Little Mr Mahatma

In which the middle-aged Peacenik mouths off about War Drones--and all the other things that make him cranky.

Mr Mahatma--who is a Mr in real life--lives in the valleys of Southern California with his wife, a herd of Dears, and an impressive collection of books. Pnorny!
He is reachable at:
littlemrmahatma@yahoo.com

All writings are copyrighted 2003-2008 and trademarked: Little Mr. Mahatma

tBlog Mirror

Some fun links:
Little Miss Attila - polar opposite and origin of LMM.

Critical Sites:
Dr. Forbush Thinks
Slashdot
Games Slashdot
UserFriendly
James Randi
Snopes
Home of the Underdogs
The Sun Online

For those generous in spirit, heart, and wallet:

Archives
<< current

Little Mr Mahatma

Thursday, May 27, 2004

Al Gore vs Real Gore
Not that I'm a big Al Gore fan but his little speech blasting Bush ("Real Gore") loudly proclaimed what many of us feel - that Bush et al have abused their positions, have abused the American Trust, and have made the world less safe. Critics of Gore cry that Gore should talk about honor when Clinton was getting some in that Oval Office.

But there's a big difference about getting head in the Oval Office versus lying to the American People and wasting *BILLIONS* of American dollars pursuing a private agenda.

In the '00 Election Bush criticised Clinton for spreading American forces too thin, of opening too many fronts. Bush said he wouldn't do that.

Bush get appointed President and starts his rampage of American pillaging when - BOOM! - 9/11. The entire world is shocked and outraged. Bush vows revenge on the terrorists behind the heinous act and the fingers point to Bin Laden. (Note, no mention of Bush ties to the bin Laden family).

Bin Laden apparently is hiding in Afghanistan supported by the Taliban. Bush says to the Taliban "GIve bin Laden up or else!" The Taliban tell Bush to do something nasty to a camel and in we go to Afghanistan. We have the support of the world as we go after the terrorist responsible for 9/11.

And this is where Bush blew it. He starts pointing fingers at Iraq. "Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction! He's going to use them against us ANY MOMENT NOW!!!" And with these cries of alarm Bush opens a second war in Iraq.

100 days later it's over. Hussein has been toppled. Life is good. The Iraqi people are ecstatic and quickly install a Democratic Government.

Except that last chunk of writing is pure fiction. It's not over. Hussein is gone - sure, but there's no Democracy in Iraq. The Weapons of Mass Destruction are like bin Laden, still not found and likely never to be found. Seemingly every day we have new revelations that Bush et al manipulated intelligence to fit their agenda.

We went from having the worlds sympathy to facing the worlds loathing, and we can't blame the French or the Russians. Only Bush and his cronies deserve the blame. By switching focus from bin Laden to Hussein, Bush lost the focus, lost the momentum, lost honor, lost credibility. He has brought disgrace to America and a new level of fear to the World. With the invasion of Iraq he has helped terrorist by giving them a cause to rally around. By not pursuing Bin Laden aggressively and persistently he has given the terrorists a leader to rally around. By taking the stance of proactively invading "threatening" countries Bush has placed America squarely as a target for the rest of the world, for if we have right to protect ourselves by aggression so does every other sovereign nation.

125,000 troops, $125 billions dollars, and Bush has no idea what he's doing in Iraq. You think that with those troops and that money, that Bin Laden could have caught by now?

And you have to wonder, if the EU and an Asian consortium demand that we disarm our WMDs or face military consequences would Bush comply? Would the King of the Hill allow himself to be brought down to the common level? Would the smirk and the arrogance disappear?

8:53 AM

0 comment(s)

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Nightmare
Bush is one heart attack away from being President...

When Is A Handover Not A Handover?
The proposed Bush plan is to hand over control of Iraq to an interim government by the end of June but keep U.S. forces in the country indefinitely with unlimited powers. Bush is trying to get it both ways: a "handover" so that he can crow about it for his election but not a hand over so that we still control the area (and profits). If Troops weren't dying daily this would be laughable. Chalabi would be laughable. The hunt for WMDs would be laughable.

If the whole damn thing weren't so sickening, it'd be laughable. When you think that the Bush/Cheney cabal can't be any more irresponsible or arrogant, they sink to lower depths. That Chalabi stank was obvious to those not wearing blinders. That the Iraqi prison abuse wasn't a few renegade guards was apparent to those not wearing blinders. That the invasion of Iraq was a fraud was obvious to those not wearing blinders. That our Government has been corrupted, disrupted, and near bankrupted by the Bush Cabal is painfully obvious to those not wearing blinders.

Bush has repeatedly stressed that he's for Personal Responsibility, that his group is for Personal Responsibility, that America is about Personal Responsibility. Yet he has demonstrated - repeatedly - the fine art of avoiding Personal Responsibility. Of making promises (June handoff) and kinda, sorta filling them (your country but we control it). Of taking illegal, immoral, or ill-advised actions (invading Iraq) under false pretenses (WMDs) but justifying them by later changing his meanings and motivations (WMD-like, and Hussein was bad - that's why we went in).

The continual lying, hypocrisy, manipulations, half-truths, denials, and appeals for blind belief are beyond analysis. It's tiresome to every week, every day, point out the faults and the lies that our Government foists upon us. For many of us it's obvious. For others they refuse to see because of ignorance or fear or "patriotism" (fanatical loyalty) and so we bang our heads on our desks in frustration.

The result is obvious. America, once proud, is a laughingstock with a leadership not be trusted but instead - backed by a hellacious nuclear arsenal - to be feared. And I fear that if we don't get out of Iraq entirely then America will face more terrorism, more universal hatred than can be imagined.

New Cabinet
It's been mentioned that if Bush wins the election he'd likely change his Cabinet. I suggest he replace Rumsfeld with The Father, replace Powell with The Son, and replace Rice with The Holy Spirit. Then Bush could play god all proper-like. Ooops, almost forgot, Cheney would be replaced by Mary. Which one I leave up to you.

Moore, Moore, Moore - How'd You Like It?
He wins the Palm D'Or in Cannes. Gosh, maybe "Fahrenheit 9/11" has a kernel of truth in it somewhere. Meanwhile we're still looking for bin Laden, singing:

(to the tune of Bill Bailey)

"Won't you give up bin Laden?"

"Won't you give up?"

"Bush moans the whole night long"

"I'll shift the troops, bin Laden. I'll bomb Iraq"

"I'll fly your family home."

"I need to get elected, get my career resurrected,"

"Bin Laden, won't you please give up."

Prison Escapades
In his latest Iraq speech Bush mentioned that the Abu Ghraib prison would be torn down after we build a new maximum security prison. What a nice symbolic gesture. We'll modernize Iraq, foot the bill, and you can be damn sure that no old-fashioned torture devices will be in the new prison. No sirree. We'll give them the most modern of torture devices, the finest in interrogation drugs.

Because Iraq will become modern even if we have to stay there to make sure.

8:22 AM

0 comment(s)

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Not For Profit
'WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House ruled out tapping the US strategic petroleum reserves in response to soaring gas prices that may pose a political threat to US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election bid.

Spokesman Scott McClellan said the stockpile was meant to defuse an emergency, and that lawmakers worried about the high costs at the pump should approve Bush's controversial energy plan.

"Our position remains the same," he said. "Because the Strategic Petroleum Reserve being there in the event of National emergencies, in the event we would be attacked or there would be severe disruptions in the supply of oil."

"The president is concerned, like all Americans, about rising gas prices. It's important that Congress passes a comprehensive energy plan so we don't have to go through this every year," said McClellan.

"We will continue to do what we've been doing that is to stay in close contact with producers around the world to urge them not to take action that would harm our economy or hurt consumers here in America," he said.'

Translation: We're making big bucks here and we don't give a shit if people have to take second mortgages for gas. And maybe we can blackmail Congress in to voting for our stupid Energy bill.

America - held hostage for oil.

Bucks for Booboos
LA Times reported recently that in order to foster better relations with the Iraqi citizens we're using the Good Ol' American ploy of bribery (or war reparations, however you want to call it). That's right. If we blow up your sheep, your home, your kids we'll pay you hard American cash, courtesy of the freedom loving American taxpayers. We're good guys. We give you money. You buy CDs and Coke.

My question is this: How many Iraqis are happily taking our money and using it to buy weapons to use against us?

It's darkly humerous. We sell WMDs to Hussein. We tell him to get rid of them. We invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein. We give money to the Iraqis. They buy arms...

8:16 AM

0 comment(s)

Monday, May 17, 2004

Bucks for Bush
Worth a read so I reprinted it below. The Buck Stops … Where?

"Stop blaming your henchmen, Mr. President.

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Friday, May 14, 2004, at 2:41 PM PT

Not out of the loop after all?

And so it seems I, too, have misunderestimated the president. This past Wednesday, I wrote a column holding George W. Bush responsible for our recent disasters-the torture at Abu Ghraib and the whole plethora of strategic errors in Iraq. My main argument was that Bush has placed too much trust, for far too long, in the judgment of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, despite his ceaseless string of bad judgments.

However, two news stories that have since come to my attention-one that appeared on the same day, the other more than two months ago-suggest not merely that Bush is guilty of "failing to recognize failure" (as my headline put it) but that he is directly culpable for the sins in question, no less so than his properly beleaguered defense chief.

The first story, written by Mark Matthews in the May 12 Baltimore Sun, quotes Secretary of State Colin Powell-on the record-as saying Bush knew about the International Committee of the Red Cross reports that were filed many months ago about the savagery at the prison. Powell is quoted as saying:

We kept the president informed of the concerns that were raised by the ICRC and other international organizations as part of my regular briefings of the president, and advised him that we had to follow these issues, and when we got notes sent to us or reports sent to us … we had to respond to them.

Powell adds that he, Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice kept Bush "fully informed of the concerns that were being expressed, not in specific details but in general terms." (Thanks to Joshua Micah Marshall, whose blog alerted me to the Sun story.)

So much for Rumsfeld's protective claim, at last week's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that he had failed to bring the matter to the president's attention. No wonder Bush, in turn, rode out to the Pentagon and praised his servant-secretary for doing a "superb" job.

It's amazing, by the way, how Colin Powell seems to have scuttled his good-soldier routine altogether, criticizing his president at first quasi-anonymously (through Bob Woodward's new book), then through close aides (Wil Hylton's GQ article), and now straight up in the Baltimore Sun. One wonders when he'll go all the way and start making campaign appearances for John Kerry.

The second news story that heaves more burdens on the president comes from an NBC News broadcast by Jim Miklaszewski on March 2. Apparently, Bush had three opportunities, long before the war, to destroy a terrorist camp in northern Iraq run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaida associate who recently cut off the head of Nicholas Berg. But the White House decided not to carry out the attack because, as the story puts it:

[T]he administration feared [that] destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The implications of this are more shocking, in their way, than the news from Abu Ghraib. Bush promoted the invasion of Iraq as a vital battle in the war on terrorism, a continuation of our response to 9/11. Here was a chance to wipe out a high-ranking terrorist. And Bush didn't take advantage of it because doing so might also wipe out a rationale for invasion.

The story gets worse in its details. As far back as June 2002, U.S. intelligence reported that Zarqawi had set up a weapons lab at Kirma in northern Iraq that was capable of producing ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon drew up an attack plan involving cruise missiles and smart bombs. The White House turned it down. In October 2002, intelligence reported that Zarqawi was preparing to use his bio-weapons in Europe. The Pentagon drew up another attack plan. The White House again demurred. In January 2003, police in London arrested terrorist suspects connected to the camp. The Pentagon devised another attack plan. Again, the White House killed the plan, not Zarqawi.

When the war finally started in March, the camp was attacked early on. But by that time, Zarqawi and his followers had departed.

This camp was in the Kurdish enclave of Iraq. The U.S. military had been mounting airstrikes against various targets throughout Iraq-mainly air-defense sites-for the previous few years. It would not have been a major escalation to destroy this camp, especially after the war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. The Kurds, whose autonomy had been shielded by U.S. air power since the end of the 1991 war, wouldn't have minded and could even have helped.

But the problem, from Bush's perspective, was that this was the only tangible evidence of terrorists in Iraq. Colin Powell even showed the location of the camp on a map during his famous Feb. 5 briefing at the U.N. Security Council. The camp was in an area of Iraq that Saddam didn't control. But never mind, it was something. To wipe it out ahead of time might lead some people-in Congress, the United Nations, and the American public-to conclude that Saddam's links to terrorists were finished, that maybe the war wasn't necessary. So Bush let it be.

In the two years since the Pentagon's first attack plan, Zarqawi has been linked not just to Berg's execution but, according to NBC, 700 other killings in Iraq. If Bush had carried out that attack back in June 2002, the killings might not have happened. More: The case for war (as the White House feared) might not have seemed so compelling. Indeed, the war itself might not have happened.

One ambiguity does remain. The NBC story reported that "the White House" declined to carry out the airstrikes. Who was "the White House"? If it wasn't George W. Bush-if it was, say, Dick Cheney-then we crash into a very different conclusion: not that Bush was directly culpable, but that he was more out of touch than his most cynical critics have imagined. It's a tossup which is more disturbing: a president who passes up the chance to kill a top-level enemy in the war on terrorism for the sake of pursuing a reckless diversion in Iraq-or a president who leaves a government's most profound decision, the choice of war or peace, to his aides.

Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate."

And Colin Powell just apologized for his U.N. speech regarding WMDs, putting the blame on the CIA. But really the blame should go on those who pushed forward the agenda to give the speech despite faulty data.

Prison Abuse
The Bush Administration is claiming that the Iraqi Prison abuse is the work of a few rogue employees. How to put this politely...

Bullshit!

If the evidence coming out that this was not the case weren't enough, simple common sense should tell you that the Bushies are trying to cover up yet another idiocy.

The guards were tasked with getting Intel by any means and they did so with gusto, perhaps too much gusto. But they did their jobs with such a comfort level that they not only took pictures but even allowed the Red Cross to report on their activities! If this were the acts of a few rogues, these people would know they were doing something wrong and try to cover their tracks from the Red Cross, their superiors, and any other observers. But they didn't.

They were blessed from above. And how far up is the question.

The guards were trying to get Intel, not just having "sport". The Bush Admins are desperate for Intel, anything to show WMDs, anything to show al Qaeda links, anything to justify the invasian of Iraq. So do you think that the Bush Admin would bless this type of behavior? Of course, they would as long as they don't get caught!.

Like I said before, taking pictures was either real stupid or real arrogant.

Hussein
Prediction time. Within the next two months or so Saddam Hussein will "confess" that he did pursue WMDs, did plan to use them against the U.S., and did have links to al Qaeda. Al Qaeda will deny the links but by then the Bush Admin will be steamrolling off the revelations.

Michael Moore
I've never seen any of his films and I've read only one of his books. I like him because he gives Bushies fits.

They claim that Moore distorts the truth and manipulates the media so that he can make a buck. His films are nothing but chock full of lies and blatant Liberal propaganda.

Sounds like professional jealousy to me. The Bush cabal does exactly the same thing but with two big differences.

One - whereas Moore may make a few million off his movies, Bush et al are siphoning billions out of the U.S. treasury via open-ended contracts for an open-ended war.

And - two - Moore didn't start a war to further his own agenda. There's not a single drop of American blood on Moore's hands. Nuf said.

9:00 AM

0 comment(s)

Friday, May 14, 2004

Missile Shield
Billions for a Missile Shield that won't work. Is any one surprised? And considering that most terrorists don't use missiles, how is having an expensive, non-funcitoning Missile Shield going to help us other than keep people employed and certain CEOs wealthy? Maybe the Missile Shield is a long-term strategy in prep for the next Big Enemy, likely China.

The Missile Shield and Iraq once again demonstrate that we know how to wage war and waste tremendous amounts of money pursuing wars. But we have a problem with peace. Perhaps peace isn't good business. Perhaps peace means a status quo that threatens the grab for power and profits. Perhaps peace is such a scary concept for that minority population that hold political power, that they will do anything to avoid it.

And as taxpayers we foot the bill for their paranoia and war games. I'm not surprised that there's a push for electronic voting using closed systems. For now we have the money and the power of choice - theoretically. Get closed voting systems in, systems that have no accountability or verifiability, and we give our power of choice to those - ta, da! - already in power. And they can continue to spend our money on lame projects like a Missile Shield or for unnecessary invasians like Iraq.

Iraqi Prisons
I'm not surprised at the exploits in the Iraqi prison, for whatever reason. Whether it was a part of gathering information or solo acts of abuse, the actions taken by the guards didn't faze me. What did get to me was the stupidity or arrogance of taking pictures. That's a big "Duh!"

Pity that when Rumsfeld visited the prison, he didn't stay as he deserves. He probably announced a new policy of barring cameras and videos...

Lakers!
0.04 seconds. Fisher. Swish! Woof! There's hope yet here in Loonyland.

12:11 PM

0 comment(s)

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

A Little Break
It looks suspicious. Little Miss Attila takes a break for a vacation and I take a break for a "class". Hmmmm, we can't be one and the same. She's a no-apologies Bushie and I'm a "cut-the-crap" anti-Bushie. She lives in an armed fortress. I live in an open house with armed and legged kids. She thinks we went into Iraq to displace an evil person and that WMDs (or lack thereof) just aren't important in the long run - the ends justify the means. I think that telling the truth to justify one's action are often as important as the actions - the ends don't always justify the means, especially when you lose world credibility in the process.

Back to stupid shit politics. No wonder people don't want to vote.

Martha Stewart And Lost Jobs
Ms. Martha is asking for some sort of penal leniency because if she goes to jail then her employees may lose their jobs. I like this line of thought. Now CEOs can run rampant even further and use their companies as barter or hostage against penalties. But why stop there? If I commit a crime then i shouldn't go to jail because my family will suffer. They will starve due to the disappearance of my income. My wife will suffer undue horrors at the incarceration of her "bubba". My kids will undergo severe mental trauma for having an invisible father, much less one that is a jailbird.

Martha is right! How dare they put anyone in jail for in some way someone suffers.

Lakers
Now they decide to play some ball. How about two games guys!

Next year I hope to see Jackson, Shaq, Fisher, Malone, Walton and a lot of new faces. Swap Kobe for McGrady or another star du jour. Retire Fox. Let the others go free, especially the overpriced George.

3:13 PM

0 comment(s)

Monday, May 03, 2004

Bush Runs On Instincts
LA Times had an article, and I've read this before, that Bush is a leader that runs on instincts. That is, he doesn't go for deep analysis or bother with long term consequences, he just reacts - "Make it so!". I call this - without any ill intent towards Star Trek - the Picard Syndrome. I used to work for a Manager with this problem. At meetings he'd hear arguments for a certain course of action and with glee on his face and a slap on the table he'd say "Make it so!" particularly towards pet projects that would make him look good.

Problem was each week he'd "Make it so!" to directions conflicting with the previous weeks "Make it so"s. It was constant putting out fires that resulted from lack of deep thought on his part. He could captain a ship but only in circles.

Running on instincts, according to the Times article citing various experts, works if the moral "grounding" is good. I disagree. Instincts are good in sports or in combat where instinctual reaction is a matter of survival or winning. But we have brains for a reason, namely to reason. That Bush runs on instincts and not brain matter is a poor excuse for his shoddy leadership. He may have the moral integrity of Jesus himself but as the President of the most powerful nation on the face of this planet Bush should be using his mental capacities to their fullest abilities.

Crap! Maybe that's why he runs on instincts.

War on Terrorism vs War on Drugs
As we've descended into yet another wasteful nebulous war let's review the differences and similarities.

With the WoD you were at risk at the moment of creation. That is you could buy a halogen lamp, potting soil, and all the acoutrements but until you actually planted and grew the marijuana you were safe from prosecution. At least I think you were. "Innocent until proven guilty" still existed andhaving al the hardware doesn't prove you were going to do something illegal. Our children were taught to "Just Say 'No!'" to drugs without much explanatory information.

With the WoT you are at risk even in the planning stage which borders on thought control and censorship, and directly threatens Freedom of Speech. A criticism of Governmental policy (such as this) could be considered terroristic in that it may spurn someone to act in a violent manner. Our children will be taught to think "Clean, pure thoughts'" regarding the U.S. without much explanatory information.

Billions of dollars were/are spent on both wars with overall little preventive effect. Drugs and terrorism are still around and on the rise. However the political results have been acceptable - the occasional large-scale drug bust or caught terrorist providing photo-ops.

Both wars started under Presidents who seemed more like talking heads than active thinkers. Reagan and Bush were/are more like 'Yes' men to their cabinet than vice versa. Both were/are utterly convinced of the necessity of their War despite a lack of obvious targets, deadlines, and fiscal limites or responsibilities. Both had a plethora of convenient sound bites.

And, of course, there's the Bush Connection between the two.

I'm sure there's more. Have at it!

1:57 PM

0 comment(s)

Bush Runs On Instincts
LA TImes had an article, and I've read this before, that Bush is a leader that runs on instincts. That is, he doesn't go for deep analysis or bother with long term consequences, he just reacts - "Make it so!". I call this - without any ill intent towards Star Trek - the Picard Syndrome. I used to work for a Manager with this problem. At meetings he'd hear arguments for a certain course of action and with glee on his face and a slap on the table he'd say "Make it so!" particularly towards pet projects that would make him look good.

Crap! Maybe that's why he runs on instincts.

War on Terrorism vs War on Drugs
As we've descended into yet another wasteful nebulous war let's review the differences and similarities.

And, of course, there's the Bush Connection between the two.

I'm sure there's more. Have at it!

1:57 PM

0 comment(s)