Would You Vote For A Rubber Chicken?

I agree with what she is saying in this ad. Nancy got elected on a platform for change, then promptly became a Bush Buttlicker. The Republicans couldn't ask for a better ally.

I'm smiling as I try to figure out, if I think it's the right ad to run.

I guess we'll see how it plays out.

You Tube Conversations

Last night I put together three ad-hoc videos as responses to videos that others have posted. This is a new thing for me.

Keeping Chicks Warm At Night
This is a response to a commenter that had questions about chick brooders.


Rambles On Chickens And Food


No Solutions

Colonel (Ret.) Ann Wright

There is really no need for me to comment. She says it all.

Talk - Dissent: Voices of Conscience
52 Minutes

Friday Music Blogging

Introducing the musical prodigy Sungha Jung.

Yesterday Once More


Ob-la-di Ob-la-da


Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head


Canon in D


More than Words


California Dreaming


While My Guitar Gently Weeps

No Public Hearing on I35 Bridge Collapse

Looks like the powers that be, don't want the public to know what goes on in the hearing on the I35 bridge collapse.

In the video, it is pointed out that such things lead to conspiracy theories.

And why would that be the case I wonder? What is it that they feel they must hide? It seems safe to assume that closed hearings might prevent the exposure of parties that are criminally negligent.

And worse, I don't see how this can be blamed on a lackey, like the Gitmo Torture Tribunals where the grunts took the fall for the decisions made by the President's staff.

The decision to let the bridge fall into a state of disrepair was made at the highest levels. The top brass is responsible for the deaths caused by the collapse. With no flunkies to scapegoat, they have no choice but to hide the evidence to keep each other out of leg irons.

Is this a conspiracy theory? Sure it is.
Can it be disproved? It sure can.
All they have to do is open the hearings.

In the meantime, I think it's safe to assume that they are hiding something, because they have something to hide.

Bush Confesses To War Crimes

Bush confesses that he and top officials at the White House designed the White House Torture Program, and that he approved of the torture of POWs.

Now that it is official that the White House does approve of the torture of POWs, our boys in uniform had better take care. The US originally led the led push to draft and ratify the Geneva Convention after World War II. The death of the Geneva Convention may lead to them being tortured if captured by foreign armies.

When officers were convicted of authorizing and or engaging in torture in World War II, they were executed for their crimes.

Now Bush and other White House officials have confessed to committing the same crimes, that once carried the death penalty. But I believe that this time, they will not be charged or convicted.

If the Chinese decide to capture any of our men or women in uniform again, as they did when Bush first took office, then they could make an argument that they have a right to torture them for information, as Bush has officially set a precedent.

We now live in a time where our government is no longer bound by the law. the US Constitution no longer lays the foundation by which our government operates. As we march to World War, this cannot bode well for us. With no rules, no laws, no mission, just endless war in our future, hard times are coming for all.

Gen. Petreaus and Amb. Crocker Express Ignorance Of The US Constition

In this segment of the hearings, Ron Paul asks General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker if Bush has the authority to bomb Iran without the approval of Congress.

They both tell us that they have no clue.

Yet, this is clearly covered in the US Constitution as Ron Paul explains to them, as if to small children that have no been paying attention in class.

Neither General Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker have any pertinent knowledge of the US Constitution or the Law when it comes to war.

I am concerned and saddened that these men are unfamiliar with the US Constitution.

As they are ignorant of the US Constitution, I suppose we can assume they are ignorant of the Geneva Convention and the fact that it carries the full force of the Law. After all, the US Constitution is clear on the topic of treaties, and tells us that they carry the full weight of the law.

Men who are too ignorant to be familiar with the US Constitution, US Law, and the Geneva should not be representing us in war or diplomacy.

But it makes sense that Bush would pick them. He strikes as the kind of man would surround himself with ignorant people, to make himself appear smarter. And on this basis he would've chosen very ignorant men to lead his war.

But they are the ones committing war crimes, and the ignorant folks like Alberto Gonzales and Mukasey watching the hen house, there's little danger of them being brought up on charges any time soon, if ever. Especially with Nancy Pelosi protecting and enabling them.

Winning Is Still Staying

Yesterday in the hearings, we learned that the only mission left in Iraq is to make sure that the war continues through the next presidency.

Ambassador Ryan Crock(er) informed us that their mission is 'to provide a stable foundation from which to base policy decisions, for the next president'.

Their testimony was confused and evasive. One can draw a variety of conclusions from it.

1. They are trying to lock the next president into this war. I get this interpretation from Mr. Crocker's statement.
2. They have no idea whatsoever what they are doing. They are completely clueless.
3. They are losing, and lying about it through their teeth.

But what was clear is that they provided no sense whatsoever that they had a definable mission. They had no definable goals.

Our Senators talked about winning. But Petraeus and Crocker made it clear that they aren't trying to win anything. It's like that joke about the man praying to God to let him win the lottery. He goes through much of his life asking God over and over. Finally God replies, "Help me out here and buy a ticket."

We want to win. But we don't know what winning is. And we want victory handed to us. We don't want to actually pursue victory. Our senators demand that we win in Iraq, but their errand boys are taking the money they've alloted for a ticket, and spending it on other things...

Does that make sense? Sure it does. It turns out that Congress has been allocating reconstruction money for years and they just found out, it's being spent to build military bases. The military is cooking the books and embezzling funds for their own purposes. Clearly, once the billions of dollars reach Iraq, it goes into a big pool and Petraeus and Crocker spend in on whatever they want.

Congress only thinks that they are earmarking funds for certain kinds of projects. But that is just an accounting trick to fool them into thinking they have some say in how the money is spent. Once the money is in Iraq, ir becomes the property of Petraeus and Crocker. they decide on the policies and missions in Iraq and they spend the billions as they see fit.

The very naive Mrs. Wicker seemed especially taken aback, when she learned that the Iraqis aren't getting the money that they voted to give them. She wanted the Iraqis to repay the US for the bombs and missiles we dropped on their country. Now that she knows that she's been lied to about where the money goes, she comes across as hurt and surprised. she actually believed that the Iraqis would repay us for destroying their country and for slaughtering over a million of their fellow citizens.

If the US were bombed and millions of Americans were killed, would she be looking to give cash rewards to the bombers? I guess she would.

Finally, Iran was mentioned so many times, and so often, that it seems clear that it is the next target and that Petraeus is itching to send soldiers into that nation.

In examining the situation in Basra, it appears that this city may be a beachhead for a counter offensive. Petraeus may be thinking the same thing and this may be why he had Maliki test their defenses in that ill fated attack on the city.

So the question is, will Petraeus leave that threat to the rear as he invades Iran, or will he have the residents of Basra slaughtered before invading Iran?

What happens next is up to our owners. Pray with me, that this works out the best way that it can, for all concerned.

Petraeus Hearings

Mr. Levin isn't being nice.

Update after viewing th first half:
The dissenters were few and far between.

Hillary did suck up to her base well. Though with her natural dishonesty, it's impossible to impart any meaning to her words. I would've believed her if she had put up a fight on war funding, or on the torture bill. But she gave Bush a free pass on those.

The morons that were trying to find a way to get the Iraqi people to pay for the war, made me feel sick to my stomach. Mrs. Wicker tried to convince Petraeus that the the Iraqi people should pay for the construction of our military bases in Iraq.

Petraeus seemed uncomfortable with that line of questioning, likely because he knows that there is no way the Iraqis will ever claim those buildings. When we leave, I assume we'll blow them up. If we never leave, then they are property of the US Military.

Right now, Ambassador Crocker is discussing the agreement with Iraq that he didn't have any direct knowledge of, before this hearing. It sounds like a list of talking points put together by a team of aids, trying to pull his ass out of the frying pan. It's full of happy and comforting sentences that doesn't seem to reflect reality.

He talks about the reopening of open air markets, and yet, we just shelled one of those into oblivion.

He's good with meaningless acronyms and inventing phrases on the fly. Earlier he argued that Iraq could repay the cost of blowing the shit of their country in the Post-Kinetic phase. I guess that means, after everything in Iraq quits moving. So after all of the Iraqi people have been slaughtered, we can take their money, and use it to repay the American taxpayer? Yeah right.

McCain and Leiberman made their love coos at Petraeus, and gushed and blushed as they fawned over him and praised him for the miracles he's performed in Iraq. McCain went on to talk about how Al Qaeda is a sub-Shiite organization that is being trained in Iran. For those that are getting confused, Al Qaeda is an organization of Sunnis that come from Saudi Arabia. They are at odds with Iran, and Iran's support of the Shiite population.

No mention was made of the fact that 75% of the insurgents are Sunnis coming from Saudi Arabia.

Everything Is Still Peachy Keen In Iraq

For years McCain has been telling us that things in Iraq are wonderful. It's a great place to be. It's all just super.

Now he says we're no longer looking into the "Abyss of Defeat".

I must've nodded off somewhere. I never noticed when he went from singing the praises of our imminent victory in the war against Iraq, to admitting that the US is losing in Iraq.

From his relentless cheerleading, I figured we were about to turn a corner in Iraq, to the nation becoming a safe place to take the grandkids on vacation.

So in a blink of an eye, he went from manic blue skies and eternal unfettered optimism, to the depths of despair and then back to manic joy and happiness again.

Did he miss his lithium for a few days?

Here he is talking about what a Rose Garden Iraq is, and how there's never been a better time to buy a timeshare there.