<$BlogRSDURL$>

What did one muffin say to the other muffin in the oven?
"Boy it's hot in here"
What did the other muffin say back?
"Holy Shit! A Talking Muffin!!!"

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Dead Horse 

  • Gay Marraige Set Back

    This is so stupid, people need to leave their issues at the door. This isn't that big of a deal, let gays marry the story is over after that.
  • Monday, March 29, 2004

    Spain is weak on Terror? 

    On an otherwise slow news day. This bit of Information seems to be slipping past unnoticed:

    Spain to double troops in Afghanistan

    How Do You Spell Credibility? 

    The Bush contention for the last how ever many years was that he did not focus on Iraq from the early days of his administration and that Iraq only came about well after our war on terror began.

    Dick Clarke contended that Bush was indeed focused on Iraq immediately after 9-11.

    Dick Clarke was right

    Mr. Bush wanted to know "did Iraq have anything to do with this? Were they complicit in it?" Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, recounted in an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes."


    Brilliant so admit that you lied to the american public, yet still attack Clarke's credibility. As if it didn't happen already i do believe the Bush Administration has finally lost ever trace of credibility it had. But Richard Pearle isn't trashing Clarke thats suprising.



    Sunday, March 28, 2004

    Watercooler Fodder 

    News Points worthy of talking around your proverbeal watercooler tomorrow morning.

  • Kerry and Nadar have a secret plan to take down Bush. Read it here
  • Rice on 60 Minutes. Transcript here
  • Sharon may be indicted on bribery. Hit it up here
  • Hamas indirectly threatens US, again. Read poor english translation here

    Firstly, I am very pleased to see that Nadar maybe be possibly thinking about directly helping Kerry. He is one of the top leaders in the Liberal Left, i.e. those Liberal Liberals. I think he can unite these people to vote Kerry even though in my humble opinion he is a piss poor canidate. That being said, Bush is worse. But one could also say that the dumbasses who were going to vote Nadar probably wouldn't have voted Kerry anyway all things considered.

    Secondly, Rice's contention that she does not have to testify because no other NSA has testified before congress is fallacious. Firstly, the 9-11 commission isn't congress it is, "an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002" (source) Take that as you will. I don't think that is congress considering all of the commission members are not even in congress. Or for that fact the current government at any level. Besides that glaring fact, I don't believe anything happened in the United States like 9-11 to justify a hearing of this magnitude. I assume the worst until Rice is willing to swear under oath to god her statements.

    Thirdly, this is going to throw that region of the Middle East in to a tailspin. This should dominate the always venemous Israeli Press for a while. Two things can either happen; First, we get a Israeli Prime Minister dedicated to multilateralism or second, we get a more hardline Israeli Prime Minister. I feel as though we are heading for the second, this topic of corruption will be brushed under the carpet by American Press by the following news item.

    I can't react to the last piece of news I'll wait for the NY Post to lead it tomorrow morning.
  • Saturday, March 27, 2004

    Mr Brooks Ya Wrong! 

    A little FYI I hate all the New York Times Op-Ed writers with the exception of Krugman so I loved getting this wonderful Op-Ed in the paper today by David Brooks titled See Dick Spin.

    At first glance I thought maybe just maybe one of the self proclaimed conservatives at NY Times was going to criticize Cheney for lieing about various things this past week, but alas no it was simply another right wing column bashing Dick Clarke. This being the New York Times and all I was not suprised to find that the editor had not fact checked his column at all. So lets strat with the most obvious partisian spin move.

    It should be said that Clarke used to be capable of the sort of balanced analysis contained in these reports. Indeed, he was a major source for them. But that was the old Richard Clarke. That was the Richard Clarke who could weigh the pros and cons of the Clinton and Bush terror strategies. That was the Clarke who expressed frustration at the glacial pace of the pre-9/11 antiterror policy process, but who also, in 2001, sent out e-mail praising the White House for alerting agencies to a possible attack, and who praised the Bush team for "vigorously" pursuing the Clinton strategy while deciding to quintuple the C.I.A.'s anti-Qaeda budget.


    I dunno I thought Clarke railed everyone pretty bad during his testimoney, I would also like to point out that Dr. Rice declassified one email of Dick Clarke's for a purely partisan agenda. At this point I would assume it is safe to say that since Dr. Rice has the power to declassify documents anything pertaining to Dick Clarke's tenure coming from the white house will have a decidely pro Bush spin.

    Clarke manages to absolve Bill Clinton for many of his mistakes — or Clarke says the vast right-wing conspiracy is to blame. What about Clinton's decision not to bomb Al Qaeda's terrorist camps when we had a chance? Not a mistake, Clarke now says. We had higher priorities, like the former Yugoslavia.


    Maybe Brooks missed CIA Director George Tenet's testimony where it was stated the reason for not attacking the terrorist camp where Bin Laden supposedly was is because the Royal Family from the United Arab Emerites were also possibly in that camp. That would be one hell of a international mess to clean up considering at the time we did not publicly assassinate foreign government officials. This is straight out of the Ann Coulter Playbook, omit the important facts and use half truths to slander people and/or countries.

    And this week Clarke goes on a book tour and hypes it up another notch. Time's Romesh Ratnesar recently compared Clarke's book with the representations he is making of it up and down the TV dial. Ratnesar found that Clarke is sexing up his own stories to score political points.


    I think it is pertinent to point out that Clarke is a registered Republican and has stated he will not accept any position in the Kerry White House.

    Meanwhile, actual policy matters get tossed about in the roiling seas. Though we never really had a discussion about it, now everybody is embracing pre-emptive action against potential terrorist threats


    This Mr. Brooks is the only thing you got right in the entire article

    Early Saturday Morning... 

    Right so a little run down this beautiful Saturday Morning:

  • Kerry says he will create 10 million Jobs in the next 4 years. He also says that he will cut coporate taxes except not really. He will rasie taxes on all coporations who outsource and cut taxes for domestic income. And then create a Payroll Tax credit or something... That seems to be a good idea, I still pay a larger percent of my income then a huge multinational coporation but who needs parity when it comes to taxes.

  • Bush is still mum about gas prices other then he is "deeply troubled". But in other news he wants to get broadband internet access to every Hick, Tom and Harry in the middle of Montana but as for their jobs, they are going to India...

  • Dick Clarke.... I refer you to TalkingPointsMemo.com,

    "This whole story turns on that simple fact. Why else try to destroy Clark unless what he has to say is profoundly damaging? Liars are usually easily discredited; it's the truth-tellers who need to be destroyed."

  • This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?