Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Swear Him In!
That's all I said in the unusual silence on Monday afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen. David Petraeus' microphone before he spoke before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.
It had dawned on me that when House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Missouri) invited Gen. Petraeus to make his presentation, Skelton forgot to ask him to take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I had no idea that my suggestion would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.
I had experienced a flashback to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early 2006, when Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) reminded chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) that Specter had forgotten to swear in the witness, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and how Specter insisted that that would not be necessary.
Now that may, or may not, be an invidious comparison. But Petraeus and Gonzales work for the same boss, who has a rather unusual relationship with the truth. How many of his senior staff could readily be convicted, as was the hapless-and-now-commuted Scooter Libby, of perjury?
So I didn't think twice about it. I really thought that Skelton perhaps forgot, and that the ten-minute interlude of silence while they fixed the microphone was a good chance to raise this seemingly innocent question.
The more so since the ranking Republican representatives had been protesting too much. Practicing the obverse of "killing the messenger," they had been canonizing the messenger with protective fire. Ranking Armed Services Committee member Duncan Hunter (R-CA) began what amounted to a SWAT-team attack on the credibility of those who dared question the truthfulness of the sainted Petraeus, and issued a special press release decrying a full-page ad in today's New York Times equating Petraeus with "Betray-us."
Hunter served notice on any potential doubters, insisting that Petraeus' "capability, integrity, intelligence...are without question." And Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, rang changes on the same theme, unwittingly choosing another infelicitous almost-homonym for the charges against Petraeus-"outrageous."
Indeed, Hunter's prepared statement, which he circulated before the hearing, amounted to little more than a full-scale "duty-honor-country" panegyric for the general. On the chance we did not hear him the first time, Hunter kept repeating how "independent" Petraeus is, how candid and full of integrity, and compared him to famous generals who testified to Congress in the past-Eisenhower, Macarthur, and Schwarzkopf. Hunter was smart enough to avoid any mention of Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, who fell tragically short on those traits. (See "Is Petraeus Today's Westmoreland?" http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/090707b.html )
If memory serves, the aforementioned generals and Westmoreland were required to testify under oath. And this was one of the more embarrassing sticking points when CBS aired a program showing that Westmoreland had deliberately dissembled on the strength of Communist forces and U.S. "progress" in the war. When Westmoreland sued CBS for libel, several of his subordinates came clean, and Westmoreland quickly dropped the suit. The analogy with Westmoreland-justifying a White House death wish to persist in an unwinnable war-is the apt one here.
If Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible objection could he have to being sworn in? I had not the slightest hesitation being sworn in when testifying before the committee assembled by John Conyers (D-Michigan) on June 16, 2005. Should generals be immune? Or did Petraeus' masters wish to give him a little more assurance that he could play fast and loose with the truth without the consequences encountered by Scooter Libby.
With the microphone finally fixed, much became quickly clear. Petraeus tried to square a circle in his very first two paragraphs. In the first, he thanks the committees for the opportunity to "discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward." Then he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point-at least for me:
"At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."
Is not the commander in chief in Petraeus' chain of command?
As Harry Truman (D-Missouri) would have said, "Does he think we were born yesterday?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
64 Comments so far
Show AllRay McGovern is the epitome of what fidelity in government service used to be like. No other administration or standing Congress in our nation's history has been so corrupt, deceitful, and downright anti-American! And gotten away with it!
Taking the 'oath' before testifying used to be required, but the rules are 'relaxed' for the Bush Republican Crime Family and the Democrats that collaborate with them. ( Hey, HBO...now that 'The Sopranos' has ended, how about trying a pilot program for real-life criminals...the Republican Party. All the screenwriters would have to do is scan the newspapers for stories and presto, we'll have fifty-two weeks of programs a year. And no repeats! ) Now back to the Petraeus presentation. Military as well as civillians working for Bush and Cheney can't afford to perjure themselves, so the oath is overlooked ( remember the P and VP testifying about 9/11?...no oath required? ) just in case a Democrat on a commitee is honest enough to really probe and ask pertinent questions.
whatever4: Unless they changed the UCMJ since I was in the Army, military personnel are not required to lie, misrepresent, or omit, things which are contrary to the chain of command up to and including the president. Officers may get a less than favorable OER ( officer evaluation report ) so it depends on the amount of honesty and integrity they have within themselves and their willingness to speak the truth.
Ray McGovern is a true American hero and I salute you again for all that you have done in exposing these scoundrels.
What we are witnessing and taking part in is the 'Project For A New American Century'.
.
Very well said. Kudos as well to Cindy Sheehan for Pigs of War!
Sheehan in '08!
"At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.""
What a wonderful thing Ray McGovern did!
There's one other issue I'd like to bring up. I strongly wish someone would have also asked Gen. David Petraeus if it is true that, were he were instructed to lie to Congress by the President, he would be obligated to do so, in accordance with the UCMJ? Is this not the case?
"Isn't it true, sir, that if Mr Bush instructed you to lie about the facts and to keep the deception a secret, you would follow these orders?"
I think it makes a difference in how we look at his testimony. IF he was instructed to lie, misrepresent or omit, doesn't the UCMJ mandate that he perform as instructed? Assuming he does not believe his Commander in Chief has issued him illegal orders, which does not appear to be the case, is he not forced to say exactly what the President tells him to say, if so instructed, to include claiming the words are his own, even if they aren't?
I'm just curious. Since he wasn't under oath, I don't think his telling the "truth" was even an issue.
This maladministration has a real phobia about testifying under oath or affirmation. One can only wonder why. Although unwilling to force the issue, Congress might've at least placed a full-length mirror in front of the witness, so that We the People could at least verify that he had a reflection.
Should've risked a felony, Ray-- and perhaps seven in the noggin-- by smuggling in a vial of holy water and sprinkling Mon General with a few drops. He might've disappeared in a puff of greasy smoke!
Keep up the good work, and tell Cindy I said "hey".
"Since he wasn't under oath, I don't think his telling the "truth" was even an issue."
Without being sworn in it is a given that he lied. Why would he do otherwise? The truth is not something that loyal bushies concern themselves with even under oath. Why tell the truth when you can spin a lie ad change your story?
"I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress."
Perhaps he wrote it himself - along the lines he had been instructed to write it. Of course, in that case it didn't need to be cleared or shared, it was custom-written according to instruction received.
Would King George appoint any one except a YES MAN? I think not. The general is full of shit! I did not know that he was not required to take an oath before giving his report. What a joke! The Code Pink ladies were great. My hat is off to them for their courage and fidelity to the truth. They were arrested of course. We can't have truth speaking to power in the biggest whore house in world history now can we?
No one is going to stop this war! If we don't get control of the oil in the Middle East now we never will. There will be no second chance. That's why the Demon-criters go along with all the criminals in the White House. That's why we will not leave Iraq. We need to control that oil so we can control the world. The best laid plans of mice and men. We be fucked! General BETRAYUS, is just an other tool in the government's tool box. He is worth his weight in shit and that's about it.
did they ever swear him in?
Let me see...
Petraeus not sworn in, photoshopped and manipulated 'evidence' presented in ambiguous charts and graphs, protesters arrested and ejected and soon to be prosecuted, nothing but positive spin from the main-stream media...
Yup... totalitarian police state. All yours.
Have fun.
Of course, even had Petraeus been sworn in, he could've gotten around that by surreptitiously crossing his fingers when he testified.
I'm pretty sure that's how Westmoreland handled it.
The honorable Arlen Specter has it exactly right. It is not necessary to swear any part of the Bush Administration in. We already understand that they are incapable of telling us anything but lies. Besides Congress is not a credible institution nor are the courts. So swearing in is just a hollow formality now anyway. Further and finally who gives a damn about oaths and swearing in etc.? The job of an intelligent citizenry and certainly of a hearing body is to find the facts and no stack of bible swearing in ceremony can ascertain facts. Let's grow up people! Truth is not dependent on forms and formalities but on intelligent inquiry and discussion, not that we expect this in our dumbed-down age.
I say again...
Welcome to YOUR police state.
Thanks Ray. McGovern for President!
There sat Betrayus decked out with enough stars, stripes, medals, and boy scout merit badges to convince TV viewers he is something other than a stone-cold killer and professional liar stuffed into a fancy uniform. The President and Congress give the orders and Mr. Betrayus pulls the trigger and returns with good news. Soldiers, non-combatants, and civilians do the dying while Generals and others do the lying.
His performance was completely predictable. Why would he risk his career, and give up a second career as a lobbyist, defense industry board member, think tank bottom feeder, or private contractor by telling the truth ? That's right, after taxpayers have subsidized his happy imperial ass for decades, he will enjoy a fat pension and will probably mutate into a proud corporate parasite feeding on tax dollars once again.
And was the deafening silence of the Democratic majority a surprise ! More than likely they are even less interested in telling the truth as their careers would also be over should they offended their corporate masters. Semper Fi and God Save The Queen !
Side note: Isn't it ironic that there are those that choose to place their hand on a book of lies while swearing to tell the truth? Perhaps not so ironic with politicians. . .
A wonderful call by the author..."swear him in!"
Ray McGovern alludes to Senator Leahy asking Arlen Spector to swear in Attorney General Gonzales before his testimony, and Spector's
declining to do so. But this was when the Republicans controlled the senate, I believe
Could not the democrats have demanded that Petraeus be sworn in? Or protested that he wasn't sworn in, and that Ray McGovern was hauled out? Or maybe whimpered...just a little?
WHERE IS THE OPPOSITION PARTY? STILL ON VACATION?
I like dog and phony shows.
So when does the new version of Yankees uber alles come out?
Galen, their police state will become our police state unless the yanks revolt against this crap.
Aren't are leaders pathetic?
as an agent in an US intelligence dept., i can tell you the general is lying through his teeth. The Republicans don't want the truth to be known. They think that all Americans are ignorant and imbociles. I will agree with that, but only to the ones who voted for Bush and his thugs. LYing is a normal part of this administration. And Bush is a pathalogical liar and defininatly has a psychological problem. And the general and his subordinates wouldn't have gotten the job if they didn't say and do what Bush told them. And all the Republicans did was to discredit the truth. The Republican party is a cult, not a party. In my opinion, all the politicians in Congress and this administration should all be hung from the Capital building, like they do in third world countries, just like we will be in another ten years. But before that happens Bush and the Pentagon(remember, the pentagon and military want the war-any war- to continue so they can keep stealing the money that is given to them yearly without proper oversight or accounting.) Bush, his thugs and the top generals are making mega bucks(billions)from this war on "terrorism". Believe me, if Bush told Patraeus to get on his knees and suck his penis, Patraeus would salute, get down on his knees and start sucking. What integrity and respect he had, has now been lost due to his political offiliations to the Republican party and his commander and chief. Ain't that a joke. I wonder what God told Bush today? Something like where and when to kill, even innocent civilians. If that's his god, I don't want anything to do with that lunitic. Patraeus will end up like Colin Powell. No one in their right mind would have respect for them, except for the cultists of the Repulican party.
i agree. petraeus just did a 'colin powell' and will be remembered as such. forever a soldier, loyal to your cinc.
Some Democratic members of Congress became livid at moveon.org for their now famous "General Betray-Us" ad in the NY Times.
The country is ripe for a new 3rd party.
photoshopped and manipulated 'evidence' presented in ambiguous charts and graphs
They didn't need to photoshop anything this time around - they just used "their" version of the number to draw the charts.
Old physics trick - draw the graph then plot the numbers. SO much simpler that way....
I know, i really hate that darn 1st amendment....
4th and 5th too. Right conservatives?
How a conservative can hate these constitutional amendments, constitutional checks and balances, etc etc then turn around and claim they love America and Freedom is beyond anyone. If it were up to them, America would in reality be run like the soviet union with concentration camps for the other party.
We wouldn't have to wait for terrorists to destory America, these fascist conservatives would bring down the country from within.
So who's the real America haters? the people that love the constitution and want to protect it? or the people that want undermine and destroy it?
The report gave me everything i wanted to hear, and everything i knew i would hear. Began with desperate, defensive conservative politicians not citing anything substantive or relevant to the discussion/report, but rather pulling a red herring and attacking the democrats. Not 1 minute into the damn thing, they were flustered and rattled and changed the subject alltogether to the democrats. I guess they're tired of being wrong over and over and over again. They can't deal with the issue at hand.
Ultimately it ended with "Things are going well, but we need more time, and more money and more soldiers and civilians are going to die." Anyone not braindead knows that they've said this over and over again, as the previous Patreaus report shows.
Now if you think we're ever leaving Iraq, newsflash. We're there for at least 20+ years. Get used at least 50k+ soldiers in Iraq permanently; Iraq is the South Korea of the 21st century.
Conservatives ought to just stop making predictions about the war. Like i said, they've been wrong everytime. Are they getting tired of being wrong? That's probably why they lashed out at the Dems. At this rate they're going to lash themselves out of washington in the 08 election.
By the way, him and the ambassador were never sworn in... So again, we're all taken for fools. "I wrote this testimony myself." and yes, he lied right at the beginning.
My question to conservatives is, what was your reaction to General COLIN POWELL'S report in 2003 to the UN (not under any oath mind you). What was your reaction then. and what is your reaction NOW in 2006-2007, when he appologized for deliberatly presenting false and misleading information in the buildup to the Iraq war, and saying it was wrong to do so? mmm?
Conservatives are spinning the same tired worn out talking points that you were back then. Which have since all been proven wrong. As i said on another thread, I don't personally blame a braindead person for being duped over and over again- their mental limitations and drawbacks are mostly not their fault . Sad and pathetic yes that they're so deranged, but you can't blame them no more than you can blame a retarded person for being retarded.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on both of us.
The militar ywould not lie to the American People.
-Colin Powell UN - WMD Presentation
-Pat Tillman
-Jessica Lynch
-"we know where the WMD are"
or some golden Oldies
- we are not bombing Cambodia
- The North Vietnamese attacked us in The Gulf of Tonkien
-
nymet624: Don't you mean 'second' party? I thought the republicrats were one and the same, serving the same masters.
canuckchuck: Yep! The same pack of lies.
mastershake: Good post, but remember, ignorance is not bliss, it is unforgivable.
'As Harry Truman (D-Missouri) would have said, "Does he think we were born yesterday?"'
Do I really need to answer that question?
More importantly, do Conyers (D) and Nancy Pelosi (D) think you were born yesterday? I thnk they do...and with good reason!
Skippyagogo41 - Too late. Didn't you see what happened here in Quebec? With S. Harper as Bush's 'Mini-me' it's already under way.
I know I live in a police state. That's why I will cheerfully point out the one in the US.
Bush and the other sly devils on his staff have systematically avoided being sworn in. The truth is their greatest enemy.
You know...these cocky bullies have been proven wrong all along. How come everyone still defers?
Oh yeah, we don't have anyone representing our interests---or the truth for that matter, in positions of power.
What good would it do? Since nobody is held accountable for lying or otherwise it wouldn't make any difference.
Taking an oath for this administration is just a formality at best anymore.
The appropriate action for Americans today is to turn our back on this fabricated "development," the report by Bush's hand-picked commander.
To everyone except those still in the thrall of American exceptionalism our foray into Iraq is an act of aggression, oppression, and now, blackmail.
What a collosal farce, and I refuse to help prop it up by even acknowledging this dog and pony show.
I love the "leaving with honor" chestnut that the Repugs are always pulling out.
No one askes the question "How can there be ANY honor in a war based on presidential lies, who's sole purpose was to grab the middle east oil resourses for the USA's exclusive use??"
After glancing around, I noticed that it has become all about the "juvenile" behavior of MOVE ON and Code Pink and even soldier boy John Kerry is in on the act advising folks not to poke at Betrayus.
It has become all about the bad demonstrators. So much for "doing something", huh?
Think about it folks, before you automatically take up the torch with the latest marching orders...
I'm having a real problem with this "serious" spin on the inappropriateness of name-calling-or the silliness of street theater. Satire and lampooning of politicians helps to keep things real and if you will recall, this was taboo with Bush who should've been rightfully roasted for the criminally moronic idiot he is. And, in case you hadn't noticed, "Act-Up" and their outrageous antics forced the world to come to grips with AIDS.
Activism has many expressions and it is SABOTAGE to put down the few who stand up and shout back.
Do you really think the vast majority of people are rigid puritans who get offended at the slightest diversity from the conservative norm? Ain't it a wonder that someone like Willie Nelson, with his long braids, can be so popular with the "redneck" crowd. What makes you think they don't appreciate a little populist rebel yelling?
This is just another tactic to keep the pack down--these restraints to "civility" suppresses the outrage.
After Colin Powell's infamous testimony (was he sworn in?) no one with a functioning brain should ever again believe military officers have any credibility when appearing before Congress or the United Nations.
Skepticism is the only protection we have now.
Ultimately this is not a military question but a political question. What military front-men think should not be relevant unless we are so hopelessly un-democratic that we rely on crowds of soldiers and their one-track mind superiors for wisdom.
Peaceman: You are so right, I meant "second party". lol
I luv both Commondreams & Indymedia.org
Peaceman: You are so right, I meant "second Party". lol
even if they did swear them in, on a stack of bibles no less, it makes no difference to these people. remember that honor, integrity, and humanity are just disguises these people wear.
what is the use for law if the people who need it most are ABOVE it?
The Democrats get upset anyone points out their phony opposition to the war. They get mad a Code Pink for daring to actually try to communicate with Congress (other than the accepted means of communication which is to write your concerns in the memo field of a check for $10,000 or more made out to their campaign). They get mad at MoveOn for daring to point out the obvious that everyone knew Petreus was going to be full of shit before he ever testified. Which in turn helps point out the very basic fact that the Dems can't even pretend to be an opposition in a hearing when faced with a witness that everyone knew would lie his ass off months in advance.
Actually, if the Dems are mad at MoveOn, that's news because six months ago MoveOn was firmly on the Dem team and seemed joined at the hip with the Dem leadership. Remember the phony polls and news releases supporting Pelosi's BS withdrawal bill?
-----------
Making the version of the Sopranos which is about the Republicans would be easy. Just change a few names so everyone isn't Italian and move the setting to a brothel in DC instead of a strip club in Jersey. Everything else stays pretty much the same.
I got into an argument on another thread. Conservative called me unpatriotic and treasonous for pointing out that this war caused 4 million refugees. Said it provides aid to the enemy. So my response was the following:
What aid do they (my comments) provide to the enemy? All of a sudden every conservative talking head is immediately a terrorism and national defense expert? Are you claiming you know better than our national foreign intelligence services, the CIA, NIS? Are you saying that you know better than our current counterterrorism experts in the field?
This is all about a power trip of the far right. Conservatives get flustered and upset anytime anyone has an opinion different from theirs. Most of the time it's when reality and facts are presented, and in turn the conservatives can't argue on a substantive level. Substantively and fact for fact, they have been proven blatantly wrong, and they know they're wrong. So, like a child, with nothing else of substance or relevance to present they turn to their whiny and elitist slogans, such as prejudging others and calling them names such as treasonous, traitors, un-American, unpatriotic etc. As if someone granted them the moral patriotic superiority to judge who's American and who's not, and as if their opinion on the issue matters. Typically it always revolves around reality and facts that they can't bring themselves to deal with or confront.
For instance, people might point out a fact like the Commander in Iraq General Patreaus just said to Congress that he doesn't know if the war in Iraq and the surge is making America safer or not.
And a conservative would respond to that not by addressing the issue at hand, but rather by lowering themselves to elitist name calling and dubbing anyone who disagrees with them as un-American, unpatriotic etc.
Substantively, and factually they cannot argue or discuss the issue on a mature a deliberative level. So they have to resort to their McCarthyism character defamation/assassination tactics calling people traitors etc.
Meanwhile these are the same people who have done nothing to contribute to the war effort other than put a bumper sticker on their car.
The lingering question to conservatives and especially these college republicans of military age is what have you personally done to contribute to the war effort? Even if you're not in military shape, there are plenty of civil-military jobs/services in Iraq that do not require combat service. If these conservatives really want to win so badly as they claim, why are nearly all of them doing next to nothing to contribute to the war effort?
Thank you Ray McGovern for this.
On the outrage against the MoveOn Betrayus ad (which I looked up and it does not question the honor of Petraeus' service...only his truthfulness about this war): where was all of this outrage when Max Cleland and John Kerry, who have also honorably served our country in the military, were outright slandered and their integrity and service called into question? To the defenders of the Honor of Petraeus: our country is attempting to have the discussion about this war that it should have had PRIOR to invading Iraq and Afghanistan. To respectfully disagree does not mean that one is betraying his country. Our country needs to have a full discussion without smacking people down. If the Pro-Stay the Course acolytes are so secure that this is the right decision, then they should be secure enough to be able to allow other views to be heard and to rebut them. My sense is that the facts just don't support this version and so they want to shut off any debate and continue sending our military lambs to the slaughter. Our troops and veterans deserve better than this. They deserve their lives to be taken more seriously than they have been. And our citizens deserve better. And finally, the memory of the people whose deaths on 9/11 gave cause to Bush's war deserve there to be a full DEMOCRATIC discussion. Politicians (remember, you are supposed to be public servants) and Press: PAY ATTENTION.
ps. Bin Laden is probably laughing somewhere.
Bush cannot see that HE has given Bin Laden more power than he ever could have gotten on his own. Had Bush handled 9/11 differently, he could have squashed Bin Laden's power whether he got him dead or alive (and he has neither).
Does anybody else feel like we are in a really bad reality show?
Hey, Vern,
Why do you have a problem with people calling for something that's EVEN MORE RADICAL than street theater?
The Iraq war has been going on for six years, more if you count the Iraq war previous to that one, and all the other US militray interventions before that.
The Project for a New American Century is having a heyday and we seem to keep doing teh same things, over and over.
It's time for something new!
mastershake: Don't feel bad about the name-calling. Reactionaries ( conservatives ) are skilled in this type of behavior and history is replete with examples. It predates McCarthyism. FDR was slandered by the right wing for creating social programs for the common people. Read George Seldes book, 'NEVER TIRE OF PROTESTING' and find out what this 'real' American hero had to say.
History Lesson 101: In a cafe in Germany, in 1944, the man who invented the rocket ship, the brilliant Warner Von Braun and another scientist were discussing how badly the war was going, and they figured that Germany would lose. A female Gestapo agent sitting nearby overheard the conversation and dropped a dime. ( made a phone call ) The two men were arrested for "unpatriotic remarks" about Hitler and the 'homeland' and were carted off to jail. The Colonel or general who worked with Von Braun on the V-1 and V-2 rockets intervened and with his credentials, managed to have these men released and resume their projects. Need I say more? Stand fast and speak truth to power.
Not a bad reality show, just a really lame remake of those ole keystone cop movies...
Canada a police state??? Perhaps; if by the police you're refering to Keystone kops and inspector clouseau wannabes. Perhaps those in power in our countries (repukes dims, tory's and libs) are really out to restore democratic rule in north america by running the most incompetent attempt at a dictatorship ever. Really now, could they be any more screwed up if they tried?
That being said, I'm disappointed at myself for not thinking of the antics of the ACT-UP group. The gov't of the us and can can't throw everyone in gaol, nor do they have enough ammo to kill us all (anymore)...
I'm sitting at a restaurant right now in Old Saybrook, Connecticut listening to three women who are having dinner and a few glasses of wine discuss what is important in their lives at this time:
Their jobs, their husbands' jobs, their kids, their kids' lives, wrong numbers on their cell phones, the color one of them painted her kitchen (it was a funny cream color she doesn't like), who's having a baby and when she's due, the last Jerry Springer show "She should just leave...get out!!" "I agree!" and on and on and on and on.
As I read Ray McGovern's article and all the comments after, I thought about the MSNBC coverage on 9/11 I watched this morning and of what happened six years ago today and had to think about where we are as a country.
I fear most Americans truly feel they are living in The "First" World. That they are somehow, in spite of what happened here on 9/11, "impervious to chaos". They think their lives will just go on and on and on, without interruption. Their husbands will continue with their jobs and will come home on Mondays and watch football. Their kids will bring their precious little Halloween and Thanksgiving drawings home to be ceremoniously placed on the frig, and they will continue to fret about their pregnancies and what color for the kitchen...
As our country sinks into Bush's totalitarian hell.
With the dollar below 80 and the Chinese licking their chops to pounce on us with the fact they have us by our economic/war-mongering/oil grabbing balls, these happy ladies will soon awaken to the reality that their husbands have lost their jobs, that there are no semi-trucks running up and down the I-95 to deliver their groceries and Barbie Dolls to Wal Mart for "Christmas" and that they and we are, for all intents and purposes....FUCKED.
Here's the question: How do I get up from this table and go over to these lovely ladies and tell them what's coming down the pike? Here would be their sad response to the truth: "Humina, humina, humina....ba,ba,ba,ba,ba...."
Suggestions? Comments?
How many different ways can you spell C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S?
"Here's the question: How do I get up from this table and go over to these lovely ladies and tell them what's coming down the pike? Here would be their sad response to the truth: "Humina, humina, humina….ba,ba,ba,ba,ba….""
There's a wonderful scene from the original "Doctor Zhivago" -- the freezing protestors, with a rag-tag improvised brass band, have marched to the restaurant where the aristocrats are eating & they sing the Internationale. For a few moments, the diners look terrified, till Kamarovsky (Rod Steier) cracks a joke, and then they go back to dancing.
And COMarc, yes, the Dissemblecrats get very upset when real dissenters & opponents threaten to interrupt their minuets with the Repugs. It's ideo-taintment, pure kabuki, with the corporations & AIPAC telling them what they will and will not do; that's why Pelosi screams back at Code Pink & David Obey calls a grieving mother an 'idiot liberal' . . . they're nothing but the aging band hired to play a few bars of "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow" . . .
Its a shame that the CD is not the MSM.
Suggestions? Comments?
How many different ways can you spell C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S?
A.: Let's see -- U.S. C o n g r e s s. AND U.S. S e n a t e.
Especially Hillary Clinton who is already (a la Nancy Pelosi style) preparing us by her comments at the hearings today, reserving one more year of war at the very least.
They are all clueless, when all we want is an end to this immoral war and our troops home now.
The whole of Congress is a sham. There are about ten decent people in the whole bunch. They are either incredibly stupid or compromised. Watching amything they do is just a waste of time accept to document their disgracefull performance for history's sake. Let us never forget what they have done to us.
The reason they want to spy on us law abiding citizen's isn't for any security's sake but just to let them know how much we know about the crimanal activities they are up to.
This kind of behavior was not what Jesus had in mind when he warned against swearing oaths!! He meant that ideally a yes is a yes and a no a no! But with followers like Bush (and I imagine this Betrayus guy), JC may have thought twice about such an admonition.