Political Blog

The Height Of Presidential Arrogance

By: Cedric McClester, Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.

It is the height of presidential arrogance to suggest that it is time for the Iraqi government to stand on their two feet, considering we are the ones who knocked their legs from under them. Remember Shock and Awe? Who engineered that cataclysmic fiasco? You guessed it, America; the same America that now occupies their once sovereign land. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. We ruined their infrastructure and disbanded their army. Now we are demanding that their army stand up, so we can stand down. While there has been some progress toward that end, we are quite a distance from being able to stand down.

To be sure, the American people do not support the war that one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, got them into. The American people would like to see the troops withdrawn, sooner, rather than later. A strong argument against immediate withdrawal is that it would result in complete ciaos, as if ciaos is not what currently exists. Of course, presidential candidate John McCain, a staunch supporter of the current President, would have you believe that everything in Iraq is honky dory. The truth of the matter is the antithesis. Things couldn’t be worst. It doesn’t matter what you choose to call it, sectarian violence or civil war, Iraq is engaged in a pernicious brand of internecine warfare that isn’t likely to end any time soon. This means America’s armed forces are honor bound to remain until such time as things settle down. Absent American presence, what we are witnessing now could denigrate into wholesale ethnic cleansing.

Say what you will about Saddam Hussein he was a brutal dictator, but, he kept the trains running on time and the people in check. it wasn’t our place to remove him. That should have been left to the Iraqi people. There are those who would like to see George Bush removed. What do you think our response would be if a foreign power were to attempt to remove him? Do you think we would welcome them with open arms and garlands, or would we mount a tough resistance, as did the Iraqi people? The answer is obvious. President George Bush has gotten us into some deep do do and it will not be easy for us to extricate ourselves from the mess. The situation in Iraq is of our own making. Our standing in the world has diminished greatly during the Bush tenure. He has squandered every ounce of good will that existed after Nine-Eleven. To leave Iraq now wouldn’t help the situation one iota. It would further weaken us in the eyes of our allies and enemies. The question is, how much more loss of life and limb are the American people prepared to withstand before the bleeding is staunched? Recent public opinion polls would suggest that our patience is running thin. We are faced with a true dilemma, with no easy answer. We will probably have a presence in Iraq for many years to come.

040207cm

The Height Of Presidential Arrogance

By: Cedric McClester, Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.

It is the height of presidential arrogance to suggest that it is time for the Iraqi government to stand on their two feet, considering we are the ones who knocked their legs from under them. Remember Shock and Awe? Who engineered that cataclysmic fiasco? You guessed it, America; the same America that now occupies their once sovereign land. We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. We ruined their infrastructure and disbanded their army. Now we are demanding that their army stand up, so we can stand down. While there has been some progress toward that end, we are quite a distance from being able to stand down.

To be sure, the American people do not support the war that one of the most unpopular presidents in recent memory, got them into. The American people would like to see the troops withdrawn, sooner, rather than later. A strong argument against immediate withdrawal is that it would result in complete ciaos, as if ciaos is not what currently exists. Of course, presidential candidate John McCain, a staunch supporter of the current President, would have you believe that everything in Iraq is honky dory. The truth of the matter is the antithesis. Things couldn’t be worst. It doesn’t matter what you choose to call it, sectarian violence or civil war, Iraq is engaged in a pernicious brand of internecine warfare that isn’t likely to end any time soon. This means America’s armed forces are honor bound to remain until such time as things settle down. Absent American presence, what we are witnessing now could denigrate into wholesale ethnic cleansing.

Say what you will about Saddam Hussein he was a brutal dictator, but, he kept the trains running on time and the people in check. it wasn’t our place to remove him. That should have been left to the Iraqi people. There are those who would like to see George Bush removed. What do you think our response would be if a foreign power were to attempt to remove him? Do you think we would welcome them with open arms and garlands, or would we mount a tough resistance, as did the Iraqi people? The answer is obvious. President George Bush has gotten us into some deep do do and it will not be easy for us to extricate ourselves from the mess. The situation in Iraq is of our own making. Our standing in the world has diminished greatly during the Bush tenure. He has squandered every ounce of good will that existed after Nine-Eleven. To leave Iraq now wouldn’t help the situation one iota. It would further weaken us in the eyes of our allies and enemies. The question is, how much more loss of life and limb are the American people prepared to withstand before the bleeding is staunched? Recent public opinion polls would suggest that our patience is running thin. We are faced with a true dilemma, with no easy answer. We will probably have a presence in Iraq for many years to come.

040207cm

By: Cedric McClester, Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved

There’s an old adage that applies to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when first we practice to deceive, oh what a tangled web we weave. Apparently, Mr. Gonzales was less than forthcoming when he said he had little to do with the dismissals of the nine United States Attorneys who worked for him. It appears that Mr. Gonzales and senior advisors met ten days prior to the dismissals to discuss the dismissals. Of course Mr. Gonzales says he doesn’t remember the meeting. It’s the kind of incompetence that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration. Remember soon to be pardoned Scooter Libby? He too suffered from faulty memory syndrome.

In the rearview mirror of history, we discovered for much of his presidency the late Ronald Regan had Alzheimer Disease. Are now to believe that Mr. Gonzales might be demonstrating early symptoms of the same disease? According to a spokesperson, Gonzales can’t recall the hour-long staff meeting he called to discuss the firings. Instead, he remembers tasking his chief of staff to carry out the firings. “He did not participate in the selection of those to be fired. How come? He did sign off on the final list.” Gonzales’ level of non-involvement in the agency he has been tasked to run, is reminiscent of FEMA’s Michael Brown. The Presidents continued support for Mr. Gonzales calls to mind his support for Mr. Brown, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Like Katrina, the Bush Administration continues to be a national tragedy. There is no level of incompetence that goes unrewarded. Who can forget Mr. Bush’s staunch support for the gregarious Donald Rumsfeld, his former Secretary of Defense. Mr. let’s go with a meaner leaner armed force proved to be one of the worst defense secretaries in recent memory. This did not stop our C-student president from vowing his undying support for Mr. Rumsfeld.

We can only hope that Mr. Gonzales receives the same kind of support, hopefully of a much shorter duration. Perhaps we’ve been in the Middle East too long but I could swear I saw Gonzales kiss Mr. Bush’s shoulder. Gonzales must be removed, if confidence in the Justice Department is ever to be restored, Mr. Gonzales has to go. How many lies does he have to be caught in before the President recognizes the inevitable? Unfortunately lying is seen as a virtue in the Bush Administration. From the President on down, everyone associated with the Bush Administration lies. Foremost among the Bush liars is Tony Snow, who used to shill for the President when he was a talking head on the Fox network. His current position is an extension of his former position. Let’s get back to the topic at hand. The aforementioned staff meeting took place as Mr. Gonzales and his aide’s awaited final White House approval of the detailed dismissal plan that had been drafted by D. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’ chief of staff. According to the New York Times, The plan was sent to the White House on Nov. 15, according to previously released e-mail. Harriett E. Miers, the then White House counsel, approved Mr. Sampson’s proposal on Dec. 4, and the dismissals were carried out three days later.

The U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire any or all 93 of them on a whim. This however, is usually done at the beginning of a president’s term, as Bill Clinton, did, not in the middle. Of a term. Not at the conclusion of successful prosecutions. All nine-fired U.S, attorneys had exemplary records, yet they were unceremoniously dismissed. In several of these instances elected officials queried them about sealed indictments. Some Republican elected officials wanted Democrats prosecuted. Others wanted on-going prosecutions discontinued. This smacks of the kind of partisan politics that have become all to familiar in this administration. We the people, should be able to have confidence in our Justice system. Under the present leadership, , this is impossible. Mr. Gonzales is loyal to a fault. His loyalty is misplaced. He should be loyal to the law and its administration. Instead he has made a political circus out of the Justice Department, and he is the head clown.

There are consequences for lies as Senator Charles Schumer noted. He said, “If the facts bear out that the attorney general knew much more than he admitted, he simply cannot continue as attorney general.” Lying to Congress is a serious crime, a fact that must have escaped the attorney general. Since lying is second nature to the members of this administration, Mr. Gonzales may have forgotten. George Bush and his acolytes have perverted every good and pure thing about this nation. They have made a mockery of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Mr. Gonzales to a large extent has provided the legal rationale for many of the things that have been done to rob us of our basic American rights. Like some backwater Third World country, people in America can be disappeared. No trial of peers, no jury, no defense. Mr. Gonzales sanctioned all of this. Our phones can be tapped and our mail opened without justification. We are left to ask, Is this America?

Gonzales has become an embarrassment to his Mexican heritage. He is so anxious to curry favor with the power elite, particularly Master George, that he has forgotten his humble beginnings. Perhaps this assumption is incorrect. Maybe it’s that he never wants to return to those humble beginnings that has him ignoring his obligation to serve justice. As Gonzales sees it, damn the people’s justice system if it means abandoning George. Following the tumultuous Clinton years, President Bush promised to bring dignity back to the White House. Instead, he has disgraced the office by making the kind of appointments of which Mr. Gonzales is indicative. Despite protestations to the contrary, Mr. Gonzales will be buckwheat’s before the month of April passes. Bank on it.

032507cm

If the title of this article caught your attention as intriguing – you aren’t alone. In fact, the words “Iranian-American Alliance” seem so strange that even the uninformed know something is terribly wrong with them. And the uninformed would of course know that we don’t have an alliance because we have fought bloody wars against one another, Iranians don’t respect women or Jews, and they are a governed by a ruthless dictator. The problem is that none of those things are true.

We have never fought a war with Iran, women and Jews are treated better in Iran than in just about any other Middle Eastern nation, and their leader is elected by the people. While their democracy has its flaws, Iran is perhaps the most democratic country in the Middle East outside of Israel (and arguably Iraq). Now make no mistake, the Iranians are not in love with America. The United States made a terrible decision in 1953 to follow British advice and overthrow the democratically elected government. This of course gave rise to a government friendly to the United States and Britain, but unpopular with the people. Without elaborating too much, the 1979 Revolution in Iran where Americans were taken hostage was the result of a population demanding their voice be heard. The result was a theocracy that in principle is fundamentally opposed to America.

Now, fast forward to 2007 – nearly thirty years after the Revolution. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is losing popular support at home. The Iranian people (50% of which fall between the ages of 15 and 30) are demanding more freedoms and a better economy. These are two things that their leader has failed to provide. What’s worse is that Ahmadinejad insists on defying the UN demand that he halt uranium enrichment. This news does not sit well with many Iranians who – while supporting their nation’s peaceful nuclear program – disapprove of their government’s way of handling the issue. Iranian youth are concerned about the things that their Western counterparts are concerned about – iPods and Playstation 3. That is a way of saying that the realities of 1953 have started to fade and that Iranians seek to become part of the international family with all of the luxuries and technological marvels that come with it. They are fed propaganda about the West (especially the US) in order to keep them more in line with the government agenda. Unfortunately, the US has done nothing positive to attempt to rectify the situation.

We still insist on having cold relations with Tehran while the honest people in the know will tell you that they pose little threat to our wellbeing. Our handling of the nuclear issue has so far been restrained, but lacks the American leadership to which we are accustomed. Instead of meeting with the Iranians, we have instead chosen to remain cold. Iran certainly isn’t making our lives any easier, but in the climate of today’s world, America should show a little humility. In fact, I think a single gesture could open up a tremendous opportunity between our nations. If President Bush would only offer to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a neutral location, perhaps we could at least make some progress. Even during our Cold War with the Soviets, Reagan and Gorbachev met face to face to build a rapport with one another. It is unlikely that all problems will be fixed with one meeting, but it could be a great start if nothing else. Nuclear issues need not be discussed in the first meeting. Instead, a simple gesture of goodwill would probably do much to decrease tensions.

Iran cannot defeat the United States militarily, and the United States (if using military force) cannot defeat the Iranians politically. Neither side can afford a war of this magnitude the result of which will be wasted blood and treasure. The attempt to build some sort of fellowship between Bush and Ahmadinejad certainly seems ludicrous today. However, I think the world would breathe a collective sigh of relief if a meeting like this took place. If nothing else, it simply looks good. It shows that the spirit of dialogue is indeed alive and well. America used to be a master at dialogue and our national identity is that of solving problems using a pen and a voice. These are the attributes that made us a great nation and a respected nation in the eyes of many throughout the world. We can get back there without much work if we make the decision to do so. It is time for our leaders to meet face to face in the spirit of peace and an eye towards future cooperation and prosperity.

Terrorism to Dominate in today’s Culture

A culture create around terrorism, is this any way to live? Or Do you call this living? Are you prepared to live in this way and means for the rest of you life? If you are, then you might as well rescind the U.S. Constitution, because your constitution is a pursuit of different means.

Terrorism is considered successful if its victims react in a disturbed and upsetting manner. If a nations culture is disturbed and their course of life is rendered in upheaval, then terrorism has gain a victory, that simple, and that quickly. Politicians delight in terrorism because it gives them a purpose, a job, a perceived value to society as a politician uses terrorism to justify his value to society as a whole. Propaganda of war, with honor tradition and values attached to war are broadcast and introduced to the people of a society. With a propaganda machine that ties, truth, honor, and justice, as granted for the men and women who fight the wars. The truth here again is still the political machine working to rally its people to war. I will not whole heartily rescind war at this point, because maybe, war has its place, time and need. All war has a base, a cause, a truth, a justification, a motivational rallying point. People can feel, and people can feel the truth in anything, if it doesn’t feel right to a person, then it probably isn’t. Why? Because each person has their own individual beliefs. Some love war, and Some absolutely appall it, the rest are somewhere in between, this is undeniably the truth in the make up of the people we all live with today.

For many, war is an essential, if not, only means to keep the peace, get what you want from the world, and to maintain command of individuals and people, groups, factions, and other nations. For 4 years now the Iraq war has been going on and the justification of it has been weak, unresolved and unproven, therefore it has been a war of false justification, a war of lies and deceit. Now it could be argued that the war is justified because it brought justice for a people suffered and suffering under ethnic cleansing rule of a tyrannically despot ruler despondent and detached from the lives of the people he is in rule and protection over? He has been proven a thug, a boss, and not a king, or nationalist, or anything near a man of the people, by the people, and for the people.

He was nothing more then a derange delusional self motivated individual who stole is way into power. Sound familiar? I wonder about that election? In truth, the people are all powerful over it’s govern body. Roman rule called the people; “Mob” Roman rulers feared the “Mob” and recognized its power over them. History will not tell you, the Roman Rule learned how to control the “Mob” thus giving more confidence to individual thought and legislative scripture in the governing body with less fear of removal or upheaval. This power over the “Mob” is valued in keeping the “Mob” or rather “The People” separated from each other, interested but disinterested, distracted and busy, with beliefs they are unable to make a difference. The people separated by language differences, value differences, religious differences, income differences, is the people separated. I’m not saying a homogeneous body of society is needed or wanted or desired. I’m not saying the this separation and differences will hindered the body public from rising up to a cause or an occasion where they decide as a whole or at least as a majority that what is the current ways and means of life, order, and Nationalism, is of no value to the individuals that make up the National Body.

What I’m saying is Oil and Gas is not the only means for sources of energy to run a Nation, and to value anyone who brings his people into the cost of lives and death for some for the good of others with out the Balls to bring his people away from Oil Dependence to Maintain his peoples declared INDEPENDENCE is not a man in charge protecting and ensuring the execution of the Constitution of the United States, which a President of the United States is so Charged….go ahead, read it, its right there in the Constitution. The truth is we are the creators of are own destiny, some like to create in stead and in name of others, while the others really haven’t valued or agreed with his or her representation, according to the governing method of representation that person has agreed, but on an individual basis, that person has not agreed, so so individually that person can bare the pain and suffering of his disagreement as in the United States, The Majority Vote is the Decided Course of Action, this is our Representitive form of Democracy, and not a Pure Democracy.

If our country were a Pure Democracy, the individual Vote would be honored, respected, and accounted for, GATHERED, TALLIED, SAFEGAURDED, BROADCAST, AND REVEALED to the people so the people could view there body public results of their body public vote. This we do not have in America. So in reality, America is not legally Free, just lead to believe that it is Legally and Justifyabley Free, There is a Revolution left for the American People and that Revolution is for “Truth, and Compassion” in its Form and in its Choice of a Governing Body. Anything Else is Political Manifestations and Personal Agendas.

“The People” still have the power to shape, form, and control their governing Body, this power is granted only by the Constitution and the ¾ referrundum of the people. So the last revolution can only be the right and justified revolution without the use of violence and only the use of words, asseration, vote of the People by the People for the People.

A Direct Democracy Website is needed where instead of blogging, actual voting can be done. These voting results can be compared to what the Mainstream News Organizations are telling us, to see if there is any near correlations, because obviously the same people voting in the election will not be the same people voting online?

Every President, Congressmen and Congress Women, current Governing Bodies, are somewhat there for their Own Political Means as well as political Means for Major interest Groups, and then finally and somewhat, maybe, the Body Public and The People.

Is it fair to state this?

Some say yes.

Some say no.

If you take maybe 15 or twenty years just dedicated to letting people speak freely about their lives, and how wether or not they are happy with what government is doing and how if it is good for their lives or not, you might just find more complaints then praise, and you might just find more apathy and disinterest then interest. So is this a Great Government in Place or is This a Great Government in Place Patting itself too much on its own Back? Our government has lost its sac to listen to its people and give them the opportunity to decide and judge wether the Government is doing a good Job or Not. Our government is clearly not listening to its people, and operating on its own agenda, there for it is a government of not by the people and for the people, and therefore should be dissolved and replaced.

Just a thought.

“Let the People Rule!”

I was banned from Chovy’s political forum when a moderator admitted to admin there that I had BCC’d them on email I sent to Chovy.

I submit is is my right to control my emails as I see fit, and to include anyone I wish, openly or not.

The other thing I discovered is that John L, the admin who banned me had shared PM’s he sent to me with site moderators, he explains it as keeping his mod staff informed.

So why can’t I see the difference between me BCCing a moderator with an email, and he sharing PM’s? What am I missing that mine is a bannable offense and his is alright?

Lately, Israeli news provider Ynet has been providing me with some really, really shocking news. Israeli left-wing peace pigeon supporting settlements, Egyptians on gov’t payroll smuggling guns and FBI getting to far-reaching conclusions. Boy, is this world a shocking place.

Okay, so the shocking news number one are the Israeli vice PM Shimon Peres - who was one of the fathers of the 1993 Oslo peace agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians that lead to hundreds of Israelis killed and creation of a terrorist autonomy right beside Israel - said in a London press-conference that settlements are likely to be expanded:

Israel cannot be punished twice…The settlers’ children cannot be stopped from building their homes.

It took Peres a while to change his mantra, as over a year ago the tune was different:

JERUSALEM, May 27 (AFP) - Israel must dismantle more settlements in the occupied West Bank after removing all soldiers and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres said Friday.

“Facts will not allow Israel to rest on its laurels after the Gaza pullout, we must evacuate other settlements,” said Peres, one day after US President George W. Bush called on Israel to dismantle illegal outposts in the West Bank.

Shimon Peres supporting settlers? Geez, the times are different if the patriarch of the Oslo agreements supports something clearly violating them. Another questions - which is even more interesting - is where exactly Olmert and his government are leaning now. Peres probably didn’t voice just his opinion - he wouldn’t speak this way without consulting with Olmert first. It will be interesting to see if this is Olmert’s new politics. After all, PM that won the election by promoting a realignment plan - by which Israel will unilaterally move out of the West Bank (moving out all army bases and all settlements) - suddenly putting the plan not only on hold, but maybe practically canceling it - looks like a major turn in Israeli politics. When Kadima party was created it was based on sort-of Sharon’s legacy - removing Israelis from their homes by force - and the major idea was to withdraw from the West Bank. Now that the idea is put on indefinite hold, the party is likely to either disband itself or at the very least get less Knesset seats in the next elections, as there is nothing more to hold the party members together.

And now to the more “shocking” news. At the same day of Peres’ talk mentioned above, Ynet reported on a new and shocking Federal Bureau of Investigations finding: Hezbollah still a threat:

US Counterterrorism officials on Thursday testified that Hizbullah’s capable, well-trained fighters continue to threaten the survival of Lebanon’s government, Israel and US interests around the world.

Is this not shocking? Who could’ve thought an organization fighting Israel and killing its people for six and a half years after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon and actively helping groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad (not to mention its current intentions to re-build its armed forces and be ready to fight Israel again) - would be a deadly threat? But it only gets better - as Hezbollah supporters have quite valid ways of gaining money for their Lebanese friends:

Hizbullah sympathizers in the United States, Kavanagh [Counterterrorism official with the Federal Bureau of Investigation] said, have laundered money, trafficked drugs and engaged in bank and credit card fraud.

Iran’s money is not enough anymore? I think it’s easily understandable where did Hezbollah have all that money to give away to people after the Israel-Lebanon war - obviously a step to gain support over Lebanese government.

And last, but not less shocking (!) is Egyptian policemen smuggling weapons into Gaza strip for the Palestinian terrorists:

The policemen were handing over the weapons to the Palestinians, when Egyptian authorities interrupted the deal and arrested them, the officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The ammunition was stolen from Egyptian stockpiles, while the grenades were provided by local Bedouin, the officials said. The plan was to smuggle the weapons into Gaza through tunnels or through the Rafah border crossing, the officials added.

Apparently, this isn’t the first case of Egyptian security forces helping their Palestinian brothers:

NEVE DEKALIM, Gaza – Some Egyptian soldiers stationed at the Sinai-Gaza border have been bribed by Palestinians to allow weapons to be smuggled from Egypt into the nearby Rafah refugee camp, the security chief for Gaza’s Jewish communities told WND in an exclusive interview.

It isn’t surprising for Israeli soldiers serving on the Egyptian-Israeli border prior to the 2005 disengagement. In one, Israeli newspaper in russian “Vesti” printed IDF officer’s testimony where the officer says after blowing up a Palestinian smuggling tunnel, the smoke came out of the other end of the tunnel on the Egyptian side - from the Egyptian soldiers’ outpost. Smuggling through Israel-Egypt border been going for years, with Egyptian forces doing nothing on the subject. Where does the surprise come from then?

Israel pulled out of Gaza last year, turning control of the coastal strip’s borders over to Palestinian and Egyptian officials. Since then, Israel has said smuggling of weapons and explosives across the Egypt-Gaza border has increased considerably.

And why wouldn’t it? The border is clear now from the Zionist occupants, and Mubarak’s soldiers won’t do much to stop their brothers from fighting the enemy. Anyone else has any illusions on a soon-coming peace in the Middle East through withdrawals?

From TacticalSniper’s Blog.

This week Syrian PM announced that the latest Israeli-Lebanese war is a great new opportunity for peace in the Middle East. In this case, he talked about peace between Israel and Syria, and urged Israel to return the Golan Heights back to his state. At the same time, Assad plays tough, warning Israel against attacking:

“If Israel goes out on an adventure and attacks Syria, it will begin paying a very high price.”

Assad also said that the chance for peace between Israel and Syria is low.

It is quite obvious here that Assad started a propaganda machine for his own people and the supporters of Syria, trying to set Syria’s feet on a solid ground, especially after being accused so many times of supporting Hezbollah in its war against Israel - which brought only death and destruction to the Lebanese people. He probably understands that Syrian army is no match for the Israeli one. His goal at the moment is to show himself as a strong leader, which might help him re-gain wide support in Lebanon, which he clearly wants.

However, Assad’s words are what they are - just words. As Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said: “If Assad’s intentions are sincere, he can prove it by stopping arms transfer to Hizbullah”, which is a right way to go. Assad’s intention is not peaceful, as there are several Syrian “projects” aimed against Israel - from arming Hezbollah to creating its own Hezbollah-type guerilla force aimed at attacking Israel same way Hezbollah does to liberate the Golan Heights (not to mention supporting Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal, blamed by Israeli officials as being responsible for the life of Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit). Apparently, Syria learned “”fighting” is more effective than peace negotiations with regard to gaining territory”.

Israeli political command not only reacted with skepticism to Assad’s statements - most of them did not react at all. DM Peretz declared Assad should do they job, not talk. Olmert dismissed Assad’s statements as a pressure-reliever. The Israeli people - or at least most of them - do not believe a word Syrian President says. And why would they? Syria is praising and actively supporting Lebanon’s Hezbollah, being basically a connection point between Iran and Lebanon. Syria is also harboring and supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This is definitely not a way for peace.

The problem is that even this way Assad is gaining some support in Israel - even though it’s from the extreme left and Arab population. A Knesset Member Mohammad Barakeh immediately accused Olmert of “trying to close every window of opportunity for negotiations leading to peace in the area”, while United Arab List MK Ahmed Tibi slammed Olmert for his “rejection”. Two MK’s even visited Syria - which is regarded by Israel as an enemy state - and swore Assad is thirsty for peace. Syria’s agents inside Israel still have a lot of work on their hands.

The situation is not likely to improve. Even if we would on some level assume Assad does actually want peace - he will never be able to go for it, being under pressure from Iran, which still wages its covert war to wipe Israel off the map, where Hezbollah’s its most powerful card at the moment, while Assad is only a puppet. Assad facing many accusations - from the world, for supporting Hezbollah and from Lebanese people, well - for supporting Hezbollah and - as many believe - assassinating Prime Minister Rafik Hariri - making Assad’s chair quite uncomfortable.

Yet, nothing will stop him from gaining some more cheap fame among his people. The question is if Assad understands that “cheap” many times used as “not particularly good”, as his fame might very soon fade away to be replaced by shame, as soon as he will actually have to take tough decisions.

This and other articles at TacticalSniper’s Blog.

THAT was fucking hilarious!!

Originally posted at Swing State Ohio.

Dictionary.com defines a pathological liar as “a person who lies to the point of it being considered a disease or condition, an abnormally habitual liar.”

Most politicians tend to stretch the truth a bit while they are in office. Whether is is George Bush’s assertion that “Iraq has WMD’s” or Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” examples can be found throughout American history. The distinction lies in the last part of the definition quoted above: an abnormally habitual liar.

In the paragraphs below, I’ll explain why I feel that Jean Schmidt is an abnormally habitual liar. To make my point, I’ve numbered several instances in which Schmidt has not only stretched the truth, but has intentionally lied to voters in an attempt to make herself look better, or her opponent look worse.

Lie #1: Denied that she knew Tom Noe

July 31st 2005, from Swing State Project:

This morning’s CBS 12 “Newsmakers” program, Jean Schmidt lied to the voters – only two days before the election. In an effort to cover up Jean Schmidt’s involvement in the scandalous culture of corruption, Schmidt said she didn’t know Tom Noe. Schmidt said she’d never met Tom Noe. Schmidt said she had never even heard of Tom Noe. The woman with the “file-card memory” lied.

You see, Jean Schmidt was Vice Chair of the Higher Education
Subcommittee of the House Finance and Appropriations Committee. During
the same period, Tom Noe was a member of the Board of Regents.

In fact, on March 21, 2002, official state documents prove Jean Schmidt testified before Tom Noe’s committee.

Lie #2: Swift-Boated a veteran on the day of the primary

August 2nd 2005, from Cincinnati News:

The Schmidt Campaign released a press release Monday alleging that Paul Hackett has been misleading voters by “touting that he will be the first Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran to serve in Congress.” According to the press release, “that is untrue.”

The release goes on to explain that “Republican Congressman Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois served in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Kirk is a Naval Reserve intelligence officer who is the only member of Congress to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

According to a USA Today Candidate Profile, Kirk “continues to serve one weekend a month in the Pentagon, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff war room during Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

I went on to explain at Cincinnati News that:

I would hardly consider a politician spending “one weekend a month” in the Pentagon to be a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Most definitions of veteran include the phrase “active duty status.” Active duty status refers to “full-time duty in the active military service of the United States.” Given these criteria, the situation becomes much more clear. Mark Steven Kirk was a politican in D.C. when the conflict began, and he was a politician in D.C. when he spent one weekend a month at the Pentagon during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The DCCC Stakeholder blog put it this way:

And yes, this is a real press release, and yes putting that out on the last day of the campaign so that nobody has a chance to blast you for it is one of the most pathetically cowardly things I’ve seen.

Incredibly, the original press release is still hosted on Jean Schmidt’s website.

Lie #3: Tried to blame shameful comments on Ohio State Rep. Danny Bubp.

November 22nd 2005, from Think Progress(emphasis added):

During Rep. Jean Schmidt’s (R-OH) shameful attack on Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA) on the House Floor she said she was communicating a message from Marine Colonel Danny Bubp:

A few minutes ago I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio Representative from the 88th district in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance from this body – that we will see this through.

Bubp denies he said that:

Danny Bubp, a freshman state representative who is a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, told The Enquirer that he never mentioned Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., by name when talking with Schmidt…”There was no discussion of him personally being a coward or about any person being a coward,” Bubp said.

Why can’t Jean Schmidt take responsibility for her own ridiculous comments? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that she has made quite a habit of lying and getting away with it.

Lie #4: Stretched her bio to include two college degrees even though she only earned one.

April 4th 2006, From ChannelCincinnati.com(emphasis added):

The freshman congresswoman is facing a complaint about the truthfulness of her education and her endorsements.

The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes, or COAST, has endorsed Schmidt’s opponent in the GOP primary, Bob McEwen. The group claims that some of Schmidt’s claimed endorsements are bogus, and instead of two bachelor degrees as stated on various biographical material, she has one.

“If it was one incident, I might think there was some merit in letting it go,” COAST’s Jim Urling said. “But we’ve got a very troubling, disconcerting pattern of misrepresentations here.”

Schmidt’s chief of staff, Barry Bennett, denied any such pattern. He told News 5 that a staffer mistakenly credited Schmidt with a second degree while creating a Web site six years ago, when Schmidt was in the Ohio House. Bennett said Schmidt’s official Web sites were corrected a year ago.

However, News 5 found a mid-June survey from the League of Women Voters that reflects two college degrees.

I’ve laid out four examples with documentation that show that Jean Schmidt is an abnormally habitual liar. If I spent the time, I could probably find several more. I think Paul Hackett said it best in a recent interview with the Cincinnati Drinking Liberally group: “She’s a pathological liar and we all know it…”

Perhaps someone from Schmidt’s staff or even Jean herself will rebuke my claims in the comment section, but I’m not holding my breath.