Tag Archives: partisanship

Party hacks are giving Obama his bogus war on Syria

It was inevitable, I suppose, that the Middle Eastern nation of Syria was going to be proclaimed a “national security threat,” and the Obama regime has obliged us.

This “national security threat” is even more risible than was the “national security threat” that the members of the Bush regime claimed Iraq posed in their run-up to their Vietraq War.

At least the treasonous war criminals of the Bush regime lied to us that Iraq itself posed the “national security threat.” The war criminals and would-be war criminals of the Obama regime are lying to us that Syria is a “national security threat” by proxy — that is, if we don’t lob some missiles at Syria for no other apparent reason than to spook Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and to flex our military muscles again in the Middle East, other nations, especially Iran and North Korea (with Iraq, the other two members of the Bush regime’s “axis of evil”), might — gasp! — feel emboldened!

So, quite Orwellianly, a “national security threat” no longer means that another nation is actually poised to actually strike the United States — a “national security threat” now has been redefined to mean that it’s a “national security threat” should the U.S. maybe appear to be weak or irresolute or some other synonymous adjective in the eyes of any other “bad” nation.

Wow.

This is even worse than the Bush regime’s “pre-emptive strike” bullshit. Again, at least the Bush regime lied that the U.S. had to strike Iraq before Iraq could strike the U.S. (Iraq, of course, never had any such capability, which we all knew before the Bush regime launched its Vietraq War); we now have the Obama regime lying that we have to strike Syria so that other nations don’t strike the U.S.

What the fucking fuck?

Perhaps even more pathetic than this, though, is that very apparently whether or not the typical American supports a particular war depends upon his or her party affiliation and the party affiliation of the current occupant of the White House.

Most Democrats in D.C., if they’re not happy about the Obama regime’s plan to attack Syria just to attack Syria, don’t have the balls to stand up to the Obama regime, so they’ll keep their mouths shut. (Even my own Democratic/“Democratic” U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, I am deeply sorry to report, was one of the 10 “yes” votes on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s 10-7 vote on Wednesday to allow the Obama regime to use military force against Syria.* Et tu, Babs?)

And many (if not most) Americans who voted for Obama, primarily only because they voted for him, won’t oppose the Syria misadventure like they opposed the Iraq misadventure.

I opposed the Vietraq War because it was an unprovoked, unjust, immoral and illegal U.S.-led war upon another sovereign nation, but apparently the primary or even only reason that many if not even most so-called Democrats opposed the Vietraq War was that it was the Bush regime’s war.

To be sure, that the regime that first had stolen the White House in 2000 because enough Americans just allowed them to then went on to launch a bogus war in March 2003 (because enough Americans just allowed them to) was and remains a problem for me — the crimes of the stolen presidential election and the resultant illegitimate regime’s bogus war still have not been punished or nationally atoned for, and therefore they remain open wounds on the nation — but the Vietraq War would have been just as fucked up and wrong had it been waged by a “Democratic” president like Obama.

But progressive columnist David Sirota notes in his latest column:

… So what happened to [the anti-war] movement? The shorter answer is: It was a victim of partisanship.

That’s the conclusion that emerges from a recent study by professors at the University of Michigan and Indiana University. Evaluating surveys of more than 5,300 anti-war protestors from 2007 to 2009, the researchers discovered that the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats “withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success” in the 2008 presidential election.

Had there been legitimate reason to conclude that Obama’s presidency was synonymous with the anti-war cause, this withdrawal might have been understandable. But that’s not what happened — the withdrawal occurred even as Obama was escalating the war in Afghanistan and intensifying drone wars in places like Pakistan and Yemen.

The researchers thus conclude that during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war — they were instead “motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.”

Not surprisingly, this hyper-partisan outlook and the lack of a more robust anti-war movement explain why political calculations rather than moral questions are at the forefront of the Washington debate over a war with Syria. …

This is red-versus-blue tribalism in its most murderous form. It suggests that the party affiliation of a particular president should determine whether or not we want that president to kill other human beings. It further suggests that we should all look at war not as a life-and-death issue, but instead as a sporting event in which we blindly root for a preferred political team. …

That’s just some fucked-up shit.

I mean, as much as I detest Repugnican U.S. senators John McCainosaurus and closet case Lindsey Graham, for instance, at least they consistently are pro-war. There isn’t a war that they wouldn’t support. (Canada? Hey, they’re too close for comfort! Sweden? Their “pacifism” is just a facade, a ruse!) McCainosaurus wants to look tough and bad-ass and so does Graham, apparently trying to overcompensate for his very apparent homosexuality by trying to create the persona of an uber-macho war hawk (it’s not working, girlfriend!).

Love them or hate them — and I hate them — but at least we know what to expect from the likes of McCainosaurus and Graham.

What can we expect from the “Democrats”? Oh, it depends upon the party affiliation of the current president!

That only a minority of Democrats in D.C. truly embody the spirit of being anti-war — which is that you don’t take the nation to war unless it really, really, really is necessary, because war is a gravely serious thing — is a testament to the extent of the moral decay of the so-called Democratic Party of today.

And don’t kid yourself; there is no fucking guarantee that lobbing missiles at Syria will remain a “limited” military operation, as the liars who comprise the Obama regime would have you believe.

The Middle East is an oil-soaked tinderbox, and you cannot drop a match anywhere there and guarantee that you’ll scorch only a “limited” patch of it.

Perhaps direct comparisons of Syria and Iraq can’t be made, but at least one disturbing similarity between the Vietraq War and what’s happening now is that over time we saw the treasonous members of the Bush regime making increasingly hysterical and hyperbolic claims about the “national security threat” that Iraq posed to the U.S. (such as the “smoking gun” coming in the form of a “mushroom cloud”), and now we are seeing the members of the Obama regime (I am regretting that I once supported John Kerry, since he now is shilling for Obama’s bogus war on Syria) making increasingly hysterical and hyperbolic claims about the “national security threat” posed to the U.S. by Syria — such as that if we don’t attack Syria, we can expect attacks from other nations, like Iran and North Korea.

The more that the war hawks ratchet up their ridiculous rhetoric, the more you know that their casus belli is for shit.

*Tellingly, of the seven U.S. senators on the committee who voted “no” on Obama’s desire to attack Syria, only two are Democrats and the rest of them are Repugnicans. Of the 1o who voted “yes,” seven are “Democrats” and three are Repugs. Newly minted Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, who should have voted “no” if he calls himself a progressive, voted “present.”

Obviously, partisanship trumps morality in D.C.

Again: This is some sick fucking shit.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

New House Repugnican majority set to get President Obama re-elected

An editorial cartoon conflating Repugnican U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa with the late Repugnican U.S. Sen. Joseph McCarthy is apropros to the wingnutty hell, replete with partisan witch hunts, that the Repugnicans now in the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives woefully incorrectly believe that the majority of Americans want right now.

Barack Obama has been a disappointing president, hardly delivering upon his much-hyped promises of “hope” and “change,” yet the Repugnican assbites in the U.S. House of Representatives — most of them stupid, conservative white males, of course — are on course to ensure Obama a second term by comparison to their brazen rapaciousness that is out of step with the wishes of the majority of the nation’s voters.

The House Repugnicans’ first partisan stunt is to hold a vote on the repeal of Obama’s signature health-care reform — an attempt that will only waste the House’s time and energy since it will fail, since the still-Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate most likely won’t allow such a repeal and since Obama most likely would veto any such attempt anyway.

Blue-eyed devil Repugnican Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, who today replaced outgoing Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is widely believed to be an alcoholic (the crying kind).

This excerpt from a fundraising e-mail that I received today under Boehner’s signature and titled “Your New Majority” (I’m on the enemy’s e-mail list…) makes the House Repugnicans’ propagandistic game plan rather clear:

With Republicans taking their oath to support and defend the Constitution, the House of Representatives will become the outpost in Washington for the American people and their desire for a smaller, less costly, and more accountable government. The President’s agenda may still be the agenda of Washington, but beginning this year, the agenda of the House will be the agenda of the American people. The people’s priorities will be our priorities.

Right. The Repugnicans plan to destroy what’s left of the social safety net and deliver even more to the corporateers and the war profiteers, yet they stand for “the American people.” And, of course, they are trying to redefine the U.S. Constitution back to the days in which only rich white heterosexual “Christian” men had full rights of American citizenship. (After all, U.S. Supreme Court “justice” Antonin Scalia says that the Constitution doesn’t protect women and non-heterosexuals from unequal, discriminatory treatment.)

As if that weren’t enough, the power-drunk Repugnican Rep. Darrell Issa — who, I am ashamed, is from my great home state of California, and who was instrumental in further wrecking the state of California by financing the 2003 gubernatorial recall election that brought the state Arnold Schwarzenegger (the uber-ambitious Issa himself was going to run in the recall election but stepped aside once Schwarzenegger joined the fray) — as chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, promises to be another Joseph McCarthy, publicly prejudicially labeling his intended targets as “corrupt” before a single fucking hearing has been held.

This is not what the majority of Americans want right now, a bunch of stupid white male swine in the House of Representatives attacking not the nation’s problems, such as its joblessness and poverty, but attacking the administration of the president who received more votes than any other presidential candidate in U.S. history, and who received a higher percentage of the popular vote than George W. Bush did in 2000 or in 2004. Nor do Americans wish to see the Repugnicans in the House do even more for their corporate cronies and even less for the American people, and that’s all that we can expect from this bunch of Repugnicans.

But fine; let the stupid white men of the House of Reps have their little orgy of selfish, partisan power-mongering. The American voters expect them to be fixing the nation’s problems, not focusing on petty partisan payback.

Come November 2012, the do-nothing Repugnican Party will pay the heavy price at the ballot box.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bayh humbug!

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, a leading Democrat seen here in 2007, ...

AFP photo

Meh. Let the door hit him on his ass on his way out. He’s too John Edwards-y anyway.

So another DINO (a.k.a. “centrist”) U.S. senator bites the dust.

As usual, the mainstream “news” media are playing this up for maximum sensationalism. Reports The Associated Press:

Washington – The stunning announcement by centrist Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh that he’s retiring from a Congress he no longer loves adds yet another name to a list of lawmakers fleeing a town they say has become acidly partisan. And it gives Republicans a chance to pick up a seat.

The decision by the Indiana Democrat, who was in strong position to win a third term in November in his GOP-leaning state, also compounds the problems facing Senate Democrats this fall as they cling to their majority in the chamber, where they now hold 59 of the 100 votes.

Bayh joins a growing roster of recent Democratic retirements that includes Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. Yet the congressional casualty list has a decidedly bipartisan flavor, with recent retirement announcements coming from Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., and other GOP House members from Michigan, Indiana, Arkansas and Arizona….

The departure of Bayh, 54, sent deeper shock waves than most. Telegenic and on the list of potential running mates for the past two Democratic national tickets, Bayh is known more for the moderate tone of his politics than for any particular legislative achievements, and his parting words had a notably plaintive tenor.

“To put it in words most Hoosiers can understand: I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress,” Bayh said [today]  in the statement he read in Indianapolis announcing his decision.

He also lambasted the acid divide between Democrats and Republicans in Washington, saying, “I am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology.” …

Well, yeah, if you find it to be too hot in the kitchen, then you probably should just get the fuck out.

Bayh couldn’t pick a side — good (progressivism — a.k.a. “socialism”) or evil (conservatism/social Darwinism) — and so he found things too unpleasant.

Boo.

Fucking.

Hoo.

The Repugnicans gloat over every Democratic departure, but what a great fucking gig it is to be a Repugnican, if you can get it: Your party ran the nation into the ground from January 2001 to January 2009, but now you can blame things on the opposition party — and you can get away with it because too many of the fucktarded “citizens” of the United States of Amnesia don’t remember even recent American history.

(I am reading Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason concurrently with Susan Jacoby’s The Age of American Unreason. These aren’t good books if you want to feel falsely good about your fellow Americans. For that you would need to read something written by a wingnut, such as A Patriot’s History of the United States. [Hey, at least I’m not also reading Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free… (It is on my amazon.com wish list, however…)])

Let’s back up to the first paragraph of that AP news story, though:

Washington – The stunning announcement by centrist Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh that he’s retiring from a Congress he no longer loves adds yet another name to a list of lawmakers fleeing a town they say has become acidly partisan. And it gives Republicans a chance to pick up a seat.

“Stunning.” The writer is telling you how to feel about the news item: stunned. The writer can’t just give you the facts and let you decide; the writer has to appeal to your emotions right off. (Are you feeling stunned right about now?)

“Acidly partisan.” “Acidly”?

Partisan, sure — gee, go figure, that when you have two opposing parties you have some (gasp!) partisanship — but “acidly”? What, if everyone doesn’t get along and hold hands and sing “Kumbaya,” that’s a horrible thing?

Really, though — if everyone were on the same page, would that really be a good place to be? Because which side is going to sacrifice its core principles in order to achieve this uber-fucking-“Kumbaya”-fest? I’m never going to embrace white supremacism, plutocracy, election theft, bogus wars and social Darwinism, to name just a handful of the evil things that the Repugnican Party stands for (in no certain order), so I’m fucking thrilled that there is some fucking partisanship in D.C.

But the best part of that lead paragraph is that immediately after the “news” writer uses the phrase “acidly partisan,” he adds: “And it gives Republicans a chance to pick up a seat,” apparently stoking the fires of the very same partisanship that he has just indicated is a bad thing.

Shit, maybe if you are confused you shouldn’t blame yourself, as our “professional” “news” “reporters” seem to be just as confused as you are.

And why do the mainstream “news” media constantly assert that having 59 of the 100 U.S. Senate seats is sooo inadequate? Is it because when your party is headed by a black president, you have to do much better than your white guy would? The Repugnicans never held more than 55 of the Senate seats during George W. Bush’s disastrous time in the White House. I don’t recall that the Repugnican Party ever was faulted for having “only” 55 Senate seats, yet the Democrats essentially are called losers for having “only” 59 Senate seats right now.

Fifty-nine percent is a fairly strong majority. Since when is it such a horrible thing to have a 59-percent majority? Even if the Democrats had only 55 Senate seats, the Repugnicans could have no more than 45. That’s still a 10-seat advantage. Fuck.

Get rid of the fucking undemocratic filifuckingbuster, and it would be fine to have even just a 51-seat majority.

But let me get back to Bayh. Oooooo, he’s “telegenic”! Big whoop. I can — and I do — look at a copious amount of images of nice-looking males on the Internet every fucking day. “Telegenic” males are a dime a dozen. Hell, they don’t even cost a dime. You can download them for free. (I know…)

This is probably the most useful portion of the AP “news” story above: “Bayh is known more for the moderate tone of his politics than for any particular legislative achievements.”

In other words, he’s pretty, but legislatively, he’s worthless. And he doesn’t know good from evil, so we call him a “centrist” or a “moderate” or even — ughhh — “bipartisan.”

Um, yeah.

Buh-bye, Bayh.

Buh-bye.

Once all of the “centrists” are out of Congress, then maybe good finally can prevail over evil once and for all.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized