. The story Coulter then quotes completely misrepresents the heartfelt tribute of southern-born Rick Bragg as being a contemptuous sneer by a northern liberal. Lie by ommission and flat out lie.

I must confess most conservatives I talk to have too many braincells to have ever bought and read one of Coulter's books, but those I know who do tend to be young, can't remember much of what she wrote, and tend to me more affected by her ability to be skinny. Real skinny. Really really really... Anyway, they tend to not be the sort who look at her footnotes in order to figure out that ah... she lies. A lot. Most of the time. And their infatuation remains the very problem of the publishing industry and late night talk shows giving her a podium when they know she's an intellectual fraud, the ultimate dumb blonde. Because they then love us despite what she tells them to believe, rendering them unable to see us as moral creatures. And that is the first step by which liberals are dehumanized by a shrill-barking blonde.

Technorati Tags:
John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards, Ann Coulter, liberal, conservative, moonbat, lies, slander, treason, plagerism, Dale Earnhardt, New York Times, journalism, politics, war

Texas Republican Hides 'Stench' Behind Patriotism

Moonbat enjoyed having voted for Steny Hoyer last fall, especially since he gave a royal thrashing to Texas Republican Lamar Smith, that aired this morning on CSPAN. Sweet!! At contention was Hate Crimes Bill 1592, which would "provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes." Lamar Smith expounded at length that we as a society should expand the hate crimes bill to protect current and former members of the military, and when given the opportunity to have that ammendment added, objected to his own ammendment, my beloved southern gentleman took that skinny stick of a man out in front of the podium and the cameras and turned his good name into ground chuck roast. Out of the Judiciary Committee went 1592, on to passage through the work of 212 fine-looking Democrats. Do Hoyer proud and go visit these 14 Cowards about their likewise "stench." Oh Hoyer, if only you were a few years younger.

The New Republic runs down why the Republican Party's so-called "objections" to the bill don't hold water:

Christian Right groups claim that the bill will prevent Tony Perkins from gay-bashing every Sunday. That's doubtful. The National Review argues that "[T]here is no evidence that local law enforcement has a special need for federal resources to help it combat hate crimes." That's not true. Republicans complain that the bill wouldn't protect senior citizens and members of the military. But when John Conyers offered to add those protections to the bill, the GOP refused. NR, again, says that it could "open the door to legal punishment for harboring incorrect thoughts." That doesn't seem right, either: The bill pretty clearly states that a defendant's past statements or associations can't be used as evidence unless they "specifically relate to the offense."

Also noted that it's unsurprising Bush threatens a veto, given he believes hate crimes don't exist.

A curious conservative reaction, found via the American Renissance newsfeed. The AP story in snippets and then come the comments: "The real reason for “hate crimes” laws are to take white people’s ability to organize away from them. If white people can no longer even discuss, the effect that non-white’s have on their communities, then their ability to organize politically will no longer exist. Also, if a white person has to think twice about defending him/herself from a non-white on the street, this will keep white people in a state of fear, that will make them very easy to manage politically." {Some advice on how to prove a Jew is faking a hate crime.} How can this nation ever identify itself and fair when it singles out specific people for special protection? I get more and more disgusted by these politicians every day. I find myself starting to agree more and more with this nation’s enemies. Did I read that? "Hate Crime Bills" increase recruitment for Al-Qaeda? And I thought I had read it all.

Technorati Tags:
Steny Hoyer, Lamar Smith, liberal, conservative, congress, hate crimes, racism, feminism

'Air Traffickers' Can Carry Cocaine, Just No Guns

So today's gridlock giggle comes via a White House Press Conference where Bush floated a new anti-terrorism initiative that should please just about everybody. Passengers no longer will be screened getting onto airlines, only drug traffickers. As long as the drug traffickers don't have any weapons on them and submit to the inconvienence of a search, they can bring as much contraband as they can pack into the regulation size carry-on. Drug traffickers in turn promise to no longer use the boarder between Mexico and the real America, tropping across the lawns and flower beds of all the citizens in those border states. Together, we all is safer when we all is safer. Bush really means this:

"We do everything we can here at the homeland to protect us. That's why I've got a Homeland Security Department. That's why we are inconveniencing air traffickers, to make sure nobody is carrying weapons on airplanes. "

Bush also confesses that he's apparently lost $70 billion in the White House, which should make for a really great egg hunt this year. Said money was the bridge fund for the Iraq War passed by Congress last fall, which contained more than enough money for operations for the surge. Since Bush lost the money, and the last-quarter of the Pentagon's fiscal budget has equally vanished into thin air, that's the real reason we need that emergency supplimental funding in the first place. So with a whole lot of money still "available" on the books, no wonder Congress went home to spend Easter with their families and left Bush standing there with his hand held out like a dork. Might be that or the fact that the Republican-led Congress of 2006 took till June last year to approve the last 'emergency' supplimental funding bill. So if Democrats don't do it two months faster they are lazy pack-mules??

Truth is, Democrats are in fact lazy when you measure 2007 vintage pork with what the Republicans call PORK. The aforementioned 2006 'emergency' supplemental bill: $20 billion in Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery, $2.3 billion for bird-flu, $2 billion to chase lettuce-pickers, and $500 million for the agri-industry. The 2005 vintage: $104 million for watershed projects (mostly Utah), $70 million to former Soviet satellites struggling to be democratic over a decade later, and a measly $24 million for the Forest Service. The real gossip to be had concerns Bush's charge that Pelosi bought votes: the $3.4 billion in the 2007 bill got inserted long before timetables and benchmarks. Democrats are apparently so lazy that people decide what their votes are going to be bought with before the Democrats figure out they need to buy votes. Hilarious. Meanwhile having gone from tens of billions in pork to a mere few billions, Pelosi has once again shown Congress how to cut a fine looking figure. Give her a show on BRAVO.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Iraq, Congress, security, homeland security, war on terror, politics, immigration, liberal, democratic party

TalkLeft Learns to Say "Yes, Mistress!!"

So today marks the day when moonbat addresses an unfortunate incident when she was addressed as "SIR." Given gender and a stunning photo of my lavish red hair, this was very wrong, wasn't it??

TalkLeft: Yes, Mistress.

Let's choose a "safe word" for today. I know, that self-described "service" for busy progressives who want their own voice heard inside the legislative and electoral progress in an age of big money... Move On.

So, why is the anti-war movement so sick at heart? Why do the turn outs to the marches and rallies still suck even after a few thousand pairs of feet are argued one way or another? 2% turnout of a city so liberal the Democratic winner of the primary for Mayor orders his stationary the next day with city funds is piss poor. Especially since the march got infusions from around the country. Where was this majority of the country that disapproves of the Iraq War and elected a Democratic Congress, and why does nobody talk about Iraq?

"Now that this atrocity has moved into its fifth year, I don't overhear any street-corner, café, or waiting-room debate about what is being done in my name and yours. Of course, the war and endless war are the main topics when I'm with my friends and fellow members of the different peace organizations....Perhaps, soon, more and more of our young will awaken, throw off that blanket of apathy, examine the crimes committed by this administration against the people of Iraq and the people of the United States, and emerge as defenders of justice who will not allow the peace baton to ever be dropped again."

But it's not the anti-war movement's fault!! Oh no. Never let that cross your mind. Despite the fact that at the Pentagon, the only way they came up with that crowd was to give microphone time to causes that had nothing to do with Iraq. Like immigrants. Save the cheap lettuce, and all, but you are standing outside the Pentagon. Despite the fact that they spent more time denouncing the crimes of the Democratic Party than they actually spent denouncing the Iraq War of the polices of Bush. Despite the fact that so many of the protesters showed up to put pressure on the elected members of their government while waving the face of Hugo Chavez. But don't say it's the anti-war movement's fault they couldn't come up with the numbers to actually surround the Pentagon.

The anti-war movement explains that the Iraq War is the liberal anti-Iraq War voting public's fault: they have an imperial mindset, the fact that a majority of Americans don't support a phased redeployment is kept from them, and they've been duped into believing that the only way they can fight injustice is to shop. You see:

Let's remember, by the way, that, unlike mainstream Democratic "withdrawal" plans, the American public is talking about actually leaving Iraq, as in that old, straightforward slogan of the Vietnam era: Out now! In other words, there is a hardly noted but growing gap -- call it, in Vietnam-era-speak, a "credibility gap" -- between the Washington consensus and what the American people believe should be done when it comes to Iraq.

What I love about the anti-war movement is the whole "planting the seeds of your own destruction part." Yes, after cutting your teeth on movements to tell a whole lot of people what they can and can't do (save the rain forest, save the whales, dolphin-free tuna, stop violence against women, yadda yadda), you are told that all your skills are imperialistic. Right. Yes, because if you follow the links the anti-war movement provides to prove that the American public no longer backs the Iraq War, you find out that the answer to the question "Which of the following comes closest to your view? The U.S. should immediately begin to withdraw all its troops from Iraq. The U.S. should withdraw all its troops from Iraq within a year. The U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq as long as is needed to turn control over to the Iraqi government." is not something the anti-war movement wants to have anyone talk about. The numbers? Oh yeah. Only 21% support an immediate withdrawal, 37% in one year, 39% to stay as long as necessary for peace, 4% unsure. RightAnd I sure have noticed all the "spend your money here" payment links at the bottom of the only anti-war emails moonbat is privileged to receive. Right.

Heh. Right. If ill people need it explained to them that it's stupid to quote sources that disprove your own agenda, then yeah, that makes you an "idiot." The cameras of FOX News and the blogs of the gung-ho are just waiting to use such idiocy to feed the process of internal sectarian strife in the land of liberal, so that all out civil war will justify their having to remain in occupation until the job is done and liberals have stopped shedding each other's blood and learned to live in peace and share their toys. And back to Iraq.

Technorati Tags:
MoveOn, TalkLeft, anti-war, Iraq, politics, liberal, conservative, Bush, moonbat

Has Al-Qaeda Jumped the Shark?

So WaPost threw out an interesting expose on the war on terror: do we all buy the mantra of the Bush Administration that all aspects of every citizen's life should be filtered through the question of "does this encourage the bad guys?" We now know that OBL's father traveled to America and returned home with a deep disgust over our immorality... because of suburban lawns. Does this excuse me from all counterinsurgency tactics against dandelions? Are lawns now to be considered anti-American? Or a patriotic duty not well understood by urban liberal Democrats? Seriously. Aptly noted is that FDR, on entering America into WWII, extolled to the public that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." And the summers of the odd numbered year.

Even my conservative coworkers blinked at me today when I broached the issue at lunch. What's with odd years? 2001. 2003. 2005. Now it's 2007. 2001. What happened those other years? You're kidding. We haven't experienced a terrorist attack since.... Madrid. London. Those Al-Qaeda bombings. Oh. Not here. Our allies, yeah. Them. Europe has too many Muslims now, so they can't be our allies. Interesting. I'm just saying. So... you think there is some kind of a pattern? Three odd years in a row. Major attack on a Western City. So.. if 2007 passes by and there isn't one... has Al-Qaeda jumped the shark?

I'll give them credit; no one asked me what "jumped the shark" meant. What will it mean if there is no major attack on a Western City this summer? British investigations prove that terrorist cells develop inside their target drawn from individuals recruited at training camps held away from major combat. "Operation Crevice" drew itself from terrorist camps in Pakistan, a country Bush has yet failed to invade, and which appears a bit lower on that lucky list than Iran. British evidence given at trial links the "Crevice" bombers with conventional ammonium nitrate fertilizer, and not a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Crevice bombers also met several times with bomber of the successful 7/7 plot, whose connections were not investigated due to a lack of funding and manpower. Of course, if one has to choose between soldiers in Iraq and police hunting actual terrorist cells in a Western City... well, Al-Qaeda must be defeated in Iraq or they will follow us home! No of course, to any expensive Republican ski-lodges in the Rocky Mountains, just the cities of liberals.

Dick Cheney lectured in Florida (smell 2008 campaign work?) 3/24/07:

"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 bin Laden and al Qaeda."

Cheney goes on at length to quote OBL propaganda. Truth is, few and far between are the Americans (outside of the anti-all-war protesters) who treat bombings in Baghdad that kill hundreds the way we would treat a similar bombing in a Western City, where we would plaster the site with flowers and candles and teddy bears. How many teddy bears end up outside of the Iraqi Embassy following a suicide bombing in some random dusty town on the Eurphrates? When we are honest, we admit this. When Al-Aaeda plots to incinerate Britons with plant food, they understand this. The global war on terror exists because the global jihad exists, whose sole pursuit is to strike at Western targets. And nothing is more West than the West. Despite the Taliban being routed, and the invasion of Iraq, the formation and execution of the terrorist cell proved enduring, and exportable to the Muslim fighters at war with Mother Russia. Iraq remains one square on the giant checkerboard, and not the only one that makes kings.

"The second myth is the most transparent -- and that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission."

I like Petraeus. Truth. I supported a vote of no confidence in Bush's troop surge plan. That plan was not Petraeus' as Bush began it before Petraeus was confirmed, something that Cheney selectively avoids. Liberals of course were right, the plan was faulty which Bush proved when he had to send reinforcements for his reinforcements just this month. Petraeus' real COIN operation would have required more soldiers. Enough more to make Bush's surge look like a couple of cops in a squad car. What does happen when a bad war happens to a good general?

Congress does, of course, play a critical role in the defense of the nation and the conduct of this war. That role is defined and limited by the Constitution -- after all, the military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not to 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill. (Applause.) If they really support the troops, then we should take them at their word and expect them to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached. (Applause.)

Cheney avoids scolding the dethroned Republican Congress of 2006 for failing to provide adequate funding last year for the troops, making this supplemental necessary in the first place. The vast majority of these funds aren't for the troops being surged, but for more normal combat or military operations which should have been already provided for in full. Cheney also seems not to be a big fan of the Constitution, if he thinks that Congress is limited as he implies above, to merely writing blank checks. How can the audience trust Cheney and Bush to spread democracy abroad when they prefer a lack of democracy at home?

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this is one that is perhaps the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will strengthen America's hand in the fight against the terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a complete validation of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists do not expect to be able to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have, and they're not likely to try. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission -- and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome. Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They've cited the cases of Beirut in the '80s and Somalia in the '90s. These examples, they believe, show that we are weak and decadent, and that if we're hit hard enough, we'll pack it in and retreat. The result would be even greater danger for the United States, because if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. And believing they can break our will, they'll become more audacious in their tactics, ever more determined to strike and kill our citizens, and ever more bold in their ambitions of conquest and empire.

Cheney and his fanclub have amnesia. We won the Cold War, the last long great struggle against an intractable foe, the only adequate comparison. Cheney also fails to mention the other side of the Beruit story.. which would be the French. The French also suffered a bombing a few days after the U.S. and they retaliated... against Iran, with an airstrike. But the French are still wussies. That's public opinion for ya. Depresses me that not only does Cheney expect people to be impressed by this argument, so many people have such undeveloped brains that they are unable to appreciate the effect of spin. Some people will say anything, and that includes Islamofacists. And some people will believe anything. Just look what the National Inquirer can publish. Iraq is not all that important to Al-Qaeda. There will always be another Iraq for them, another Afghanistan, another Sudan. They're global. Like cockroaches.

That leads me to the fourth, and the cruelest, myth -- and that is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to our interests in the broader Middle East. The reality is that, if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance in that country. The violence would spread throughout the country, and be very difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan and fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more sorrow and discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments. Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

Cheney forgets how wrong his administration proved going into Iraq. What's given him some new brilliance over the past few years... ah... nothing? Another scenario finds that with reduced American presence, Sunni tribes become less welcoming of foreign fighters. Shite leaders become more confident in their majoritarian governance and form better alliances with the Kurdish population to develop oil production. Iran gets smoozy, sure, and the rising economic fortunes of both countries' urban populations leads to stronger democratic parties and a weaker Islamic fundamental showing in following elections. Saudi Arabia's (mildly fundamental) dominance begins to wain, as Iraq's oil production increases. Jordan's economic fortunes rise with their old friend Iraq, which enables them to better manage their Palestinian refugee population. Increases in regional stability spread to Lebanon and into the West Bank. All equally possible. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to provide air and naval defense to Iraq, combined with training to it's military and police, while maintaining it's boarders against those foreign fighters. Also a possible scenario, but equally not guaranteed. Life gives no such promises.

We can be confident in the outcome of this struggle. America is a good and an honorable country. We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of the Earth. We're the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in the fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. (Applause.)

Cheney said this holding up a tiny asterisk to indicate all the various places in the world where the U.S. pursues no policy to give hope to the oppressed. In Tibet.

Or in airports. Which leads me to the subject that con-bloggers who don't do my job should shut the frak up:

"If this legislation passes (civil service protections given to every other federal worker extended to federal airport security), the Democrats will be making the TSA’s job more difficult. Passengers will assume a greater risk when flying commercial airplanes as a result of this legislation."

TSA pursues the purposes of it's political appointees who spend lavishly on limos and passing on contracts to their personal friends. None of which has to do with airport security. Or preventing future terrorist attacks. Reducing overtime and reducing customer complaints are the primary concern of the management level. When I have a union to protect me for telling the truth, I'll get back to you on this subject.

I need a picture here to educate this bloody moron:



Don't blame the crew in the boiler room for TSA's design flaws.

Technorati Tags:
Iraq, Bush, Petraeus, war on terror, global jihad, 7/7, homeland security

Amateur Liberals Shocked; Move on Moves On

So since the passing of supplemental spending on Iraq the response of the outlying fringes of the Democratic Party seem all the rage to dish. Bush tried his best to best what he called "an act of political theater" by denouncing it as "an act of political theater" while standing with a vet behind him to the left and a pretty blond soldier with wispy blue eyes at his right hand. No one noticed, amidst the spasms of outrage over Move On's move to support Pelosi. Move On took no official position without doing something horribly democratic: it twice emailed it's members to vote. 126, 000 Move On members participated in the (first) vote. 84.6% supported the bill. 9.2% said they weren't sure and 6.2% opposed it. Both votes garnered an equal response to Move On's email vote over supporting (or not) Ned Lamont last fall. Anti-(all) war bloggers began to mobile quickly to denounce and campaign against Move On, infected with amnesia over the founding of the online grassroots organization. Which was to ah... promote legislative action that provides results over ideological purity.

Let's get out the discection kit: little scapal, tweezers, eye dropper, ruler and latex gloves. Got your gloves on? So here's this anti-war movement on the cold and hard steel table of reality before you, and it wants to know why it's not getting what it wants from the Democratic Party. Three words: Veto Proof Majority. And ah... not everyone has to think the same thing, like we were brainwashed or something. Move On might be the most accessible target and competitor for media love but the anti-war movement has so starved itself in an effort to avoid the anti-IRAQ war crowd that it bites anything that moves. One despairs over political activists who can't fathom the difference between having your bill defeated by a session of Congress supposedly elected with a mandate to alter the course in Iraq, and a presidential veto. To put a measure on the floor of Congress that will only go down in flames, is to avoid a showdown with Bush. To insist that an ideologically pure bill supported by a segment of the American population that couldn't elect a majority of candidates to Congress should trump over the combined opinions of those members actually elected by majority vote is anti-American. See there? Very little matter in the brain cavity.

Let's move on. With a deep blade into the heart. Here we find a feeling of sickness because Move On dares to stick to it's founding principles (if you don't win, you aren't noble, you just loose) and applauding members of Congress who chose to vote the Dem line. Of course, this heart may judge that another member of Congress who voted to get nothing as being a representative in whom a voter could feel pride. Others may judge, but not Move On? Others may speak, but pragmatism must be silent? This heart quivers from an urgency because tens of thousands of people will die in Iraq if Bush blinks and signs Pelosi' budget? Of course, hundreds of thousands of people will die from other preventable reasons in that same ammount of time, and frankly if the anti-war movement spent all of it's time and money in other directions, more lives would be saved. So it is a fair question for Move On to ask: are you in this to bring the Iraq War to resolution or to see your mug shot on FOX?

Moving down to the shriveled stomach, we find barely the strenght to mention that both Move On and the Congressional Black Caucus announced support for Pelosi. There's an old saying that laws and like sausage, and one should not watch how they are made, which should really apply to the anti-all-war movement, who seem to be largely vegan. Also to be avoided: chess, the Olympics.

"The legislative charade mounted by the Democratic Party has nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq. There are, in fact, no principled differences between the Democrats and Bush when it comes to the imperialist aims of the war. Both parties, the Democrats no less than the Republicans, serve the corporate interests—the oil conglomerates, the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a whole—that seek through military violence to establish US control of the resources and markets of the world."

One cannot forgive the self-imposed confusion of anger at Bush with immediate withdrawal, or the idea that the Democratic Party would best serve America by pissing into the wind. One simply misses the slimy contents of the stomach in the light of the glaring ulcer which ills the anti-all-war segement of liberal America: who the frak do they think they are to accuse the Democratic Party of secretly being just like Bush? How far do they think they will get stabbing other liberals in the back? What, do they live alone on a barren Moon that their desires are alike the decrees of a jealous God?

Good enough reason for this moonbat to join up with Move On. Hah!!

Move On Nancy Pelosi anti-war Iraq liberal politics

Bush Hides from Pelosi far away in Brazil

So there's a certain amount of cheek in a guy who swears off an addiction and then sends you a $3.2 billion bill with an order for more of the same. Bush fled the whole country so that he could sign a letter to Pelosi and the Congress flying between South American countries, literally in the middle of the night. Man can't even own up to it over the phone. Lie? Six years into his presidency and he still can't count? Still making the same mistake of underestimation that made a ruin of Iraq from the start? Just about anyone could be pleased by this event, except that we are talking about real money and real soldiers. Myself, I'll latch on to this little snip:

"This revised request would better align resources based on the assessment of military commanders to achieve the goal of establishing Iraq and Afghanistan as democratic and secure nations that are free of terrorism," Bush said in the letter.

Revised request?! My figuring abilities are good enough to peg this increase at more than a third of what Bush requested on national television in January. And the Department of Defense is making noise to Congress that 7,000 more troops might also be needed, to extend this surge out beyond the end of the summer. Lovely. See, now you'd be up to more than 2/3, which is blatant false advertising being slapped on Bush's really-gonna-work-this-time plan for Iraq. Just to rub salt in the wound, the U.S. and Iran met face-to-face over Iraq just yesterday, as Democrats have advocated following the Iraq Study Group's report last fall. Rice plans to meet with both Iran and North Korea next month, so it looks like dialogue is in fashion.

"What has changed?" asked one former high-level Bush administration official. "That we finally like these people? That we finally have them where we want them? Or gee, we're at 30 percent [public approval] and we've only got 20 months to go?"

And what of this troop surge in Iraq that is supposed to ensure Republican dominance in American politics? The way it stands, win or loose, if American troops are still in Iraq by the Presidential elections of 2008, that's bad for Republicans. And if American troops are out, win or loose, that's good for Democrats. So Democrats can take or leave a "victory in Iraq," which is the real reason why we don't debate in terms of one. Because seriously, how many years has there been a complete lack of terrorism in Israel, but Bush is going to deliver that in Baghdad? Nice that he's backed himself into a political corner so neatly, since every bomb and every sectarian killing is now Bush's failure written in blood. Rice won't be able to deliver progress on peace with the Palestinians as Israel continues it's settlement of Arab lands, and Bush only made rock stars of Hezbollah after funding Israel's war with (a liberal democratic Muslim) Lebanon last summer. One has to wonder if there's even a strategy Bush hasn't failed at yet.

Hold the press- there is! Bush can veto a military spending bill, now that Bush is against benchmarks for Iraq after he was for them. What is Bush playing at if he thinks this surge strategy will work? Unless Bush would rather be known to history for being bullied by the Democrats than ending his term without being able to make a victory sign on the back of a pickup truck in Sadr City. Since, if he wants to insist that he has cleared all the Islamofacists out of Iraq, I want proof. A litmus test. Bush pulls that off and I'll vote for the Republican in 2008.

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Iraq, GWOT, democrat, republican, congress, liberal, conservative, terrorism

Moonbat Does Not Get Tsa Union On Her Birthday

So this morning my boss above my boss had a nice birthday present for me, which was also a consolation prize. First the prize: dried-out day old muffins in a variety of flavors, that crumbled like sawdust when you tried to split them. No butter, no margarine, no "i-can't-believe-it's-not." And what for? Bush has assured the country that he will defend it from the threat of terrorism by making sure we federal airport screeners can't dream of fair pay. Which would be specifically the right to collectively bargain at all, at which Republicans are acting like he just announced the troop surge in Iraq met with success. Democrats in the Senate have only half-chickened out, and stripped the collective bargaining for pay out of the Homeland Security Bill, while leaving in nonpay union activity and whistle-blower protections. I took a great delight in the mere symbolic act of tossing that muffin for a three-point throw.

No one seems to think that federal screeners want collective bargaining, which we do, or that for some reason we interviewed for these jobs for the sheer reason of wanting another 9-11. We are not cashiers denying free water bottles to rescue workers that fateful day. We are the ones who have to stare down that spitting and raving passenger in front of you who thinks his bowie knife should fly. Regardless of our thankless task, Republican lawmakers are sounding the drumbeat, that for some reason, the idea that we shouldn't be worrying about getting evicted will makes us ineffective or fall asleep on the job will encourage Osama bin Laden. They use meaningless propaganda about "9-11" and who remembers it most to imply that there is no possibility that TSA could be so immoral as to mistreat it's workers, because of course, 9-11 matters more than labor costs. Yet in the next breath, we can't have union rights because TSA might end up having to hire more federal screeners and labor costs might go up?

Right now, teachers are trusted more with educating children than federal screeners are trusted with protecting the public. In one breath, TSA is useless. In the next breath, TSA must be unfettered in it's eternal vigilance against the greatest threat of our time. ?? The racket being raised over merely compromising on giving us whistle-blower protection and collective bargaining but not for pay is so equal, that one begins to understand this is about worker's rights period. And why are people such cowards as to be unable to stand before Congress and raise the question... what is so unpatriotic about paying the rent?

Other cons rally around the idea thathappier screeners will want longer relationships with passengers:

And according to TSA, a collective bargaining infrastructure would lead to the closing of an estimated 250 screening lanes at airports (longer lines), poor staffing (even longer lines) and late flight departures (so you’ll be waiting when you’re done with the longer TSA line, too).

Or they are more honest and just say that unionization creates inept, incompetent fools. These con-blogs don't quote actual screeners and give no indication that they know any personally, or have even done anything more than snarl at having to "voluntarily surrender" another cigarette lighter. Let me explain this to them now: TSA managers constantly seeks ways to reduce the cost of labor even if that means reducing the efficiency and amount of screening at airports, and without a union, we screeners seem powerless to halt the slow-bleed. Perhaps moderates have just reason to despair that the American political system is fundamentally impaired, when those who could seek knowledge would prefer to cling to false soundbites instead of really wanting their country defended against terrorism.

So.. are long lines of more concern to you or the fact that you can try to board an airplane with a gun and not get arrested? Heck, you meant well, you can still even fly!

Curious language from the right: TSA managers will be "made passive" by whistle-blower protections, according to Rep. Dent (R.-PA). What does this mean: "made passive." Sounds ominous, but what does this mean? Whistle-blower protection is extended only if a criminal case is pursued against a superior, and the whole point is that a superior should [i]be made passive[/i] to punish those who testify to criminal behavior. So it's a Republican version of victory against the terrorists to protect criminals in federal employment, those easiest to target for corruption and collaboration? An intelligent question of course that doesn't have the [i]scary[/i] sounding appeal as managers "made passive" by the red-shirted workers.

Another tidbit the cons are drooling over, is a release by TSA listing Myths and Facts about what it's like to work as a federal screener. I'd never seen it before a con-blog alerted me to it's existence. I found the first one highly amusing and very personal:

MYTH: TSA does nothing to reduce injuries to screeners or unsafe work conditions. FACT: TSA cares about its workforce and has implemented a robust safety program.

I can attest to the 20.5 days of worker's compensation given for an injury. I have been injured twice on this job requiring medical attention, for the first time in my life, and the first time I missed 104 days of work. Yet my worker's comp pay cut off mysteriously at exactly 20 days. I was referred from work to a local injury medical care center, and the first thing they told me was that they were under contract not to excuse me from work as medically incapacitated under worker's compensation, that such a determination would be made by my employer. (Yeah, because I'm that stupid.) In two days, it will have been a year and my injury has still not healed. I have been waiting three weeks for approval from a private contractor hired to do my injury paperwork "automated" for a cortisone shot that the doctor was able to administer the first day he wrote the prescription. Three weeks. And as for the lifting... there has been no reduction in what is required of TSA screeners since I started in August of 2005, and TSA still may not enforce the airline's set baggage weight limit. But safety first! And I'm the Queen of England.

By the way, how many of you dear readers think a nice dose of Flexeril improves mental alertness?

Speaking of which, an iron fist in a velvet glove has been moving to coordinate all the little con-blogs on this issue: the Wall Street Journal. In a lovely "OpinionJournal" (which my dear readers should remember) article, the WSJ takes the position that TSA checkpoint screeners are trained to do federal paperwork interchangeably with real HR specialists (we are not), which means that whatever employee rights are gained will cause checkpoints to become fewer (they will not). The WSJ also advances the idea that terrorism is a constant "emergency" and is so horribly ignorant as to not even know that, yes, federal screeners are redeployed to cover evacuations through major airports during hurricanes. Screeners at my airport volunteered (and did not have to be ordered) to help in the evacuations before and after Katrina, even though that mean sleeping on Red Cross cots and not showering for weeks. Yet serve they did, no matter how much such service is dishonored by conservatives who now question their patriotism.

Technorati Tags:
homeland security, tsa, union, democrat, republican, union, liberal, conservative, Iraq, war on terror, Bush