Today on Blogcritics
Home » As Always, Bushit Happens

As Always, Bushit Happens

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

So Shrub gave a speech Sunday night. I was determined to skip the address, but sadly, curiosity got the better of me. Let me share the masochism: Read the text of the address at MSNBC’s site.

The short story for those who don’t wish to plow through 18 minutes worth of Bush BS: The “war” — which the Shrub, wearing a cute soldier outfit, announced was over nearly five months ago — isn’t going well. This “liberation” mission will require more “sacrifice” — more fighting, more deaths, and more money. Yep, the tax-cut-and-spend pol wants more cash, to the tune of $87 billion. For a “war” whose major work supposedly is complete and was successful in its aims.

During Sunday’s pep rally, Dubya had the nerve to call his murderous terrorist campaign on the Iraqi people one of the “swiftest and most humane” military operations ever. The building of a democratic Iraq is going well, he says, save for those danged anti-American Saddam loyalists and al-Qaeda members who keep getting in the way. And now, now, he is calling on the United Nations to get involved too. Laughing yet? Or are you in tears? Obviously, “swift” joins the ranks of the White House pretender’s whoppers, such as the one about Iraq, uranium, and Niger. But “humane”? Whom does this joker think he’s kidding?

Certainly not the thousands of dead Iraqis killed because of their “liberation.” Certainly not the families of US soldiers who lost their lives in this murderous enterprise. According to the Associated Press, more Americans have died in Iraq than were killed during the actual invasion effort. Overall, 287 lost their lives — 149 since May 1.

James C. Moore, co-author of Bush’s Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W.Bush Presidential, isn’t fooled. In fact, he says he is “repulsed”:

Mr. Bush has done things in my name, and yours, which repulse me. I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s two sons needed to be brought to justice. But I was disgusted that my country gave sponsor to the notion of showing their dead faces on television, as though that might reassure the Iraqis. This was the modern international equivalent of brutal tribes placing their conquered foes heads on a spike in the town square. I despise the way Mr. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and all of the neo-cons, had developed a military plan that sent our brave soldiers to secure oil fields, rather than protecting the people of Iraq, the institutions of their culture and commerce, which Saddam Hussein had been misusing for decades.

The president, and his cynic-in-chief, Karl Rove, are using a manufactured war to keep Americans scared. And it is working. But I am ashamed that the president of my country would go back to the United Nations, the very organization he ignored when he launched the war, to ask for help in securing Iraq. Mr. Bush grew up in West Texas, where billboards dot the Permian Basin landscape with the message: “U.S. out of U.N.” And because Rove wants to keep the fundamentalist right happy, Mr. Bush made clear that he would act without the imprimatur of the U.N. And now he has the audacity to seek its help.

I am repulsed by my president. He allowed the drums of war to get hammered over aluminum tubes, which were never meant for anything more deadly than the making of rockets. The whole notion of the tubes being part of the construction of a centrifuge had been refuted by several international organizations, including America’s own Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, fourteen months before the story was leaked to a compliant, lazy U.S. media. The tubes were for the construction of Medusa 81 rockets, an Italian-designed weapon. Everybody in the intelligence community knew it, and Rove and the White House Iraq Group sent down orders that government intelligence experts were to keep their mouths shut about dissenting information.

Check out Moore’s complete commentary on Buzzflash.

Shrub hasn’t pulled the proverbial wool over‘s eyes either:

Almost five months after the US and UK “liberated” Iraq, the Bush administration has at long last swallowed its pride and agreed to cede a large part of the control of Iraq’s future to the UN. But all the indications from Washington and New York, where a draft resolution designed to do this is even now being circulated among members of the Security Council, suggest the transfer of authority it is proposing amounts to too little, too late, and is too grudging. It will not, therefore, stop that unhappy country from becoming the world’s next failed state.

Iraq is already a long way down that road. Five months after occupation, the US and UK have not been able to restore even the most basic of infrastructural services. There’s less power available today than on April 10, so there’s no respite from the unending, brutal heat. The shortage of gasoline is so acute that people wait in two-mile-long queues, pushing their cars a few metres at a time in 55°C to buy 40 litres of gasoline. Without electricity it’s not just gas stations that don’t work, water treatment plants, those that are still functional, also stand idle. Without safe drinking water, children continue to die. Worst of all, 10 million Iraqis, virtually the country’s entire adult non-agricultural workforce, is now unemployed. Only the UN-World Food Programme packages stand between them and destitution. Not surprisingly, looting has become endemic; the streets are no longer safe and women don’t go out if they can avoid doing so.

Society, polity and state, all are visibly disintegrating. Resistance is on the rise and is coalescing into a more deadly and purposeful movement to drive the Americans away in disgrace. And it is on the road to success. As of September 3, 152 Americans had died and 740 had been injured after hostilities officially ended. They are now dying at the rate of 40 a month. The list of targets has grown to include any person, organisation or country that collaborates with the occupying powers. Thus, it has widened from Iraqi policemen and civilians who are cooperating with the ‘coalition’ authorities, to the UN and countries deemed to be collaborating with the Americans. That was the message sent by the bombing of the Jordanian embassy on August 7, of the UN on August 19 and of Najaf on July 29.

To ensure that Iraq remains without power, this resistance is blowing up transmission lines and towers; to prevent Iraq from exporting oil, it’s blowing up pipelines. Its efforts have been successful. All over Iraq people are comparing the US’ and UK’s ineptitude with Saddam Hussein’s efficiency. “It took Saddam only one month to bring the power supply back after the first Gulf War and two months to restore gasoline supply from the oilfields and refineries,” they mutter to each other and to foreign interlocutors.

As respect for the conquerors plummets, public anger is being stoked by the sight of British and American soldiers living in and working out of Saddam’s palaces and eating in huge air-conditioned mess halls. For them, there is no shortage of power, safe drinking water or food.

Bush’s decision to call in the UN reflects his government’s growing desperation. The US cannot increase its troops in Iraq, because it does not have enough of them in reserve. In any case even 60,000 more troops will make little actual difference if the resistance keeps growing. He also cannot pay the domestic political cost of the rising body count indefinitely. Handing over to the UN is the only honourable way out. But militarily a UN force could become another quagmire of conflicting national loyalties and confused chains of command. Hence the US’ insistence that the operation remain under an American general.

But most Iraqis will perceive that as a continuation of the occupation under a different coloured cap. So the resistance will continue its attacks on the infrastructure to discredit the administration and on the soldiers of countries that join the US-led UN force. In the end, this compromise could end by destroying the UN’s moral authority without restoring peace.

And what about this 87 BILLION DOLLARS, which would be in addition to the $79 billion US lawmakers approved last April? Shrub says the money will go toward funding military and intelligence operations and rebuilding efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. (Perhaps Halliburton, Bechtel, and other Bush-Cheney corporate contributors contractors count as “elsewhere.”)

Most unforgivably, the Thief-in-Chief invoked the memory of the September 11 attacks of nearly two years ago. Yes, the attacks were a nightmarish time for the US and for the world. The event and its victims deserve remembrance. But let’s stay on topic here: The plan for invading Iraq was planned long before US officials missed or ignored signs that a massive crisis was going to take place; it sat on National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice’s desk before those ill-fated planes even took flight toward the Pentagon, Washington, DC, and the Twin Towers. Bush’s foul use of the attacks as a justification for his vicious war crime against humanity is a nasty insult to us all, and particularly to those who lost loved ones on that terrible, terrible day.

There is much more to say, about lies, about the “missing” weapons of mass destruction Shrub never even mentioned in this address (you’ll find them in Bush’s budget), about many things. Finding myself yo-yoing between giggles and tears, I’ll let International ANSWER, Ramsey Clark’s peace and anti-racism coalition, do the talking:

President Bush’s illegal war and occupation of Iraq has left the administration in a position of extreme political vulnerability. He now wants the United Nations and U.S. taxpayers to bail him out. Having defied U.S. and world public opinion – which preemptively opposed his planned, illegal invasion of Iraq – the Bush administration wants to internationalize responsibility for the U.S. quagmire in Iraq. With U.S. casualties mounting daily he wants the soldiers of other countries to do more of the dying to take the heat off himself at home. And in the name of fighting international terrorism he wants the already suffering working class, poor and middle class communities to foot the bill to the tune of another $87 billion (triple what they had projected). Having had his public rationale(s) for the war exposed in recent weeks as a complete fraud, Bush shamelessly reverts to the time-tested tactic of trying to scare the hell out of people.

President Bush’s conduct on Iraq – before, during and now after the Iraq war – has made the old cliché about truth being the “first casualty in war” to be a grand understatement. Everything about this “pre-emptive war” is premised on deceit. Even in the realm of ever duplicitous “world politics,” the administration’s pattern of cynical deception was and remains breathtaking. Tonight’s nationally televised address conforms to this pattern of endless deceit.

  1. Bush lied before the war. Iraq never posed a grave and imminent danger to the United States. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. Iraq never possessed nuclear weapons. Iraq was not rapidly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. This was a war of aggression against the second-largest oil producer on the planet that had been weakened by a decade of economic sanctions and political isolation.

  2. Bush lied during the war. This was not liberation. The Iraqi people did not welcome the U.S. armed forces as liberators but as occupiers. Their lives did not become better. On the contrary, this culturally rich society has been torn apart, deprived of necessary services to sustain civilian society and on the brink of internal collapse.

  3. Bush is lying now. Iraq is not the battlefield between “international terrorism” and the forces of so-called “freedom” and “civilization.” The growing resistance to U.S. occupation is the consequence of an angry and proud people in Iraq who insist on reclaiming their own sovereignty. Having killed tens of thousands of Iraqis in an illegal invasion – and a growing number of dead and maimed U.S. soldiers – the Bush team wants U.S. taxpayers to spend at least another $87 billion on the occupation of Iraq. The vast majority sentiment in Iraq wants the U.S. soldiers to leave and the U.S. GIs want to go home. The Iraqi people’s call to end the occupation is not a call for even more foreign nations to occupy it and to take a share in the looting of Iraq’s natural resources. The truth is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is viewed by the people of the Middle East as an act of “international terrorism” and as such it can only lead to a dangerous escalation in the cycle of violence.

Why did Bush address the nation tonight? He, like Nixon a generation ago, fears that the people of the United States are turning against this criminal war. During his administration, Bush has only rarely felt that he must address the people, and does so when he fears that a sentiment is growing strong enough to challenge his illegal actions. He must then lie more to convince the people of the U.S. to support his criminal endeavors, or at least acquiesce in them. His shameful “top gun” act aboard the aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Lincoln, in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, was an effort to tell people in the United States and around the world that the war was over and that no more critical attention need be focused on Iraq. Tonight, with that lie laid bare, he is seeking to go a new route, to convince people that far from being over, the war is a high stakes game to save “civilization” and “freedom” and that it requires endless sacrifice in human life and vitally needed resources.

The A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition calls on people in the United States to join together for a massive demonstration in Washington DC on October 25th to demand “Bring the Troops Home Now, End the Occupation of Iraq.”

I plan to be there, and I hope you will too. Get details on the event itself and on procuring transport at the coalition’s Web site.

all facts and opinions

Powered by

About NR Davis

  • Al Barger

    You bray your mindless indignance against the president with a great and totally unearned sense of moral superiority. You throw the word “terrorist” at Bush in a most infantile manner, as if your arbitrary and simply incorrect usage of the word makes it so. Perhaps if you hollered “IS SO, IS SO” enough times, you think this will make it true.

    None of this, however, will do anything at all to stop the people who are trying to kill us.

    You apparently don’t give a rat’s ass about defending the country, though. Absolutely consistently, you have never ever presented even a lame-ass plan for something to actually protect us from all the jackasses who are trying to KILL US.

    But then, what do you care? You have renounced the whole country. It’s not YOUR 4th of July. You’ve said repeatedly that you are anxious to flee the country as soon as you can afford it.

    You go on about being a Christian. Oh, you are full of love for humanity. Except not really. On the basis of your writing, starting with this post and the 4th of July post, your beliefs sure SOUND much more like the poisonous Christian resentment described by Nietzche.

    Fine. Knock yourself out. However, the rest of US plan on defending ourselves from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The fact that you have huge chips on your shoulder doesn’t mean that the rest of us are going to just sit here and wait for some more of these bastards to come kill us. We’re not suicidal, however unworthy you may consider us.

  • Steve Rhodes

    Suicide is painless and brings on many changes and makes great entertainment for the mob.

    I actually just saw the word suicide in Al’s response. It really sucks to try and read italics on a computer screen (you’d think everyone would realize that by now). Just blockquote is fine.

  • debbie

    How about we take up a collection to send her to the country of her choice?

    That way we won’t have the obstructionists interferring with us actually protecting ourselves.

    BTW, which recount did Bush actually lose?

  • Phillip Winn

    Sigh. In order:

    #1- Al, Natalie said nothing on this page to indicate that she doesn’t care about defending the country in which she lives. She simply disagrees with President Bush’s plan to do that. She’s harsh and rude to Bush, but you aren’t Bush. Don’t take it personally.

    #2- I don’t even understand your comment!

    #3- Give me a break. If you don’t feel like responding to yet another list of the same grievances, then don’t. But offering to help her leave the country, misrepresenting her views as anti-protection, or responding at all to the tired recount topic is just silly.

    Again folks, if you think that the war on Iraq is an important part of the overall war on terror, that’s fine, but don’t assume that everybody who disagrees wants America to be attacked again. There are a number of different grounds on which one can base opposition to war in Iraq without wishing all Americans would die, okay? It’s simple logic, even though the childish name-calling of the protestors don’t always leave one in a logical frame of mind.

    Remember how many of you felt when President Clinton was doing whatever he did to make so many of you upset at him? That’s the same sense of powerless rage many of these people feel (though I speak not for Natalie, specifically, knowing that her own motivations are far more complex and principled). Please, try to remember how warm and loving you felt toward your fellow Americans on September 12, 2001. Then avoid petty arguments. If you disagree, post your own take on the speech, but leave personal attacks out of it.

  • Eric Olsen

    HI Nat, agree to disagree, but how do we defend ourselves against those who hate us to the point of homicidal/suicidal violence? If there was a way other than killing them first I’d sure like to hear it.

  • debbie

    #4 That was in response to her “commander-in-theif” comment.

    As for the collection, I hate the idea of her sitting around crying and I’m only trying to help. She has posted numerous times that she “wants” to leave this country.

    Personally I would rather have the terrorist gather in Iraq and fight against our military than to have them commit terrorist acts here at home.

    If we have that many gathering there then there are less gathering here.

  • Steve Rhodes

    But it is not an either/or prospect.

    All of the people slipping into Iraq (not to mention to the people who already live there who have been prodded by the ineptness of Bush’s occupation) would not be streaming into the US. Nobody who creams over the “flypaper” justification (which wasn’t part of planning put something made up to try and cover Bush’s ass) has shown that one terorrist who would have come here is now in Iraq.

    And I don’t think many of the families of the soldiers who have been killed from people who weren’t an immediate threat (and in most cases even a remote threat) to the US until Bush started his disastrous war.

    Look, Gore won both the popular vote and Florida. Read Jews for Buchanan by John Nichols or the Florida sections of the Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast. Robert Parry wrote about the bad coverage of the media recount which did show Gore won. But we’ll still be arguing about this after Bush loses in 2004.

  • Brian Flemming

    …but how do we defend ourselves against those who hate us to the point of homicidal/suicidal violence? If there was a way other than killing them first I’d sure like to hear it.

    Are you talking about the invasion of Iraq? Your comment would make sense if:

    1. There was a confirmed connection between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda or other significant organizations who posed a real threat to the United States.

    2. The thousands of Iraqi civilians who died were all terrorists.

    3. A significant terrorist network was somehow weaker now (or will be soon) because of the invasion.

    The only connection I see between 9-11 and slaughtering thousands of Iraqi civilians (“killing them first”) is that the Iraqi civilians were also brown and from the Middle East.

    For some Americans, there is certainly an emotional satisfaction in the slaughter, but that emotional satisfaction does not translate in any way to “defend[ing] ourselves against those who hate us to the point of homicidal/suicidal violence.”

    Oh, unless we’re trying to “send a message.”

    Which is a bit like responding to a wildfire in California by drowning everyone in Idaho.

    Yeah, that’ll teach ’em.

  • Steve Rhodes

    Damn, for some reason links don’t seem to be working in comments. There were a bunch in my comment, but the most important one was this one

  • Steve Rhodes

    This is the site of a group of families of people in the military who are against the war and will be participating in a congressional briefing on Tuesday

    and a group of Sept. 11th families

  • Natalie Davis

    This is the only comment I will make here, as I will not argue or contribute to the escalating awfulness on Blogcritics.

    I am not anti-protection. I am anti-violence and anti-war. I am prepared to die, but not to kill, for any reason. I want no harm to come to Americans or any other of my brothers and sisters on this planet, for whom I care just as much as I care for those who happen to reside on the same land mass.

    Thank you, Phillip, Brian, and Steve for your words. Yes, I am harsh toward the person who sits and plans killings in the White House. Rude? I don’t think so; I believe I am labelling him correctly. Those who call him “president” are, IMO, being rude to those actually elected to the position. As for my calling him a terrorist, the dictionary backs me up, whatever some say “popular usage” happens to be. He and his cohorts do use violence (threatened and actual) and fear to intimidate and coerce others. What is popular is not always correct (for example, the ideas many in society accept about “race”) or good (Milli Vanilli, at one time). I have my own mind, and I will decide my beliefs and what is right and wrong, not society. If society chooses to punish me for it, through ostracization, belittlement, or violence, so be it. This part of the journey is finite anyway, and it is not the most important leg.

    To the rest, respectfully, I suggest we agree to disagree.

    I’m out. Pray, carry on.

  • Eric Olsen

    I like Milli Vanilli and still don’t understand why they were Milli Vilified for being a studio construct.

    Okay – the fact that they didn’t sing on their records, and didn’t play any instruments, and were hired for their looks and dancing abilities may be damning to them as artists, but doesn’t change the fact that SOMEONE made several great dance-pop songs under their name.

    Girl You Know It’s True


    And yo, Mr. O: They had some killer remixes back in the day, too! And the mega mix of their hits is too sweet!

  • Natalie Davis

    Actually, this woman would disagree with regard to MV. But then, much of what is popular I find distasteful.

    That said, very cleverly worded, my friend.

  • Eric Olsen

    Bricks: word.

    Nats: thank YOU, my friend. You and your father are on my mind – I wish you both nothing but peace and hope.

  • Phillip Winn

    Sometime, Natalie, when you do have the time and inclination, I would personally find it wonderful to visit Blogcritics one day and see a post on how to remain non-violent in a violent world.

    I’m sure you’ve heard it said before that Gandhi was only successful because he was facing down the British Empire, honorable in some ways while obviously dastardly in others. How much of that is true? While I’ve studied some of Gandhi’s words, I’ve studied very little of the overall history of non-violent protest. How does one effect change while advocating non-violence against a group of people who target civilians as a form of protest?

    I’m of the “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone” mindset most of the time, but it is difficult to imagine how to respond to hose who don’t seem to respect non-violent traditions. Eric asked the question and Brian took his answer to a different place, reading into Eric’s question what wasn’t there (but was probably very much in Eric’s mind, though I’m guessing).

    I’m honestly asking, in general (or perhaps with an eye to certain current situations involving seemingly never-ending groups of suicidal terrorists and the governments who relentlessly oppress them), how does one use non-violent means to make peace in what seems to be a increasingly violent world?

    If you don’t want to start a fuss on BC, I understand that and would appreciate some emailed links.

  • Natalie Davis

    Actually, Phillip, I plan to do a piece on Gandhi, nonviolence, and satyagraha. I don’t know when the time will present itself — things are very crazy right now — but hopefully soon. I am not sure if I would do it for BC, but whenever and wherever, I will make sure to send it to you.

    As a start, visit the site for Soulforce, which offers many informative resources. And you can also check my site, which presents a bunch of related writings under the Blogathon 2003 category. (And you’ll also find my terrific recipe for Snickerdoodles.)

    Thanks, Eric. I’m about to head off to see him. Dad is being moved to a hospice this evening. Sadly, he likely won’t be there for long.

  • mike

    I don’t feel like paying this 87 billion dollar price tag. Could all you super patriots out there pitch in to cover the bill? It’s a great way to show your patriotism: you know, sacrifice and all.

    Also, planes are leaving for Baghdad, if you want to help the U.S. military dictatorship clean up the mess it made. Don’t let me stop you. Show us what you’re made of.

  • Steve Rhodes

    Gene Sharp has written many A Force More Powerful: A Century of Non-Violence Conflict.

  • Natalie Davis

    Ah yes, the Einstein Institution does necessary and valuable work. God bless Gene Sharp and his colleagues. If you have the opportunity to peruse A Force More Powerful, grab it.

  • debbie


    I know that Gore won the popular vote, but that is not how we elect presidents. There are reasons that our fore fathers set up the Electorial College.

    I still have not heard about a recount that Gore actually won Florida. All of the news I have read said that Bush won the state.

  • Natalie Davis

    With all due respect, the “forefathers” certainly did not anticipate the criminality and chicanery that kept the rightful winner — whom I did not support, BTW — from “officially” ending up with the Florida electors he earned. Katherine Harris made sure of it and the new congressperson was rewarded richly for her efforts. The 2000 election was bogus and the not-so-Supreme Court only made it more so.






    I also recommend reading Greg Palast’s The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Michael Moore’s Stupid White Men.

  • debbie

    Did you even check out the web address I provided?

    If anybody tried to steal the election it was Gore with his “recount” of only Democratic areas, and recount, and recount and recount.

    Even a year later when the media did the recount they said that Bush still won.

    And really, I wouldn’t read anything Michael Moore had to say because he is too partisan to be believed.

    Katherine Harris followed the law, as it was written. What else could she have done? The law clearly stated that the election results were to be confirmed within 7 days. There had already been 3 recounts by then.

    I don’t think there would have been as big a problem as there was if the News hadn’t jumped the gun and declared Gore the winner of Florida after only 1 or 2% of the votes were in….what moron’s.

    Not to mention, the lost votes to Bush because the polls were still open when the news gave the state to Gore. Yeah, right, who was trying to steal the election????


  • Steve Rhodes

    Gore was stupid. He would have won a recount of all the ballots including over and undervotes.

    From the NYT site you pointed to:

    “If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive “dimpled chad” standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin…

    Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.

    All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.”

  • Illuminati Order

    It should be noted that:

    (1) Campaigning on a plan to privatize Social Security could hurt your real election chances in Florida, due to massive senior citizen voter turnout can practically ruin your chances of victory in Florida;

    (2) There are more Democrats in Florida thant Republicans, South Florida being strongly Democratic (more liberal), North Florida being conservative Democratic (blue dog) and Central Florida (Orlando and Tampa Bay areas) can vote either way, swingin the election, but running on a completely conservative platform isn’t likely to win this area, legitimately, if it’s spun conservatively, instead of moderately, which wasn’t done by the Bush campaign;

    (3) To win Florida, you need to be here, physically, more often; do not depend on your borther-governor getting you the votes to win, especially when he’s alienated some of the voting blocks that got him elected, originally; voting blocks that could have been Bush’s if JEB hadn’t angered them;

    (4) Learn how to do PR; trust the media, they’re your friends, if you approach them correctly, but approach them the wrong way and it’ll be all over for you, even when you call folks, such as Adam Clymer (SP?) an “asshole”;

    (5) To win Florida in 2004, make a strong peace plan for Israel and give seniors a prescription drug benefit, but remember, you’ve alienated quite a bit of the electorate with your foolishness with Iraq (more PR flops, miscommunication, or plain dishonesty) and the economy, so winning Florida may not matter;

    (6) Always remember that some of us know the truth about the Bush Administration, and those of us who do, even though we spoke for them in 2000, may transfer our vote elsewhere, but that may not matter, epecially since electronic voting machines can be programmed to get the results wanted by a small group, rather than by the majority of voters.

    Of course, one should remember this: From chaos comes order.


  • Natalie Davis

    What happened to all the links I had posted in #22? They were there this morning! My dad died today; I haven’t the energy to go looking for them again. Can someone please explain where they went and why my final sentence now hangs there, out of its intended context?

  • Eric Olsen

    Nat, I fixed the links, they weren’t pointing to any words, added “here.” Very sorry about your loss. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.

  • Natalie Davis

    Thanks, Eric. My brain must have gone on the fritz when I pushed “post.” (Preview! Preview!)

  • Eric Olsen

    No prob

  • cindy ray

    “A democracy unsatisfied by support of the people cannot long survive … We live in probably the most turbulent and tormented times in the history of this nation. Criticize … disagree, yes, but also we have as leaders an obligation to be fair and keep in perspective what we are and what we hope to be.”
    John Bowden Connally

  • cindy ray

    the lost blogger

  • Nancy

    I don’t know which is more culpable, the deliberately alarmist hawking of threats to all Amurrikins if they don’t swallow Dubya’s BS hook, line, & sinker – or the abysmally stupid Amurrikins who DO swallow this crap. No one with half a functioning brain cell can listen to this Chicken Little ranting by BushCo & give it any credibility, especially after 6 years of escalating & blatant, constant & consistant lies, fraud, treachery & lawlessness by Bush & his flunkies.