As What?

Mr. Bush said it was "patriotic as heck to disagree with the President."

In his speech, Mr. Cheney echoed the argument of Mr. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the past week that Democrats had access to the same prewar intelligence that the White House did, and that they came to the same conclusion that Mr. Hussein was a threat.

The administration, however, had access to far more extensive intelligence than Congress did. The administration also left unaddressed the question of how it had used that intelligence, which was full of caveats, subtleties and contradictions. Many Democrats now say they believe they had been misled by the administration in the way it presented the prewar intelligence.

You know, they keep saying "same intelligence" and we keep saying, "No, not the same intelligence."

The difference? They're lying.

Ruh Roh

"Uhh, Karl, how does one become a janitor?"

The Shark has Been Jumped

Talk Show Hosts Wanted for Poker Talk Format
Categories: Radio
Ad Number: 7238
Date Posted: 11/14/2005
Contact: Rich Wilens
6501 E. Greenway Parkway Suite 202
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
usa
Telephone: 480-648-7396
E-Mail: rich@pokerkool.com
Web Site: http://www.pokerkool.com



Description
Positions Available for Talk Show Hosts and Sales manager/ reps.

Syndicator/Radio Station introducing and producing new format
POKER RADIO 24/7

The Poker Talk Radio Network.

All hosts must have a knowledge of poker, talk about it, accept callers and give advice, etc.

Specific times and salaries for different shows.

Minimum 3 years experience in radio / talk show host experience / radio pros who want to try talk. If you have limited experience but can deliver, I am not opposed to new talent.

Positions available in San Diego and Las Vegas.

Start Date: January 1, 2006
e-mail ASAP to rich@pokerkool.com

Irony

It's pretty ridiculous that on some level Iraw War I was fought to help us get over our Vietnam malaise. The lack of will to use the military, if you will.

So guess what happened in Gulf War II. You'll never guess.

------
Story time before I rest.

Within the above article the poll numbers read that 8/10 Democrats do not think the war was worth it, and 1/4 Republicans agree. I'm not even sure you can really answer that question correctly.

Looking at how they conducted the war, was it worth it? Obviously not. Obviously, when idiots are running things you end up with, well, what we have. But was it worth it to go in the first place? That's a different question. I could argue both sides of that.

The entire concept of a democracy in the Middle East (putting Israel aside) is a good concept. If there actually was a democracy as an example for others I think things would be different for the Middle East. The only problem is you can't force it.

The only countries that move towards a democracy are countries that run out of oil, at which point they have no choice but to do so. If Saudi Arabia had no oil revenues they'd have no choice but to have elections since the Royal Family could no longer provide services. This is a natural process; not a forced one. Nevertheless, a major player in the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria) turning to real democracy would be a very good thing. This is the argument Republicans have tried to use/make.

What isn't a good thing is lying to the American public, or telling people after the fact that the above reason is why you went into Iraq. Or denying you sold the American public a bill of goods when you said we'd be "welcomed with open arms" and all the other shit. It's not a good thing when Generals tell you a certain amount of troops are needed, but because the war was sold under false pretenses, such as a nuclear threat, you had to go in with fewer troops to make this operation appear to be a simpler task. In other words, it's not a good thing when you deceive people in order to accomplish your goals.

If you were to ask people before the war what the main reason for invasion was you'd either get: a) Saddam was involved with 9/11 or b) we have to stop him from acquiring a nuclear weapons. This didn't happen randomly. Maybe the more informed people read other news stories as to the whys, but the general public though (a) or )b).

Personally, I can see the benefits of a war in Iraq, but those who pushed the war didn't have faith in the American public to see it as well, so they bullshitted us into it. That's why when the question of whether it was "worth it" is asked it's pretty damn hard to answer.

I was never for it because I knew the country was being duped into buying it. It's like watching your friend who may need a car get suckered into buying a lemon. You know you have to speak up, even if you yourself know your friend needs a car. He/She may not need THAT particular car.

I was never even in a position to look at this from a realistic standpoint because it was never publicly debated honestly. It was always a farce, and that was the initial cry of people on the left.

The point is this cabal of Republicans believed they knew what's best for the American people. They treated us like children. They tell us the tooth fairy will come if you leave your chicklet under the pillow. The ends will justify the means in their eyes, and if not they will all pass the buck to the next guy. Blame, but never take the responsibility. They are so out of people to blame they've now moved onto blaming Democrats for the war. It's amazing!

Whether this war was worth it isn't a question that should be asked. "Were you lied to and taken into war under false pretenses?" is the question. That answer is YES, clearly.

Different people, a different approach, I'm not sure if I can say this war was definitely not "worth it." Saddam was a bad guy, and did kill thousands. But it was never about what Saddam did. Remember, many Republicans were against Kosovo, like Tom Delay, and that genocide was happening when he made his comments.

(not editing)

Remember...

...when the Republicans had their convention in New York City, trying their best to invoke the tragedies?

True colors.

Just like the farm bill, and Medicaid. First we get the votes, then we make the cuts. But remember, they're "not cutting Medicaid for those who truly need it." God, if that's not the most ridiculous quote of the last 5 years, I don't know what is.

Good, honest, Americuhn folk.

Hebrews

Remember when people accused Clinton of trying to forge a legacy by attempting to find a peaceful solution in Israel? That was fun.

I wonder if Bush'll try that with Condi. Remember, it's important that Condi be seen as succesful. They've been working on her for years.
She's a token prize for them.

Life is sweeter than Jewish wine...

Tactical Illusions

Bill Frist is the best, and John Warner sees the writing on the wall.

Frist, who we know is going to make a run for President, and Warner who just watched his state give the gubernatorial race to Democrats back to back must be worried. They've decided to co-opt the Democratic plan of finding a way out of this, YES, QUAGMIRE. They can call their plan a different plan. They can insult "the left's" plan. They can do whatever they want, but truth is they realize the winds have changed, and the President is losing credibility by the second. So they've become Exit Strategists!

Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, a state that's not likely to have a Democrat win anytime soon is also moving back to the middle. He has proposed a new law that would give Guantanamo detainees more rights in court (Note: be prepared for sentences that last 9 years, 364 days).

Point is many of these guys are moving back to the middle because they are aware of just how absurdly right we have swung in little time. If the Republicans kept up their hawk-like stance they would lose many moderate voters. They'd be right-wing on every issue. It's bad enough their party is controlled by right-wing freaks who run the social issues calendar (unlike the left, which has freaks, but who have little control). Therefore, it's important for these so-called "moderate" Republicans to get back to the middle on some issues, and here they come. Breaking with the President on Iraq, detainees, torture, and I'm sure some other issues in the near future is a nice start before they have to answer to their constituents.

Of course, they were all willing to let more soldiers die in order to get George W. Bush elected. What has changed so dramatically in a year that they are now calling for a reduction in troops? Did they just wake up and realize Iraq is a zoo with the doors open? Are they kidding when they make claims like, "The Iraqis need to take control..." All these comments are purely for show.

Republicans never liked nation-building, and now they're realizing they still don't, especially when there's no end in sight. All these guys want to avoid answering constituents who ask, "How come we don't have money for schools, but have money for this war?" Now they can start to say, "Well, I've proposed a plan to reduce our involvement in Iraq...have the Iraqis start taking responsibility..." Oh, you'll hear that alright. Republicans love the world "responsibility," at least when it's applied to others. Whether or not they're responsible for so much of this mess they'll never say. When it comes to Iraqis taking control this'll play well to their constituents who probably don't care much for these people anyway, hence why you never hear a Republican ask about innocent Iraqi death tolls. Be prepared because the word "responsibility" is coming back, and coming back strong!

I could go on for days, and I do...

The best part of this whole article is this:

Lawmakers also seek much more specific regular reports from the administration covering "the current military mission and the diplomatic, political, economic and military measures, if any, that are being or have been undertaken to successfully complete or support that mission."

I'm going to assume Democrats have wanted these reports for quite some time. Now Republicans do as well? Why now? Why didn't you want SPECIFIC REGULAR REPORTS ABOUT THE MILITARY SITUATION FOR YEARS?!?!?! Oh, I know why, it's because you didn't want to know. You wanted to bury your heads in Middle East sand, and make this the President's baby. Ignorance is bliss. You could claim you didn't know anything if there were no reports. But now, just like the Human Rights reports Republicans never read discussing how Saddam was gassing people when he was ACTUALLY DOING IT, these reports can be used to suit your own needs. Again, who cares how many troops, or innocent people had to die as long as they could push this off another year.

I think even Republicans are starting to realize that had John Kerry won things would be much better for them. There'd be no complaining about the judges, it'd be his war, and you'd have a target and a rallying point for 2008. It's the same reason I was glad John Kerry lost. Things needs to get worse, and they sure as hell are.

Classy people. True Patriots. True Americunts.

The Colonel

Exposion Outside KFC Kills Three People

This one really hits home because I myself have had many an explosion outside of KFC.

Comedy

You have to give this White House credit for going on the attack. Let no charge go unanswered. Unfortunately for them this occassionally makes it work. I mean, do you not think Democrats want to discuss Bush's decision to take the United States to war?

Bush is now quoting Senator Rockefeller, who has tried to force Senator Roberts to investigate the rationale and intelligence for the war. Who do you think is winning this battle?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons," Bush quoted West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller as saying in an October 2002 speech.

First off, not all WMD are weaponst that could injure Americans. After 9/11 Americans believed they were vulnerable to attack, and Bush played on those fears. I'm unsure a President has shown less class in history by doing such a thing. Bush made Americans believe Saddam was trying to get NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and could possibly attack THE UNITED STATES. Not chemical weapons. Not biological warfare. Not Syria. Not Israel. Not Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait. NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT COULD POSSIBLY ATTACK THE UNITED STATES, or to a lesser extent drones that could attack the United States. It was a joke, and it still is, that he threw that out there, but he did.

Other Senators and politicians believed Saddam had WMD...wait, I can't believe I'm writing this AGAIN. Holy Fuck. Alright, I'm done with this.

Point is, if the Bush team is challenging these assertions they are trying to say that we're all in this together. We're not. He's the President. Senator Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to goto war, not a statement saying YOU MUST GOTO WAR. In fact, Republicans were arguing that Democrats were splitting hairs over this issue. For months before the Presidential Election Democrats would say, "Kerry gave Bush the authority to goto war..." and Republicans would counter with, "Please, you knew once he had he was going to war..." Now they say different things. Now some are saying Senator Rockefeller should be investigated for telling Middle Eastern countries we were going to war in Iraq no matter what before we even did. But wait, you told us "the authority to goto war" was just a formality, and that we always were. Do you think this was a secret? Which way do you want it, seriously?

I know how you want it. You wish the Democrats took us to war. You wish the Democrats had been the nation builders. You wish your President didn't sound like a puppet. You wish that after the election he could give a different speech; one that doesn't sound like he's still running for office. You wish Republicans around the country were using him to run for office instead of running from him. Keep wishing. Keep dreaming. He's your puppet.

Things will turn around for him since they always do, and the numbers can't be this bad for 3 more years. Still, the reelection of this jackass will be the reason you lose Congressional seats, and certainly the next Presidential election. It's the reason we're losing credibility, so at least we're all in that together.

Hmmm

Lets say you wanted to buy a home in another country where you had major business dealings, and had to spend a considerable amount of time there. Through a business acquaintance living there you find out about a person who can secure you property, build you a house, and do it for what seems like a decent price. Probably a bit costly, but you want to get this over with as soon as possible because you're tired of dealing with this; it's been years.

Then you wake up one day and find out the guy is gone. In fact, he's been arrested, and all those references, well, they've disappeared too. Even the acquaintance is gone. I bet you'll get suspicious. Probably wonder what happened to your cash too. I bet you'd assume all these people had something to do with this, right? Right.

Problems remain. Luckily money isn't a real issue, and certainly you still need a property. However, you're not in the rush you were in last time because the business has passed, and you won't really have to be there for a few months. You will need the place regardless because there will come a time again in the near future when you'll be there for months, again. Still you take your time. The only problem is you find out the real estate you were buying wasn't even owned by those people, and you'll have to repurchase it. The new real estate people are aware of the other characters involved, but do not care because they didn't make the deal. They say "buyer beware."

What are you going to do? Well, you're going to pay again, of course. Why did this happen in the first place? Probably because you didn't do all the homework you needed to, and trusted shady people along the way. Shady people who introduced you to shady people.

Thankfully for you there are millions of investors who will give you all the money you need. You've somehow convinced them that even though your business engages in dulplictous spending ALL THE TIME, to question that means you're not a company guy. And we can't have that.

Pfffffish

On Friday night Trey Anastasio, Mike Gordon, and Jon Fishman of the disbanded Phish played together in Utica. They did a cover of Stevie Wonder's Boogie on Reggae Woman.

Here it is.

Many people have told me how good it is. Well, to those people, it's pretty damn boring, to be honest.

Cool

Love this country:

The Food and Drug Administration did not follow its usual procedures in rejecting an application for over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B, the investigating arm of Congress found today.

The General Accounting Office also said in its 57-page report that there were questions about whether top officials of the F.D.A. made the decision to reject the application for over-the-counter sales of the drug, which is opposed by some religious conservatives, even before its own advisory committee had issued its recommendation on the matter.

Several legislators and scientists have complained that the F.D.A. was putting politics ahead of science in its handling of the contraceptive, which can be used as emergency, morning-after contraception...

In May 2004, the F.D.A. rejected an application by Barr Laboratories to sell its Plan B contraceptive over the counter without restrictions, saying the company's studies did not include enough girls younger than 16.

This came after the agency's own nonprescription drugs advisory committee and its review staff recommended approval.

Last month, a consultant to that advisory panel, Dr. Frank Davidoff, editor emeritus of the Annals of Internal Medicine, resigned in protest of the agency's handling of the Plan B contraceptive, saying it was putting politics over science. In August, the top women's health official at agency, Susan Wood, also quit in protest over the Plan B decisions.

So they'll quit, and will be replaced by conservative hacks. Great.

Why don't these people keep their jobs, call NBC, CNN, and ABC, tell them what's going on, and get interviewed?

Hello

Long weekend. Totally sick with a cold, but here goes a little somethin' somethin'.

First off, cheers to the Bergen Record of New Jersey for this piece. Here's the choicest piece from last week's Bush Speech:

Bush said, "While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began."

I mean, if that's not incredible then I don't know what is.

We all know how this war started, right? What happened is the Senators were all up in arms about Saddam, and his ability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is clearly the misnomer of all time, gathered as much information as possible, and pressured the President to do something! The President, completely resistant to the concept of a preemptive war, finally acquiesced, but only after he told Dick Cheney to stand down, in order to allow himself to go forward.

This moment defined the President. It showed him as a leader, clearly responsible to the American public, and their representatives. Even though many believed Cheney to be the de facto leader or the White House, after this moment people started to see things differently. Here was a President standing up to the peacenicks within his administration. Cheney, afterall, thought we could end the influence of the Middle East countries by going completely solar. In fact, he was going to get his old company Haliburton to start processing solar panels at a rapid pace, and then selling them on the cheap to local governments, but only after a strict bidding process with other solar companies was completed. Cheney also pushed for massive tax breaks for anyone who purchased a hybrid vehicle. Bush thought these ideas were "good ones" but the desire of the Senate to goto war immediately outweighed these time consuming options.

The reason the Senate was so bent on war is because they had access to documents the White House was unable to see. In fact, the Pentagon, unbeknownst to most citizens, setup their own intelligence apparatus within the Pentagon. The information gleaned from these documents, unfortunately, was not available to the White House. After going over pages and pages of documents, and listening to Iraqi businessmen who knew the situation better than anyone, the Senate knew the time to act was now. It was at this point the Senate chose Senator Ted Kennedy to speak at the Wellstone Center for Preemptive War in Cincinnati to make the case for war. What came next is HISTORY. In fact, it's history rewritten.