|
Eric AltarBoy
WHORES Fred Barnes
NON-PIMPS
|
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You know full well who the whores are, the ones who polly parrot the Bushitter regime's propaganda and make big bucks by lying to the public and obfuscating the real situation as developed by the powerful and moneyed interests. But in case you don't know who the A-List Whores are, they comprise such as shown to the left beneath the list of PIMPS who make really big money from whining about the whores. It is our contention here at MWPO that all news of these trying days has to be seen through the prism of truth, the truth that (1) democracy died in America in December of 2000 when the corrupt Supreme Court installed GW Botch as President, thereby handing the movers and shakers (bribers) of the Republican Party complete control of the governmental processes of the USA, and (2) oil is the driving economic force of the 21st century, and every action by the now totalitarian government of the USA is directed at controlling as much of the world's oil supply as it can do, using all the full force of arms available to it. You also know this: no American forces would ever venture into the mideastern world for one day, were it not for the oil beneath the desert sands of those fortunate lands. We surely would not risk American lives and spend American wealth to go dabble in the affairs of a bunch of bearded brown men unless they comprised a direct and imminent threat to the lives of the rich people in America, had already done something to the security of America . . . . . . or had oil. Even if these brown, bearded bastards did do an act of terrorism to rich Americans, we would not INVADE them, we would DESTROY them; we'd bomb their principal city to rubble; we'd destroy their command and control networks, and we'd vaporize whatever weapons of any description they might have amassed at that point . . . . . . . unless they had oil---in which case, we'd invade them and take their oil. So . . . since the pimps won't talk about oil, since the pimps won't talk about a government which is effectively a dictatorship, and since the pimps are far too busy gathering dollars to spirit away to off shore accounts for the day when America goes bankrupt, we intend to examine the actions of the Bushitter regime in terms of oil and totalitarianism. It really is the only way to make any sense of the news of the day . . . who can explain the US and UK going to war in the mideast with no reason given but some transparent lies? Who can explain cutting taxes to the extent that our country goes bankrupt? Who can explain why a postal clerk can't get a bank account for saving money which even keeps pace with inflation? Who can explain why a fine medical insurance system can be got by the same postal clerk, but none is available to the poor children of America? Well, the pimps could, but they won't because it might interfere with their own agenda which is to make as much money as they can for attacking the whores while the getting is good. So watch this space for an analysis of the news in terms of the real reasons for going to war and the real reasons for cutting taxes and the real reasons for hiding even the names of people who attended energy meetings. Oh, and one other thing to watch for: we contend that the puppet in the White House has never had a cogent thought; we'll be inviting anyone to dispute that assessment of the intellect of the moronic President. Oh, and this may amuse you, though I frankly don't think that there is any chance of a fair or meaningful election this November. V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V*V
(August 4, 2005)
Necessary Lies
the liberal media, and I do mean the liberal media like AA and Salon and The Nation and the Huffingandpuffington blog are obsessed with talking on and on about the lies the Bushitters told to get us into the war in Iraq.
A point I've not seen made anywhere else by any other iconoclastic curmudgeon is that of course they HAD to lie. Just for fun, let's see what the Bushitters would have said had they not lied.
"Listen up citizens, we're headed for a boondoggle in Iraq to steal oil, not exactly steal it, but the same thing as, because we are in such a tight spot economically that we have to nab something to make our currency and credit believable in the world, and believe you me, if we don't sell the world on it, we'll go down like Enron or Argentina in less than a month. As you might figure out on your own, there is very little of enough value in the 21st century USA to support our half trillion dollar trade deficit, and so we have to prop up our dollar with something, and that something is going to be stolen oil. I'm sorry if some of your children and relatives and friends are going to die in this war for profit, but when they signed on with the military they took that chance. We will lose fairly few soldiers in what will be a fast and decisive war, but the aftermath will be messy as hell because we don't intend to fix anything we broke, just control the oil."
That's just for starters . . . they then would have to explain why they ought to be allowed to covet, murder, and kill, but they wouldn't be doing the hat trick of lying at the same time.
But my point is valid: they HAD to lie; telling the truth about it would be unthinkable.
Instead of spending all our time castigating the Bushitters for lying, we ought to be concentrating on the real problem, which is that we are headed down the tubes if we let the arabs control all the oil on the planet, or about half of it anyway, and we have to find a way to wrest control of that oil from its rightful owners.
And it's not a question of conservation and alternative energy sources . . . it's not really about energy at all. If airplanes or computers were as important to as many industries and populations as oil, then we could try to corner those markets instead, but in the 21st century there is no other commodity which commands attention and butresses failing economies like oil. Oil makes pharms, oil makes pesticides, oil makes fertilizer, oil heats us in winter and cools us in summer, oil moves us and our products from place to place, oil lights our homes and ballparks, oil flies our planes, oil runs all of our heavy construction equipment; oil makes our plastics without which we would be lost; oil is not the most important thing in the 21st century, it is the ONLY thing in the 21st century that is important.
So Conason and Lyons are right; and so is Molly and so is Arianna . . . and I am wrong. The American public and the world won't accept the truth, no matter if I will and Gore Vidal will and Nick Kristoff will . . . so sorry, but denial or ignoring the issue is the way they handle it to keep us from a deep depression.
Now that I've written this, I'm in a deep depression.
(June 14, 2005)
Downing St. fakery
either the memos are a fraud themselves, or they chronicle fraudulent meetings and statements anent two countries ganging up on a third country to steal her oil without ever once mentioning the word "oil" in the process.
which? maybe both . . . I do think the memo was leaked on purpose by the power structure, not by some malcontent, and I say that because the memo makes ALL of them look far better than they actually ARE. This is not a chronicle of a bunch of crooked oil thieves plotting to kill a bunch of innocent people so as to take over control of their wealth, but that is EXACTLY what they were and what they did.
no, they didn't sit in meetings about stealing oil and talk of "regime change" as if it were an idea which came to one of them in a vision that has us trying to help the poor downtrodden Iraqi people who are so desperate for freedom and democracy that they will doubtless shower us with oil for our troubles. none of the crap I've seen mentions oil, which means that none of the crap I've seen is worth reading or trying to parse.
(April 24, 2005)
Please note that the non-pimp list has been expanded by one; Greg Palast finally decided to stop whining about fraudulent elections and get after the real dirty truth, the 21st century scandal in which the USA covets, lies, murders, and steals, though he hasn't got around to asking why on earth a country would spend hundreds of billions of dollars and many young American lives and body parts to get control of ten percent of the oil on the planet, when ALL of it would not pay off our national debt if we could pump it and sell it tomorrow morning. Just Google Palast and oil to see and hear his latest investigative report. Don't bother looking for this same reportage from the pimps; they won't touch it, because a discussion of oil and 21st century economics isn't going to happen outside another Cheney top secret energy meeting. Anyway, thanks to Palast for his hard hitting report even if it does come a couple of years too late to stop the carnage and destruction.
You know, I get personal replies from some of the pimps saying "I did TOO talk about oil," when they never have. Maybe someday I'll share some of their lies with you. The latest one comes from a surrogate for The Nation, not its editor to whom I wrote, but I suppose Katrina vanden Heuvel is too busy to tell her own lies. I'll put her name with the pimps when I get around to it; she's not really important enough to make much difference, but she is the very typical pimp, whining about all the minor foibles of the Bushitter thugs while ignoring the real travesties, and more importantly, the real reasons for our oil grab. (April 16, 2005)
I've been heartsick
The Atlantic Monthly is being dismantled in Boston and moved to Washington. Even when run by Michael Kelly, the best one could say about the rag is that it tried to to keep from telling outright lies as it lied to its readers. In other words, it was as phony as the NYT, the WP, CNN, NBC, and the rest of the phony media who agree to propagandize for the Bushitters by telling the truth, but only that part of it which suits the Bushitters.
The Atlantic was just as partisan as the Washiton Times or the Weekly Standard or the National Review or anything Fux, but Kelly had his standards and would not tell outright lies like those people do as a matter of policy.
You ask how I can brand ALL the above with the "L" for liar on their mastheads or foreheads, and I ask you when the last time was that you found any of them having a frank discussion about Iraq and oil, let alone the fact that by doing what we did, the USA became a second Nazi Germany which coveted, lied, murdered, and stole.
I wouldn't care if the whole media house of lies fell and went bang if there would rise from the ashes just a few organizations which would try to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The trouble with that is that even the internet bloggers like Parry and Kos and Atrios and Tom Tomorrow and even the one who should be there on top of it, Bagdad Betty, never mention oil, as if it were not even a part of our national shame. Even Al Franken, as frank as he is about the lying, won't tell the truth himself. Rhodes will, but not near often enough, and Garafolo tries in her own imperfect way to bring it up periodically, but no one MAKES A POINT of it emphatically and often.
Something near to three quarters of the American public, and perhaps the same ratio globally still believe that we went to Iraq to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction, and because of the connection between Saddam and Osama. Some of the rest believe that we were fooled into war by our own intelligence services which lied about the supposed threat to the country.
That last paragraph says it all: the performance of the entire information dispensing operation in America and the world is INEXCUSABLY incompetent.
You have heard about oil theft from Iraq and Afghanistan more times over the past three years on my blogs than you have from the combined NYT, LAT, WP, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, all of whom won't report the truth, only report that Democrats sometimes SAY that the Repuplicans are lying. But that's not all; the Democrats themselves including John Kerry in his campaign would not tell the truth about our oil pilfering.
All I can say is that Boston is well off being rid of a small cancerous mole, but is still stuck with lying media organs of monumental malignant proportions anyhow.
There are two truths that none of them go near. Oil is one, and the intelligence of the supposed President of the United States is the other. They all should have laughed and laughed when an outright moron was appointed POTUS, but they all covered up the intellectual nakedness of the foolish and witless Bush puppet. Jefferson and Madison and Hamilton and Franklin and Burr are all spinning in their tombs.
(December 2, 2004)
from Newsleak:
"...Asked to name Bush's biggest accomplishment thus far, Rove replied in a flash: "His clear-eyed explanation of how to win the war on terrorism. It was the defining moment of our time." In other words, the Architect plans to be fully engaged in formulating foreign policy—and, while he isn't thought of as a leading neocon, his views are squarely within that camp..."
The funny thing is that Newsleak didn't bother to mention that no such explanation exists, AND that the moron once said (quite rightly for a number of reasons) that the war on terror couldn't be won, only fought . . .
I suspect that the "message," if there be such, is that preemption is the order of the day, and we will be doing more of it, i.e. invading oil rich countries, on pretexts which make as little sense as those used in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The only real accomplishment of the Bush regime is that they have seen to it that the USA is engaged in constant war, and that we will get partial economic stability from stealing oil. This might be a good thing from a short-sighted viewpoint, better only by the comparison against NOT stealing oil and doing nothing else, which of course results in bankruptcy and the Venezuelization of America.
All is not bad . . . we ARE still selling the world about 700 billion bucks worth of goods and services; unfortunately we are in a position of buying about 600 billion MORE than we sell, which does then promote the sham that we have the wealth to back our credit and currency. Consider it like this: suppose we sold nothing and went out to buy 500 billion in goods and services. How would we propose to supply the "barter" for a half trillion in purchases? What wealth do we have which could in a pinch be tendered to the possessor of our credit or money when he comes to collect something for the dollars we gave him for his goods? You see, once we had enough gold to back our play; then we had oil, airplanes, grain, copper, iron ore, coal, steel, pharms, chemicals, and lots more we could offer the holder of our money. Now we have virtually nothing, and that is what has created this gigantic unbalance in trade . . . we are fast approaching the position of a third world country which can't buy anything abroad because it has nothing to offer in return . . . and what happens to those countries like Haiti and Indonesia and so on? Why they get exploited and their people work for pittances and many of them starve, that's what, and it can happen here as well . . .
Maybe the Democrats are right . . . if they took over now, there would be nowhere to go but down . . . and they'd be blamed. This way the Republicans certainly have total responsibility for whatever happens. I guarantee you that you ain't gonna like it. (November 3, 2004)
they had a chance for ending the war and bringing at least some of our troops home, and they said "fuck the troops, let the bastards die." They had a chance to get health care for everyone, mostly the children, and they said, "fuck everyone including the children." They had a chance to stop leaving children behind, and educate them all, and they said, "fuck the goddamned children." They had a chance to clean up the air they breathe and the water they drink, and they said, "fuck the goddamned environment." They had a chance to hope for fiscal responsibility, and they said, "fuck making money the old fashioned way, STEAL it by raping Iraq and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates." They had a chance to reform and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and they said "fuck old people; let them just die poor and forgotten." They had a chance to reject the Bushitter position on mideast oil, and they said, "fuck the goddamned arabs; lie, steal, and murder to get control of the coveted oil." They had a chance to use their government to fund research into dreaded and deadly diseases and they said, "fuck the sick and lame; let the bastards die."
No, not all of the American people said those things; but enough of them did that it will be the way things are until another coup replaces the Bushitters with more benign dictators.
Did they know that's what they were saying? Would they say it to your face? Of course not . . . they are evil, but they aren't stupid. They are selfish, but they aren't openly cruel.
And don't forget that prejudices will grow and thrive under this benighted and bigoted bunch of thieves, murderers, and liars. The black people in the south will likely have to move to the northeast or to California, and the Muslims, even the ones who were born here, will be deported to some arabic or Islamic society somewhere. Make no mistake about it, the Bushitter gang has promised the whites in the south that they will be "protected" from those uppity negroes who want to go to school with the whites and work jobs that whites "need." And if you want an abortion, you will have to be rich enough to afford one because the common people will not be allowed to get them.
Oh, and if you are homosexual . . . . . . . get the fuck out of America, you goddamned faggots, and stop molesting our children like you always have.
Do the people of America know what they are saying to the world? Probably not . . . and they don't give a shit either.
(October 1, 2004)
Now you know: Bush is a moron. And you also must be aware that he can't tell you what he himself doesn't know, i.e. that the USA has a plan in the works to invade Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and perhaps Iran after bombing them all into submissive postures. The supposed debate last night was a great tapdance by two liars, one of whom, Bush, really hasn't a clue about what decisions have and will be made by his masters, and the second, Kerry, who wouldn't say "oil" if he had an anal cavity full of it. Oh, he mentioned the word when he noted that the USA didn't guard any ministries in Iraq but the Ministry of Oil, but he did no follow up on the subject and left us all wondering if he's not just another shill in the same fascist totalitarian game which has taken over the United States of America. What neither liar dared to tell is that without the oil under its sands, Iraq is of no more interest than Sudan or Rawanda, or for that matter North Korea, who are so eager to be invaded by the USA that they have made nuclear bombs to try to get us to come stop them. If Kerry doesn't want to talk about oil, then I don't want to talk about Kerry.
The "debate" was a sham, a concerted effort by both men to keep the American public and the world in the dark about how America's thirst for oil has made us into the 21st century version of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. World domination yes, but via control of the oil supply, not by geography.
(August 26, 2004)
One short item on the (not so)swift boat people: listening to anything they have to say would be like listening to Karl Rove or Brit Hume---since you already KNOW you can't trust them, why waste your time? The O'Neill book is the "Clinton Chronicles" revisited, a bunch of scurrilous lies about a Presidential candidate. And finally, there is no one who believes this kind of shit whose mind you ever would change by presenting him with the truth, so again, why waste your time and effort?
(July 4, 2004)
Even seemingly intelligent Americans are hoping a movie will come to their rescue and save their democracy from the cancer currently infecting their government. I can't say that movies haven't taught me a great deal, or at least helped me to learn things I might never have experienced, but movies are fantasy, and I have little faith that Michael Moore's movie, as thrilling as it may be, will in any way affect the course of our history. That any are even able to accept the monkey-faced moron as President of the United States is indicative of the American public and many foreign powers giving in to fantasy and denying reality altogether. It isn't so much that we couldn't beat the Bush regime if given a fair and honest election, it is the utter absurdity of having to do so. How anyone, even his own party, could accept the cretin as the leader of the free world is completely beyond the comprehension of any person who knows his ass from a hole in the ground.
(May 27, 2004)
More on the Abu Ghraib "scandal" . . .
The Army is lying to cover its collective ass; the media is lying to cover Bush's ass; MajGen Geoffrey Miller is Heinrich Himmler.
The USA has not only lost the high moral ground, we have sunk to the level of the WW2 Nazis and Japs. Indeed, the Nazis treated us better than we are treating our prisoners. The Nazis tortured Jews to get them to tell where their money was hidden; we are torturing Iraqis to get them to tell us where their brothers-in-law are hiding. I am ashamed of what my country has done under the Bushitter regime.
(May 6, 2004)
On the Abu Ghraib "scandal" . . . here
(April 21, 2004) In passing, the WouldWhore book, "Plan of Attack," is about the same as all the rest of the WouldWhore books, near ninety percent false and ten percent true, but you don't know which tithe is the truth. You'd do well not to believe any of it which hasn't been verified twice or thrice by separate sources. It appears that the purpose of this new travesty on truth is to promote the idea that the moron isn't a moron at all, and that oil had nothing to do with our campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldwhore makes the moron out to be a resolute religious man who supposedly condemned all those innocent Iraqis to death so he could triumph over the evil of Saddam, but you and I know that there are two facts which don't support that claim: (1) Bush is and always will be a moron; and (2) the Bush regime would not have set foot into either Afghanistan or Iraq were there not oil for the taking in both places. I personally don't believe one word of the crap we've been fed about Bush's religious beliefs---not one goddamned word. A religious person is at least a thinking person, and I have seen not one iota of evidence that Bush has ever in his miserable life had one single cogent thought.
(April 16, 2004) more hurrahs . . . Randi Rhodes said the "o" word on air on AA Wednesday afternoon. On Thursday morning we found that David Liu who owned the Chicago and L.A. stations renting space to Air America had shut them off the air. Liu didn't say there was any connection between the two items, but he didn't have to. Rhodes had the temerity to state unequivocably that oil was the reason we were dying and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so even though I admire her, I can see how the people who love Bush the moron would not like her pointing at him and saying he was nekkid as a jaybird and dumb as dirt.
(April 10, 2004) Another hurrah: I don't think Robert Dreyfuss [http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html] was ever a pimp like Conason or Lyings or I'veIns, stealing money from the big shots by pretending to be critical of the Bushitters, while never once mentioning the word "oil," so I can't say he has converted, only that I welcome the chance to place his name among non-pimps anyway. It's like this: if you don't believe me, ask Dreyfuss; if you don't believe HIM, then ask yourself if the USA or UK would be going to war somewhere there was no oil---just because it would be a good thing to get rid of a tyrannical despot and free some people who seemed to be doing just fine until we came along to help them defeat some Iranians who were also after their oil. It seems so simple to me: no oil, no US presence. And another thing: people make something of the fact that we don't get much oil from the mideast; well, we get it from closer places, of course, like Canada and Mexico and Venezuela, but only because of transportation costs . . . and the fact that mideast oil is THERE is very important to the price we pay for the oil we do get. I am so happy that Dreyfuss agrees that we have to finish the job by stealing the Saudi oil, and picking up the Emirates' oil in the same bag.
(April 6, 2004) Hurrah! A pimp has (sort of) converted! Robert Scheer has placed a column in the Los Angeles Times which states that "...Under the false conceit that the adventure made sense as part of the fight against terror, the U.S. seized a country containing a major portion of the world's most valued and scarce resource. Yet our leaders expect the natives to believe that the corporate camp followers of the U.S. military are only swarming over their country for the purpose of humanitarian reconstruction...." and then . . . "...his focus was the irrelevant target of Iraq, defanged by 10 years of sanctions and U.N. weapons inspections but still possessing huge reserves of black gold. Few in the rest of the world, least of all the Iraqi people, are buying the administration's current line, that the prime goal of the occupation is simply to turn Iraq into a good place to live...." Why I say "sort of" converted is because Scheer doesn't use the "o" word; he won't go that far. But there can be little doubt that when he says, "the world's most valued and scarce resource," and then "black gold," that it is indeed OIL to which he refers, if obliquely or euphemistically. welcome to Robert Scheer: another honest commentator.
(March 22, 2004) Pimp Perkins url is <http://www.thismodernworld.com/> . . . a take off on Brock and Coulter and the rest of the whores . . . and more of how it's not about us, but about Perkins and Rall and Miller and Franken and Moore . . . These people don't think the current situation is about the American people losing democracy and having jackboots kicking them into submission; they think it is about how cartoonists and writers can make big bucks selling stories about how the right wing lies to the world---particularly if they are secret and silent members of the privileged right wing themselves, reaping vast profits which probably go to Cayman Island repositories or Switzerland as euros or yen. In the last two weeks I've been watching Rall's blog, he has had nothing about anything other than himself. And Perkins is little better. The big news is the revelation by Clarke, but the media are all running to spin it a la Cheney. The pimps won't talk about it much, because to do so might mean they have to ask WHY? What's the guy's name, Hadley . . . went on 60 Minutes to LIE outright. But what else could he do? When you covet, lie, murder, and steal, you have to keep on lying; you can't ever give in and admit what you are and what you have done. This is what the mafia is all about, and it's what Enron was all about. Now the USA and Britain are all about the very same things. Repeat: covet, lie, murder, and steal.
(March 14, 2004) open letter to Mr. Margolis: (subject "nice work") As the subject says, "nice work" with your piece at <http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_mar14.html> . . . however I disagree in two ways: (1) extrication from Iraq should not be contemplated; the US position in Iraq will be used to engender attacks and occupations of both Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, the first having more than twice the oil of Iraq, and the second having very nearly as much as Iraq; (2) the Bush regime doesn't give a tinker's damn for Israel or her security; that was as much a pretext as weapons of mass destruction; what the "neocons" like Perle and Wolfawitz and Firth (and Feinstein and Schumer) were used for was to neutralize the "normal" Jewish lobby's affinity for both peace and the maintenance of civil rights for all citizens of the world; as long as the Jews could be persuaded that the "plan" was taking out their worst nightmare of the 21st century, a nuclear tipped Saddam, they could be counted on to subside and allow the war mongering to continue. So far, it is you and Chris Floyd and occasionally Gore Vidal who are willing to tell the truth and open the dialogue about oil. It's not selling it for profit that matters; it's controlling it for economic blackmail or extortion, and controlling only ten per cent of the world supply is nowhere near enough. With the Saudi, the Emirates, and the Kuwaiti oil we will have about half the world supply . . . that will be sufficient. Sam
(March 8, 2004)
Please don't talk to me about Kerry winning any election. In case you didn't watch in 2000, there were two people who ran against Botch, and neither was allowed to win elections that they deserved to win. First it was John McCain who was destroyed, and if he had fought back as he would like to have done, then his wife would have been killed or maimed, and his children would have been attacked. He was not going to be allowed to stay in the race even though he would have won hands down over a moron who has nothing to offer but money.
Then came Gore, who was misrepresented by the paid assassins in the supposedly liberal media, and then when Gore won the election despite massive vote fraud on the part of the GOP, they STILL managed to ace him out by calling on the Supremely corrupt Court to intercede in state matters and deliver Florida to the loser. Even if the criminally corrupt five bribees of the GOP had NOT delivered the election to the Bushitters, the Florida legislature was poised to do so anyhow. As I said, the Bush regime had no plan of losing . . . had Gore looked like the obvious winner at some point, he would have been killed.
If Kerry ever looks like the obvious winner, he too will be killed. These are not children you are messing with here; these people are as brutal and as merciless as Stalin or any Chinese dictator or as Castro or Saddam or Idi Amin . . . Believe me, they do not intend to lose control of America.
(March 5, 2004)
don't you think that by now it has begun to sink in to the American people that Botch is a moron?
I mean, the media and the rest of the hangers on are surely trying to fool the people into believing that the idiot has a brain, maybe just because they think it is sad that the USA had sunk to the level that even a moron could be its President, but you know that we all have been waiting for the moron to do something or say something smart for four years now, and he has yet to make one intelligent observation about ANYTHING.
The only recording I have heard in which he sounds slightly intelligent is the one where he admits that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11." He says this in a low key, matter of fact tone which actually sounds like he knows what he is talking about . . . and perhaps that is true, but he had so often said things which were quite opposite, and so you have to believe that even if he knew this one thing, he hadn't known it long enough or well enough to stop the carnage in Iraq if he were capable of doing so, and he wasn't.
But isn't the public finally coming to the realization of Botch's ignorance? I realize that they haven't been waiting as I have for 4 years for the moron to give the slightest indication of cogency, and they haven't looked at his stammering and stuttering and silly statements with the contempt that I feel for this fool, but like the water wears down stones, 4 years of Botch ought to have made some impression on the public, and since the only correct one is that he is an imbecile . . . .
(March 3, 2004) <http://www.progressive.org/march04/ivin0304.html> "...For a long time, anyone who questioned Bush's ability to think was pointed to the opinion polls and told that discussing whether or not the President is borderline stupid was bad manners and counterproductive. Actually, that is the main problem with Bush: He neither reads, nor writes, nor speaks well..." Add the fact that he is incapable of cogent thought, and you have the hat trick. I told Ivins this a year ago, and she told me to read her book.
(February 28, 2004) Letter to The Guardian:
There has been a recent criticism of the NY Times regarding a repeat of their lack of credibility first noted by Lippman years ago . . . a la the lies they told about the Bolshevik revolution in the 1920 era. [see <http://antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2052> for one such]
I note that both of you and the rest of the world media are repeating history.
There is no way on God's earth that either the UK or US would invade and occupy an Iraq which lacked 112 billion barrels of oil beneath her sands.
No way.
But because no one wants to be a part of the Nazi anschluss of 2003 (aka the rape of Iraq), and the FACT that it requires one to accept the TRUTH about the "war," i.e. that the US and UK banded together to covet oil, to lie to take their people to war, to murder innocent people and their own military members so as to STEAL oil, the world media today IGNORES the truth about why the war was promoted in a freshet of discussion about something which was an irrelevant pretext to war, weapons of mass destruction.
I guess you want so desperately for the world to be a better place than it obviously is that you cover up the truth so as to let us all go to bed nights in ignorant bliss.
Scott Ritter told you there were no wmds to be found, but you dismissed his truth and kept on with the lies of the propagandists, didn't you? Instead of insisting on the truth, no matter how harsh, you allowed the wishful thinking of the ignorant people to influence your own purpose and destroy your sense of duty to the truth.
What will you say when the obvious sequel to the anschluss of Iraq occurs, and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates are folded into the oil-driven hegemony of the mideast? Will you tell the truth about that, or will you continue to lie as you have done and are doing now?
I have but one question left for you: is it denial or knowing collusion that keeps you from seeing and reporting that there is absolutely no reason for anyone from the UK or USA being in Iraq at all except to steal oil? Surely you can't possibly think there is something else there which lures us and keeps us where we are resented and reviled? Do you have eyes and see not, or are you truly blind?
Sam (February 25, 2004) John Podhoretz promoted his new book, "Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane," on Jon Stewart's Daily Show last night, and I do hope someone will read this book and inform me of the page(s) containing the proof that Botch is NOT a moron, i.e. the passages which state unequivocably that Botch had a cogent thought at some point in his miserable life. Podwhoretz claims that Botch is brilliant, articulate, and masterful; not a moron at all. I remain skeptical since I have never seen the first offering by Botch which is not the act of a retarded person.
(February 19, 2004-cousin SamB's Birthday) Having backed off and looked at what most of the internet pundits have to say about the Bush awol-deserter thing, I'm convinced that I am correct that the approach to it is not in the who, what, when, and where, but in the why . . . First, I believe that the fact that the Air Force DIDN'T do an investigation about Bush's failure to get his flight physical says that the AF agreed with the outcome, i.e. that Bush was grounded. And I don't think Alabama was relevant in any material way to the story; Bush had to be somewhere while the grounding was done, and finding him a graduate school which would take a big bribe to allow him in would be his way out of the national guard altogether. It was like the Air Force knew that he needed to do some drills to make up lost time so his discharge could be effected, and so in the process they allowed him to make up the drills WITHOUT FLYING. Why would they do that? You can reach your own conclusion about that, but my take is that the Air Force bent over backwards to get rid of Bush. Privilege might have got him in, but his demise as a flyer seems to have been a thing of mutual advantage. We have the advantage of hindsight in knowing that he has screwed up just about everything he has ever touched, so I say hats off to the Air Force for seeing what a pitiful incompetent the moron is. (February 14, 2004-Valentines Day) I will miss Media Whores Online. While I have had my misgivings about supporting someone who refused to condemn the Iraq war until it was a sure thing with troops committed, I do think that MWO was the best deflater of the Bushitter propaganda on the internet. No, they did not ever once mention oil, and for that reason I labeled them pimps, but as you already know, very few are willing to accept the fact that the USA and UK coveted for, lied about, murdered to get, and stole oil. (February 12, 2004-Lincoln's Birthday) I don't think Bush went awol from the TANG because he was drunk or on drugs; I think he quit flying because he was both incompetent and scared. Some say he had a private license later and flew the family plane; I doubt he had a real private license, but if he did, they waived the tests for it through privilege. He could never have been a pilot. Oh, he could FLY . . . yeah; but you can teach a monkey to fly (and that is what the TANG did), but you can't teach a monkey to be a pilot. A pilot has to be able to do geometric calculations, algebraic calculations, and then apply those calculations to the speed, direction, fuel consumption, and winds aloft so as to use instruments to get from one place to another. On his best day ever, this moron couldn't have done this job. A pilot also has to be able to read and comprehend what he reads, from weather reports to airfield procedures to FAA regulations; the moron has to have others do the reading and explaining, and he is proud of it. (February 11, 2004) A tempest in a teapot? Who cares where a moron was in 1972? Let me emphasize again that there are only two things to discuss; all this other is distraction by both the whores and the pimps. (1) Oil. We have a right to have this dialogue. I simply don't know whether the Bushitter regime is stealing oil just for profit, or if they rightly understand that it is necessary to steal oil because we have no other way to stem the tide of bankruptcy which assails us a la Argentina and Enron. We can't be put off by those who point out that even if we got all the oil in Iraq out of the ground and ready to sell, it wouldn't amount to half our national debt. That is true, but also irrelevant because the control of the oil can keep the dollar afloat at least until all of us are dead and gone, and the world can figure out what to do then. (2) Incompetence of the POTUS. The President of the US is a nincompoop, a moron, utterly incompetent to manage or control much more than his own bowels. He can't speak with authority because he can't speak with words which are comprehensible. Putting him out there on Meet the Press was little more than a slap in the face to the people of America and the world. Having this fool explain something is like having a three year old tell you how an automobile works. Yes, a three year old child of an auto mechanic might polly parrot what daddy told him, but the message would be garbled and the logic missing; the organization of the facts would be amiss. If you don't want to talk about these two issues, then don't talk to me. (February 9, 2004) Everyone wants to talk about the "interview" with Potatohead Russet; why? What the puppet does and says is what they tell him to do and say. The fact that he comes off as inept and incompetent and looks like a deer in the headlights is because he is a moron. And he is like a prop for a magician's trick: if you watch and listen to him, you will miss what is really happening. (February 8, 2004) I guess the only thing I can say about it is that the United States of America surely must be a pitiful and weak sister if some asshole dictator from a third world country like Iraq is considered a grave and critical threat to her. But wait! What would we say if someone like Saddam REALLY WERE a grave threat? Why you are quite correct; we would play down the threat just as we do with North Korea and Pakistan and any other third world dictatorship. We would NEVER show that we FEAR some pissant like Saddam. That is, we wouldn't unless we were so intent on selling a lie about his threat so as to cover up our theft of his oil that we would forget how we'd behave if the lie were the truth. (February 6, 2004)
Perhaps we can't blame either the whores or the pimps; to talk about oil means we have to talk about and admit that we coveted, lied, murdered, and stole. Oh sure, the American public was led astray, but how the hell do you get a moron for a puppet President if you have not been led astray indefensibly? How do you get an imbecile in the oval office who doesn't know IAEA leader Mohamed El-Baradei's name or that Hans Blix led inspection teams into Iraq? Two things to remember: (1) It's about oil, and (2) Bush is a moron. (February 4, 2004)
"...The federal government's gross debt — the accumulation of its annual deficits — was about $7 trillion last September, which works out to about $24,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. But that number excludes items like the gap between the government's Social Security and Medicare commitments and the money put aside to pay for them. If these items are factored in, the burden for every American rises to well over $100,000..." .....in other words, our debt is around 30 trillion dollars, and the only good news is that we aren't paying interest on but a quarter of that, but still we owe so much more than we can ever possibly pay that we are effectively bankrupt. I remember a friend from years ago who had a small air conditioning business in West Virginia . . . he was driving around Charleston in a shiny new convertible, spending money like it was water, and was in hock up to his ears; he told me the bank kept on lending him money to pay his creditors because if they didn't, he'd default on all his loans, and they would lose every last bit of it; they just kept him going so he would pay the interest on THEIR loans, and of course they hoped he'd make a miraculous recovery sometime and they could get out from under it, but the truth was that they were just putting off the day of denouement---because he eventually succumbed and went belly up. The world is keeping us afloat because if we go under, their own standards of living tank right along with us. We afford them a fake feeling of security which will go up in smoke once it becomes clear that we can never make up the principal on what we owe them in goods and services in return for what we have taken from them in raw materials and their own goods and services. Right now we are delivering about 700 billion to them every year, but we are TAKING about 1.2 TRILLION from them. This is to say that we owe them about a half trillion a year that we cannot pay them. (the oil we are currently taking out of Iraq is worth about (1.5 million barrels a day) X (365 days per year) X ($35 a barrel) = $20 billion per year . . . apprx. In other words ALL THE OIL COMING OUT OF IRAQ amounts to only 4% of our trade deficit. So even if we occupy Saudi Arabia and steal their oil also, we likely won't be able to much better than to offset a quarter of our trade deficit. Think about it this way: we are buying half a trillion dollars worth more than we sell, meaning we are every year putting a half trillion dollars in our money out there for which we have nothing to give the people around the world when they come to redeem those dollars. Eventually they will figure this out, and we will see the Enronization of America. (February 2, 2004)
(February 1, 2004)
see Eric Margolis today: <http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_feb1.html> (January 31, 2004)
"What is certain is that the scepticism of so many major players simply adds to the justified clamour for a wider investigation into the question of whether the British government took us to war on a flawed prospectus." . . ." Whether? Get real. We went to war to steal oil. We planned it even before Bush2 took office in 2001, but we started the process for real and certain as soon as Clinton was gone. And be assured that if Saddam had any chance of having wmds, then we wouldn't have gone to war until we used our bombers to destroy each and every one of them. Nothing was wrong with our intelligence; it told us that attacking, invading, and occupying Iraq could be done without serious casualties to our troops, a "cakewalk." Yes, they lied about wmds; but as the pimp Perkins has so aptly put it, if you need an investigation to prove that to you then you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. For the second time in a strange silence, none of the whores and very few of the pimps have noticed that the moron has for the second time alluded to "Saddam not letting the inspectors in," as if the Blixmen weren't scurrying around Iraq like ants about a sugar spill. This and his allusion to "finding the wmds" when all we had was a couple of semis used to blow up weather-wind balloons shouldn't cause any alarm either since we've known from campaign 2000 that Bush2 is retarded. What is perplexing is that all of the pimps run away from the concept that Bush2 was chosen particularly because he is too stupid to try to make any decisions on his own and thus is no danger to his handlers in the sense that he might try one day to make a decision like a real President would do. Sure, he makes choices . . . whether the stewards bring cheeseburgers or blts. I believe pimp Conadsgone and pimp Perkins noted this "no inspectors" gaffe and mentioned it in passing, but not in the context of a President who is a puppet and a fool. Absolutely incredible . . . Once they admit that they had perfect intelligence and TOLD the Cheney people that there were no wmds, then they know that the real shit will hit the fan----so they PRETEND that they failed . . . to cover up the plain fact that the USA went to Iraq to steal oil. Using their "formula" that Saddam USED to do this, and USED to do that, and so they should predict that he had something he didn't have on that basis would be like them conceding that Bush still uses drugs and alcohol . . . It's like a freaking side show or Alice in Wonderland . . . they are driving me around the bend with their contortions . . . They also must see on that same basis that Momarfucker Godawfully of Libya is just jobbing them, that he has his nukes already buried in the desert, and he will trot them out and blow up London and Noo Yawk just as soon as we let Libyan ships into port. Let me see if I can explain it . . . The CIA knew full well that Saddam was no threat, but because Cheney asked them to do so, they sexed up some reports which indicated that he had wmds and nukes and was a threat, and then because no wmds or nukes turned up, they were accused of feeding Cheney bad reports . . . so now they are taking the fall for creating the fake threat matrix just so they can cover the asses of the Bush gang who wanted to invade Iraq to steal oil. Where it breaks down is that NO ONE could ever have concluded that Saddam constituted a threat because no evidence existed to support that claim. The only way to have made that claim is to have lied. So the question isn't how the CIA misled the Bush thugs, the question is how the Bush thugs got the CIA to lie in the first place. They had to be lying, because they had no proof; hence we now are at the place where we want to know who convinced them to lie. Since we know that oil was at the bottom of it all, we see it pretty clearly: the Bush thugs wanted to go steal oil, and needed an excuse, a pretext. They got the CIA and poodle dog Tony Blair to feed them fake material and sent Colon Piles off to lie to the UN about the threat posed by Saddam. Now we have the CIA not wanting to admit that they lied for the Bush thugs, and so they are once more taking the fall so the media doesn't have to start asking why we REALLY went to Iraq . . . they are selling it as "we went because the CIA fooled us." The truth is we went because we wanted to control Iraq's oil; we got the CIA and Britain to lie; now this whole fantasy-land surreal caper is going on so the Bush thugs won't have to admit that they coveted, lied, murdered, and stole.
|
|
|