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:

Bush Blames Saddam for Iraq Instability


By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON -
President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S.
 involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is
 threatening the formation of a democratic government. In his third speech this 
month to bolster public support for the war, Bush worked to counter critics 
who say the U.S. presence in the wartorn nation is fueling the insurgency. 


Bush said that Saddam was a tyrant and used violence to exacerbate
 sectarian divisions to keep himself in power, and that as a result, deep 
tensions persist to this day.


"The enemies of a free Iraq are employing the same tactics Saddam used, killing 
and terrorizing the Iraqi people in an effort to foment sectarian division," Bush 
said.


The president also pushed Iraq to speed up the formation of a unity 
government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several 
Iraqi cities


"I want the Iraqi people to hear I've got great confidence in their capacity to self 
govern," Bush said. "I also want the Iraqi people to hear — it's about time you 
get a unity government going. In other words, Americans understand you're 
newcomers to the political arena. But pretty soon its time to shut her down and 
get governing."


Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid accused Bush of sending "mixed 
messages" on Iraq that are hurting Iraq's chances for success.


"The president can give all the speeches he wants, but nothing will change the 
fact that his Iraq policy is wrong," said Reid, D-Nev. "Two weeks ago, he told 
the American people that Iraqis would control their country by the end of the 
year. But last week, he told us our troops would be there until at least 2009."


Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in sectarian violence and by death squads 
operating inside the Shiite-dominated ministry since the Feb. 22 bombing of an 
important Shiite shrine in Samarra set off a wave of revenge attacks. On 
Wednesday, gunmen lined up 14 employees of an electronics trading company 
in Baghdad and shot them all, killing eight and wounding six.


"Iraq is a nation that is physically and emotionally scarred by three decades of 
Saddam's tyranny," Bush said in a speech to Freedom House, a more than 60-
year-old independent organization that supports the expansion of freedom in 
the world.


Bush said Iraq's instability "is the legacy of Saddam — a tyrant who 
exacerbated ethnic divisions to keep himself in power."


Bush said it's vital to the security of Iraq that its police force not be infiltrated 
with Saddam loyalists or members of illegal militias. The violence has raised the 
urgency for forming a government representing all ethnic groups, he said.


The United States has been pushing Iraq to speed up the formation of a unity 
government, seen as the best option to subdue the violence gripping several 
Iraqi cities — and to allow for the start of a U.S. troop withdrawal this summer.


But the talks are fragile in a country with deep sectarian differences between 
Shiites and Sunnis and daily violent death tolls in the dozens. U.S. Ambassador 
Zalmay Khalilzad has asked one of Iraq's most prominent Shiite politicians to 
seek the withdrawal of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's contentious 
nomination for a second term.


"I know that the work in Iraq is really difficult," Bush said, adding that a free Iraq 
in the Middle East is important to the security of America.


He criticized lawmakers calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from 
Iraq — a move that Bush said would have disastrous consequences for 
American security. If troops were withdrawn now, Iraq would turn into a safe 
haven for terrorists, who could arm themselves with weapons of mass 
destruction and could attack moderate governments in the Middle East, he said.


"The Iraqi government is still in transition, and the Iraqi security forces are still 
gathering capacity," Bush said. "If we leave Iraq before they're capable of 
defending their own democracy, the terrorists will win."

Bush lied when he said that our military would be welcome with open arms. Some Iraqis did welcome us but, contrary to what Bush portrayed, an open-arm welcome was not - repeat NOT - on everyone's agenda.

To say that the Iraqis are "newcomers to the political arena" is to directly and grossly insult their intelligence. We don't want them to copy our system. Our Democracy is a shell of what Bush proclaims it to be and is only a corrupt mixing of the Religious Right and Big Business.

Or What? Invasion?

Bush to Iraqis: Time to Get a Government
AP 


WASHINGTON - President Bush expressed frustration Wednesday that Iraqis 
have so far failed to form a unity government, but he said withdrawing U.S. 
troops from Iraq too early would damage U.S. security. "I want the Iraqi people 
to hear I've got great confidence in their capacity to self-govern," Bush said. "I 
also want the Iraqi people to hear -- it's about time you get a unity government 
going. 

And they'd be right.

Or perhaps they should say "Jawohl, Mein Fuhrer!!"

Cool, I thought. A book of useful advice to keep me happy and away from those sharp kitchen knives, which, being unemployed as I am, looked mighty tempting.

So I start to read. And my jaw drops. I am astonished, amazed, and overwhelmed.

It's one of the most sophomoric, pompous piece of a turd literature I've ever had the displeasure to read. The tone is one of a preacher, that you wish to read the book and do these things therefore here's what you must do.

Worse, it's hypocritical and nonsensical as if written by a teenager. In chapter 18 titled "Respect the Religious Belief of Others" you can find this gem "Men without faith are a pretty sorry lot." In short, religion equals respect and this pissed me off. How many religions preach tolerance and respect but only for those who have "faith"? Pretty much all of them otherwise you lose the ground base for religion.

But, surely, this little booklet isn't a religious tract. But the next two chapters focus on the Golden Rule and a variation thereof. But by then I gave up. I ripped the booklet in half and threw it in the recycling bin.

Only to dig it right out again. Who was this group? And then I noticed the ultra-fine print. L. Ron Hubbard. This "Happiness Way", which proclaims itself as a non-religious foundation, is a subsidiary of Dianetics. The address of the main site pops up on the Internet under Scientology.org.

Scientology, as we all know, passes itself off a religion, worshipping the ramblings of a hack Sci-Fi writer. Please, no threats. I've read too much of L. Ron and he wasn't that good a writer. I should have recognized his style in the pamphlet. Besides, this is my opinion and is covered under the Constitution.

Back into recycling it went even though as a sorry lot that I am whay should I care about the environment?

Halliburden
What have we sayiong all along? Where's the accountability?

Halliburton overcharged for Iraq oil work: report

By Andrea Shalal-Esa Tue Mar 28, 7:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Halliburton Co., the world's second largest oil 
services company, repeatedly overcharged taxpayers and provided 
substandard cost reports under a $1.2 billion contract to restore Iraq's 
southern oil fields, according to a new report by U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman.

Waxman, a California Democrat, said Democratic staff members of the House 
Committee on Government Reform examined a series of previously undisclosed 
government audits and correspondence that criticized Halliburton's 
performance under the "Restore Iraqi Oil 2" (RIO2) contract.

The documents, which cover the period from January 2004 to July 2005, 
painted "an absolutely abysmal picture of Halliburton's RIO2 work" and cited 
profound systemic problems, misleading and distorted cost reports, he said.

Halliburton, a Texas-based company formerly run by Vice President
Dick Cheney, dismissed the committee report as partisan and said it focused on 
old issues with the two-year contract that have been resolved.

"After two years and from thousands of miles away, it is easy to criticize 
decisions and actions that were based on urgent mission requirements and 
severe time constraints," the company said in a statement.

Halliburton, the largest private contractor in Iraq, said the contract went through 
"countless changes" and review by at least 15 different government 
contracting officials.

Waxman, who has introduced legislation to limit sole-source contracts in the 
future, said lawmakers did not know much about what had happened with the 
contract since July 2005, adding: "From what we can see, major problems 
remain."

Halliburton said its engineering and construction arm KBR, which is gearing up 
for an initial public stock offering, had received 30 task orders under the 
contract to date, for a total current value of nearly $750 million and work was 
ongoing.

The Democratic report said that, in addition to the RIO 2 contract, Halliburton 
was also paid $13.5 billion for providing troop support under a logistics 
contract with the U.S. Army, and $2.4 billion under the original RIO contract to 
import fuel into Iraq and rebuild Iraq oil infrastructure.

The Pentagon's Project and Contracting Office (PCO) found that Halliburton 
repeatedly overcharged the government, Waxman said, citing the documents.

PCO put KBR on notice in January 2005 that it could cancel the contract for 
cause. It lifted the notice six months later, saying KBR demonstrated 
"adequate" compliance. In January, it exercised one of three one-year options 
to extend the deal.

In one case, the agency said Halliburton tried to inflate cost estimates by $26 
million. In another, it said Halliburton claimed costs for laying concrete pads and 
footings that the Iraqi Oil Ministry had already installed.

The report said the same agency reported Halliburton was "accruing exorbitant 
indirect costs at a rapid rate," while the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
challenged $45 million of $365 million in costs as unreasonable or unsupported.

The PCO also cited "profound systemic problems" with Halliburton's cost 
reporting and said some documents were stripped of information that would 
allow tracking of details.

It said Halliburton's work under RIO 2 was 50 percent late and officials refused 
to cooperate with oversight officials.

Halliburton, run by Cheney from 1995-2000, has been under scrutiny for its 
contracts in Iraq. 

Although it came out five years ago when Dubya had just faced 9/11, many of the comments and perspectives still hold true.

Because Washington D.C. doesn't stop spinning. Big Business doesn't stop spinning. Everyone is a whirling dervish trapped on a perpetual carousel of spin. That is: all is spin, including this book.

But it's still fun to read. Bill Press lambasts in both directions - Right and Left - with equal disdain. The problem is, after reading the book, you realize how much crap...I mean, spin...is coming out of Washington but what to do about it? From the book, it sounds like John McCain is the only D.C.-ite that is remotely crap..spin-free. A depressing thought there. There must be more spin-free people somewhere.

Get this book. Amazon has used copies cheap or hit a local bookstore. Get it. Read it. Don't listen to politicians.

Barbara Bush's gift earmarked to buy software from son's company
Associated Press

HOUSTON - Former first lady Barbara Bush gave relief money to a hurricane
 relief fund on the condition that it be spent to buy educational software from 
her son Neil's company.

The chief of staff of former President George H.W. Bush would not disclose
 the amount earmarked for purchases from Ignite Learning.

Since Barbara Bush's gift, the Ignite Learning program has been given to eight
 public schools with high numbers of Hurricane Katrina evacuees, the Houston
 Chronicle reported.

"Mrs. Bush wanted to do something specifically for education and specifically
 for the thousands of students flooding into the Houston schools," Jean Becker
 said Thursday.

The money was donated to the Bush-Clinton Houston Hurricane Relief Fund, 
said Steve Maislin, president of the Greater Houston Community Foundation, 
which administers the fund. That fund has no connection to the Bush-Clinton 
Katrina Fund, he said.

Barbara Bush chose to promote Ignite because she supports her son and has
 genuine enthusiasm for his company's program, Becker said.

Two years ago, the Houston school district board wrestled with conflict of 
interest concerns over the Ignite program. Neil Bush had helped raise $115,000 
for the district's philanthropic fund from donors who insisted the money be 
spent on his company's software.

The district accepted the donations and used them to pay half the costs of new 
Ignite software, about $10,000 per school.

Currently, Houston public schools use 15 Ignite programs and the Houston area
 has 40 programs, said company president Ken Leonard.

Neil Bush founded the Austin-based company in 1999.

Must be damn good software then. Let's take a look. Ignite Learning

"Introducing The Cow"...no, not Barbara Bush or the Bush Cash Cow. The Cow is nothing more than a gussied up speaker's stand, purtified for the young'uns. Oh look! On page three of their sample curriculum, they focus on Texas and particularly on People of Texas. You think they mention George W. Bush? You think they'll mention how great a governor he was, or do you think they'll be fair and impartial?

There's section called "Radical Republicans In Texas" but it refers to the Civil War Era, not current day. Pity.

Dunno. It seems kind of slimy that Ms. Bush would aggresively push her son's educational company and that company would have a direct influence on young minds. I'm thinking revisionist history for the youngsters. Make the Bush Hegemony almost palatable.

Thoughts? Something out of nothing?

Next stop for the Bruins: Indianapolis and the Final Four.

But, until next week, please! Coach Howland - Have the guys shoot a few hundred free throws, especially Hollins. He'll be going up against Cry Baby or whatever the hell that LSU monster's nickname is. Glen Davis will need to be stopped.

Reid: Bush 'Dangerously Incompetent'

(AP) Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called President Bush "dangerously 
incompetent" on Wednesday and said the administration ought to be doing more 
to prevent increasing sectarian violence in Iraq.

"Where is (Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice? Why isn't she over in the 
Middle East, as the chief diplomat of this country should be, trying to get the 
political forces to form a government over there?" Reid told The Associated 
Press. 

Must be the conservative bias in the media.

Critic of spying program to shepherd bills through Senate
By Katherine Shrader, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A vocal Republican critic of the Bush administration's 
eavesdropping program will preside over Senate efforts to write the program 
into law, but he was pessimistic Wednesday that the White House wanted to 
listen.

"They want to do just as they please, for as long as they can get away with 
it," Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said in an interview with 
The Associated Press. "I think what is going on now without congressional 
intervention or judicial intervention is just plain wrong." 

Things are pretty f---ed up if Arlen and I are in agreement but his take on Bush is dead-on. Bush and his cronies don't care about anyone else, just themselves. They are arrogant pigs feeding at the American Trough or, for a more kosher analogy, a pack of mis-guided Robin Hoods: stealing from the poor and giving to themselves, yet meaning well all the way (so they think).

Bush's Uncle

Bush uncle makes millions from war

By Walter Roche, Washington
March 24, 2006

AS PRESIDENT George W. Bush embarks on a new effort to shore up public support for the war in Iraq, his uncle is collecting $US2.7 million ($A3.7 million) in cash and stock from the recent sale of a company that profited from the war.

Rental Cars and "Taxes"
Monday my car broke down. I took it in to our mechanics. They said it was a variety of problems. No surprise since the car is over 10 years old and is approaching 200,000 miles. They said it would take a couple of days to fix but I should have it by Wednesday night.

No problem. Being unemployed, I don't go anywhere except to interviews and my next is for Thursday (today as I write this).

Come Wednesday I call to see if the car is ready and they mention that they kind of broke something. Sorry! Replacement parts were on the way and they would get me a rental car. They'll take care of everything.

OK, fine. Rental car. This morning I get picked up by the rental agency and get driven to their office. Forms, forms, forms and now the car. P.O.S. Ford Focus.

I had asked for a mid-size since I have to shlep three kids around but the mechanic wouldn't cover the additonal cost. Well, I didn't want to pay anything so the P.O.S. was it. Gimme the keys...

But, wait, you have to sign these forms. Do you want insurance?

Pause right here.

If a company screws up and admits it - that's a good thing.


If a company screws up and wants to make things right by you - that's a good thing.


If a company screws up and does the above two things yet you still have to pay something, anything - that's not a good thing.

The car is a cheap P.O.S.. The insurance would costs more so I declined. I'm risky. I'm hopefully covered by my AAA policy. But, the guy told, this insurance would cover everything - no deductible.

But I still declined. If the mechanic offered to take care of things. That should include "necessary options" like insurance. Why should I have to bear any burden for his screw-up?

And on that note let me segue to insurance. In California you have to have car insurance. It's mandatory. Get caught without insurance? You get a ticket, lose your license and your lunch, and receive a full body cavity search by Office Hamfist. But, unless you have a business, you can't deduct the cost. It's kind of like a tax but yet it isn't. What worries me is that the Government will make other similar "optional" non-taxes mandatory, like life insurance or health insurance.

UCLA Bruins!!!
U.C.L.A.!!! Gaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!! For 37 minutes they played like semi-comatose actors vying for the next George Romero film. for the final 3 minutes they played like Superman hyped on crystal meth. In the half, they could make free throws but nothing else. In the second half, they made everything except free throws.

Arguably, the Bruins shouldn't have won. Gonzaga did everyting right. They even had help from the refs with quite a few crappy calls going in the Zags favor. It's just that the Bruins started to smother Gonzaga like a python, slowly wrapping themselves around and squeezing until Gonzaga fell apart.

Whew!

But next it's Memphis whom neither UCLA nor Gonzaga have beaten this season. Hopefully the Bruins can go and start a bit stronger than they did against Gonzaga and just win without all the theatrics. Go Bruins!!!

Bush Says He'll Keep U.S. on the Offensive

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WHEELING, W.Va. -
President Bush said Wednesday he feels Iraqi political figures need to urgently get a representative government together that can unify a nation now embroiled in civil strife.

"It's time," Bush said. "It's time to get a government in place."

Wait a goshdarn minute, Bush. Didn't you crow last year about how the Iraqis finally had a free and democratic Government. Now you're saying they don't. Which is it: flip or flop?

Speaking for the third time in as many days about Iraq and the war against terrorism, he also said it's important for Iraqi security forces to begin taking the lead in the fight for their future.

"It's the Iraqis' fight," the president told an audience here. "These troops that we're training are going to have to stand up and defend their democracy."

A fight Bush started and doesn't quite know how to stop. Why should the Iraqi Military do anything when they have the U.S. to do their fighting, plus all this neat weaponry coming in, and money. Don't foget the billions coming in. Why should they do anything?

Bush backed his administration's new nuclear agreement with India and reaffirmed his belief that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Because only the U.S. should decide who has nucular technology...YEAHHHH!!!! Tell'm Bushie boy.

He also said he was upset that an Afghan man is being tried for converting to Christianity. Abdul Rahman, 41, faces a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity 16 years ago. He has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country's Islamic laws.

"We expect them to honor the universal principle of freedom," Bush said at Capitol Music Hall, an ornate theater downtown. "I'm troubled when I hear, deeply troubled when I hear, the fact that a person who converted away from Islam may be held to account. ... I look forward to working with the government of that country to make sure that people are protected in their capacity to worship."

No virgins for him.

Bush claimed success in Afghanistan.

"We removed the Taliban from power, we've denied al-Qaida safe have and that young country, that young democracy is now beginning to grow. Twenty-five million people are liberated as a result of the United States defending itself," Bush said.

He acknowledged, however, that there was more work to be done.

LIKE GETTING BIN LADEN?!?

Bush's remarks about the war on terror comes as violence is on the rise along the rugged Pakistan-Afghan border where
Osama bin Laden is thought to be hiding. The violence has sent relations between the two countries to new lows and underscored U.S. difficulties in containing a troubled region crucial to winning the war on terror.

More than four years after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, an intensifying campaign of bombings, including 30 suicide attacks since the fall, have targeted foreign troops, Afghan security forces and local authorities.

On other subjects, Bush urged Congress to approve a landmark plan to share nuclear technology with India, which has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

"My attitude is that over 30 years they have proven themselves to be a nonproliferator, that they're a transparent democracy, that it's in our interest for them to develop nuclear power to help their economy grow," he said.

Plus India will be an implied threat to Pakistan, whom we should have overthrown to get to bin Laden but consistency was never a Bush strength.

On the other hand, Iran should never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, he said.

Unless they buy one from us...

"They're certainly not a democracy. They're sponsors of terrorism," Bush said, adding that Iran violated safeguards imposed by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.

"They have joined the IAEA, and yet we caught them cheating and they weren't upholding their agreements and they started to try to enrich uranium in order to develop a nuclear weapons program," he said.

Iraq 'n Roll
First, a warning. The arguments here are the same ones you've read about for the past four years but I feel it important that they not be lost to the Bush Fog of Obfuscation. Second, again, said many years ago that the Ends do not justify the Means, especially in the case of Hussein and Iraq. Third, we don't have all the data so this is opinion. But it's opinion based on what we see Bush and his cronies doing, not what they say they're doing. Fourth, we don't have all the information because Bush and his cronies have tried to keep as much information from us as possible. They ask us to have faith in them. Yet their actions violate time and again our faith. Why should we believe them when they lie to us and to the world? In their own way they are as bad as Hussein and others they seek to overthrow.

About three years ago, a friend of mine started a blog. I read it and felt a reaction, a strong reaction. She was pro-Bush, pro-invasion, and very articulate in her writing. I was incensed and decided to start this blog as a rebuttal.

She believed (or "fell for") the arguments put out by Bush that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat to the U.S.. She even blogged that she had definitive proof that Hussein had WMDs and was hiding them in Iraq. I argued that WMDs weren't the reason for Bush actions but I suspected oil.

She claimed also that Hussein had to go because he was treating his people like crap. No argument there - Hussein is a bastard - but it is not the duty of the U.S. to go in and depose every bastard despot. If so, Cuba would've been toppled. North Korea would be toppled. Iraq is, arguably, not as bad as those places so why Hussein?

It had to be oil I said.

You know the rest. Invasion. No WMDs. Lies and distortions by the Bush Admnistration ever since and too much of our money disappearing into "friendly" pockets. Iraq no longer has Hussein but a civil "conflict", an increase in terrorists, no infra-structure, and, instead of welcoming us with open arms, they want us to leave.

When Bush says the U.S. will stay in Iraq for a few more years he is saying that we will have a U.S. military presence - period - in Iraq until we decide to leave. Think Germany.

So the oil may have been only part of it. Bush wants a U.S. presence in the Mid-East but if that's expansionism then what is? And expansionism is precisely what ticks off the terrorists. So, essentially, what Bush has done is made the World an unsafer place by expanding U.S. influence.

Worse, he has revealed the weaknesses of our military and foreign policy. By not finishing up the chase of bin Laden, Bush has shown that the personal bin Laden family connection may have had some meaning. For all his talk about terrorists, Bush has failed to get the big one.

Remember: Hussein was NOT a part of 9/11 or Al Qaeda, despite the numerous attempts by Bush to tie the two together.

By invading Iraq, Bush weakened our forces by splitting them between Afghanistan and Iraq. (He criticized Clinton for doing the same strategy.) He overthrew Hussein in 100 days ("Mission accomplished!!!") but failed to consider the next step to secure the country. He didn't secure the borders.

And in came terrorists and other people who dislike us. But more importantly without Hussein keeping a cruel thumb on people the tribal warfare started up again.

Now, instead of Iraq being a happy place, we have insurgents versus us, Shiites against Sunis against Kurds against us. Really, we could have had the same mess for a fraction of the cost by simply having Hussein and Sons assassinated.

But, again, Iraq isn't about Hussein. It's about presence and probably oil. Think the fighting will die down? Not bloddy likely, not unless the Iraqi Government cracks down severely, much the same way Hussein ruled. Ironic.

And as for my friend who started me on this blog business, she still blogs but you won't find her earlier stuff any more. Like a member of the Ruling Republicans that she is, her earlier works have been removed. Like Bush, she has mutated her view on the War and she hates to be reminded of the hypocrisy that is so prevalent in Washinton D.C..

Documents Show Saddam's WMD Frustrations

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they'd given up banned weapons.

"We don't have anything hidden!" the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.

At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would "roam Iraq for 50 years" in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. "When is this going to end?" he asked.

It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration's stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 — to locate WMD.

But he did neither because he didn't have them.

This, in no way, makes Hussein a good guy but it doesn't make Bush look any better either.

Face it folks, we have a President who doesn't give a shit about Iraq or America; only his buddies are worth anything. Clinton got indicted over a blue room bj. Bush should face no less over this whole scandal.

Repeat ad infinitum: IMPEACH BUSH!!!

Bush Asks U.S. to Look Past Iraq Bloodshed

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

CLEVELAND - Beginning the fourth year of an unpopular war,
President Bush defended his Iraq record on Monday against skeptical questioning. He said he could "understand people being disheartened" but appealed to Americans to look beyond the bloodshed and see signs of progress.

What progress but more bloodshed? What progress but more money disappearing into unaccountable contractors?

Bush fielded questions for nearly an hour at the City Club, a forum known for its tough interrogations of world leaders. Not only was he grilled on Iraq, but he was also asked to justify his warrantless wiretapping program, U.S. relations with Pakistan and his domestic priorities.

The president was asked why he deemed Iraq — which turned out not to have weapons of mass destruction — as enough of a threat three years ago to launch an invasion, in contrast to nuclear-ambitious Iran today.

"One difference was that, in Iraq, there was a series of unanimous (U.N. Security Council) resolutions that basically held the Iraqi government to account, which Saddam Hussein ignored," Bush said. Still, he said Iran was a concern, on the question of nuclear weapons and on its role in Iraq.

As he avoids answering the question Bush shows (1) that there was no reason for the U.S. to invade and (2) he is a hypocrit. Bush is suggesting we invaded because Hussein ignored the U.N. resolutions?!? Bush also ignored the U.N., gave Hussein an ultimatum that could not be met, and invaded like he planned all along. This is fact.

The White House has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi politics and of supporting armed militias in Iraq by sending men and weapons, including components for increasingly lethal roadside bombs. Iran and the United States have agreed to talk about Iraq, but Bush said, "It's very important, however, for the Iranians to understand that the discussion is limited to Iraq. We feel like they need to know our position."

What position? That you're a freaking, oil-grabbing, me-first lunatic? They get that. They also get that you've over extended our military, killed our economy, destroyed our environment, alienated our allies, and wasted every ounce of goodwill accrued over 9/11. No wonder Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea feel safe rattle their sabers. What's Bush going to do? Launch yet another war?

As the president delivered the latest installment in an upbeat defense of his Iraq policy, opponents used the day after the third anniversary of the invasion to step up their criticism.

Three potential 2008 presidential candidates — Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — offered critical assessments in separate speeches to the International Association of Firefighters' legislative conference in Washington.

Biden said it was time for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to "be told to go home" and for Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff "be given his walking papers." Richardson said U.S. involvement in Iraq had been "badly mismanaged by the administration."

Come on Democrats! Show more spine that that. "Rumsfled go home!" Ooooh, scary. Freaking indict the man. There's plenty of charges to be found.

Hagel said many of the predictions and promises made by the administration have fallen short, such as that oil revenues would pay for the war and the conflict would be short. He also pointed to Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion last May that the insurgency was in its "last throes."

"There's been a credibility erosion for three years," Hagel said.

Three years?!? Bush has NEVER been credible to start with. How can something that isn't there erode?

On Capitol Hill, some Democrats said there had been progress in Iraq, as Bush asserted, but they said it was clouded by problems across the country. They said Bush had gone to war without enough troops.

"Some positive signs do not mitigate this administration's gross miscalculations and stunning incompetence in Iraq," said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the "policies of the Bush administration and the civilian leadership of our military have made America less safe and left Iraq on the precipice of all-out civil war."

Iraq is in a Civil War. Plus, in every bad situation you can always find a little something positive but that little something positive in Iraq doesn't justify what preceded it. The Ends do NOT justify the Means.

Bush pointed to success in stabilizing an insurgent stronghold in Tal Afar, a northern Iraqi city of 200,000 near the Syrian border.

"The strategy that worked so well in Tal Afar did not emerge overnight," Bush said. "It took time to understand and adjust to the brutality of the enemy in Iraq."

"The example of Tal Afar gives me confidence in our strategy," the president said.

And this after only three years of fighting...

One woman asked Bush whether he saw terrorism as a sign of the biblical Apocalypse, and a man followed up with how he could restore confidence in U.S. leadership after several reasons for going to war with Iraq later proved false.

"Like you, I mean, I asked that very same question: Where'd we go wrong on intelligence?" Bush said. He said he was working to improve intelligence gathering because "the credibility of our country is essential."

But Bush has repeatedly said that he himself doesn't rely on intelligence but intuition. But, again, he can't use what he doesn't have, meaning intelligence or credibility.

As for the Apocalypse, Bush said, "I haven't really thought of it that way. ... I guess I'm more of a practical fellow."

WHAT?!? Bush is the one who declared the whole thing as a CRUSADE!!!

Bush bantered with the audience at times. And despite the probing questions, he received several rounds of enthusiastic applause.

"Anybody work here in this town?" Bush joked to laughter as he responded to question after question.

The White House made no attempt to screen either the audience or the questions, said spokesman Scott McClellan.

Right!!!

However, much of downtown near the hotel where Bush spoke was barricaded off. About 100 anti-war protesters chanted for the Republican president to leave the heavily Democratic city, held signs with peace messages and banged on drums.

Inside, not all the questions challenged Bush's war rationale.

One member of the audience invited him back for the Cleveland Hungarian Revolution 50th Anniversary next October. Others complimented him on his vision for a nuclear treaty with India and for his "very enlightening" comments about Iraq.

Vice President Dick Cheney, attending a political fundraiser in Hanoverton, in northeast Ohio, also defended U.S. involvement in Iraq and said decisions on troop levels would be made without political consideration.

"Our coalition is also helping to build an Iraqi security force that is well trained and well equipped," Cheney said.

Iran Or Iraq

Ahmadinejad: Iran will stick to nuclear plans

TEHRAN - Iran will stand by its right to obtain nuclear technology and anyone spreading propaganda against its atomic program will come to regret it, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday. "No one can take away our nuclear technology. The Iranian nation has obtained it and will preserve it. Some are against the Iranian nation's development," he said in a televised address to mark the start of the Iranian year on March 21.

Those were all rationales put out by Bush to justify invading Iraq. Now, in Iran, we have their President declaring he wants nuclear technology.

So, to avoid being called a hypocrite again, Bush, by his own logic, should invade Iran.

And Still More Bushit
It doesn't end.

Bush mentioned in a speech yesterday that, in essence, Americans are getting turned off the war because of the horrific images coming out of it.

Bush, let me tell you, that's not the reason. The fact that you manipulated data and lied to us turned us off. The fact that you siphoned and are continuing to siphon billions of our dollars into Iraq and pockets of your friends turned us off. The fact that you decided the conditions for "victory" and changed those conditions as things turned worse made us sick. That you didn't have any plans other than to invade made us cringe. That you stopped going after bin Laden made us horrified. That you are still President made us nauseous.

We don't need pictures from Iraq to make us sick over Iraq. Your picture does that well enough.

The only bright spot was UCLA squeaking by Alabama. Note to Howland: Free throw practice. Make them shoot 500 free throws every day until Thursday 'cause Gonzaga is gonna be a bitch.

I just finished a fun book Franken - Lies and the Lying Liars. Nothing really new here that we didn't know or suspect about the Bush Administration but it, and other books like it, serve as a reminder of how much manipulation is done by the Bush Adminstration. Just yesterday in the LA Times was a column saying how the Bush Administration is changing the requirements in order to declare a successful outcome in Iraq as if any other outcome were even possible according to Bush.

They will not EVER admit weakness or failure. (And that, right there, is but one of their wekanesses.) There could be nukes going off in Iraq and Bush would declare victory. We could lose the entire Armed Forces and the Bushies would spin it as Clinton's fault. I'm surprised they haven't planted WMDs in Iraq.

Franken proclaims Bush as arguably the worst President ever but I think he was being generous and trying not to incite the Radical Right.

This book is highly recommended.

Random Stream of Thought
What happens when there is too many people and not enough jobs?

What happens when there's too many people and not enough food? Interesting article the other day about how our foods - fruits and vegetables - are more abundant but less nutritious than from a few decades ago. That is, you have to eat more to get the same amount of good stuff. Agri-business, of course, uses a variety of chemicals to increase productions. Arguably, they have to because there's too many people. So, in the long run, we'll have a lot of semi-starved people.

Bush is a genius. By acting like a complete psychotic, he's kowtowing other nations into doing what he wants. Who wants a nucular war witha madman. I just hope it's an act.

But, note to Howland, this is U.C.L.A. - we demand yet another Championship or you're out. It's as simple as that.

Afghanistan. Iraq. Next up: Iran
The sound you hear is saber rattling. Bush is at it again, declaring that a policy of pre-emptive strike is necessary, and hinting that Iran may be next. You can see how well this policy worked in Iraq where, if you remember, the U.S. invasion was a pre-emptive strike to thwart off an imminent threat by Iraq.

Except that, we know now, no threat was coming. No WMDs poised to strike at us. And what a fine mess we're in.

Now Bush is once again using the same tactics against Iran: saying that we'll try diplomacy first. Then when he screws that up, declaring that Iran must give up it's nuclear designs or face annihilation. Iran will say it doesn't have any nuclear designs. Bush will say Iran is lying and give an ultimatum. The deadline will pass and we invade. Boring script really. Been there and done that. It didn't work before. It won't work again and sequels tend be effective than the original.

But it won't stop Bush. He is determined to make the world as unstable as he is - plain and simple. Now, where's that Iranian oil?

But this will prove a poor model. Sure, the printing costs will go down but so will, I suspect, your subscriber base.

This is like the whole eBook vs printed book controversy. That paper-based books will or should disappear in lieu of electronic eBooks with portable readers. Gosh, think of trees saved by not printing on paper.

But they overlook a few things (and this also hold for eMags as well).