If you still think Republicans can be trusted with national security...
… you haven't heard about the most recent security breach in which the Bush
administration authorized sensitive documents from pre-1991 Iraq war (including
instructions for making an atomic bomb) to be posted on a public government
website. The documents were on the site for months and were only pulled Thursday
(Nov. 2) when the New York Times began making inquiries about the documents
The dollars and the loss of lives tick on and on and on. As I write this, we're well over $300 billion invested into this illegal war. How many schools would that pay for? How many roads? How many scientific studies would it fund? How many lives might it have saved if it were directed at more life-affirming efforts?
July 17, 2006
Hypocrisy Abounds Regarding Iraq
the next installment of Paul Rieckoff's series of articles for strategy in
Iraq. Reading the comments after the article I was struck by several opposing
the strategy without offering any intelligent argument against
it, but simply labeled it that familiar Rovian stamp of "cut and run" strategy.
As Reickoff said in the first article of the series, the object is to offer
something besides the polar opposite strategies of "stay the course" or "cut
and run". Nevertheless, one of those two realities will inevitably be part
of any strategy; I mean, we're either going to be in Iraq or we're not--we
have to be somewhere, afterall.
I hear Bush worshippers whining constantly that liberals only want to complain
but never offer any strategy of their own. Obviously, that is not true. The
hypocrisy of such Bush worshippers shines through, however when they jump to
label any strategy that isn't in lock-step with Bush's strategy as "cut-and-run".
I have no doubt, however, that if their Lord and Savior, George Bush proposed
a strategy for Iraq that involved withdrawal of troops, the term "cut-and-run"
would be exorcised from their collective vocabularies, and suddenly withdrawal
from Iraq would be deemed a stroke of genius.
It would be nice if the Bush worshippers cared as much for their country as
they do the con-artist acting as President. It would be nice if they had a
morsel of compassion for their fellow man. It would be nice if they had the
ability to think critically, to think outside of the box of neo-conservative
Yes, that is wishful thinking. But it would seem only right that these folks
that believe in this war so much, that support the "stay-the-course" strategy
so vehemently, be willing to sign up themselves or to encourage their children
to sign up for military service. But what can you expect from such blatant
June 16, 2006
No Simple Solutions in Iraq
No matter how you feel about the initial invasion of Iraq, unless you're lost in space, you can plainly see that the war is not going well for either the U.S. or the Iraqi people. All we hear from our leaders who are paid to supply strategy is either to stay the course or immediately withdraw our troops. Well, as comforting as simple solutions may sound, they don't address the realities of what is going on in Iraq. To pull our troops out now would be a cruel and irresponsible act against the Iraqi people, in my view. To continue to stay the course with the disastrous Bush plan is equally cruel--nothing more than pouring blood down the drain with little or nothing in return.
Despite the certain failure of either of these approaches, we hear almost nothing of alternative approaches. Where are the ideas? Why is there no discussion of alternatives? Don't you think in a nation as diverse and full of intelligent beings as the U.S. that somewhere we might find better approaches to the mess we've created in Iraq? Of course we can come up with better alternatives--or at least some DIFFERENT ones that might become better if we begin discussing them.
First we've got to shed the notion that the problem will be resolved by the familiar tug of war between the left and the right. Let's forget bi-partisanship and think of the troops, the Iraqi people, and the future of our nation. Let's stop making the discussion about Iraq stategy an either-or discussion. The situation is far too complex for such oversimplified talk and it will take cooperation between all sides to resolve the situation.
Paul Rieckoff, an Iraq war veteran and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
of America is beginning a series of articles to bring to light other alternatives
to meeting the challenges in Iraq. It's about time we had something more substantial
to discuss than merely whether to stay or go. You can read the first of such
June 15, 2006
David Van Os Speaks TrueBlue Texan
Haven't you just had it with politicians who simper around trying not to insult
anybody, while all the time our pockets are getting picked by the oil companies,
government contractors, and corrupt politicians EVERY DAMN DAY? I've SO had
it with that crap! Insult the thieves, already! Insult
the aiders and abetters along with them! They don't deserve
I want some truth! I want to see some candidates who aren't afraid of calling
a spade a spade! And that's what I see in David Van Os.
I saw Van Os for the first time last year at DemocracyFest in Austin. Well, I'd never have known he was a politician and especially not a lawyer. He was the furthest thing from tasseled loafers and suit and tie than almost anything I'd ever seen in Texas. He might have been one of my neighbors, full-time welder and part-time cowboy. But his simple style didn't impress me anymore than George Bush's swagger.
What did impress me was that he was the first actual candidate running for public office that was saying what I was thinking! Hearing him was like being unmuzzled after five long years! Damn! That feels good!
David Van Os is correct that it is the burden of every voter in Texas to begin
to put this democracy back to rights again. This is where the mess started,
with the likes of Tom Delay and George Bush and their silver-tongues tickling
Texans' ears. And this is where the politics of corruption and eroding democracy
Folks, we've been hornswoggled long-enough. It's time to re-inhabit the territory
of common sense and honesty. It's time to recognize we've been used and lied
to long enough. It's time to take our state back to the people and Van Os is
a peoples' candidate with whom we can begin the long, hard process.
Van Os started that process today when he filed suit to block the use of electronic
voting machines that don't produce a paper receipt as verification of vote.
If you've read anything at all about the 2004 election, you know there is plenty
reason to doubt the outcome of the election--and whether your candidate won
or lost, if you care anything at all about democracy, you should be concerned
about accountable elections.
If elected, Van Os' next project will be to take on the biggest dog in the world: ExxonMobile, headquartered in Irving, Texas. Did I mention the guy has courage? That must be why he's not afraid to tell the truth.
His campaign is a peoples, campaign, about as grassroots as you can get, complete
with old-fashioned whistle-stopping across the Great State. Van Os isn't in
the pockets of big business; he depends on working folks like you and me to
support his candidacy. So if you're like me and you're fed up with being lied
to, and candidates afraid to tell the truth for fear of insulting crooks, why
don't you send a few bucks to Van Os' campaign?
As Van Os says, it starts right here in Texas, and we are all part of the
change that must take place to preserve our precious democracy. One step at
a time, let's keep heading in the direction of a fuller, fairer democracy.
Send the guy a dollar, send him fifty dollars; but let's get this guy elected
So here we go again. Four and a half years into the war in Afghanistan and three years and three months into the Iraq war, new allegations of war crimes, almost daily news breaks of more corruption in the Republican party, and a constituency of raging tax payers groaning under the weight of record-breaking gasoline prices, the lowest poll numbers of his term in office, and what is President Bush's response? Why it's simply to bash gays again—as though that will solve the huge problems this nation is facing under Bush's incompetent reign.
Get the moron voters to focus on their hatred of gays, then perhaps they won't notice their hard-earned dollars being transferred over to Exxon-Mobil and Chevron. Get them ranting self-righteously about their own traditional marriages and perhaps they won't notice the story about the massacre and possible cover-up of the Marines massacre of innocent families at Haditha. Get the good citizens of the U.S. to think about how vile gay people are and there won't be room enough in their tiny minds to think about the Abramhoff fallout.
Dazzle them with the mirror of their own hatred; Turn their hatred into something that sounds noble, turn their bigotry into something that sounds God-inspired, swell their egos with pride of tradition while avoiding any reminder that discrimination and hatred are well-honored traditions in our culture. Allow them to feel morally superior in their hatred. Allow them to feel informed, if only by the darkness of the smallest part of their hearts.
Stir their anger deeply and continuously to remove the burden of having to contemplate the discrepancy between this amendment and the Republican tradition of government not meddling in the private lives of citizens. Entertain them with illusions of their own morality to help them forget that they are throwing away a democracy their children and grand children will only read about, but never experience.
Boston scientists released a provocative report yesterday that challenges
the timeline of human evolution and suggests that human ancestors bred with
chimpanzee ancestors long after they had initially separated into two species.
And you thought we called him chimpy just because we hate him! We were just
trying to acknowledge his cultural origins!
March 2, 2006, 1:00pm
I think it's time for a new kind of political correctness...it's pretty radical,
I admit. But I think the future of our nation, and certainly the future of
democracy demands it. This new political correctness is really an old idea,
but completely new in the political arena. It's called telling the truth. Yeah,
I said it was radical didn't I?
The new political correctness requires that we actually call President Bush
a liar, instead of allowing him to weasle out of the responsibility for deceiving
Americans. For example, the AP has produced a video that shows that President
Bush did indeed know about the possibility of the New Orleans levees being
breached BEFORE Katrina hit. Yet after the levees broke and thousands were
stranded in the flood waters, Bush claimed that no one could have anticipated
the levees breaking. Thanks to the AP
video, we now know that was an outright
lie. Not only were the levees breaking anticipated, but Bush was directly informed
of the possibility.
And the standards of the "new political correctness" requires that we call
Bush a LIAR. The new political correctness doesn't require us to tiptoe around
the truth--we've all been there, done that and who cannot see that it's just
not working out so well for us.
So, President Bush is a LIAR! Of course, that's not news. It's just news that
its FINALLY being said!
Cats can be so dang articulate without ever saying a word!
February 6, 2006
Ok, this is just too creepy. The Duke Cunningham scandal was bad, but this
is much worse. So much corruption, right out in the open...why isn't the press
reporting this? Why
the sheer blatancy of abuse, this should get the media's attention. Can't this
low-life Abramoff crony at least not rub our noses in it that he's ripping
us off? If you want to get pissed, go check this out
for yourself, follow the links. You'll be astounded at the blatant corruption.
Here's another story about it.
*True Blue Texan is my personal blog where I practice the
"new political correctness" of telling the truth, no matter who it