The Reagan Diaries Redaction

With the recent release of The Reagan Diaries you are supposed to now be able to get a behind the scenes and very personal perspective from our nation's 40th. While, from the excerpts I've read, I don't doubt this, I am even more interested in the portions that were redacted for national security reasons. In listening to the editor, Douglas Brinkley, today on CSPAN2 he made an emphatic point that the NSC was extremely liberal in terms of allowing nearly all content from the diaries to be published. So, if you're like most folks you've got to wonder what tiny slice of Ronnie's diaries was deemed counter to national security. Well, although Mr. Brinkley stated that he of course didn't get to see that portion, he did reveal the main topic of the redacted material. Now before I unveil the answer here at the Ordinary Netizen, let's see if you can take a reasonable guess. For example, my top choices would have been related to dealings with either the Iran-Contra treasonous mischief or with the Soviet Union. After all, the former topic certainly was a mark of shame (unfortunately not unexpected, but naturally the Gipper wasn't involved) on Reagan's administration, and he was of course--if you listen to republican pundits--solely responsible for winning the Cold War. But no, those topics wouldn't be important to keep secrete anymore. So, what would? The answer: Saudi Arabia.

I'll let you chew on that for awhile--but please read this book while chewing, or rather choking.

Bill Clinton: the Savior

It seems that the Albanian's from Kosovo plan to honor their "savior" Bill Clinton by erecting a statue of the former United States president in the capital of Serbia's breakaway province.

Now, this begs the question, will the Iraqis be erecting a statue of Bush anytime soon!?!

Hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here...
...I think not.

Thick As Thieves

The whole lot of them are crooks and liars--Condie, Wolfie, Bushie, Cheney, Gonzy--are all thick as thieves.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed the White House's comments, which came a day after a World Bank committee said he had violated ethics rules in the promotion and pay rise for his companion Shaha Riza, a Middle East expert.

"It seems to me that what happened there, as he said, he made some mistakes but it doesn't seem to be the kind of thing that you would want to see the dismissal of a World Bank president over," Rice told reporters in Moscow.

Mistakes!? There were no "mistakes" or accidents or lapses in judgment taking place at the Wolf Bank, I can assure you. Much to the contrary, Paulie's sweet deal for his sweetie was a conscious, calculated and purposeful act.

And as for this NOT being something "to see the dismissal of a World Bank president over," I'd say that this is EXACTLY the type of act that should absolutely get him fired. On second thought, maybe a mistrustful, nepotistic, quid-pro-quo type of guy is a terrific World Bank president--exactly the kind of person who inspires trust!!!! After all he IS exactly the type of person that represents the Bush chronyism team.

Another Snow-Job

Democrats plan 'short leash' for war funds in which Iraq and Bush must report progress on such issues as containing militias. The White House calls the proposal 'bad management.' Bad management? Bad management?!! Bad management?!!! You have got to be kidding me. Ain't that the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Let me tell you Mr. Tony Snow-job, you have zero, do you hear me?!?! ZERO!!! credibility on management of this war. End of discussion.

The Gates of Hell

I think we are going through the gates of hell with this "new and improved" Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. When republican senators ask him questions, such as Specter inquiring about the "prospects for having some light at the end of the tunnel" and Gates responds with "I think that the honest answer is, senator, that I don't know" then this epitomizes the very problem. If we continue to blindly follow this administration's plan, we'll keep getting these non-answer answers. Smarten Up America! We all know that this is Bush's open-ended war without a definable goal for victory.

Katrina Redux

The WH press secretary Tony "Snow-job" said that the hindered or slow response to the tornado disaster was the Kansas Governor's fault--attempting once again to deflect blame for the obvious impact that depleting our National Guard can have on local disasters. My question: Can this administration ever, EVER, take responsibility for their actions? Why is it that nothing is ever their fault? They're like a troubled adolescent who externalizes responsibility--but much worse because most teenagers aren't leading the world's only super-power.

Hey Snow job! This lame blame game won't fool anyone...but you probably don't even care if it does...you and the rest of this pitiful excuse for government are so completely and utterly out of touch that it doesn't matter what anyone outside of your circle thinks.

The Wolf's Goose is Cooked

Stick a fork in this Wolf...he's DONE.

Queen Killer

Bush is such a buffoon! How he manages to consistently embarrass the United States in both small and large ways is simply incredible. For those of you who missed it, Bush mistakenly said--with the Queen standing right next to him--that she's been with us through our bi-centennial in 1776, proving once again that he is (a) no student of history and (b) that he is quite capable of insulting anyone at anytime.

You're Not In Kansas Anymore

Along with Dorothy, the Kansas National Guard isn't in Kansas anymore either. Another example of how we're stretched too thin. So, what will the response be to the next natural disaster or terrorist attack?? Oh, that's right, there won't be a terrorist attack because we're "fighting them over there." What moronic logic is that?!

Full Confidence in the Wolf

If I have to hear the shrub say that he has "full confidence" in another one of his cronies who are about to fall, I'll scream. Looks like Wolfowitz is going to be a lone wolf.

Dubya Does the Limbo

How low can you go?

Currently at 28% and showing no signs of doing anything but dipping lower, I'd say Dubya is in trouble. What do I mean? If the Shrub hits a Nixonian low (23%)--which I'd say is quite possible--it would be difficult to imagine many repugnacans in congress supporting him. This might make him impeachable AND convictable. I could easily see a group of congressmen finding some reasons to impeach him and if he has little to no support left in the Senate he might just get convicted. Only problem here is that this would be evil-incarnate in the driver's seat--and no one in the world wants that (except maybe OBL and Halliburton). Of course if we knock off Cheney first (can anyone say Kucinich?) or get a two-for-one...then Nancy can step right in!

As an aside, 28% ties Carter's low---stick that in your pipe Scarborough!

Republican Debate

I couldn't help myself--I had to watch. The obvious best candidate is Dr. Ron Paul, but mainstream Republicans will never go for him because their idea of what it means to be Republican has been so distorted over at least the last six years that they don't recognize a true conservative when they see one. This, of course, is good for the Democrats. Dr. Paul would trump us on the Iraq issue and probably win over many plain-speaking folks. Heck, I even kind of liked the guy. He's a fiscal conservative, upholder of the constitution, and knows that we need to be out of Iraq and stop nation-building. Sounds good to me. His 82 lifetime rating by the ACU scares me though.

Mitt?

Mitt Romney? PUH-LEEEZE! What a SLEEEZE! He's such a transparent slickster in a fancy suit. He'd do better at playing a president on TV than running for the actual presidency. He's a dumb, flip-flopping game-show host at best. Is "Mitt" his real name? Is it short for something? Mitten?

Scarborough [un]Fair with Carter

And speaking of Joe Scarborough, that guy has some issues with Jimmy Carter. What has Carter ever done to him? Joe seems to work a Carter-bash into just about every commentary he makes. Today he must have been in bash Carter overdrive because he managed to get two bashes, that I saw (see links below), in one day. Well Joe, you can jump all over Carter--he's a fairly easy target I guess--but that would fail to recognize the state of the union he inherited (from Republican damage) and the unfortunate events over which he had little control (e.g., failed hostage rescue--damned chopper couldn't fly in the sand). And Reagan taking credit for the release of the hostages was nothing short of disgraceful politics. Plus, jumping on Carter for his weaknesses does a disservice to his strengths as a rational and compassionate thinker, his ability to reason with people, to find common-ground, to do the proverbial "right thing". Let us also not forget that he has arguably done the most good of any of the ex-presidents when it comes to his humanitarian efforts after leaving office.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17522152/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18439344/

Joe's Unconventional Stupidity

Joe Scarborough, are you kidding me?!

In his commentary on the upcoming republican debate, Joe Scarborough said that conventional wisdom of distancing themselves from Bush is wrong. Well Joe, I'm sorry--I agree with you many times--but this time conventional wisdom is in fact wise. And I'll tell you why.

Joe stated that the candidates should "forget the messy details of Iraq" and "overlook Katrina" and focus on the three areas considered, by conservatives at least, as "unqualified success[es]"--the U.S. Supreme Court, terror, and taxes.

First of all, to omit the mistakes of Iraq--and there are many--and, perhaps more importantly, the reasons behind the mistakes--neoconservatives gone berserk with myopia, hubris, and radical fundamentalism--is akin to pretending there's no elephant in the living room. You just can't get away with ignoring thousands of American lives lost without coming across as arrogant or out of touch (two of Bush's hallmarks). How stupid does Joe think the American public is when it comes to politics and what has and is happening to our country and the world due to Bush's administration? Add to this Joe's own network, msnbc.com, headlining the Katrina disaster today(!) and there's another elephant you can't ignore.

So, Scarborough's basic premise is wrong from the start, but just for shits and giggles let's take a look at the three "successes."

1. Supreme Court - one word, Harriet (Meirs if you want two). Sure, she didn't make it to the big show, but let's not forget that this was Bush's best thinking. So, I ask you, do you want to sidle up to that record, or put about a country mile between yourself and Bush? After all, it was only under heavy pressure--from the likes of some the candidates themselves-- that her nomination sunk. Therefore you take credit for sinking a bad idea; you do NOT cozy up to the "thinker-in-chief" on this one. You might score a point for (Sc)Alito, but the jury is still out on Roberts and the aforementioned missteps would drag you down in a short format like this debate. With short formats you go for quick, obvious facts.
2. Terror - ok, so you can tout that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11. But that's where the crowing stops. Every expert, and anyone with common sense, knows that this has nothing to do with Bush's so-called 'war on terror', especially when it's so obviously how the Bush war in Iraq (which he and Cheney mistakenly call the war on terror) has depleted our financial and military resources. You might just get away with this and impress the right side of the base, but I wouldn't touch it without the chance to elaborate that you won't get in this debate.
3. Taxes - does Joe think that the only people who will watch the debate will be the wealthy? He must--or perhaps he hasn't talked to anyone lately outside of his tax bracket. So I'll tell him how this will play to most of middle-class Americans. The short answer is...it won't. This is because the buck and a half that I saved in taxes is gone with one trip to Texasco--and you don't want to open up that can of oil! The middle and lower income folks plainly see that the Bush tax breaks disproportionately favor the wealthy--and not all republicans are wealthy. So, again, if I were a candidate I wouldn't do more than mention my financial conservative stance. And I can assure you that you won't hear: "read my lips, no more taxes."

So what's a republican to do? I'll tell you what he should do (and looks like it's 10 white men--so much for diversity) if he wants to win the debate. You take an elephant gun and kill the elephant in the living room by stepping up to the plate and calling Bush for what he and most of his policies are--abysmal failures. Then you briefly state what you will do differently. Oh how utterly conventional.

Republican Troop Withdrawal Plan

According to CNN:
A senior Republican lawmaker, working behind the scenes with senators from both parties, has suggested a possible way to bridge that gap -- requiring troops to be withdrawn if the benchmarks aren't met but allowing the president to waive that requirement if he chooses.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, has also proposed setting a four-month deadline for the Iraqi government to make political progress. If no progress is demonstrated, the United States would then begin preparing for a troop withdrawal.

Well, if we have to settle for this type of bill, so be it I guess. I would argue that this is already Bush's war, but the first idea--allowing the president a waiver--would put this even more squarely on Bush alone. On the negative side, he'd likely waive the requirement, so it would keep the troops there. However, as things inevitably worsen, it could set up a scenario for the next funding bill (for 2008) to be even stronger and swifter in the troop removal (and get more bi-partisan support) than the one Bush is about to veto!