Friday-Sunday, January 21-23, 2005
Friends, Relatives and Partners
Guess who was "G"lobal "W"arming Bush's partner in the failed Arbusto Energy Company (Sp. Meaning Shrub)? C'mon. Guess.
Salem Bin-Laden, was the older brother of Osama bin-Laden, who mysteriously died in a plane crash in 1988 (Although Salem bin-Laden was an experienced pilot with over 15,000 hours of flight experience, he flew his plane into electrical wires right after take-off. Oops.), was a close friend of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, and controlled much of the Binladen Brothers Construction Company's fortune that might have helped Osama bin-Laden plan and execute terrorist attacks against the United states and many other countries.
By now, we all know that George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) spent the day of September 11, 2001 (9/11) at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC with Osama's other brother, Shafiq bin-Laden discussing ways to make themselves, and the other members of the Carlyle Group even richer.
All you gotta have is friends.
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, had to go back to his home state before the end of inauguration festivities in Washington, DC due to matters that required his urgent attention.
It must make the citizens of Massachusetts feel good to know that their state's leader would put their needs above his own.
In contrast, President "G"lobal "W"arming Bush chooses to spend his "crunch-time" on his ranch at Crawford, Texas.
Those poor Republicans. They have a Majority in the House. They have a majority in the Senate. They have "G"lobal "W"arming Bush, Dick "Go F*ck Yourself" Cheney and their "Financial Fascist" friends in the White house and they're complaining that Condoleezza Rice has to wait a whole week before she is confirmed as Secretary of State.
You see, the Minority Democrats want to make sure that she is the best person for the job, considering that it is, arguably, one of the ten most important jobs in the World.
Boo-Hoo-Hoo. The Democrats are very sorry, but someone has to look out for the citizens of the United States, and the rest of the planet.
Heard on Sean Hannity (Coronation/ Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20, 2005), Senator John McCain, who, basically, whored himself out to the Bush Re-election campaign, stated he came back from Iraq a year ago and he spoke to "the people that mattered on the ground", and he "begged" the president to add troops, but the president refused. Then, McCain went on to say, that Secretary of State Colin Powell "begged" the president to add troops, and he refused.
As the Coronation/ Inauguration Day interview went on, Senator McCain went on to say that he has, "no confidence in Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld." When Hannity stated his observation that Senator McCain still works with Secretary Rumsfeld, McCain asked the Bush Mouthpiece, Hannity what he would have done if he were Senator? There is no choice but to work with Rumsfeld, respect or not.
McCain, a frequent visitor to the injured at Walter Reed Hospital also stated, "I think a lot of that could have been prevented," when speaking about the injured soldiers.
Attempting to change the subject, Hannity said, "Ninety percent of Iraq is secured and living in Freedom." They do love that word, FREEDOM, don't they?
Naively, and following the neo-con talk show host's leading question of, "how will the history books show the Iraqi War in 100 years", Senator McCain stated that, (and I paraphrase) "they will show that the war brought Freedom, not only to Iraq, but to the surrounding area, including Saudi Arabia."
Saudi Arabia? Yeah, right. Not if "G"lobal "W"arming Bush has anything to say about it.
Heard on Curtis and Kuby in the morning (ABC-AM radio, New York:
Rocket J. Squirrel and Bullwinkle the Moose helped win the "Cold War."
I thought the new-cons said Ronald Reagan won the "Cold War."
I wish these morons would make up their minds.
Craig Crawford stated on "Imus in the Morning" that he was at an Inauguration Party where they were giving out Ann Coulter dolls.
What do they market those dolls as? "Bitchy Barbie?"
Bill Bennett called China a "horrible place". He stated that the people who "love profit" are winning the battle over the people who "love freedom."
This has been what the left has been saying all along.
The right keeps on saying things like, "Yeah, but you all love cheap goods," or, "Oh yeah? well what kind of car are you diving?"
Is Bill Bennett moving to the left or is he just pissed off that he isn't "in" on the action.
Lay another "C-Note" on a "hard six" Bill. You'll feel better.
Michael Savage (the brainiac that thinks Hilter was a Communist) said at the end of Coronation/ Inauguration Day, "The people demonstrating on the streets (of Washington, DC, January 20) are "representative "of the members of the Democratic Party."
Many are, but many are not.
My question to Mr. Savage is this (not that he ever answers a question): Are the people who send bombs to Family Planning clinics "representative" of the GOP or just you, Mr. Savage?
Additionally, Michael Savage's website has the whole beheading of Nick Berg, but he recommends that "you don't view it." This was stated right after he told us that Nick Berg's dad, Michael, was seen at a Coronation/ Inauguration Day protest.
These guys (and gals) REALLY suck.
Dick "Go F*ck Yourself" Cheney said at the "Black tie and boots" affair that it's "good to be wearing boots again".
Make sure they're waist-high to get us through all the "crap" we're going to have to "wade" through over the next four years.
Heard on Bill (Loofah Boy) O'Reilly's FOX NEWS show, "I didn't call for an investigation of George Soros, a Conservative Organization did."
"SOME PEOPLE SAY" that the Conservative Organization was named FOX NEWS.
Medicaid? What Medicaid?
by Robert Scardapane
Step one, (G)lobal (W)arming Bush cuts federal funding to Medicaid. Step two, Brother Jeb (the heir apparent) Bush privatizes Medicaid in Florida. That's right folks, it's the Bush boys Medicaid shuffle.
The losers? The elderly; the disabled; and the children.
The winners? Insurance companies who profit while deciding on treatment.
Just another sad chapter in the Bush Ownership Society saga.
Echoing the words of Oliver Twist: "Please, Mr. Bush, I want some more."
Mind Your Own Business
To quote (G)lobal (W)arming Bush, he wants to "build an ownership society, because ownership brings security, and dignity, and independence". But, the administration may file an amicus brief (filed by an "interested" third party) against property owners in an upcoming Supreme Court case concerning eminent domain. Interestingly, the Cato Institute filed a "friend-of-the-court brief" on the behave of the property owners. Well, at least Libertarians are consistent about ownership and support civil liberty - something that (G)lobal (W)arming Bush doesn't care about.
Today's Stupid Quote (Sort Of)
"...And with that I will be glad to go straight
to your questions."
-Scott McClellan, President "G"lobal "W"arming Bush's Press Secretary, December 6, 2004
The following is an abbreviated version of a Scott McClellan Press Conference regarding many issues. This is a condensed version of the question and answer session regarding Social Security:
Question: "How do you plan to pay for it (the transition cost of privatizing Social Security)?"
Scott McCLELLAN: "Well, again, there will be some -- first of all, under the current system, the cost of doing nothing is $10 trillion over the long haul --"
Question: "That doesn't tell me how you're going to pay for it."
Scott McCLELLAN: "...There will be some up-front transition financing ,"
Question: "Up-front transition financing -- does that mean borrowing?" "...that does pass those costs on to future generations by just borrowing them?"
Scott McCLELLAN: "It is actually a savings."
Question: "There are some independent estimates saying that the transition cost could be $1 trillion to $2 trillion. Is that a ballpark figure the administration is working from? "
Scott McCLELLAN: "The Social Security system is unsustainable." (Even though most "experts" say it is for the foreseeable future, and has to be only "Tweaked" over the long haul. -NG)
Question: "But is that the range that the administration is working from, or is it prepared to maybe raise the amount of the amount -- (Questioner interrupted)"
Scott McCLELLAN: "...the President has not endorsed a specific plan at this point." (Then he why is he talking about it like he has a plan? -NG)
Question: "Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina last week proposed possibly paying for the private accounts by raising payroll taxes on higher-income workers. Is that on the table, is that something worth -- (Questioner interrupted, again)"
Scott McCLELLAN: "Well, first of all, I think you should go back and look at the President's principles. The President's principles are very clear." (Principles? What about a plan? -NG)
Question: "But is he willing to -- (Questioner interrupted, again)"
Scott McCLELLAN: "He remains firmly committed to those principles." (WHAT ABOUT A PLAN? -NG)
Question: "So he wouldn't debate that point with Senator Graham?"
Scott McCLELLAN: "We want to continue to work closely with Senator Graham and other members of Congress to get this done. And we look forward to talking to them more about their ideas (What about YOUR ideas? -NG). The President's principles have been spelled out publicly, members know what those principles are, and that's the basis upon which he has committed to moving forward on." (PRINCIPLES AGAIN? HOW ABOUT A DAMN PLAN?! -NG)
Question: Could you refresh my memory about those principles (Now the questioner has fallen into the "PRINCIPLE TRAP -NG). Does he support raising the retirement age or cutting benefits? And when you say, "at or near retirement there will be no change," what do you mean? Could you specify, "at or near retirement"?
Scott McCLELLAN: "Well, and that's getting into discussions with members of Congress, because, again, the President has not come out and endorsed a specific proposal... (Yadda, Yadda, Yadda, but not answering the question, again. -NG)"
Question: "I wasn't clear on the benefit -- is he going to -- are benefits going to be reduced for people who have been paying into Social Security?"
Scott McCLELLAN: "...That's why he's (the president) put forward the plan that he did," (WHAT PLAN? DIDN'T HE SAY THE PRESIDENT ""G"LOBAL "W"ARMING BUSH HAD NO PLAN? EARLIER, MCCLELLAN SAID THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE A PLAN. -NG)
Question: "Can I just clarify the financing, to make sure we're all clear on this. But you're saying that the $1 trillion is not in addition to the current liability of Social Security -- (Questioner interrupted, again)"
Scott McCLELLAN: "I'm not committing to any cost estimate at this point, because that's based on the plan that the President endorses --" (The president has a plan that really doesn't exist. But the president will look at plans to endorse as long as the plan he will endorse doesn't contradict the plan he has, even though that plan doesn't exist. Got it? NG)
Question: "Whatever (the questioner is obviously either out of patience, or so confused, he just can't stand it anymore.) -- all transitional costs. What you're saying is that they're not in addition to all of the liabilities the Social Security system now has, that they are, essentially, moving forward some of the liabilities (Questioner interrupted, again)"
Scott McCLELLAN: "I'm glad you bring that point up, because it's something the President has talked about at length recently. He's talked about the importance of addressing our deficits..." (My question would have been, "Haven't you taken the $280 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund, plan on NOT paying it back, then taking credit for reducing the National Debt by $280 billion? -NG)
Questioner: "Is the President going to actually embrace a particular bill (assuming that bill isn't the President's bill that doesn't exist -NG), either on the Hill now or one that is written by the White House? Or is he going to continue to sort of sit on the side lines and lay out principles and wait for members of Congress to come up with some sort -- (Questioner interrupted, again)"
Scott McCLELLAN: "I understand you want to kind of jump ahead of where the game is right now, but --" (I would have said... "NO, NO, NO... Please answer a question...PLEASE!" -NG)
Questioner: "No, I'm trying to figure out if you've got a plan for the game."
Scott McCLELLAN: "No, we do." (Is that a "YES" or a "NO"? I'm Confused. You can't make this stuff up. -NG)
Question: "So one of the questions you're trying to answer is whether or not it would be better for you to write your own bill -- (Questioner interrupted, again)"
SCOTT McCLELLAN: "You're asking me to get into some of the transition --"
Question: "No, I'm -- (Questioner interrupted, again)"
MR. McCLELLAN: "No, no, let me finish. You're asking me to try to get into some of the policy transition to a second term. We are discussing a lot of issues right now about the best way to proceed forward. That's why we're reaching out to members of Congress to get their input, as well, about how we proceed forward together to get this done." (My question would have been: What transition? Hasn't your boss, "G"lobal "W"arming Bush been president now for the past four years? -NG)
Question: "I'm just saying, one of the questions you're asking them is would it be better if the White House wrote a bill, or would it be better for us not to have a big target -- (Questioner interrupted, again)"
SCOTT McCLELLAN: "I think there are a number of issues we discuss with them, and that's one of them."
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS CRAP UP, CAN YOU?
-Robert Scardapane and Noah Greenberg
TODAY'S STUPID QUOTE
"affirmative Action is right out of Hitler's Socialist Playbook."
-Michael Savage, on his show "The
Savage Nation," January 19, 2005
And here I thought that Hitler was a fascist Nazi, the exact opposite of a "pinko-commie."
What a Schmuck!
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com or firstname.lastname@example.org