Bob Perry has long been known as the primary financier of the Forces of Evil. And he has long been known as the primary financier of Rick Perry. So why try to hide the fact?
What is the point of Bob Perry giving $1 million to the Republican Governors Association so that the Republican Governors Association can give $1 million to Rick Perry?
There is only one possible explanation; they were trying to hide the fact that Bob Perry was giving Rick Perry $1 million more. Why would they try to hide that?
It is certainly no secret that Bob Perry has contributed tons of money to Rick Perry and to such notable groups as The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
And it is no secret that Bob Perry has gotten virtually everything he has wanted from Rick Perry and the Republican led Texas Legislature. Tort reform and a pro-industry Texas Residential Construction Commission come to mind.
Did either Perry do anything illegal? Maybe not. Did the Republican Governors Association violate Texas election law? Maybe, probably not. Does Chris Bell’s lawsuit have a chance? Nope. (Hope there is no way for it to wind up in Sharon Keller’s court or Bell might get the death penalty.)
Was it stupid to try to hide the contribution? Absolutely.
Didn’t Craddick and Bill Hammond teach you anything? Didn’t you learn anything from Nixon? It is never what you did that really gets you; it is when you try to cover it up that you get into trouble.
Another $1 million from Bob Perry would have been a one day story. Now let’s watch it play out.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
They really, really do have WMDs
What should the leader of the free world do to the country that is harboring the terrorist who directed the attack on America on 9/11?
What should the leader of the free world do to the country whose military dictator suspends the constitution and cancels free elections?
Clearly the answer is he should give them $150 million a month. Forever.
That must be the right answer, or why else would George W. Bush be doing so. There has been little doubt that Osama bin Laden has been hiding in the mountain areas of Pakistan for years now. But our “friend” Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has made only half-hearted shows of searching for him and has not allowed US troops into his country to search on their own. But he has been such a good “friend” we have sent him $11 billion since 9/11.
Funny that on 9/10 we were enforcing economic sanctions on Pakistan for such transgressions as testing a nuclear weapon in 1998 and our “friend” Gen. Musharraf taking control of the country in a coup in 1999.
And what have we gotten for our $11 billion? Not Osama bin Laden. And now not democracy.
Dick the Butcher’s famous line in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part II has been taken to heart in Pakistan.
“First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
In fairness we don’t know that Musharraf has had all the lawyers killed, yet. But he has had something like 3500 of them arrested. Why? So there is no one left to protest the fact that he has suspended the constitution and disbanded the courts.
But don’t worry our government is taking stern steps. George W. has already stepped forward with stern words about how they should have elections over there. Condoleezza Rice has gone so far as to say that if this activity continues we may even have to review our aid package.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/04/AR2007110400463.html?nav=rss_world
Really? We’re going to let little things like harboring the most wanted terrorist in the world and suspending all efforts at democracy come between us and our “friend.”
Well, no not really. We’re just going to review it. The $150 million will be given again next month, and the next, and the next, and…….. Who knows, maybe the review will determine that we just need to send them a little more. Maybe $200 million a month would help them more. After all, we can afford it. We’re only $9 trillion in debt. That’s $9,000,000,000,000.00. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying for this.
But it could get worse. Much worse. Remember the sanctions we imposed in 1998? We did that because they developed nuclear weapons. Not that somebody named Curveball said they wanted to develop nuclear weapons. But because they really did. We saw the explosion we they tested it. It works.
Pakistan is on the verge of becoming highly unstable and there are known terrorists there. What could possible go wrong?
“Send lawyers, guns and money. Dad, get me out of this.” Warren Zevon
What should the leader of the free world do to the country whose military dictator suspends the constitution and cancels free elections?
Clearly the answer is he should give them $150 million a month. Forever.
That must be the right answer, or why else would George W. Bush be doing so. There has been little doubt that Osama bin Laden has been hiding in the mountain areas of Pakistan for years now. But our “friend” Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has made only half-hearted shows of searching for him and has not allowed US troops into his country to search on their own. But he has been such a good “friend” we have sent him $11 billion since 9/11.
Funny that on 9/10 we were enforcing economic sanctions on Pakistan for such transgressions as testing a nuclear weapon in 1998 and our “friend” Gen. Musharraf taking control of the country in a coup in 1999.
And what have we gotten for our $11 billion? Not Osama bin Laden. And now not democracy.
Dick the Butcher’s famous line in Shakespeare’s Henry VI Part II has been taken to heart in Pakistan.
“First thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
In fairness we don’t know that Musharraf has had all the lawyers killed, yet. But he has had something like 3500 of them arrested. Why? So there is no one left to protest the fact that he has suspended the constitution and disbanded the courts.
But don’t worry our government is taking stern steps. George W. has already stepped forward with stern words about how they should have elections over there. Condoleezza Rice has gone so far as to say that if this activity continues we may even have to review our aid package.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/04/AR2007110400463.html?nav=rss_world
Really? We’re going to let little things like harboring the most wanted terrorist in the world and suspending all efforts at democracy come between us and our “friend.”
Well, no not really. We’re just going to review it. The $150 million will be given again next month, and the next, and the next, and…….. Who knows, maybe the review will determine that we just need to send them a little more. Maybe $200 million a month would help them more. After all, we can afford it. We’re only $9 trillion in debt. That’s $9,000,000,000,000.00. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying for this.
But it could get worse. Much worse. Remember the sanctions we imposed in 1998? We did that because they developed nuclear weapons. Not that somebody named Curveball said they wanted to develop nuclear weapons. But because they really did. We saw the explosion we they tested it. It works.
Pakistan is on the verge of becoming highly unstable and there are known terrorists there. What could possible go wrong?
“Send lawyers, guns and money. Dad, get me out of this.” Warren Zevon
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Recommeded Reading
“Exile” by Richard North Patterson
Although a work of fiction it is clearly very well researched. The story line is that the Prime Minister of Israel is assassinated in San Francisco. A Palestinian woman is arrested as the leader of a conspiracy to carry out the assassination. She is defended by a Jewish attorney.
Most of the book is a search for the root cause of the assassination, which is obviously the root cause of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The author, a NY Times Bestseller several times, is a wonderful story teller who goes to great lengths to examine the issues from both the Jewish and the Muslim points of view, with a couple of Christian Arab characters thrown in.
The primary question of the book is “When does history begin?”
How one answers that question is the key to how one views the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (and probably most others as well.)
As Americans, it is difficult for us to relate to people who are still caught up in the past. There are people all over the world who are constrained by the history of their ancestors in ways we do not understand. We believe history started either at our birth, 1836 if you are a true Texan, or 1776 . Maybe at 1492, but nothing much happened for nearly 300 years after that.
And we don’t worry much about what happened in the past either. We don’t hold a grudge against the British. We Texans don’t even hate Mexico. But other people are obsessed by history and the land of their forefathers. They are consumed by hatred for wrongs perpetrated generations ago. That is difficult for us to understand, but important for us to realize.
The only war Americans can’t seem to get over (other than the one we can’t currently get out of) is Vietnam. We don’t hate the Vietnamese, but we are obsessed with the Vietnam War and its reason and its outcome anytime we consider another conflict.
Of course, Vietnam is also the only war we didn’t win.
They say that history is written by the victors, but it seems it is perhaps remembered more by the losers. They remember and it festers, for generations. Understanding that is hard, but it is very real.
The lesson is likely that Muslims will hate our great-great grandchildren because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. We are not winning “The War on Terrorism.” We are creating a feud that will never end.
Although a work of fiction it is clearly very well researched. The story line is that the Prime Minister of Israel is assassinated in San Francisco. A Palestinian woman is arrested as the leader of a conspiracy to carry out the assassination. She is defended by a Jewish attorney.
Most of the book is a search for the root cause of the assassination, which is obviously the root cause of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The author, a NY Times Bestseller several times, is a wonderful story teller who goes to great lengths to examine the issues from both the Jewish and the Muslim points of view, with a couple of Christian Arab characters thrown in.
The primary question of the book is “When does history begin?”
How one answers that question is the key to how one views the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (and probably most others as well.)
As Americans, it is difficult for us to relate to people who are still caught up in the past. There are people all over the world who are constrained by the history of their ancestors in ways we do not understand. We believe history started either at our birth, 1836 if you are a true Texan, or 1776 . Maybe at 1492, but nothing much happened for nearly 300 years after that.
And we don’t worry much about what happened in the past either. We don’t hold a grudge against the British. We Texans don’t even hate Mexico. But other people are obsessed by history and the land of their forefathers. They are consumed by hatred for wrongs perpetrated generations ago. That is difficult for us to understand, but important for us to realize.
The only war Americans can’t seem to get over (other than the one we can’t currently get out of) is Vietnam. We don’t hate the Vietnamese, but we are obsessed with the Vietnam War and its reason and its outcome anytime we consider another conflict.
Of course, Vietnam is also the only war we didn’t win.
They say that history is written by the victors, but it seems it is perhaps remembered more by the losers. They remember and it festers, for generations. Understanding that is hard, but it is very real.
The lesson is likely that Muslims will hate our great-great grandchildren because of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. We are not winning “The War on Terrorism.” We are creating a feud that will never end.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The Boogey Man's Going to Get You Too.
If nothing else you have to give Tom Craddick credit for his ability to spin.
Headline in today’s Midland Reporter-Telegram is “Craddick says trial lawyers want new speaker to remove malpractice caps.”
http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18954138&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=475626&rfi=6
While that may be true, it is certainly not the reason that his leadership is being challenged. But trial lawyers are the right wing boogey man, so if you can paint any issue with their taint then you can get the wingnut base to rally around. The headline could just as easily read:
“Educators Want New Speaker to Ensure Adequate Funding for Public Education.”
“Child Advocates Want New Speaker to Protect Children’s Health Benefits.”
“Open Government Advocates Want New Speaker to Access Public Records.”
But those don’t have the same cache as “trial lawyers.”
This headline is the same as Bush saying we invaded Iraq in order to bring them freedom and democracy. Sure those things are on the list of things that could be accomplished, but he sold the war on WMDs. The real reasons were ousting Saddam and oil. Freedom and democracy were afterthoughts.
Just as tort reform is at best an afterthought to those seeking to oust Craddick. Sure maybe Dunnam and some of his cohorts would like to change the tort reform laws that have been passed, but they don’t have the ability to oust the Speaker. No, the Speaker is getting ousted by members of his own party who have little or no affection for the trials. It is being done because of his autocratic leadership style and his disdain for the will of the House.
But if Rove & Co. have taught us nothing else, we now know that if you say something long enough and loud enough some people will start to believe it and repeat it over and over on the radio until lots of people believe it. Cynics call it “drinking the kool-aid.”
If you believe Keffer, Pitts, McCall etc. want to overthrow Craddick because of tort reform and the trial lawyers, the Curmudgeon has got a bridge for sale.
Headline in today’s Midland Reporter-Telegram is “Craddick says trial lawyers want new speaker to remove malpractice caps.”
http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18954138&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=475626&rfi=6
While that may be true, it is certainly not the reason that his leadership is being challenged. But trial lawyers are the right wing boogey man, so if you can paint any issue with their taint then you can get the wingnut base to rally around. The headline could just as easily read:
“Educators Want New Speaker to Ensure Adequate Funding for Public Education.”
“Child Advocates Want New Speaker to Protect Children’s Health Benefits.”
“Open Government Advocates Want New Speaker to Access Public Records.”
But those don’t have the same cache as “trial lawyers.”
This headline is the same as Bush saying we invaded Iraq in order to bring them freedom and democracy. Sure those things are on the list of things that could be accomplished, but he sold the war on WMDs. The real reasons were ousting Saddam and oil. Freedom and democracy were afterthoughts.
Just as tort reform is at best an afterthought to those seeking to oust Craddick. Sure maybe Dunnam and some of his cohorts would like to change the tort reform laws that have been passed, but they don’t have the ability to oust the Speaker. No, the Speaker is getting ousted by members of his own party who have little or no affection for the trials. It is being done because of his autocratic leadership style and his disdain for the will of the House.
But if Rove & Co. have taught us nothing else, we now know that if you say something long enough and loud enough some people will start to believe it and repeat it over and over on the radio until lots of people believe it. Cynics call it “drinking the kool-aid.”
If you believe Keffer, Pitts, McCall etc. want to overthrow Craddick because of tort reform and the trial lawyers, the Curmudgeon has got a bridge for sale.
But What if They Don't Want to Spend More Time With You?
How do you know a public figure is lying? No, not “they’re lips are moving.” Although that answer is correct far too often. No the surest way to know is that they say they are retiring, resigning, dropping out, etc in order to “Spend More Time With Their Family.”
The latest scammer to use this line is Mikal Watts, former Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. The Curmudgeon does not know for sure why Mr. Watts chose to drop out at this point after spending several months campaigning and committing millions of his own dollars to the campaign, but here’s betting it wasn’t to spend more time with the family.
A few things have popped up. One is a criminal investigation into a “lawyer” who ain’t a lawyer in Corpus Christi. Mauricio Celis was apparently an extremely successful ambulance chaser who would get cases and refer them to other plaintiff’s attorneys. Problem was Celis is not actually a lawyer. Apparently, in Texas, it is illegal for a non-lawyer to chase after ambulances. Actually it only illegal for them to get a referral fee from an actual lawyer.
Celis referred some clients to Watts. Oops!
The point is Mr. Watts had a family before the decided to run. He had a pretty good idea of the size of Texas and the time commitment it would take to run a campaign here.
Lots of politicians have claimed they were quitting in order to spend more time with the family. In virtually every case is meant they were being forced out, about to get defeated, about to get caught, or vested. But it never meant what they said it meant.
The latest scammer to use this line is Mikal Watts, former Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. The Curmudgeon does not know for sure why Mr. Watts chose to drop out at this point after spending several months campaigning and committing millions of his own dollars to the campaign, but here’s betting it wasn’t to spend more time with the family.
A few things have popped up. One is a criminal investigation into a “lawyer” who ain’t a lawyer in Corpus Christi. Mauricio Celis was apparently an extremely successful ambulance chaser who would get cases and refer them to other plaintiff’s attorneys. Problem was Celis is not actually a lawyer. Apparently, in Texas, it is illegal for a non-lawyer to chase after ambulances. Actually it only illegal for them to get a referral fee from an actual lawyer.
Celis referred some clients to Watts. Oops!
The point is Mr. Watts had a family before the decided to run. He had a pretty good idea of the size of Texas and the time commitment it would take to run a campaign here.
Lots of politicians have claimed they were quitting in order to spend more time with the family. In virtually every case is meant they were being forced out, about to get defeated, about to get caught, or vested. But it never meant what they said it meant.
Friday, October 19, 2007
How Can She Sleep at Night?
The Curmudgeon is about two weeks late in his indignation this time, but better to rant late than to never have ranted at all.
Sharon Keller. Really that is all that needs to be said.
The Curmudgeon will admit to a couple of moderately liberal beliefs, but deep down we all return to our raising. And the Curmudgeon comes from a long line of West Texas, Southern Baptist, Bible Thumpin’, old –time religion believing curmudgeons. Down deep he believes more in the “eye-for-an-eye” philosophy than he does in the “turn the other cheek.” So he believes the death penalty is a punishment that should be in consideration for certain crimes and certain criminals. But it has to be taken seriously. You don’t get a re-do on this one.
Texas, of course, leads the way when it comes to using the death penalty. We have used it more often than any (maybe all) other state. Our record is not spotless and we have almost certainly executed some innocent men. We have been pretty callous about the process. Our former Governor and the Only President We’ve Got mocked Karla Faye Tucker when she pleaded not to be executed.
“`Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me,' "
Excerpts from The Houston Chronicle August 10, 1999
The State of Texas argued that a man whose attorney repeatedly fell asleep during his trial gave him adequate counsel. The Solicitor General (whose name I won’t mention because he/she gets pissed when I do) told the Curmudgeon that he needed to prove something bad happened because of his attorney sleeping through the trial. The SC did not find the Curmudgeon’s argument of, “Well, he is on DEATH ROW! That is on the something bad happening list,” to be very persuasive.
But now we have Sharon Keller.
A man died on Sept. 25th because Sharon Keller decided that the Court would close promptly at 5:00. Even though the attorneys for Michael Richard had called to notify the Court that their computer had broken down and that they needed about twenty extra minutes. Even though three other justices of the Court of Criminal Appeals were staying late to rule on the matter, didn’t matter.
Sharon Keller closed the clerk’s office without consulting anyone else so that the petition could not be filed. Michael Richard was executed that night. Why? It’s 5 o’clock!! It’s Miller Time!!
Having never been convicted of a felony, nor obtained a law license, the Curmudgeon has never paid much attention to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Apparently neither has anyone else in Texas. How could this happen in 2007? Where did we get a judge like this? We elected her.
The Curmudgeon knows that the Forces of Evil have been considering pushing for some sort of “judicial selection” for a while now. Because of who was behind it, the Curmudgeon has been his usual skeptical self, but if this is what we elect, we have to have a new system.
The Curmudgeon is not here to argue that Michael Richard was innocent. Mr. Richard was apparently a bad, bad man. But in my state, in 2007, we allow due process to run its full course. Even if it cuts into Happy Hour.
Sharon Keller. Really that is all that needs to be said.
The Curmudgeon will admit to a couple of moderately liberal beliefs, but deep down we all return to our raising. And the Curmudgeon comes from a long line of West Texas, Southern Baptist, Bible Thumpin’, old –time religion believing curmudgeons. Down deep he believes more in the “eye-for-an-eye” philosophy than he does in the “turn the other cheek.” So he believes the death penalty is a punishment that should be in consideration for certain crimes and certain criminals. But it has to be taken seriously. You don’t get a re-do on this one.
Texas, of course, leads the way when it comes to using the death penalty. We have used it more often than any (maybe all) other state. Our record is not spotless and we have almost certainly executed some innocent men. We have been pretty callous about the process. Our former Governor and the Only President We’ve Got mocked Karla Faye Tucker when she pleaded not to be executed.
“`Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don't kill me,' "
Excerpts from The Houston Chronicle August 10, 1999
The State of Texas argued that a man whose attorney repeatedly fell asleep during his trial gave him adequate counsel. The Solicitor General (whose name I won’t mention because he/she gets pissed when I do) told the Curmudgeon that he needed to prove something bad happened because of his attorney sleeping through the trial. The SC did not find the Curmudgeon’s argument of, “Well, he is on DEATH ROW! That is on the something bad happening list,” to be very persuasive.
But now we have Sharon Keller.
A man died on Sept. 25th because Sharon Keller decided that the Court would close promptly at 5:00. Even though the attorneys for Michael Richard had called to notify the Court that their computer had broken down and that they needed about twenty extra minutes. Even though three other justices of the Court of Criminal Appeals were staying late to rule on the matter, didn’t matter.
Sharon Keller closed the clerk’s office without consulting anyone else so that the petition could not be filed. Michael Richard was executed that night. Why? It’s 5 o’clock!! It’s Miller Time!!
Having never been convicted of a felony, nor obtained a law license, the Curmudgeon has never paid much attention to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Apparently neither has anyone else in Texas. How could this happen in 2007? Where did we get a judge like this? We elected her.
The Curmudgeon knows that the Forces of Evil have been considering pushing for some sort of “judicial selection” for a while now. Because of who was behind it, the Curmudgeon has been his usual skeptical self, but if this is what we elect, we have to have a new system.
The Curmudgeon is not here to argue that Michael Richard was innocent. Mr. Richard was apparently a bad, bad man. But in my state, in 2007, we allow due process to run its full course. Even if it cuts into Happy Hour.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Yeah, But Who Do The Troops Support?
The Curmudgeon has always been skeptical of what people say, but much less so if they are willing to put their own money behind it. If a person (not a Lobbyist who is playing both sides for security reasons, but a real person) is willing to contribute to a campaign then they probably really do support that candidate.
So it surprises no one that the person raising the most money from Mormons is Mitt Romney. Nor would one be surprised to learn that John Edwards is getting lots of money from trial lawyers.
But how about military personnel? You know, the ones fighting and dying in Iraq. Who is likely the choice amongst them? Well, if money is the best away to judge (and the Curmudgeon argues it is) then they support the one Republican candidate with the cojones to say we should get out of Iraq. Today!!
That’s right Ron Paul, Best of All, Best of All Ron Paul is the leading recipient of campaign contributions from military personnel. And Barak Obama is second.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5223477.html
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former commander in Iraq, had this to say this week, “America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.” He joins a pretty long list of generals who are speaking out as soon as they retire. They can’t while they are on active duty, but once they regain their freedom of speech they are railing against the war and the Bush Administration’s horrendous management.
The Curmudgeon has repeatedly been told that we can’t just leave Iraq. He has never quite grasped the concept of why not. Are we worried a war might break out? Too late. Now our only ally has decided that you can indeed just leave. The British are packing their bags even as we speak. By the end of the year they will be down to about 4500 troops in Iraq, about ten percent of what they used to have.
Makes one wonder what changed in England to make them willing to pull their troops. Oh yeah, now I remember, someone new is living at 10 Downing now.
January 2009 cannot get here fast enough.
So it surprises no one that the person raising the most money from Mormons is Mitt Romney. Nor would one be surprised to learn that John Edwards is getting lots of money from trial lawyers.
But how about military personnel? You know, the ones fighting and dying in Iraq. Who is likely the choice amongst them? Well, if money is the best away to judge (and the Curmudgeon argues it is) then they support the one Republican candidate with the cojones to say we should get out of Iraq. Today!!
That’s right Ron Paul, Best of All, Best of All Ron Paul is the leading recipient of campaign contributions from military personnel. And Barak Obama is second.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5223477.html
Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, former commander in Iraq, had this to say this week, “America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.” He joins a pretty long list of generals who are speaking out as soon as they retire. They can’t while they are on active duty, but once they regain their freedom of speech they are railing against the war and the Bush Administration’s horrendous management.
The Curmudgeon has repeatedly been told that we can’t just leave Iraq. He has never quite grasped the concept of why not. Are we worried a war might break out? Too late. Now our only ally has decided that you can indeed just leave. The British are packing their bags even as we speak. By the end of the year they will be down to about 4500 troops in Iraq, about ten percent of what they used to have.
Makes one wonder what changed in England to make them willing to pull their troops. Oh yeah, now I remember, someone new is living at 10 Downing now.
January 2009 cannot get here fast enough.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Please Lie To Me
Usually the Curmudgeon saves his wrath for the Republicans, because, well they’re Republicans. And as the bumper sticker says “If you are not completely appalled then you haven’t been paying attention.” But this time it is the Democrats who have done it, at least the so-called leading contenders in the presidential race.
In their debate last week in New Hampshire, (disclosure: Of course I didn’t watch it, only people who were being paid to watch it did so. But I did read what some of the people paid to watch it wrote about it.) none of the top three contenders for the presidential nomination were willing to say they could have our troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term. That’s 2013!!
Here is what the lily-livered, mollycoddling, namby-pambies had to say:
The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
What? You people are politicians. Three fourths of everything that comes out of your mouth is not true. Why can’t you make a commitment that the troops will be home by the year 2013? You are telling us lots of other things that even you can’t possibly believe.
You have no trouble telling me that you will provide universal health care. No you won’t, you don’t have the votes. One of you has already tried.
You have no trouble telling me you will stop global warming. No you won’t, you don’t have the know-how.
You have no trouble telling me you will end poverty. No you won’t, you don’t have the will of the people behind you.
So please tell me you will bring the troops home sometime in the next five years. Give me a reason to vote for you. If I wanted to keep the status quo I would vote for one of those cookie-cutter Republicans. I don’t. I want someone to tell me they will end our occupation of Iraq.
In fairness Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd both said they would, but so what? There aren’t three people who are not blood relatives or paid staffers who know who either one of them are. If they dropped out of the race today it would be like the tree falling in the forest when no one is there to hear it.
I realize that the three top contenders are concerned that they may not be able to keep their promise if they pledge to bring the troops home by 2013, but they shouldn’t give up on that goal in 2007. They can always heap more blame on Bush if they are unsuccessful. Say the situation was worse than Bush told us (probably true), the facts on the ground changed as time passed (likely to happen), or even we are on the verge of victory (highly unlikely). And yes the Curmudgeon will be pissed that you didn’t keep your word, but isn’t it better to try than to give up on the goal fifteen months before you could possibly take office?
The Curmudgeon generally thinks that the Democratic candidates are better than the Republican ones, but it is very disconcerting to see them all saying the same thing that Bush and his minions have been saying all along. Remember, the Bush “experts” have been wrong about every single thing they have predicted about Iraq. It is inconceivable that the Democrats would pick this particular play to steal from the Republican playbook.
In the wonderful novel “Animal Farm” by George Orwell the closing scene has the other farm animals looking in the window at the pigs who had taken over the farm from the people. They look first at the people and then at the pigs and pretty soon they could not tell which was which. I think I’m experiencing déjà vu all over again.
Mayor Bloomberg run as an Independent and tell me you will bring the troops home and you will have the vote of the Curmudgeon.
In their debate last week in New Hampshire, (disclosure: Of course I didn’t watch it, only people who were being paid to watch it did so. But I did read what some of the people paid to watch it wrote about it.) none of the top three contenders for the presidential nomination were willing to say they could have our troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term. That’s 2013!!
Here is what the lily-livered, mollycoddling, namby-pambies had to say:
The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
"I think it's hard to project four years from now," said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation's first primary state.
"It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting," added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
"I cannot make that commitment," said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
What? You people are politicians. Three fourths of everything that comes out of your mouth is not true. Why can’t you make a commitment that the troops will be home by the year 2013? You are telling us lots of other things that even you can’t possibly believe.
You have no trouble telling me that you will provide universal health care. No you won’t, you don’t have the votes. One of you has already tried.
You have no trouble telling me you will stop global warming. No you won’t, you don’t have the know-how.
You have no trouble telling me you will end poverty. No you won’t, you don’t have the will of the people behind you.
So please tell me you will bring the troops home sometime in the next five years. Give me a reason to vote for you. If I wanted to keep the status quo I would vote for one of those cookie-cutter Republicans. I don’t. I want someone to tell me they will end our occupation of Iraq.
In fairness Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd both said they would, but so what? There aren’t three people who are not blood relatives or paid staffers who know who either one of them are. If they dropped out of the race today it would be like the tree falling in the forest when no one is there to hear it.
I realize that the three top contenders are concerned that they may not be able to keep their promise if they pledge to bring the troops home by 2013, but they shouldn’t give up on that goal in 2007. They can always heap more blame on Bush if they are unsuccessful. Say the situation was worse than Bush told us (probably true), the facts on the ground changed as time passed (likely to happen), or even we are on the verge of victory (highly unlikely). And yes the Curmudgeon will be pissed that you didn’t keep your word, but isn’t it better to try than to give up on the goal fifteen months before you could possibly take office?
The Curmudgeon generally thinks that the Democratic candidates are better than the Republican ones, but it is very disconcerting to see them all saying the same thing that Bush and his minions have been saying all along. Remember, the Bush “experts” have been wrong about every single thing they have predicted about Iraq. It is inconceivable that the Democrats would pick this particular play to steal from the Republican playbook.
In the wonderful novel “Animal Farm” by George Orwell the closing scene has the other farm animals looking in the window at the pigs who had taken over the farm from the people. They look first at the people and then at the pigs and pretty soon they could not tell which was which. I think I’m experiencing déjà vu all over again.
Mayor Bloomberg run as an Independent and tell me you will bring the troops home and you will have the vote of the Curmudgeon.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Patriotism Lost
My 30-year high school reunion notice arrived by email a few weeks ago, setting off a wave of nostalgia. Not just about high school and the “good old days”, but about our country. And I can’t help but wonder how we got here.
One of my most vivid memories of my teenage years was the trip to Washington, D.C. the summer before my senior year with a choir. Over one hundred of us, dressed in red, white & blue. It was 1976 and we celebrated the Bicentennial in style. We knew every patriotic song and sang them everywhere we could, including on stage with the President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, and on national television at halftime of a college football all-star game.
Today my own son is entering his junior year in high school and I wonder if he and his buddies would even recognize songs like “This is My Country” or “This Land is Your Land.” They certainly would never consider participating in a choir that was singing such corny stuff. They don’t seem to view the country the same way we did in the seventies.
Some tell me that’s because they have come of age during the era of George W. Bush, when it appears our government, and therefore our nation, deserves no respect. I don’t buy that. Now I’m no fan of George W. Bush, I have voted against him five times. Twice for President, twice for Governor, and in the first vote I ever cast in 1978 I voted against him for Congress.
But how could they possibly be more jaded about our political leaders than we were in high school. We were too young to be personally affected by Vietnam, but we grew up watching Water Cronkite tell us the daily “body count.” Then came Watergate. Richard Nixon became the only president ever to resign his office about four weeks before the start of our sophomore year. But two years later we’re singing patriotic songs on the steps of the Capitol, the Jefferson Memorial and Mount Vernon.
Maybe it is our fault. I am sure that we have not set the example of patriotism that our parents did. Our parents were formed by World War II, maybe the same way we were formed by Vietnam. There is a glaring difference. They saw the war of their childhood for what it was, the battle between good and evil. We didn’t see the war of our childhood in the same light. It became the battle between our government and our citizens, or at least between the government and the nation’s youth. The protesters were eight to twenty years older than us, but we watched them closely. We were too young to be participants, but we were greatly affected.
So what did we pass on to our children, who according to the website the reunion committee has posted, range in age from 29 to 10? Clearly not patriotism. Oh, they’ll root for the US in the Olympics or the World Cup, but not with the passion we cheered the “Miracle on Ice” in 1980. And sing the songs? Not a chance. They know most of the words to the “Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America”, but they are not going to be singing them anywhere. I am disappointed in that, saddened. But I am really concerned about what our grandchildren may wind up thinking of their country.
If our children have grown up jaded and non-patriotic because of their parent’s remembrances of Vietnam, what will the next generation be like? What will the children of kids raised watching the war in Iraq be taught about our country? It won’t be patriotism I’m pretty sure. Will it be distrust? Or worse, indifference? I have earned my living most of my adult life in the political arena. I have known many politicians, both good and bad. I believe in our system of government and I am convinced it is the greatest ever tired, but I am worried.
A friend of mind who has a Ph.D. in history told me about a theory that most generations are more like their grandparents than their parents. They are more likely to hold the beliefs and participate in the activities of their grandparent’s generation. But they have to be taught about the good things of the country, and I am concerned about who is going to teach them that. I’m not talking about their formal education. Their teachers and their textbooks are only a part of their education. And in terms of patriotism, I would argue, only a small part. It will be what their parents think and say about the country that has an impact on them. And I am concerned about what my son and his friends will think and say.
I’m going home for the reunion. Home to the place George H.W. Bush called the barometer of the country, Lubbock, Texas. We’ll have a great time. We’ll tell old stories. We’ll show pictures of kids and grandkids. We’ll give each other a hard time about getting fat, bald & gray. Mostly we’ll hug and laugh. Some of us will even talk about that choir trip to D.C.
But we won’t sing any patriotic songs. And I wonder if anyone ever will again.
One of my most vivid memories of my teenage years was the trip to Washington, D.C. the summer before my senior year with a choir. Over one hundred of us, dressed in red, white & blue. It was 1976 and we celebrated the Bicentennial in style. We knew every patriotic song and sang them everywhere we could, including on stage with the President of the United States, Gerald R. Ford, and on national television at halftime of a college football all-star game.
Today my own son is entering his junior year in high school and I wonder if he and his buddies would even recognize songs like “This is My Country” or “This Land is Your Land.” They certainly would never consider participating in a choir that was singing such corny stuff. They don’t seem to view the country the same way we did in the seventies.
Some tell me that’s because they have come of age during the era of George W. Bush, when it appears our government, and therefore our nation, deserves no respect. I don’t buy that. Now I’m no fan of George W. Bush, I have voted against him five times. Twice for President, twice for Governor, and in the first vote I ever cast in 1978 I voted against him for Congress.
But how could they possibly be more jaded about our political leaders than we were in high school. We were too young to be personally affected by Vietnam, but we grew up watching Water Cronkite tell us the daily “body count.” Then came Watergate. Richard Nixon became the only president ever to resign his office about four weeks before the start of our sophomore year. But two years later we’re singing patriotic songs on the steps of the Capitol, the Jefferson Memorial and Mount Vernon.
Maybe it is our fault. I am sure that we have not set the example of patriotism that our parents did. Our parents were formed by World War II, maybe the same way we were formed by Vietnam. There is a glaring difference. They saw the war of their childhood for what it was, the battle between good and evil. We didn’t see the war of our childhood in the same light. It became the battle between our government and our citizens, or at least between the government and the nation’s youth. The protesters were eight to twenty years older than us, but we watched them closely. We were too young to be participants, but we were greatly affected.
So what did we pass on to our children, who according to the website the reunion committee has posted, range in age from 29 to 10? Clearly not patriotism. Oh, they’ll root for the US in the Olympics or the World Cup, but not with the passion we cheered the “Miracle on Ice” in 1980. And sing the songs? Not a chance. They know most of the words to the “Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America”, but they are not going to be singing them anywhere. I am disappointed in that, saddened. But I am really concerned about what our grandchildren may wind up thinking of their country.
If our children have grown up jaded and non-patriotic because of their parent’s remembrances of Vietnam, what will the next generation be like? What will the children of kids raised watching the war in Iraq be taught about our country? It won’t be patriotism I’m pretty sure. Will it be distrust? Or worse, indifference? I have earned my living most of my adult life in the political arena. I have known many politicians, both good and bad. I believe in our system of government and I am convinced it is the greatest ever tired, but I am worried.
A friend of mind who has a Ph.D. in history told me about a theory that most generations are more like their grandparents than their parents. They are more likely to hold the beliefs and participate in the activities of their grandparent’s generation. But they have to be taught about the good things of the country, and I am concerned about who is going to teach them that. I’m not talking about their formal education. Their teachers and their textbooks are only a part of their education. And in terms of patriotism, I would argue, only a small part. It will be what their parents think and say about the country that has an impact on them. And I am concerned about what my son and his friends will think and say.
I’m going home for the reunion. Home to the place George H.W. Bush called the barometer of the country, Lubbock, Texas. We’ll have a great time. We’ll tell old stories. We’ll show pictures of kids and grandkids. We’ll give each other a hard time about getting fat, bald & gray. Mostly we’ll hug and laugh. Some of us will even talk about that choir trip to D.C.
But we won’t sing any patriotic songs. And I wonder if anyone ever will again.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
DPS Wasting Your Money
Sometimes they just go out of their way to piss-off the Curmudgeon. This time it is the Texas Department of Public Safety. No, the Curmudgeon didn’t get another speeding ticket, and no, he doesn’t believe the DPS is doing this on their own.
On May 23, 2005 the Texas House of Representatives took up the controversial issue of private school vouchers (an issue with which the Curmudgeon has some familiarity). This was done against the wishes of most members, especially the Republicans. They did not want to vote on it because a vote for vouchers hurts them back home where lots of people live in the Republican suburbs because they like the schools, and a vote against them hurts them with the party establishment and some big time money people. Mostly one big time money person.
Private school vouchers have a constituency of one. Dr. James Leininger of San Antonio has spent millions of dollars trying to convince the Legislature to support vouchers. He has bused people in for hearings, hired lobbyists and, of course, repeatedly tried to buy elections. His success record has not been very good largely because the public realizes vouchers are bad public policy and they have repeatedly made that clear their elected officials. Every supporter of vouchers has a connection to Dr. Leininger. He has contributed to their campaign, helped fund their organization or paid for them to be at the Capitol. As I said it is a constituency of one.
The 2005 battle over vouchers was hard-fought, bitter, divisive and acrimonious to say the least. All well and good, the Curmudgeon likes a brawl as well as the next guy. People on both sides of the issue lost elections because of it (Carter Casteel voucher opponent and Kent Grusendorf voucher supporter being the most prominent). Again, all’s fair in love and war.
The story in the Capitol on that evening in May was that Dr. Leininger was in the back hall of the House meeting individually with Republicans. That would be a clear violation of House rules. The good folks over at The Texas Observer (bless their pointy heads ) decided to explore those rumors. The easiest way, they determined, was to look at the tapes from the security cameras located in the back hall to determine if in fact Dr. Leininger was back there. So they filed an open records request. http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2585
It is what has happened from there that pisses the Curmudgeon off. The DPS denied the open records request citing, are you ready, Homeland Security and protecting the Capitol from terrorists. Why? Because if the tapes were to be released then a terrorist could figure out where the security cameras are located.
Or they could just walk back there and look. The back hall is open to the public except when the House is actually in Session. You can walk back there right now and look around. You can even take pictures. The Curmudgeon has personally escorted a known felon through the back hall. (Disclaimer: It has been several years and I am a little foggy about whether he was a felon at the time or if the felonious activity occurred afterwards. Family, don’t you love ‘em.)
Attorney General Greg Abbott told the DPS they were wrong in denying the open records request and told them to release the tapes. District Judge Stephen Yelenosky told the DPS they were wrong to deny the open records request and ordered them to release the tapes. But the DPS has not done so and are currently appealing to the Third Court of Appeals in October. (If any of you know any of the judges on the Third Court of Appeals be sure they don’t see this blog. I’d hate to be accused of trying to influence them.)
What is the DPS trying to hide? Must be more than just Dr. Leininger being in the back hall. That is a violation of House rules, but there is no penalty for it. The worst thing that could happen is that some bad stories might be written about the Speaker abusing his power. Like that would be a first. No there must be something more on those tapes that the powers that be don’t want to be seen.
Now what really is pissing the Curmudgeon off is how much money the DPS has spent to avoid releasing those tapes. They have spent $166,000, so far. The appeal to the Third Court will certainly run the bill up and when they lose there they will likely appeal to the Supreme Court (The Texas Observer will almost certainly appeal should they lose), driving the cost still higher.
The Curmudgeon doesn’t know what they are trying to hide, though he has his suspicions, but it is not worth $166,000 and counting.
On May 23, 2005 the Texas House of Representatives took up the controversial issue of private school vouchers (an issue with which the Curmudgeon has some familiarity). This was done against the wishes of most members, especially the Republicans. They did not want to vote on it because a vote for vouchers hurts them back home where lots of people live in the Republican suburbs because they like the schools, and a vote against them hurts them with the party establishment and some big time money people. Mostly one big time money person.
Private school vouchers have a constituency of one. Dr. James Leininger of San Antonio has spent millions of dollars trying to convince the Legislature to support vouchers. He has bused people in for hearings, hired lobbyists and, of course, repeatedly tried to buy elections. His success record has not been very good largely because the public realizes vouchers are bad public policy and they have repeatedly made that clear their elected officials. Every supporter of vouchers has a connection to Dr. Leininger. He has contributed to their campaign, helped fund their organization or paid for them to be at the Capitol. As I said it is a constituency of one.
The 2005 battle over vouchers was hard-fought, bitter, divisive and acrimonious to say the least. All well and good, the Curmudgeon likes a brawl as well as the next guy. People on both sides of the issue lost elections because of it (Carter Casteel voucher opponent and Kent Grusendorf voucher supporter being the most prominent). Again, all’s fair in love and war.
The story in the Capitol on that evening in May was that Dr. Leininger was in the back hall of the House meeting individually with Republicans. That would be a clear violation of House rules. The good folks over at The Texas Observer (bless their pointy heads ) decided to explore those rumors. The easiest way, they determined, was to look at the tapes from the security cameras located in the back hall to determine if in fact Dr. Leininger was back there. So they filed an open records request. http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2585
It is what has happened from there that pisses the Curmudgeon off. The DPS denied the open records request citing, are you ready, Homeland Security and protecting the Capitol from terrorists. Why? Because if the tapes were to be released then a terrorist could figure out where the security cameras are located.
Or they could just walk back there and look. The back hall is open to the public except when the House is actually in Session. You can walk back there right now and look around. You can even take pictures. The Curmudgeon has personally escorted a known felon through the back hall. (Disclaimer: It has been several years and I am a little foggy about whether he was a felon at the time or if the felonious activity occurred afterwards. Family, don’t you love ‘em.)
Attorney General Greg Abbott told the DPS they were wrong in denying the open records request and told them to release the tapes. District Judge Stephen Yelenosky told the DPS they were wrong to deny the open records request and ordered them to release the tapes. But the DPS has not done so and are currently appealing to the Third Court of Appeals in October. (If any of you know any of the judges on the Third Court of Appeals be sure they don’t see this blog. I’d hate to be accused of trying to influence them.)
What is the DPS trying to hide? Must be more than just Dr. Leininger being in the back hall. That is a violation of House rules, but there is no penalty for it. The worst thing that could happen is that some bad stories might be written about the Speaker abusing his power. Like that would be a first. No there must be something more on those tapes that the powers that be don’t want to be seen.
Now what really is pissing the Curmudgeon off is how much money the DPS has spent to avoid releasing those tapes. They have spent $166,000, so far. The appeal to the Third Court will certainly run the bill up and when they lose there they will likely appeal to the Supreme Court (The Texas Observer will almost certainly appeal should they lose), driving the cost still higher.
The Curmudgeon doesn’t know what they are trying to hide, though he has his suspicions, but it is not worth $166,000 and counting.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Hunt Oil Co. Wins the War
Curmudgeon Chronicle for 9/18/07
As you know it doesn't take much to set the Curmudgeon off. He can be easily pissed off by fairly small matters. He is naturally skeptical and suspicious of the intentions of virtually everyone. But dammit this time they have really gone too far.
If curmudgeons cared about what other people thought (and we don’t) enough to feel that they needed to organize (and we don’t) and have a spokesman (still nope) the choice would be obvious. I’m pretty sure if you Google curmudgeon it shows his picture, if not it should. Close your eyes and picture what a curmudgeon should look like. You pictured Alan Greenspan didn’t you? (Well, you should have.) The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has a face that only a curmudgeon’s mother could love.
Mr. Greenspan has a new book out this week “Age of Turbulence.” He has in there his predictions about the possibility of a recession and other tidbits of economic advice. Mr. Greenspan is a self-described “libertarian Republican” (think Joe Don and Ron Paul). Whatever, he ain’t no liberal.
So what does he think about the War on Iraq? "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
What? Surely not. This war is about WMD’s, Spreading Democracy and Freedom, Fightin’ them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here, 9/11, the Pottery Barn. This is about lots of important stuff, but only some crazyass, black helicopter seeing, conspiracy theorist would believe it was about oil. Right?
Then there was this little tidbit in the news. The agreement between the Iraqis about how to share their oil revenues, the only source of revenues they have left, has collapsed. One of the apparent reasons is that Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas has signed a production sharing agreement with the government of Kurdistan. The Kurds have apparently given up trying to work with the crazier factions of the Iraqi government and working out a deal that would help everyone. They just want to produce oil, and revenue.
Similarly the Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas seems to have given up on working with the crazier factions of the US government and working out a deal that would help everyone. They just want to produce oil, and revenue. But is difficult to call Hunt Oil a rogue company. Ray L. Hunt, the CEO of Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas has long been a friend of the Bushes and a major political contributor. Moreover, he is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and one would think in a pretty good position to know what is going on in Iraq.
So Mr. Hunt is betting that an agreement with the Kurds is going to be better in terms of producing oil than an agreement with an Iraqi government would be. Why would an insider make such a bet? Obviously he does not believe that an Iraqi government will be in any position to make such an agreement for many years to come. The Kurds can make such an agreement even over the objections of the central Iraqi government, because the central Iraqi government has no ability to stop them. The US government has no interest in stopping them.
So what is it that pisses off the Curmudgeon today? Is it that we are killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and dislocating millions of others? Is it the nearly 3800 American soldiers who have now died and the 26,000 who have been maimed? Is it the $12 billion a month we continue to flush? All in the name of oil?
Nope. Today what pisses the Curmudgeon off is that Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas is a privately owned company and I can’t buy any stock in it. If the war is, as Mr. Greenspan says, about oil, we now know who won the war. Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas, a privately held company.
As you know it doesn't take much to set the Curmudgeon off. He can be easily pissed off by fairly small matters. He is naturally skeptical and suspicious of the intentions of virtually everyone. But dammit this time they have really gone too far.
If curmudgeons cared about what other people thought (and we don’t) enough to feel that they needed to organize (and we don’t) and have a spokesman (still nope) the choice would be obvious. I’m pretty sure if you Google curmudgeon it shows his picture, if not it should. Close your eyes and picture what a curmudgeon should look like. You pictured Alan Greenspan didn’t you? (Well, you should have.) The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve has a face that only a curmudgeon’s mother could love.
Mr. Greenspan has a new book out this week “Age of Turbulence.” He has in there his predictions about the possibility of a recession and other tidbits of economic advice. Mr. Greenspan is a self-described “libertarian Republican” (think Joe Don and Ron Paul). Whatever, he ain’t no liberal.
So what does he think about the War on Iraq? "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
What? Surely not. This war is about WMD’s, Spreading Democracy and Freedom, Fightin’ them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here, 9/11, the Pottery Barn. This is about lots of important stuff, but only some crazyass, black helicopter seeing, conspiracy theorist would believe it was about oil. Right?
Then there was this little tidbit in the news. The agreement between the Iraqis about how to share their oil revenues, the only source of revenues they have left, has collapsed. One of the apparent reasons is that Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas has signed a production sharing agreement with the government of Kurdistan. The Kurds have apparently given up trying to work with the crazier factions of the Iraqi government and working out a deal that would help everyone. They just want to produce oil, and revenue.
Similarly the Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas seems to have given up on working with the crazier factions of the US government and working out a deal that would help everyone. They just want to produce oil, and revenue. But is difficult to call Hunt Oil a rogue company. Ray L. Hunt, the CEO of Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas has long been a friend of the Bushes and a major political contributor. Moreover, he is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and one would think in a pretty good position to know what is going on in Iraq.
So Mr. Hunt is betting that an agreement with the Kurds is going to be better in terms of producing oil than an agreement with an Iraqi government would be. Why would an insider make such a bet? Obviously he does not believe that an Iraqi government will be in any position to make such an agreement for many years to come. The Kurds can make such an agreement even over the objections of the central Iraqi government, because the central Iraqi government has no ability to stop them. The US government has no interest in stopping them.
So what is it that pisses off the Curmudgeon today? Is it that we are killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and dislocating millions of others? Is it the nearly 3800 American soldiers who have now died and the 26,000 who have been maimed? Is it the $12 billion a month we continue to flush? All in the name of oil?
Nope. Today what pisses the Curmudgeon off is that Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas is a privately owned company and I can’t buy any stock in it. If the war is, as Mr. Greenspan says, about oil, we now know who won the war. Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, Texas, a privately held company.
The Surge
CURMUDGEON CHRONICLE 9/11/07
In 1980 Ronald Reagan famously asked the question “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Today, six years after the attack on the US, much the same question should be asked.
Are we better off? Are we safer? What has changed?
Well, let’s talk first about the things that have changed. We have lost some of our liberties. Wiretapping our phones with little or no cause is now sometimes OK. People can, and are, being held in prison with no charges and no trials. Airline travel is much more difficult and time consuming.
And, oh yeah, we are in a war against global terrorism. For some yet to be determined reason our leaders chose to fight the major battles in the global war on terrorism in a country that was not, until our invasion, participating in global terrorism. The rightfully discredited former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld once asked if we were creating more terrorist than we were killing. The answer is clearly yes. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before our ill conceived invasion of that country. Al-Qaeda was a fairly small ragtag bunch headed by a rich Saudi operating out of Afghanistan with the protection of the Taliban that had taken over that country. We rightfully attacked them and drove the Taliban out. At least out of the capitol. We set up a puppet government in Afghanistan that had full control of several parts of the city of Kabul, but never anything else.
Then we got distracted. It was like our leaders had ADD or something. The job was about half done and we decided it would be more interesting to do something else. “Let’s invade Iraq. How hard can it be?” We forgot to get the lead terrorist. Remember him, Osama bin Laden? If you have forgotten he released a second recent video today to remind you. He does this periodically just to thumb his nose at us. We also forgot to get the leader of the Taliban. Do you even remember his name? Don’t worry if you have forgotten it, you will be hearing it again soon enough. The Taliban is making a dramatic comeback while we’re not looking.
And where is the lead terrorist today? Well, it appears that he is hanging out in yet another country that is about to become unstable. He is in the mountains of Pakistan. The president (we can’t call him the dictator because he is ostensibly an ally) Pervez Musharraf is facing a crisis as two former Prime Ministers are trying to re-enter the country to challenge him. We have not gone after Bin Laden in Pakistan because we did not want to violate the sovereignty of an independent nation. Yeah, that is so like us!
Now it looks like the lead terrorist will be sitting in a country as it collapses into disarray and a possible civil war. Not to worry, what’s the worst that could actually happen? Well, I guess the worst that could happen is he could buy or steal weapons of mass destruction. Remember WMD’s? Well Pakistan really and truly has them. They are a nuclear power.
What can we do about the situation in Pakistan? Not a damned thing. See we’re busy with “The Surge.” So good luck to Musharraf and anyone within range of their nuclear missiles.
Now to the war that we created. Yesterday General Petraeus informed us that “The Surge” is working. It is working so well that he is prepared to begin to withdraw troops from Iraq. It has been such a success that he thinks that by July ’08 he will be able to withdraw so many troops that we will only have the number of troops left over there that we had before “The Surge.” What? How can that possibly be classified a success? Even in Washingtonspeak or militaryspeak that has got to make one stop and wonder. We had 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Not enough according to the President, we needed “The Surge.” So 30,000 more troops were added to the battle. That has been so successful that in another ten months we should have everything stabilized enough to be back where we were six months ago. What?
Read this part slowly so it sinks in. According to Gen. Petraeus “The Surge” is working in reducing violence. And therefore he is going to be willing to draw down the troops to 130,000 by July ’08. That is how many we had there in March ’07. That ain’t success, that is the status quo. Well, the status quo minus a few hundred more American lives, untold thousands of Iraqi deaths and $12 billion a month down the drain.
To hell with it. Let’s get back to the important stuff. Didn’t you think Brittney looked fat at the MTV awards?
In 1980 Ronald Reagan famously asked the question “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Today, six years after the attack on the US, much the same question should be asked.
Are we better off? Are we safer? What has changed?
Well, let’s talk first about the things that have changed. We have lost some of our liberties. Wiretapping our phones with little or no cause is now sometimes OK. People can, and are, being held in prison with no charges and no trials. Airline travel is much more difficult and time consuming.
And, oh yeah, we are in a war against global terrorism. For some yet to be determined reason our leaders chose to fight the major battles in the global war on terrorism in a country that was not, until our invasion, participating in global terrorism. The rightfully discredited former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld once asked if we were creating more terrorist than we were killing. The answer is clearly yes. There was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before our ill conceived invasion of that country. Al-Qaeda was a fairly small ragtag bunch headed by a rich Saudi operating out of Afghanistan with the protection of the Taliban that had taken over that country. We rightfully attacked them and drove the Taliban out. At least out of the capitol. We set up a puppet government in Afghanistan that had full control of several parts of the city of Kabul, but never anything else.
Then we got distracted. It was like our leaders had ADD or something. The job was about half done and we decided it would be more interesting to do something else. “Let’s invade Iraq. How hard can it be?” We forgot to get the lead terrorist. Remember him, Osama bin Laden? If you have forgotten he released a second recent video today to remind you. He does this periodically just to thumb his nose at us. We also forgot to get the leader of the Taliban. Do you even remember his name? Don’t worry if you have forgotten it, you will be hearing it again soon enough. The Taliban is making a dramatic comeback while we’re not looking.
And where is the lead terrorist today? Well, it appears that he is hanging out in yet another country that is about to become unstable. He is in the mountains of Pakistan. The president (we can’t call him the dictator because he is ostensibly an ally) Pervez Musharraf is facing a crisis as two former Prime Ministers are trying to re-enter the country to challenge him. We have not gone after Bin Laden in Pakistan because we did not want to violate the sovereignty of an independent nation. Yeah, that is so like us!
Now it looks like the lead terrorist will be sitting in a country as it collapses into disarray and a possible civil war. Not to worry, what’s the worst that could actually happen? Well, I guess the worst that could happen is he could buy or steal weapons of mass destruction. Remember WMD’s? Well Pakistan really and truly has them. They are a nuclear power.
What can we do about the situation in Pakistan? Not a damned thing. See we’re busy with “The Surge.” So good luck to Musharraf and anyone within range of their nuclear missiles.
Now to the war that we created. Yesterday General Petraeus informed us that “The Surge” is working. It is working so well that he is prepared to begin to withdraw troops from Iraq. It has been such a success that he thinks that by July ’08 he will be able to withdraw so many troops that we will only have the number of troops left over there that we had before “The Surge.” What? How can that possibly be classified a success? Even in Washingtonspeak or militaryspeak that has got to make one stop and wonder. We had 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Not enough according to the President, we needed “The Surge.” So 30,000 more troops were added to the battle. That has been so successful that in another ten months we should have everything stabilized enough to be back where we were six months ago. What?
Read this part slowly so it sinks in. According to Gen. Petraeus “The Surge” is working in reducing violence. And therefore he is going to be willing to draw down the troops to 130,000 by July ’08. That is how many we had there in March ’07. That ain’t success, that is the status quo. Well, the status quo minus a few hundred more American lives, untold thousands of Iraqi deaths and $12 billion a month down the drain.
To hell with it. Let’s get back to the important stuff. Didn’t you think Brittney looked fat at the MTV awards?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)