BottleOfBlog

Not Too Late For One Last, Cynical, Meaningless Gesture

WASHINGTON (AP) -- While they still can, House Republicans are looking at scheduling a vote next week on a fetal pain abortion bill in a parting shot at incoming majority Democrats and a last bid for loyalty from the GOP's base of social conservatives.

The measure is tentatively on House GOP leaders' list of bills to be considered in a lame-duck session before Democrats assume control of Congress. It has no chance of passing the Senate during the waning days of Republican control. But, with Democrats ascending to agenda-setting roles, passage isn't the point, said one conservative leader.

Of course not!

For four years, the Gee Oh Pee controlled the House, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court and, in December of 2006, these clowns are going to introduce this bill???

Passage has never been the point!  God forbid the modern Gee Oh Pee should ever pass a bill about abortion, gay marriage, a balanced budget, term limits, real campaign finance reform, a national language or burning the flag!

If they ever did, it would be the end of the modern Republican party!  What could they possibly run for office on?  Lord knows they couldn't run for office on what they really represent. 

The People would recoil in horror.

Chaos Monkey Explodes My Mind

At a morning news conference with President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia, Mr. Bush, making the first visit to Estonia by a sitting United States president, characterized talk of civil war in Iraq as “all kinds of speculation.” Foreshadowing his message to Mr. Maliki, he said he would press the Iraqi prime minister to lay out a strategy for stopping the killings.

“My questions to him will be: ‘What do we need to do to succeed? What is your strategy in dealing with the sectarian violence?’ ” Mr. Bush said. “I will assure him that we will continue to pursue Al Qaeda to make sure that they do not establish a safe haven in Iraq.”

It's amazing, isn't it?  The guy invades a country with no plan for dealing with what might happen after the shooting stops, turns over the "reconstruction" to a bunch of inexperienced and foolish children, plays ridiculous politics while precious months and the final few chances for any kind of success slipped away, and, then, when the thing has devolves into total chaos and civil war, The War President is going to ask Maliki, "So, what's your plan for cleaning up this mess?"

Good God.

Here's your answer, George:  Maliki doesn't have any plan.  He lives in a bunker in the well fortified Green Zone.  Under the protection of American tanks. If Maliki has any plan at all, you can be sure it mainly involves escaping being murdered with power drill holes in his skull.  I'm pretty sure al Qaeda is about the last thing Maliki is worried about.

Mr. Bush is in Riga to talk about the other war — Afghanistan — which tops the NATO agenda. The alliance, which was formed to protect Europe, now has 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. But Mr. Bush wants NATO to commit more troops to the southern region of that country, to fend off a resurgence by the Taliban. In a speech at Latvia University, the president warned that terrorists, drug traffickers and warlords “remain active and committed to destroying democracy in Afghanistan."

If only the President had realized these things three years ago!  But, of course, back then, the War President was too busy insulting our European allies and forgetting to reconstruct Afghanistan to remember to reconstruct Afghanistan and not fucking insult and alienate every ally we had in the world.

Yet Iraq, not Afghanistan, is dominating the president’s time on his trip, casting as heavy a shadow here as it does at home.  Democrats, who are about to take control of Congress after a midterm election that was widely viewed as a referendum on the war, are pressing for a phased withdrawal of troops, but Mr. Bush held firm against that.

“We’ll continue to be flexible and we will make the changes necessary to succeed,” the president said in Riga. “But there’s one thing I’m not going to do: I’m not going pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.”

Again:  Good God.  What's the mission?  According to Bush, he doesn't even know.  He's going to ask Maliki what the mission is.  After three years.  After 3000 dead Americans.  After 300 billion dollars.  Our War President is going to get some straight talk from an Iraqi political nobody about what the mission is that we're going to continue to commit American blood and money for.

Why not just skip Maliki and ask Grand Ayatollah Sistani himself?  That's probably what Maliki's going to do anyway.  Maliki certainly isn't going to buck the Grand Ayatollah.  Not even the Vice Roy used to do that.

We could just skip this silliness with Maliki and find out what the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq would like the War President to do in Iraq(here's a hint!  It involves crushing the Sunni, taking all the oil, and kicking the infidels back to America!  Mission Accomplished!).

Had enough yet?

In part, Mr. Bush is laying the foundation to push back against a high-level bipartisan commission, which has been meeting in In part, Mr. Bush is laying the foundation to push back against a high-level bipartisan commission, which has been meeting in Washington behind closed doors to review Iraq strategy. Though the panel is reportedly divided on the issue of withdrawal, it is widely expected to recommend greater engagement with Iraq’s neighbors, Iran and Syria, two nations the White House has shunned.

Hahahahaha!

Where the fuck do they find New York Times reporters?  If you're stupid enough to answer an email from Nigeria, do you automatically get a job covering the White House for the New York Times?

Or do you have to be a close personal friend of Karl Rove?

Bush is getting ready to "push back" against the Baker commission???  Against James Baker, the guy who is a lifelong and close personal friend of the Bushes???  The guy Bush's father called in to save his idiot son's bacon from the fire???

The "bi-partisan" Baker commission, which is "bi-partisant" because Lee Hamilton, the Democrat Republicans have called on for every "bi-partisan" commission since Iran Contra to avoid criminal indictments, is on it???

Bush is going to buck that???

Bush isn't going to buck that.  The whole point of the Baker commission is to propose things that have to be done, that Bush knows have to be done, but Bush can't admit for political reasons.  Then Bush can pretend to "buck" what he was going to have to do anyway, and then Bush can blame the Baker comission for likely disaster that is going to ensue, and then the morally bankrupt Washington Press corps can idiotically say that this failure was the child of bi-partisanship.

The Baker commission isn't going to force Bush to do anything.  The Baker commission's sole purpose is to give Bush cover for doing really embarrassing things he has to do.

Like ask Iran and Syria to please, please, please help fix this God awful mess.

The Baker commission's sole purpose is to hide from the American People the fact that you just spent 300 billion dollars, suffered 25 thousand casualties, and tarnished the good name of your country for a generation so that George W. Bush could expand the influence of Syria and Iran in the mid-east.

And if that isn't enough for you:

"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of the attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal," he said.

Bush said slain al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had wanted to stir up trouble between Iraq's Shiite majority and the Sunnis favored by Saddam Hussein.

Is that true?  I don't know.  Certainly Bush doesn't know.  Nobody knows, since Zarqawi's dead.  But if Bush believes that to be true, he should never, ever, ever say it out loud.  Saying what he just said isn't much different than saying, "I killed three thousand Americans."  It's really not.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger…

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it.  By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey…

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

Read it again.

We had to let Zarqawi go, so that we could get rid of the dictator Saddam, so that we could go after Syria and Iran, but then Zarqawi stirred up so much trouble that we need to ask Syria and Iran for help...in maybe putting a dictator in charge of Iraq.

I have a lot of friends who are Republicans, a lot of friends who are very conservative.  One of my best friends in college was the son of Republican Senator.  And I hate to keep offending them.

But...

These are the stupidest people who have ever run our country.
 

Yogi Berra's War

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new Marine Corps commandant said Wednesday that the longer than anticipated pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is putting an unacceptable strain on his troops.

Gen. James Conway said the service is unable to meet its goal of giving Marines twice as much time at home as in a war zone…

Assuming the Marines' top job little more than a week ago, Conway told reporters at a Pentagon roundtable discussion that he sees two ways to alleviate stress on troops.

"One is reducing the requirement [of a set deployment time]. The other is potentially growing the force for what we call the long war," Conway said.

The long war???

What "we" call the long war???

Good Gawd, George W. Bush, just what exactly have you gotten us into???

It's already gone on longer than it took to whip Hitler.  And he had tanks.  Big ones.  Made by Porshe.

And we were fighting Japan.

As long as "we" are calling it the long war, do you mind telling us just exactly how long "we" think it's going to last?

I'd kinda like to give my grandkids an honest answer when they ask.

The Ultra-unbelievable

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who helped shape modern free market economics, died Thursday in San Francisco. He was 94.

A spokesman for the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation confirmed the news to CNN. The cause was heart failure, according to Reuters.

I find that hard to believe.  I didn't go to the University of Chicago or anything, but, as far as I know, Milton Friedman didn't even have a heart.

Carefull You Don't Step In The Bullshit!

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is trying to soothe Republicans who say the party might have fared better on Election Day if President Bush had not waited until after the vote to oust Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"You could argue that either way, of what political effect an earlier decision on Secretary Rumsfeld would have had. But it doesn't matter," White House chief of staff Josh Bolten said Sunday.

"The president correctly decided that this decision does not belong in the political realm. And a decision as important as your secretary of defense should not be made based on some partisan political advantage. It would send a terrible signal to our troops, to our allies, even to our enemies," Bolten said.

That's true.  A decision that could shape the fate of our great nation, our times, our world,  a decision that could result in death and destruction, a decision that could cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars should never be made based on some partisan political advantage.

It would send a terrible signal to our troops, our allies, our enemies, and even to the American people themselves.

Any president who would involve such a monumentally important decision with petty politics not only deserves to be impeached, but he would rightfully deserve the scorn of a nation and the condemnation of history.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sharply stepping up the political rhetoric about Iraq, Democrats and Republicans traded shots Wednesday over whether the Bush administration was exploiting the possibility of war for political gain…

With the midterm elections less than two months away, both parties have become especially sensitive to issues that may sway voters at the poll. Republicans need just one more GOP senator elected to regain control of that chamber…

Daschle cited a GOP pollster who said war as an issue could benefit Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. He referenced Vice President Dick Cheney who spoke about Iraq while campaigning for a Republican candidate in Kansas Monday.

And he talked about White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card who has been quoted as saying "from a marketing point of view" it made sense to raise the issue of Iraq after Labor Day when lawmakers would be back from their August break…

Byrd said the Bush administration had trivialized the congressional debate on authorizing the use of force.

"There is nothing more sobering than the decision to go to war," Byrd said. "But the administration has turned the decision into a bumper-sticker election theme."

That's not all Byrd said.  He said a bunch more--and I recommend you read it all so that when silly and ignorant people tell you that no one could have guessed that the Iraq War would cost 9 billion dollars a month and thousands of lives and takes years for no good reason at all, you can laugh unhappily in their oblivious faces--but most rightly and obviously he said this:

Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. There is no weightier matter to be considered. A war against Iraq will affect thousands if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, 33 days before a general election when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized, weeks of election campaigns?

It is now October of 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Until today. Until 33 days until election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush?

Ultimately, the Bush administration forced a vote on war a mere three weeks before mid term elections.  Even though Powell wouldn't make the case for war at the United Nations for another four months.

In October of 2002, President Bush forced what may be the most important vote in Congress in our lifetimes 33 days before an election.

And today?  The White House is trying to tell you that Bush lied to the very nearly useless Washington Press corps and the American people because he didn't want to mix policy with politics???

It's shit like this why people like me have grown to despise Bush and his entire awful administration.

It's not a difference of opinion.  It's not conflicting views on the fundamental function of government.  It's not because I'm mentally unhinged.

It's about having the President and his whole administration repeatedly lying to me about things that are a matter of public record.  They're not lying to me about things I don't know--though they're probably doing that, too--or things I don't care about.

They're lying to me about things I know about, things that everyone knows about, things that we've all seen on TV or the front page of the New York Times.  And they know we know. 

And they lie anyway.

It's like having a guy standing in front of you with no pants on and you say, "What are you doing?"

And they say, "What do you mean?

And you say, "You're not wearing any pants.  In public.  Where are your pants?"

And they say, "I'm wearing them."

And you say, "No, you're not."

And they say, "Not only am I wearing pants, I've got two pairs on.  That's how much I believe in wearing pants."

And you say, "Dude, I can see your dick!"

And they say, "Well, you must have x-ray vision then!  Who do you think you are, Superman?  I guess you're so unhinged you think you can leap tall buildings, don't you?  Ooooh, look out, Superman!  Here comes Lexx Luther!  He might have some kryptonite! You unhinged moonbat!"

It's insulting.  It's a great big phlegmy lugey in the face of The People.  It is, frankly, someone saying to you, "I think you're so stupid that you might actually believe anything.  And, even if you won't, I think you're so small and insignificant that you can't do anything about it anyway.  Loser."

But, beyond that.  It's disturbing.

All politicians lie.  All people lie.  Most people lie because they think they won't get caught.

But it's very rare to encounter people who will lie even after they've been caught.  Or when they know they will be caught.

In fact, mostly you see that kind of thing in prison.  In the high security wings.  Among the seriously dangerous sociopaths.

Goo Goo Goo Joob

Lame Duck President George "The Eggman" Bush with John R. Bolton.

Key lawmakers said yesterday they would block the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations, all but killing chances for him to remain in the post past December…

Bolton's nomination, in early spring of 2005, fell apart within weeks. The Senate committee hearings were dominated by heated testimony from former colleagues and several intelligence officials; they described Bolton as a bully who pressured analysts, cherry-picked intelligence and hid information from the secretary of state.

Yesterday, a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the administration had explored options for keeping Bolton at the United Nations. A second recess appointment is not possible, but officials considered making Bolton an "acting ambassador." But the official, who would discuss internal deliberations only on the condition of anonymity, said none of the options is appealing, especially given the strong opposition shown by the Democrats, who are poised to take over Congress.

If this is the new "bipartisanship", eh, I can live with it.

Who Voted For This Guy?

An upbeat President Bush points out that "Sure, Democrats won two houses of Congress, but we still hold the rest of 'em."

President Bush had many explanations for what he called the "thumping" his party took on Tuesday…

…The president, who started his appearance with an admission that "I share a large part of the responsibility," went on to blame everybody else.

He blamed corruption: "People want their congressmen to be honest and ethical, so in some races that was the primary factor."

Yes, and people want their President to be honest and ethical, which is why your approval rating has bottomed out at the 35% of Americans who'd rather drink cyanide than admit that they were wrong about the coffee tasting a little bit like almonds.  Christ, even Republicans didn't want to get sullied by association with Bush.

Plus, doesn't anyone find it amazing that a Republican President explaining a Republican trouncing in an election says, "Well, people want their congressmen to be honest and ethical.  So we lost."

From a guy who ran on restoring honor and integrity to the White House?  At the head of the party representing "traditional American values"?

A couple of times a week, I get an email or a comment from some right wing lunatic calling me shrill and unbalanced and a moonbat for my ranting about the unethical and dishonest behavior of the modern Republican party.  So I thank the President for clearing up this point of contention between me and the mouthbreathers.

And, in the future, kindly address your insane scribblings to your War President.

After all, I'm just a guy on the internets drawing attention to what a bunch criminals and liars and hypocrites Republican congressmen are.  Bush is saying it on live Tee Vee!

He blamed Mark Foley, whose name remained on the Florida ballot: "People couldn't vote directly for the Republican candidate."

Because the "traditional American values" representing Republican who was actually on the ballot was in hiding after trying to molest teenage boys.

He blamed ballot rules. "You could have the greatest positions in the world . . . but to try to get to win on a write-in is really hard to do."

And it's impossible if you have Republican positions!

He blamed Democratic organization: "I'm sure Iraq had something to do with the voters' mind, but so did a very strong turnout mechanism."

If only Republicans could have kept Americans from voting they would have won!

He blamed bad luck: "If you look at race by race, it was close."

So says a guy who lost the popular vote in 2000 and then, after "winning" "reelection" by the smallest margin in about a hundred years, declared he had a "mandate" to fuck things up as he pleased.

Implicitly, of course, he blamed Donald Rumsfeld, by firing him as defense secretary in favor of the "fresh perspective" of Robert Gates.

And, not least, he blamed the uncomprehending voters: "I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of taxes and the importance of security. But the people have spoken, and now it's time for us to move on…"

There it is, again.  The "leader" of the free world, with his "freedom agenda", promoting democracy around the globe, telling The People of the greatest democracy the world has ever seen that they are too stupid to govern themselves.

Clearly, Bush was trying to tone down the rhetoric from the campaign, when he said the Democratic "approach comes down to this: The terrorists win, and America loses." Yesterday, he voiced soothing notions of "consultations" and "bipartisanship."

But he seemed unsure how much to concede. He began by saying "Iraq had a lot to do with the election." He amended that to "Iraq had something to do with it." And finally he cited cases where "I'm not sure Iraq had much to do with the outcome."

The ol' Straight Shooter, saying what he means and meaning what he says.

A lot of rats sucked the pipe this week.  A lot of them deserved it.  But, unless you're a moron, you know full well that it was Bush who handed out the pipes.  And he takes responsibility by blaming them for opening their mouths.

I sincerely hope Democrats are just blowing smoke up David Broder's ass with all this "bipartisan" talk.   Because working with this national catastrophe of an accidental President is very nearly as bad as voting for him.

Don't Fuck This Up

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush set out a new approach Wednesday in the wake of what he called a "thumping" for Republicans in the midterm elections…

Bush also charted a new direction for the Pentagon, saying he would nominate former CIA Director Bob Gates to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, whose resignation also was announced Wednesday.

How sad is that? 

It wasn’t just Republican Congressmen who took a “thumping” yesterday.  Apparently, the few remaining grown-ups in the modern Republican party grabbed the Oedipal Boy King by his hair and dragged him out behind the woodshed, pulled down his short pants and gave him The Spanking That Was Six Years In The Making.

Negroponte in Iraq?  Gates at the Pentagon?  James Baker heading the Iraq Study Group?  What’s next?  Maybe Brent Scowcroft can be persuaded to run the NSA.

The Worst President Ever has come full circle.  And, once again, his daddy’s friends are pulling him out of a horrendous mess.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, “There are no Second Acts in American lives.”  And I have no idea what he meant by that.  Plus, Fitzgerald spent a good deal of his American life nearly as drunk as Bush.  Also, he had a wife who was batshit crazy and costing him a fortune.

That can’t help a guy write down stuff that makes sense.

But there are Third Acts in American lives.  And the Disaster Monkey just blundered into his.

The play’s a tragedy, if you haven’t figured that out already.

Democrats will take over the House of Representatives in January, and while control of the Senate hangs on a pivotal race in Virginia still too close to call, Bush said he would work with whomever was in charge.

Big words from a man who’s really got no say in the matter.

But he looked forward rather than back. "The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner and work together to address the challenges facing our nation."

No, George.  Take the banana out of your ear.  The message the American people screamed at you yesterday was:  They want an entirely partisan Congress to stop you from fucking up the world and our country.

I imagine that was the same message your dad’s friends imprinted on your naughty little heiny.

Bush said two areas where he hoped to find common ground with a Democrat-led House were the minimum wage and immigration reform -- an issue where a Republican Congress had not seen eye-to-eye with the White House.

"We can work together over the next two years," the president said…

And if Democrats work with Bush on anything except somehow fixing the giant costly, bloody suckhole that is Iraq then every right thinking person in this country needs to get together and form a third party—I suggest the We’re Not Morons Party—and then vote the remaining Democrats and Republicans out of office entirely in two more years.

George W. Bush and the modern Republican Party had six years to “work together” with Democrats.  But George W. Bush and the modern Republican Party didn’t have to, and so they didn’t. 

They steamrolled Democrats. 

They put politics above policy.  They jammed the Patriot Act down our throats at a time when Americans were so traumatized and frightened by the September 11th attacks that no meaningful debates on the merits of the horrendous thing could be held.

They forced votes on the disasterous Iraq War Resolution a month before mid term elections—even though the Bush administration wouldn’t take it’s weakass phoney baloney case for war to the U.N. for months.

They bent and broke House rules to pass crappy laws. 

And when Democrats couldn't be steamrolled, and the rules couldn't be bent or broken to get around those pesky Democrats, Republicans simply threatened to throw the rules out altogether.

They gavelled hearings closed while debate was still going on.  They hid committee meetings so Democrats couldn't even find them.  When conservative Democrats, like Tom Daschle pledged their support for the Preznit, they were rewarded by being specifically targeted by a White House that "couldn't be happier" to defeat them.

And how were these Democrats defeated?  Decorated and hideously crippled veterans were morphed into Osama bin Laden.  They were accused of shooting teenagers in the back, when not shooting themselves.  The Vice President said terrorists support the Democratic Party.  The Preznit, himself, said Democrats--American politicians--can't be trusted to defend America.

And to make sure Democrats stayed defeated, Republicans broke more rules and redistricted in Texas and Colorado and where ever to insure that a minority of voters not only held a majority in the Senate, but in the House, as well.

They also leaned on the money men to make sure their Thousand Year Reich--sorry--their permanent Republican majority stayed permanent.

They called "bipartisanship" date rape.

And after all that bullshit, after six years of infantile, ridiculously stupid, dishonest, malevolent horseshit, oops!  They lost at least one House of Congress!

And, now, ahem, Bush hopes, you know, that we can all, um, rise above, (cough, cough), petty partisanship and, like, work together and whatnot, for, you know, the good of this great nation, etcetera, etceterat, yaddity, yaddity, yaddity.

Fuck that.

If Democrats do that, they're as stupid as Karl Rove--and, oh, yeah, and can we now, finally, stop pretending Karl Rove is a genius?  He's a one trick poney and a highschool prankster who made a career out of America's worst tragedy.

Christ, he lost in 2000.  He probably lost in 2004.  And then suffered the worst asskicking since the post-Watergate blowout.  If they had a fantasy political league, I'd trade eight Karl Roves for a single James Carville.

Democrats should do whatever they can to end the catastrophe that is Iraq. 

Then they should repeal the stupid No Child Left Behind thing, the horrific "Patriot Act", any remaining Bush tax "cuts", the Medicare fiasco, and that awful bankruptcy bill.

Erase this awful accidental President completely.

And, if they hold both houses of Congress, they should pass an act making all federal elections completely tax payer funded.  Get rid of the PACs, get rid of K-street, and make your representatives answerable to no one but you.  No more buying Congressmen, no more buying votes.  At all.  Just American representatives representing Americans.

And then they should re-instate the Fairness Doctrine.

That's it.

That should be their agenda.  Fix Iraq.  Fix federal elections.  And fix the massive modern Republican disinformation machine.

Do that, and everything else will fall into place.

Don't do that.  And, in six or eight more years, the American people are going to need a brand new party.

Congratulations, America!

On winning your country back.

When You Vote These Fuckers Out...

...remember, you're not just voting out a bunch of fuckers.  You're voting out people who hate you. They think you're stupid.  And they hate democracy.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With four days until the midterm elections, the White House hopes to hammer home their contention that a Democratic Congress would raise taxes on middle-class Americans.

White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said in an interview on CNN Friday that Democrats have a "huge appetite," and it's "fundamentally within their DNA to spend money."

Bartlett also claimed that Democrats will raise taxes on all income levels, not just the rich as they have maintained.

"The only way they can pay for it, is what they will call is so- called just taxing the rich, Bartlett said. “The problem is they have a long record of taxing everybody when they do that."

Democrats have a "huge appetite" for spending your money?  It's "fundamentally within their DNA to spend money"?

Let's review:

Discretionary spending grew from $649 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $968 billion in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $319 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Discretionary spending--that doesn't include the military or Social Security or Medicare or the catastrophic suck hole that is Iraq--grew by an explosive fifty percent in five years.  Under the one party rule of "fiscally conservative" Republicans.

Republicans came into one party power with a two hundred and thirty billion dollar surplus. 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

“When Vice President Gore and I took office,” [Bill Clinton explained],  “The budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

The president's news comes as lawmakers on Capitol Hill continue to wrestle with the fiscal year 2001 budget numbers. The new budget year begins October 1, and work has been completed on only two of the 13 annual spending bills, as the Republican-led Congress and the White House remain at odds over spending allocations.

"I am concerned, frankly, about the size and last-minute nature of this year's congressional spending spree, where they seem to be loading up the spending bills with special projects for special interests..." Clinton said.

Even with a fiscally conservative, responsible Democratic president in the White House, it was a battle to stop wild, out of control Republicans from spending your money like crazy.  Under the "fiscally responsible" Republican President Bush and "fiscally responsible" Republican Congress, the federal debt has grown three trillion dollars.  In six years.

When you increase discretionary spending by 300 billion dollars a year, when you spend a two hundred and thirty billion dollar surplus and then borrow another three trillion dollars to cover your profligate spending, you haven't cut anyone's taxes.

You've, quite clearly, raised the taxes of all Americans by three trillion dollars.

That's it.

When the government spends money, it's taxed you.  When the government spends three trillion more dollars in six years, it's raised your taxes by three trillion more dollars.  Plus interest.

That's it.

You have to pay that money back.

This Republican Congress and this Republican President just slammed you with the biggest tax increase in the history of our country.

They've just been too chickenshit to actually hand you the bill.

They'll leave that to someone else.  Someone responsible.  And they'll call that--the presentation of the bill for the insane, out of control Republican taxing spree of the last six years--as raising your taxes.

Only a person who abhors democracy would say such a thing.  Only a person who hates Americans and would say anything to keep Americans from running their very own government would make such a stupid and dishonest claim to the American people.

ENGLEWOOD, Colorado (CNN) -- President Bush devoted his last national radio address before critical elections to the economy, telling voters that a Democrat Congress would hit their pocketbooks.

"Democrats are still determined to raise taxes," Bush said from a coffee shop in Englewood, Colorado, in an unusual televised version of his weekly speech.

See what I mean?