T.O.

Once again the Philadelphia Eagles have effed themselves by taking a ridiculous stance with Terrell Owens.

Some people think this guy is the worst thing going. I feel completely differently. The guy is the hardest working player in the game, period. He put his career on the line in the Superbowl, and the Eagles, knowing he came to them at a bargain did not renegotiate, which they should have. This is why they're both here today. The Eagles will never win a Superbowl with Donovan McNabb, and essentially will be starting over before you know it. Had they taken a different stance with Owens things would be totally different.

What NFL player is going to go play for a team that says, "We don't renegotiate?" What agent is going to push his player to that city?

Some say Cincinnati's Chad Johnson is similar to Owens, but he doesn't have half the issues. Well, if they were losing, he'd have them. Plus, he's great, but he's not Owens. No one is as good as Owens. Plus, Bengals Coach Lovie Smith is like a father to Johnson, which is completely opposite of what Coach Andy Reid is to Owens. If Owens ends up in Chicago, Miami, San Diego, Tampa, or a number of other places, I guarantee things end up being different. The guy needs some guidance and the Eagles organization cannot provide. Because of that everyone loses.

In addition to this the Eagles wouldn't sign Corey Simon, and dealt him to Indianapolis. He was the ultimate missing ingredient for the Colts defense. They haven't had a good Defensive Tackle since, uhhh, I don't even know! John Hand? Was he even that good? Now they have one, and now they're undefeated. The Eagles, what do they have? They ain't got shit.

I don't believe players should dictate the direction of a team, or be able to get away with murder, but I also don't think Owens did that. He asked for more money, deserved more money, and they stiffed him. They made their bed, and he messed it up. He also hurt himself along the way, but hey, I'd be willing to bet a bag of cash that T.O. is playing in a Superbowl before the Eagles.

Brand New

It's good to be king:

A dozen war protesters were arrested Wednesday after setting up camp near President Bush's ranch, defying two new local bans on roadside camping and parking.

About four hours after the group pitched six tents and huddled in sleeping bags and blankets, McLennan County sheriff's deputies arrested them for criminal trespassing and were planning to take them to jail for booking.

Nothing like Freedom.

Siems Like Strange Timing

:(

Ruth M. Siems, a retired home economist whose best-known innovation will make its appearance, welcome or otherwise, in millions of homes Thursday, died on Nov. 13 at her home.

Siems, an inventor of Stove Top stuffing, was 74.

The cause was a heart attack, according to the Warrick County coroner's office in Boonville, Ind.

Cheers, Ohio

This is the woman you elected to Congress over a man who served in the Iraq War.

Rep. Jean Schmidt flung the word "coward" at a decorated war veteran from Pennsylvania last week, but the Ohio Republican's comments landed with a splat in her own Cincinnati district, where some supporters are backing away as she scrambles to explain what she meant...

Bubp, a GOP state legislator and Marine Corps Reserve officer, had campaigned for Schmidt. He put out his own statement yesterday: "The comments and concerns I shared with Congresswoman Schmidt were never meant as a personal reference to Mr. Murtha. . . . We never discussed anyone by name and there was no intent to ever disparage the congressman or his distinguished record of service for our nation." Bubp, through a spokeswoman, declined an interview request.

While running for office Rush Limbaugh had this to say about Paul Hackett, the Iraq Veteran who lose to Jeanne Schmidt.

Umm

I think I left this part out:

Padilla was initially arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in May 2002 after the government alleged he was plotting a radiological "dirty bomb" attack, but the 31-page indictment unsealed yesterday makes no mention of such a plot. It also does not include separate allegations, outlined by the Justice Department in 2004, that Padilla had plotted with high-ranking al Qaeda operatives to blow up U.S. apartment buildings using natural gas.

Ridiculous.

I heard Zarqawi was killed the other day. I thought to myself, "Yeah, good one. That guy's never dying." Why isn't he dying? Because if he dies the government will have to totally reinvent someone else who is making Iraq a disaster. They moved off bin Laden and then created the legend of Zarqawi. Way too much went into producing him, so they won't tell us he's dead until about one month before we leave.

"It's a Joke"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Newman called the charges against her client vague, noting there are no specific violent acts spelled out in the 11-count indictment returned by a Miami federal grand jury last Thursday. She also stressed there was no allegation of Padilla's involvement in any ''dirty-bomb'' plot -- the initial accusation that landed him in military custody in the first place.

''It's a joke,'' she said.

Whether or not this guy is legitimately a terrorist I have no idea. Frankly, I don't give two shits. I'd prefer he not be, of course, but he's moved so far beyond the word terrorist since afterall he's "the dirty bomber." He's the guy who is supposed to frighten, just like Saddam's involvement with 9/11, just like a nuclear weapon hitting America, just like every terror alert. He's supposed to scare you. He's the DIRTY BOMBER! Of course he is. I mean, afterall, he's Mexican! Mexican Showers! He's the "Dirty" "Bomber." I'll tell you what, spend ten minutes with me in the shitter and you'll think I'm the "dirty bomber." I assure you. If he was just your standard bomber, being Mexican makes him the "dirty" bomber. If he had a mustache he'd be the Dirty Sanchez Bomber.

The Bush White House would have been better off killing this guy in his cell, and claiming it was an accident, than bringing this guy to trial 10 minutes before they would have to release him. No one knows what goes on in his cell, and frankly, no one cares! Do you think Americans care about some random Mexican American sitting in a cell? He was a gang member from Chicago who supposedly joined the militant Islamic movement whose focus was to kill infidels. Whatever!

When he was a gang member in Chicago his goal was to kill who? Other gang members? Other street folk? White people with nice cars? Niggahs? What was his role when he was living in America as a gang member all those years? No one gave a shit, and there he was, terrorizing Americans daily. He was probably more of a threat to a couple from Lake Forest then than he was as the "Dirty Bomber." It's a joke.

The Bush Administration rounded up an American citizen who had supposed ties to Islamic terrorists, gave him a nice label, held him in a brig against US law, and then fabricated some bullshit to bring a case forward. When did they do this? Probably at the worst time possible for them, but they don't realize it. No one believes anyting they do.

They want to seem proactive. They want everyone to think they're still fighting the War on Terror here in the states. There's still something to worry about! There are still killers on the loose! We're doing something about it!!! We're rounding up Mexican gang members from Chicago who are making DIRTY BOMBS! That's right! Seriously, what are the odds that this character passed science class, let alone attended one? Pretty poor I'd bet. Yet he's making bombs? Yeah, yeah, I know, Al Qaeda taught him everything he knows. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Al Qaeda has a better curriculum than the inner city Chicago school system.

The evidence against Mr. Padilla? Here it is:

On July 24, 2000, Padilla 'filled out a `Mujahideen Data Form' in preparation for violent jihad training in Afghanistan.''

Oh, really? You mean after filling out his Taco Bell application, and subsequently being fired, he filled out the I Want to Join Al Qaeda Application? Hey, at least he's trying to find work, that lazy ass Mexican immigrant. Give him some credit, Rick Santorum.

Sooooo, Spaniard, Alberto Gonzales, what do we have on this cat?

''The president was authorized to detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant,'' Gonzales said. ``I'll leave it at that.''

Yeah you will. Why you'll leave it at that is because you don't have shit on this guy, and you, as well as the President, have made a joke of the laws in this country. And to think the President wanted you on the Supreme Court! Wow! Wait, can you repeat the legal rationale for detaining this guy? I mean, afterall, you are an accomplished lawyer.

''The president was authorized to detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy combatant,'' he said. ``I'll leave it at that.''

Oh, okay, that really clears things up for me. So what you're saying is the President can walk around the country and declare anyone he wants to be an enemy combatant, jail them for 3 years, and then trump up bullshit charges when things are going bad for him politically? Oh, really? Wow, it's great to be President with a Congress and Justice system that don't give a shit about rights of American citizens. Must be nice.

Hey, this guy is probably dirt. He probably deserves to die. But even a guy who deserves to die deserves a trial, if you're American that is.

Even when a guy is the lowest of the low the Bush Administration can manage to turn the him into some sort of symbol that flies in the face of all that America stands for. Truly amazing.

Fuck 'em all. And yes, I've been drinking...

Such Insight

ESPN published this:

Don Shula thinks Indianapolis has the perfect mix.


With a quarterback like Peyton Manning controlling games, the countless options at Manning's disposal and a harder-hitting defense, Shula thinks the 2005 Colts could become the first team since his 1972 Miami Dolphins to go undefeated.


"The Colts are doing things no other team has done and they're looking good doing it," he said Tuesday during an NFL conference call. "I think this team has a real chance of running the table."

Thanks, Don, now it's official.

Fractured

How do you keep a party together when there are so many groups pulling it in different directions? It's pretty hard. It's something the Democrats have had to deal with for years, and at times have been succesful, but lately not so much. Republicans are now dealing with this, and things are only going to become more difficult as time goes on. The writing is on the wall.

I first noticed the writing when I heard radio personality Michael Savage going off on George W. Bush by asking "Who are these Republican'ts?" What is this "Republican't party?" Attacking their own. Good times. It was being echoed by Bill O'Reilly, the Clueless Defender, but certainly not by Sean Hannity, the Talentless Shill. Regardless, the hieroglyphics have begun.

Democrats have a problem holding the party together because of the many interests that fall under the real "party of inclusion." You've got labor groups on one side, and then you have free traders on the other. You've got people who want public education to be heavily funded while shunning vouchers, and then you have parents whose children are in failing schools who start to support vouchers. You've got a majority of Jewish people supporting Israel, and then you have left-wing fringe groups supporting Palestinians. You get the point.

Over the last few years it seems Republicans have been united on every issue. At the very least they've managed to stay on message. Lately they've been fracturing for many reasons. The longterm implications are bad for their party.

You've got people who believe in "conservative" ideology. Well, what is "conservative?" Wasn't it meant to stand for less government intrusion? Less government spending? Now it seems to mean "anti-abortion" and "pro-nation building." It also seems to mean more government intrusion as most conservatives have supported the Patriot Act. The core meanings of smaller government and more personal freedoms seem to be vanishing, and this is their big problem.

I'm a believer that Congressional Republicans will say, or do, anything just to win. Regardless of the stakes, or whether they're hypocrites, that's not a concern to them. Just win, that's all that matters. Because of this many of them have been more than willing to abandon their supposed "conservative" principles over the last few years. Huge government spending, corporations profiting through government, bigger programs, nation building, No Child Left Behind (even though it was underfunded and destined to fail), Medicare bill, and on and on. However, even with all this being said, the party is fracturing now, and will continue to do so.

Certain Republicans will move away from the Bush clan because of the disaster they represent, and others will start to move back toward real conservativism. Lincoln Chafee conservativism won't matchup well with Sam Brownback's conservativism. As Chafee calls for smaller government, and more freedom, all the while being a more moderate Republican, Brownback will eventually call for more money to religious groups, and greater spending on Kansas citizens. As Kansans fall behind in education for a host of reasons, and health care becomes too expensive for the average Kansan, Brownback will want even more spending. Constituents will demand it. Just like Democrats who have groups pushing and pulling them in different directions, it's certainly going to happen to Republicans, but it will be worse.

The entire meaning of "conservative" will be fractured. Some will see it as applying to fundamentalist religious Republicans, and others will see it for its original meaning. Regardless, the party will split. Common interests will be lost. Whether some Republicans become Democrats, or a third party is created, I have no idea, but I certainly see a divided party and a further divided country in the near future. Democrats, or "liberals," have many more common interests than the conservatives will, assuming they can continue down the path they are on. These are some of the more dire days for Democrats, yet the party survives. I don't see the same thing happening on the other side.

When winning is your only goal soon you'll start to consume your own in the battle.

Nice

Shocking!

US President George W. Bush planned to bomb pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror said, citing a Downing Street memo marked "Top Secret".

The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the daily which is against the war in Iraq.

The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's April 16, 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters.

Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the business district of Doha, the capital of Qatar, a key western ally in the Persian Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.

I hear CBS was next...

So in the movie Control Room when the US flew two planes over a building, and bombed and killed Arab reporters I'm supposed to believe the military that it was only accident?

It's a Mirage

Some guy really doesn't like the Capitol Years, and he let Philberity know about it.

In response the Capitol Years wrote a song about some guy who really doesn't like the Capitol Years, and the question of why Philberity does like the Capitol Years.

I like the Capitol Years., and I like the song.

Perspectives

Do Republicans ever tire of their own bullshit? One has to wonder.

Here's what Rumsfeld had to say on FOX this weekend:

"There's no doubt in my mind but that were we to pull out precipitously that the American people would be in greater danger than they are today," Rumsfeld said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Rumsfeld said on another program, "Fox News Sunday," that even talk of withdrawal was helpful to the enemy.

"The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder, `Maybe all we have to do is wait, and we'll win,'" he said. "The battle is here in the United States."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Explain to me how this rationale works because I don't get it.

When we went into Iraq and we were going to be "welcomed with open arms" a war started. Again, we were told it'd be easier than it is, and Iraqis would embrace Freedom. The Republicans were 100% wrong. Sure, some people would love freedom, but the country did not embrace it. In fact, our idea of what freedom will look like for them has changed many times over since this idea was first mentioned.

Now we're told that if we leave the country will implode, a civil war will occur, and the terrorists will look at this as victory. How do we know this? I mean if you were so off on the way in why do you think you have a clue on the way out?

People actually listen to these people and think to themselves, "Wow, if we leave this place is in trouble. I know this because the Republicans told me so. It's all so simple, and makes so much sense." Well, so did their simplistic vision on the way in. With them, the simpler the message the easier it is to sell, and the more likely they will do so. No different than this new message of chaos and turmoil.

What's going to happen in Iraq is inevitable at this point. We're not going to win the war. The sooner this ends the faster we can move on to what we have to deal with next. It's not like Arabs enjoy having us there, and it's not like some bullshit Iraqi government is going to mean anything.

Republicans, as noted by Rep. Murtha, will start to split from this war before the 2006 elections, which is less than a year away. If they were smart they'd take this as an opportunity to pull away from their unpopular President, and do the right thing. Save as many soldiers as possible, and start looking toward the futre. Devise a plan, something the administration either didn't have, or got wrong the first time.

Optimism is a great thing, but it can also blind you from reality. Especially when the optimism isn't natural.

Tool

Where's a good book when you need one. 

Irked by a reporter who told him he seemed to be "off his game" at a public appearance here, President Bush sought to make a hasty exit from a news conference but was thwarted by locked doors.

Such a moron. I'm surprised he didn't make a comment like "The Chinese need more access to Freedom. These locked doors must be opened..."

It's No Longer Bush's War

The War in Iraq, like every other problem that has confronted the White House is some one else's problem, and George W. Bush just happens to be the President. This is what you're too believe according to Bush. Lets look at a few examples that prove this to be the case.

Amidst the growing hubbub surrounding Rep. John Murtha's call for an immediate pullout in Iraq there's Bush in Asia making comments like this gem:

"We will fight the terrorists in Iraq, we will stay in the fight until we have achieved the victory that our brave troops have fought for," he said.

That's right, that our "brave troops have fought for." So if you are for pulling out, you are, of course, against the troops, even though Rep. Murtha was himself a wounded troop. When Bush says things like this he makes it seem as if the troops chose to fight this battle, not the President. Why don't we poll the troops? Why don't we not write fake letters on their behalf expressing how great things are in Iraq?

Then there's this:

Bush quoted a top U.S. commander in Iraq, Major-General William Webster, as saying that setting a deadline for withdrawal would be "a recipe for disaster", and said that as long as he was president, "our strategy in Iraq will be driven by the sober judgment of our military commanders on the ground".

This is more of Bush claiming the war isn't really being run by the White House, but by the "commanders on the ground." Who are we to question them? Afterall, we're not on the ground, so we should therefore defer to those who are, right? That's the logic here for sure. Even though commanders have told Bush to do things he has ignored, in this case, whatever they say goes.

Two weeks ago all we heard is "the Democrats saw so the same intelligence as the White House" and gave Bush the nod to goto war. We know the truth regarding this statement, but the Republicans were pushing this, as if the Democrats were equally responsible for this war.

This whole thing is about not blaming anyone since the Bush/Cheney White House is to blame. In their minds there has to be a way to pass this buck on to everyone else, or at least a small group. You're seeing this in action now.

Have you ever heard Bush say anything negative about what's going on there? Think about that for a bit. You may get a "Sure, I wish things were better, but the chocolate covered daisies, candy apple trees, and rivers of caramel are right around the corner...we can't abandon this opportunity..."

On CNN last night some Republican whore strategist was telling the anchor and Democratic strategist that the Democrats "have no plan" and "no plans for America" which is why Americans "don't trust them." It was beautiful, and typical.

Going into Iraq totally clueless and using soldiers as clay pigeons is a plan. Pulling them out is a plan as well. For some reason "staying the course" and watching the country deteriorate is a viable option, but saving the lives of US soldiers and letting Iraq become whatever it's going to become is not. Makes sense!

Truth is, Republicans needs this war, and now that it's bad they're going to re-fight Vietnam. Never leave, never give up, never quit. It will set their party, and the military back too much, and they can't have that. They know this, so they let other peoples' children die for their own cause. It's so cowardice, and it disgusts me.

It's the troops war. It's the commanders war. It's the Democrats war. It's Kerry's war. It's Clinton's war. It's America's war. It's just not Bush's alone, of course...even though it sure has hell is.

Specifics

The Bush White House maintains they never pressured US Intelligence Officials about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Maybe that's true?!?!

The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims before the Iraq war.

Five senior officials from Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with the Los Angeles Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

According to the Germans, President Bush mischaracterized Curveball's information when he warned before the war that Iraq had at least seven mobile factories brewing biological poisons. Then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell also misstated Curveball's claims in his pre-war presentation to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, the Germans said.

Curveball's German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly second-hand and impossible to confirm.

''This was not substantial evidence,'' said a senior German intelligence official. ''We made clear we could not verify the things he said.''

The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. ''He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy,'' said a BND official who supervised the case. ''He is not a completely normal person,'' agreed a BND analyst.

Curveball was the chief source of inaccurate pre-war U.S. claims that Baghdad had a biological weapons arsenal, a commission appointed by President Bush reported earlier this year. U.S. investigators did not interview Curveball, who still insists his story was true, or the German officials who handle his case.