It's not as if it's a Blow Job - UPDATED

Listening to Rachel Maddow's summary of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, it looks like Obama is in the clear / will get away with his actions toward Libya. (she starts at about the 6 minute mark) It all seems to depend on the limited scope of the operation. Vietnam anyone? Bosnia/Kosovo? Thing is, just like with our support of despots, we aren't good at limited actions. There's no money in them for one thing.

Before I digress: Is this... action a good thing? Yes it is. It's always a good thing when you're saving lives. Even when those lives aren't fetuses. Is it the right thing? I don't know. How's that for being decisive, eh?

The thing to keep in mind is that seldom is the "stated issue" the "real issue." Take the gay marriage issue in California. The "real issue" was, could the far right republican movement arbitrarily choose a group and deny them a basic human right? Just as a salad is a vehicle for blu cheese dressing, gay marriage was just the vehicle neo Jim Crowism. It's led to the republicorp assault on worker rights. Soon, we quite likely could se an assault on the rights of non-property owners. Your right to vote if you're homeless is already under attack; renters are likely next. So....

Back to Libya, and the basic question of, "WHY? ???" Oil? They supply only 2% of world supply. Terrorism? Don't make me laugh. The "they-kept-us-safe" guys took him off the master list of terrists and called him an ally in their war on terrists. Humanitarianism? Don't make me cry. We've stood back and watched throughout the Darfur genocide among others.

One thing, among the many that piss me off about Obama, is that everything this administration does is only done after running it through focus groups. After looking at the "political aspects." One reason Obama is doing this, and I fear it may be "The Reason" is that he believes it will positively affect is chances for re-election. Attract independent voters? Maybe. Gain contributions from defense contractors? Likely. Fuck the base; they've got no where else to go. And there's no money in satisfying them.

Scary thought that we have another president so cravenly self serving and self centered that he would do this, but it may well be so. But still... impeach..?



Previously:

Soooooo much outrage over Obama's decision to follow a UN resolution on the formerly-Republicorp-desired No-Fly Zone in Libya. Now that it's happening, it seems to be hard to know what side to be on. Saving lives is always good, even after they're born, but why Libya? And why not Bahrain? Or Yemen? Or the Congo? Or Darfur? Or Burma? Or Rwanda? Or Bosnia/Kosovo? Or any number of former Soviet states in Central Asia or the Caucasus? We can't pick one country and make up for the lack of action in others. And we've never had a good track record in picking and choosing which despots we want to prop up. Karzai anyone? Or cut off. Castro anyone? Is this an Obama staff method of firing up the base? Doubt it. sooo.... What to do.

I expect Republicorp hypocrisy / ies and the accompanying media coddling. It's what they do. Both of them. It doesn't matter why Bush invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. By Republicorp party orthodoxy, they had to support him. It doesn't matter how, when, why or what Obama does with Libya, that same orthodoxy requires they they oppose it in some fashion. I expect all of that, just as I expect Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich calling Obama out on this. They're democrats, liberals, progressives. OK, maybe Nader's not a registered Dem, but they're people with actual moral codes, values and core beliefs. They believe in applying their own rules to themselves, unlike the other guys.

Among the many problems I have with this effort is our continual bi-partisan support of unchecked military spending. There's allllllways room for Jello money for wars. Says so in 1984. No money for schools. Or roads. Or our electrical grid. Or our water supply facilities. And NEVER money that would improve Social Security, or Medicare, or establish a universal health care system... by means other than (formerly) Republicorp approved corporate welfare. Gotta have those wars.

The hand wringing over all this misses the point: Executive power, and Obama's continuing embrace of Dubya style over-reach. Rather than raise the bar back to where it should be, where the president is accountable to congress and the people and the rule of law, he continues to be like or barely better than, Bush. He's repeatedly proven himself to be totally full of shit when it comes to him interpreting the constitution and Bush proved through John Yoo that you can find a lawyer/expert/quack to justify anything your twisted empty black heart and mind desire, so...

We no longer have standards in this country. If Obama should be impeached, then prosecute Bush, especially since he's confessed to committing what was considered a war crime post WW II. The same assholes who condemned Clinton for his blow jobs, fail to live up to their own standards: Newt, Ensign, Vitter, et al. In some cases they're glorified. If Obama gets impeached over this, so be it. But whichever way that goes, when will voters and backers of Republicorp and the Tea Baggers (sorry for the redundancy) hold their own side, not to MY/Democratic standards, no. When will they hold their side to their OWN standards? ???

More later.

For Dubya's Festival of Broken English

When ol' Cummander Codpiece gets up tomorrow night to supposedly give us the straight scoop on how the country's doing, remember:

the 935 lies he told about Iraq,
the lies about tax cuts benefiting all Umercins,
the lies about cutting the/HIS deficits in half,
the lies about pursuing those who outed Valerie Plame,
the constant covering up and stonewalling Congress (lying),
the lies about destroyed e-mails,
the lies about torturing innocents,
the lies about listening to his military commanders,
the lies about Iran,
the lies... I haven't mentioned, BUT:

Remember that this guy promised to bring honor and dignity back to the White House. Watch, compare, contrast, and then see if you can keep from laughing (or puking) tomorrow night.

Can A Straight Guy Talk about Fucking on the Sabbath?

In a comment to my last post

DCup inspired me thusly...

Now there's a scary idea.....a Christian Fascist party that calls itself what it is.
But then, I suppose we'd all know where they stand without the pretense, wouldn't we?

I wonder what will happen to the Republican Party if the Sunday School Conservatives and the Country Club Conservatives would have a real split.....

I think that what constantly amazes me are the different things they will and won't allow. Fucking prostitutes is OK; I think. Obviously it's OK for a male Senator to fuck a female prostitute; I think. That's only OK if you're a Repug; I think. Maybe they can't actually fuck; maybe they can only sit around together discussing world, family and moral issues while wearing diapers; and maybe it's only OK for the woman to wear a diaper. If she's an astronaut on a rush-rush mission to meet and greet a flight at some airport. But does the astronaut have to be republican? And would any self-respecting madam hire a repug astronaut to be a prostitute? I'm cornfused.

OK. I know it's not OK to be gay. At least in airport men's rooms; with cops. But what about if it's not at an airport? Or in a restroom? Or if it's with someone who's not a cop? What about in Congressional restrooms and/or cloakrooms? With (underage) male pages? Or on camping trips? Maybe as long as you don't send e-mails asking about cock sizes..? Or talk on the phone about using falafel sponges in the shower after snacking on loofah bread..? That's only bad if you get recorded; I think. Maybe she could have asked about cock size..? assuming he has one..? or maybe she could only have done that in e-mail..? On a laptop from an airport restroom wearing a diaper...

OK. Now I KNOW it's OK for a chick to be gay. If she's a Repug anyway. Now she can't run for office, but a relative can. Hell the relative can even be VP. And the chick can have a partner. And they -- or one of 'em -- can have a baby. Whose diapers they'll change together. It's just that no one can ask about it. At least not on non-Fox TV.

Now as long as the gay Senator stays out of a restroom with their underage page in a diaper eating a loofah bread while he's emailing about the VP's daughter's falafel sponge... Oh fuck it.

That's why there's Libertarians: Repugs who like to fuck and smoke pot.

Tails Tales from the Crapper Crypt

Fuckin Repugs... Ever try to break a kid out of the potty humor stage? Damn grandmonster's there right now, and the Repugs sure aren't helping with their antics of late. Make any noise that even hints of a fart sound and he's all over it like Craig on... Dammit. "They did what in the bathroom, Grumpa?" Where did I read/hear about the traveler asking airport security to direct them to the non-Republican bathroom? So where does crapper-sex fit in the "You're either with us, or against us," continuum? Or vice versa?

Is Larry "I da Ho" Craig gay or not? Hell, I don't know; ask his wife what his dick tastes like. Or check the contents of the streaks in his undies. 'nuff...

I was digging through past posts on Crooks and Liars this morning and came across found this post, but what really caught my eye was this comment:

The McConnell “get out or Vietnam” angle struck me as well.

“Hey, I didn’t grab that guy’s nuts because I’m gay, I did it because I’m a coward.”

Either way he seems to fit quite nicely with the Republican crowd.

Comment by Henk | Sep. 5, 2007, 7:16 am |

After reading I got to wondering: If the repug party, the party of morals, family, values and all that good shit attracted the fundamentalist vote because of all that Shit, but is now found to be the party of closet queens and hypocrisy, where the hell is the fundie vote going to go? I mean, they can't vote for Dems who just might not be in favor of fire-bombing Planned Parenthood clinics and lynching their docs and patients, or who would allow towel-headed camel jockies to live even if they can't prove that they don't want to kill us, can they?

Will they form their own party? The Christian-Fascists? Would they allow non-fundies to join? If they did, would they/ could they steal enough secular Fascists from the Repugs to actually become a viable force in future elections? How will they guard themselves against a gay infiltration? Pass a BISA law? The Bathroom Intelligence Surveillance Act?

What happens to the rest of the Repugs? Would they still be repugnant? Would there be enough of them left to matter when elections come around happen? Reminds me of the scene from "Titanic," "Is there anybody alive out there...?"

Hmmm... Who's going to say what when the count gets to Seven Wack-job Repug officials involved in Ten Knob-slobberous scandals?

Would Someone Please Suck His Cock? PLEASE?

I've basically been speechless this week, with the never ending stream of White house bull shit continuing unabated. From Bush's Cleveland speech where he once again excuses the whole insurance/pharma cartel from any responsibility over the rising cost and failing coverage of this country's health care system, to his once again, mooning and spitting in the face of Congress by declaring executive privilege in keeping Harriet Miers from testifying. The big question every day seems to be, "Which story takes the cake?" Is it his, AGAIN, declaring executive privilege and denying congress access to documents regarding the Pat Tillman scandal? or is it the scrambling to cover asses after Chertoff's gut rumbled, yet again rewriting the national intelligence estimate's declaration regarding the strength of al Qaida and their roles in Iraq and 9-11?

His lips move, he lies. More distressing, he lies and our beloved free press fails to call him on it, as if it's somehow more treasonous to point out betrayals of the public trust, than to actually do the betraying. Most distressing of all, impeachment is still "off the table."

He can threaten a veto of a provision to lower the cost of his prescription drug nightmare by allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prices and somehow that's OK.

He can ignore all evidence and link al Qaida with Iraq and with 9-11 and somehow that's OK.

He can declare that we must stay in Iraq to prevent it from becoming a terrorist training ground -- which it became long ago -- while allowing such a training ground to exist unmolested in Pakistan and somehow that's OK.

He can totally turn his back on New Orleans and the victims of Hurricane Katrina and somehow that's OK.

He can create the largest federal deficits in history so he can take credit for cutting them in half -- which he's failed to do, even through smoke and mirrors -- and somehow that's OK.

He can so bully the Surgeon General that he makes him little more than a snake handling tent preacher and somehow that's OK.

He can allow his Vice President to create a new branch of government to avoid any oversight or accountability and somehow that's OK.

He can tap phones and data mine the internet without warrants, out and out violating the FISA law and somehow that's OK.

He can do what he wants, say what he wants, about anything he wants, anytime he wants and somehow it's all just A-OK. When it's all said and done, he'll be able to look in the mirror and say that he followed his convictions. Yeah well, Dub


I'm sure that back in the day, Adolph Hitler could say the same thing.