BottleOfBlog

No Punchline Required

United States officials protecting foreign nationals from abuse at the hands of their own governments.

A long-running effort by the Bush administration to send home many of the terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has been stymied in part because of concern among United States officials that the prisoners may not be treated humanely by their own governments, officials said.

Concerned with humane treatment, the Bush administration provides all detained foreign nationals with protective eye, ear and mouth gear as well as hats and gloves to provide warmth during the cruel Cuban winters.  And summers.

To help ease the loneliness some foreign nationals may feel after years of seperation from their friends, families and countries of origin, all detainees are provided with pets.

Prisoners put on pageants!

And participate in team sports.

And they recieve the finest health care in the world.

"It is kind of ironic that the U.S. government is placing conditions on other countries that it would not follow itself in Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib," said a Middle Eastern diplomat from one of the countries involved in the talks. He asked not to be named to avoid criticizing the United States in the name of his government, as well as to avoid a head bag and a crotch full of German shepherds.

It isn't ironic.  It's the Bush administration.  There's nothing ironic about it.

Criminal Fraud

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's disaster response agency should be abolished and rebuilt from scratch to avoid a repeat of government failures exposed by Hurricane Katrina, a Senate inquiry has concluded…

"The United States was, and is, ill-prepared to respond to a catastrophic event of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina," the recommendations warn. "Catastrophic events are, by their nature, difficult to imagine and to adequately plan for, and the existing plans and training proved inadequate in Katrina."

Former FEMA director Michael Brown said the new agency would basically have the same mission as FEMA had a year ago, before its disaster planning responsibilities were taken away.

"It sounds like they're just re-creating the wheel and making it look like they're calling for change," Brown said. "If indeed that's all they're doing, they owe more than that to the American public."

But Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who led the inquiry, said the new agency would be "better equipped with the tools to prepare for and respond to a disaster."

Describing FEMA as a "shambles and beyond repair," Collins said the overall report "will help ensure that we do not have a repeat of the failures following Hurricane Katrina."

That's FEMA.  That's the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  That's the agency which is supposed to provide aid and assistance to Americans in the event of a disaster so large that it overwhelms state and local resources.

Like, say, for instance, a catastrophic terrorist attack.

Under Clinton, it was one of the best federal agencies.  That's according to a Democrat, of course.  And under Bush, according to a Republican--according to all Republicans--it's a "shambles beyond repair".

Don't kid yourselves that this is a bureaucratic problem.  It's five years after September 11th.  This is an agency which would be critical to America's ability to respond to a large scale terrorist attack.

And it's a fucking shambles.  Beyond repair.

Where did the money go?  What did these jokers do with all this time???

Don't answer.  The money's gone.  They didn't do shit.  They never meant to do shit. 

The only terror they were ever concerned about was yours.

If It Weren't For Bad Ideas, They'd Be The Party Of No Ideas

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday...

"Our plan would give taxpayers a hundred dollar gas tax holiday rebate check to help ease the pain that they're feeling at the pump," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Thursday. "It also includes strong federal anti-price gouging protection to protect consumers against anti-competitive behavior by oil companies or other suppliers of gasoline. Our free market system works, but it works best when there's full accountability and full transparency."

Frist said the rebates would go to single taxpayers making less than $125,000 per year, and couples making less than $150,000.

That's fantastic!  Read it again--the Republicans, in Congress, are going to give each taxpayer, making less than $125,000 a year checks for $100 to help "ease the pain" we're feeling at the pump.

Sounds a little Clintonesque, doesn't it?  That they're feeling our pain?  I'll tell you what isn't Clintonesque about it:

How stupid it is.

Republicans in Congress, who control both houses and are, therefore, just as culpable as the Berzerker In Chief for the mindblowing 400 plus billion dollar a year deficit are going to give about a hundred million Americans checks for a hundred dollars.  That's about ten billion dollars.

Only thing is that: not since Bill Clinton ran the country has the gubment actually had ten billion dollars just lying around for general welfare of Muricans.  The gubment doesn't have any money. 

So the Party of Fiscal Responsibility is proposing to borrow from you ten billion dollars so it can pay you ten billion dollars to help ease your pain.  For a while.  Until you have to pay back the ten billion dollars you borrowed from yourself.

Plus interest.

Meanwhile, the Disaster In Chief has sprung into action, after doing nothing until gas prices doubled, and immediately, after several years, switched into crisis mode, after waiting until the summer of an election year, and taken measures that, while extreme, will have no effect on anything.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Calling the oil issue a matter of national security, President Bush outlined a plan Tuesday to cut gasoline costs and temporarily stopped deposits to the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve…

"It's less than 30,000 barrels a day in a country that consumes 21 million. That's not even rearranging a single deck chair on the Titanic," said Peter Beutel, president of the energy risk management firm Cameron Hanover.

It's a matter of National Security so, naturally, Bush could give a flying fuck.  About results, anyway.  He did get some good press out of it.  On FOX News and AM radio.

And even though Bush has just recently decided to make a grand meaningless gesture for the sake of national security, the same can't be said of Republicans in Congress.

They've been trying to make a grand meaningless gesture for the sake of national security for years.

Republican senators said they hoped soaring gas prices would inspire Democrats to support their proposals.

"A lot of these other things we're talking about today, supply, like ANWR, have had Democrats oppose them in the past, when gas was $1.25, $1.50. Gas is now $3," said John Thune, R-South Dakota. "I would expect that there would be a lot more bipartisan support for proposals that would increase supply in this country."

"We have been trying for years to do something about supply without their help. I hope now that we'll have their help," he added.

And how will this help?

The Alaska refuge could supply as much as 1 million barrels day at peak production, drilling supporters said. But they acknowledge that even if ANWR's oil is tapped, it would have no impact on soaring oil prices and tight supplies. The first lease sales would not be issued until 2007, followed by development seven to 10 years later, Interior Secretary Gale Norton said.

It will take ten years and have no effect on soaring oil prices and tight supplies.

Good God!  Why are Democrats not helping Republicans help Americans???

What other great ideas have Republicans had?  Well, they've picked a fight with Venezuela.  They picked a fight with Canada.  And in their drunken sailor spending free for all, they financed China's industrial revolution.

You remember China?  That's the country with a billion or so people who are all, courtesy of the Bush Boom, now buying Japanese cars.  And building gas stations for them.

But you can't blame this disaster in the making on the Bush administration and it's energy policies. You know why?  Because you don't know what our energy policy is.  It's secret.

But--shhhh!--it does involve executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco, Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc.  Also, Ken Lay.  So you know it's good for you.

It's certainly been good for Exxon.

But even if our energy policy weren't secret, even if we knew for a fact how awful it was, you still couldn't blame Bush and his Insane Clown Posse for the rise of gas prices.  Any attempt to blame a sitting president for the rise in the cost of gas is ridiculous!  Any politician, any party which would dare to blame the president and his energy policy or lack thereof for the cost of gas is completely unscrupulous, disingenuous, dishonest, and, frankly, disgusting.

Wait for it!  It's too easy!

With oil jumping to over $75 a barrel last week, I thought it would be worth revisiting an item from Idiots 193, published in April 2005. Here for your viewing pleasure are statements that various Republicans made about the Clinton administration back in 2000, when Candidate Bush was blaming President Clinton for oil at around $30 a barrel and gas prices going over a whopping $1.50 per gallon.

Rep. Terry Everett: "The Clinton Administration has failed in its duty to develop a policy to deal with our national energy supply and is therefore directly accountable for the higher prices Americans are now paying at the gas pumps."

Dennis Hastert: "House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Clinton administration Friday of misleading members of Congress about the causes of skyrocketing gas prices in the Midwest."

Rep. Wally Herger: "Congressman Wally Herger recently denounced the Clinton-Gore Administration's complacency during the current gas price crisis. 'Northern Californians are being held hostage at the gas pump,' Herger said. 'The Clinton-Gore Administration has demonstrated a complete and total lack of leadership in preventing this problem. It is a clear failure of domestic and foreign policy.'"

Larry Kudlow: "The Clinton-Gore administration's hapless and incoherent management of foreign policy is nowhere as evident as in their bungling on OPEC's oil-price hike. ... While crude oil prices could drop to $25 per barrel, they will stay well above the average $20 real price of oil registered over the past ten years. And way above the $10 worldwide average marginal cost of producing new oil. Meanwhile gas prices at the pump are likely to be upwards of $2 per gallon well into the summer."

Glenn Spencer: "In recent weeks, gas prices have surged to their highest level in a decade. Prices for home heating oil and natural gas are expected to rise by about 30 percent this winter. ... With the Clinton-Gore administration's policies largely to blame for the pain being felt by consumers, Vice President Gore's camp has pulled out all the stops to shift blame away from his own administration."

Various Repubs: "Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac), Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), and Mark Green (R-Green Bay) today blasted Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and the Clinton-Gore Administration for their failure to implement a comprehensive energy policy to deal with staggering gas prices Wisconsin consumers continue to face at the pumps."

Democrats--Americans--help the Republicans.  Help them help you.  Vote them the fuck out of Washington.  All of them.

Without your help, honestly, they can't stop wrecking your country.

Everybody Limbo!

How low can you go?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to a personal low, with only a third of Americans saying they approve of the way he is handling his job, a national poll released Monday said.

32% approval?  That ain't a personal low.  That's a national low.  That's a historical low.  That's a low that transends time and borders.  Pol Pot did better than that.  Christ, Idi Amin polled higher among people he ate.

As for Bush and personal lows...well, you can't really write about that without some mention of hookers, Jim Beam, car crashes, bankruptcies, SEC investigations, piles of Peruvian blow, and flight groundings.

And, oh yeah, that embarrassing bit about running like hell for a NORAD shelter in Nebraska on September 11th.  That was a pretty personal low in a long life of consistantly lower points.

The Worst And The Dumbest

Fox News is reporting an eighth general has called for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Ret. Marine General Paul Van Riper said he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his feelings that Secretary Rumsfeld has not fought the Iraq war competently. He told Fox that Rumsfeld has run the Pentagon through intimidation and that a change in leadership is needed.

Probably writing a book, ya think?

This kind of reminds me of two things:

One is this:

Rumsfeld, who twice offered Bush his resignation during the scandal over detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, made no such offer this time. "I respect their views," he said in an interview taped Thursday and broadcast yesterday on Al-Arabiya television, "but obviously out of thousands and thousands of admirals and generals, if every time two or three people disagreed, we changed the secretary of defense of the United States, it would be like a merry-go-round."

And there probably are thousands of active and retired generals and admirals in this country.  But, I'm just curious, how many recently retired three star Marine generals are there?  How many recently retired three and four star generals who led divisions in Iraq are there?  How many recently retired Chiefs of Staff are there?

I don't know.  But it seems like most of them have called for Rumsfeld to resign.

So that's one thing I was reminded of.  The other thing I was reminded of when I saw Van Riper's name was this from back in 2003:

Much has been made of Thursday's remark by Lt. Gen. William Wallace, commander of U.S. Army forces in the Persian Gulf. Talking about the fierce and guerrilla-style resistance of Iraqi militia groups, Wallace said, "The enemy we're fighting is a bit different than the one we war-gamed against."

In fact, however, militia fighters did play a crucial role in a major war game designed to simulate combat in Iraq—but the Pentagon officials who managed the game simply disregarded or overruled the militias' most devastating moves.

The war game, which was called Millennium Challenge 02, took place over three weeks last July and August. Planned over a two-year period, at a cost of $250 million, the game involved 13,500 personnel from all four services—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines—who waged mock war in 17 simulation locations and nine live-force training sites. The scenario envisioned a war in a fictitiously named Persian Gulf country that resembled Iraq.

And, for those of you who are keeping score at home, yes, this gigantic war game against a fictitiously named Persian Gulf country that "resembled Iraq" was being conducted in July of 2002, which as we all know, because the Bush bashing liberal media has told us, was a time when the Bush administration had definitely not yet decided to explode Iraq.

They weren't even thinking about it.  Much.

Officially, the war game was a great success; the theories were proven sound. However, on Aug. 12, as the game was winding to a close, a retired three-star U.S. Marine Corps general named Paul Van Riper wrote an e-mail to some of his friends, casting grave doubt on this conclusion.

In this war game, as in many war games over the years, Van Riper played the Red Force commander. In his e-mail (which was promptly leaked to the Army Times then picked up, though in much less detail, by the Guardian and the Washington Post), Van Riper complained about Millennium Challenge 02, writing that, "Instead of a free-play, two-sided game … it simply became a scripted exercise." The conduct of the game did not allow "for the concepts of rapid decisive operations, effects-based operations, or operational net assessment to be properly assessed. … It was in actuality an exercise that was almost entirely scripted to ensure a Blue 'win.' "

For instance—and here is where he displayed prescience—Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to Red troops, thereby eluding Blue's super-sophisticated eavesdropping technology. He maneuvered Red forces constantly. At one point in the game, when Blue's fleet entered the Persian Gulf, he sank some of the ships with suicide-bombers in speed boats. (At that point, the managers stopped the game, "refloated" the Blue fleet, and resumed play.) Robert Oakley, a retired U.S. ambassador who played the Red civilian leader, told the Army Times that Van Riper was "out-thinking" Blue Force from the first day of the exercise.

Yet, Van Riper said in his e-mail, the game's managers remanded some of his moves as improper and simply blocked others from being carried out. According to the Army Times summary, "Exercise officials denied him the opportunity to use his own tactics and ideas against Blue, and on several occasions directed [Red Force] not to use certain weapons systems against Blue. It even ordered him to reveal the location of Red units."

Finally, Van Riper quit the game in protest, so as not to be associated with what would be misleading results. As he explained in his e-mail, "You don't come to a conclusion beforehand and then work your way to that conclusion. You see how the thing plays out."

So, yes, Van Riper was the three star Marine Corps general who was, at a great disadvantage, beating the fuck out of Rumsfeld and his favorite knee cap suckers.  Van Riper beat them so badly that, instead of giving him a freaking promotion and making him Chief of Staff, the War Preznit's Pentagon told him to quit making them look so durn dumb.

Sound familiar?  Anyone?

Then Van Riper shuffled off into retirement while the dumb ones--the losers--ran the big show.

Sound familiar?  Anyone?

And Van Riper, an obviously intelligent and gifted general officer, walked away from the disturbing experience feeling that the War Preznit and his cabinet of Insane War Clowns were coming to a conclusion before hand and then rigging the facts to prove their foregone conclusion.

Sound familiar? Anyone?

Ah, well, whatever.  You can't take this shit too seriously.  I mean, we all know that the United States Marine Corps, like the CIA, has long been a bastion of leftists and defeatists, and Third Columnists of questionable loyalty.

Since Tarawa--hell, since Belleau Wood--the Marine Corps has been rooting for America's enemies.  It's just been hard to prove.  And the last eight or nine presidents we've had lacked the moral courage to even try.

But now, thanks to the sweet baby Jesus and his tool in God and War, Courageous George "Ulyses S. Patton" Bush, we know, finally, that Marines are objectively pro-terrorist.

Just How Much Progress?

WEST SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- President Bush had an Earth Day message for drivers worried about soaring gasoline prices: The nation must move more quickly toward widespread use of hydrogen-powered cars…

"It's important what we're doing here because we got a real problem when it comes to oil," he said.

Shorter Preznit Bush:

"Don't count on any oil coming out of Iraq anytime soon."

Sooner Or Later, All Pundits Tell You To Lead With Your Chin

It turns out that the average household uses about 1100 gallons of gasoline per year and has an average income of about $44,000. Take out 20% for taxes and that's a disposable income of $35,000.

So at two bucks a gallon that means the average household spends 6% of its disposable income on gasoline. At three bucks a gallon it's more like 10%. And that's only the average.

If your income is higher than average or your driving habits are lower than average, you'll spend less. Marian and I qualify on both counts, and my guess is that we don't spend more than 2% of our income on gasoline. Higher gasoline prices don't really affect us that much.

At the other end, though, are the people who make less than average and drive more than average. They probably spend 15-20% of their incomes on gasoline. That's a lot.

That is a lot!  But what a sigh of relief we could all...um...sigh, I guess...if that were actually the end of it!

The amount you spend on gasoline has about bupkis to do with how much you drive your car.

Almost everything you have in your home, from your clothes to your computer crap to the food in your refrigerator--even the dreaded and hated cilantro--arrives at a place you can purchase it at on a truck.  And those trucks, as the cost of gasoline goes up, tack on a fuel surcharge for their services.  And those retailers, who receive those goods on more expensive trucks, pass on those surcharges to you, the consumer.

So, when gasoline doubles in price, in America, under the oil industry friendly Bush administration, gee, guess what?  The cost of your morning commute doesn't just double.  The cost of the radishes in your fridge goes up.  The cost of your Che Guevera berets goes up.  The cost of your spray paint, with which you spend most of your time coating freeway underpasses with "Bush Lied, Soldiers Died", goes up.

Some people also heat their homes with oil.

Ten percent?

You wish!

Jesus, the guys lugging away your garbage are going to tack on a fuel surcharge.

Wait until you see what the "Bush Boom"--as they call it at Exxon Mobile--finally costs you.

Any Tougher On Terra, And We Will All Be Individually And Personally Exploded

WASHINGTON — The number of terrorist attacks documented by U.S. intelligence agencies jumped sharply in 2005, topping 10,000 for the first time, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and documents.

Officials caution that much of the increase, due to be reported publicly next week, stems from a change last year in how terrorist attacks are counted, coupled with a more aggressive effort to tally such violence worldwide.

Hmmm...I wonder why in 2005, Bush administration officials made a more aggressive effort to tally worldwide violence...

But the documents show, and officials confirm, that some of the rise is traceable to the war in Iraq, where foreign terrorists, a homegrown insurgency and sectarian strife have contributed to political bloodshed.

More than half the deaths from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, said a counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Roughly 85 percent of the U.S. citizens who died from terrorism during the year died in Iraq. The figures, which weren't released, cover noncombatants but not combat deaths of U.S., Iraqi and other coalition soldiers.

"There's no question that the level of terrorist attacks in Iraq was up substantially," said the official, who's familiar with the methods used by the National Counterterrorism Center to track terrorism trends. The center is part of the U.S. intelligence community.

But, amazingly, according to the Bush administration, things in Iraq are getting better.  Also, somehow, the 300% increase in worldwide terrorism since the Iraq War began is just one more example of how Bush and his insane clown posse are fighting terrorism.

There were 3,192 terrorist attacks in 2004, the center reported in July.

Last year, while compiling the 2004 numbers, analysts switched to a broader definition of what constitutes terrorism. The same definition was in use for the 2005 data, but analysts had more time to use the new method.

Also, in 2005, Bush wasn't running for "re-election" based on being tough on terrorism.

So, there's that, too.

In Her Majesty's Secret Service

Queen Unvictorious:  a decider, not a fighter.

The ol' straight shooter, a'sayin' what he means and a'meanin' what he says:

"I know you're thinking about, well, when's he going to get our troops out of there," Mr. Bush said, before going on to say that such a decision would be based not on polls but on "the recommendations of our generals on the ground."

This ain't gonna be like that there Veetnam!  Politicians ain't gonna decide how we run the military!  Nope!  This time, Wershington is gunna lissen to the genrils on the ground.

WASHINGTON, April 13 — The widening circle of retired generals who have stepped forward to call for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation is shaping up as an unusual outcry that could pose a significant challenge to Mr. Rumsfeld's leadership, current and former generals said on Thursday.

Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as recently as 2004 as the commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, on Thursday became the fifth retired senior general in recent days to call publicly for Mr. Rumsfeld's ouster.

It's too easy!

"I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision," [Bush] said.  "...I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

The Decider: just another Wershington politician deciding what's best for the military and ignoring his genrils on the ground.

The manly, decisive Preznit, deciding to dress like Truman Capote.

“The president knows, as I know, there are no indispensable men ... He knows that I serve at his pleasure, and that’s that,” Rumsfeld said.

That is that...but what does that remind me of?

The Preznit's pleasure?  Hmmm...

Oh, that's right.  The Preznit's pleasure.

The Pink Elephants, We Nuke

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell delivering evidence to the United Nations Security Council, some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail.

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell used electronic intercepts, satellite photographs and other intelligence sources Wednesday in an effort to convince skeptical members of the U.N. Security Council that the Easter Bunny is real.