Supreme Court hands down THREE Split decisions in one day.
Age imbalance between factions now serious issue.
Jun 29th, 2007 by Admin Mugsy


NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down no less than THREE historic 5-4 split decisions Thursday, two of which fell in the Conservative direction and one falling for the Progressives. Dependable Conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Scalia all voted together, as did dependable Progressive Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter and Stevens. Justice Kennedy became the lone key swing vote in all three cases, siding with Conservatives in two out of the three rulings.

Only one of the rulings made the mainstream news: “Parents vs Seattle School District No. 1“, in which precedent was overturned when the court ruled that “race” could no longer be used as the “deciding factor” in admittance with all else being equal. While it fell as a victory for the Conservative judges, even as a Liberal, I find it difficult to argue against such a ruling. Discrimination in any form, including reverse discrimination, is something I feel needs to be phased out of our society.

The second ruling… falling in the Progressive column, was a decision regarding the execution of the mentally challanged. upholding the practice as illegal. It is frightening to think that The Court came within one vote of approving putting retarded people to death.

The third ruling, the most complicated of the three, “Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.” loosened government restrictions on “minimum pricing“, deciding that in fact manufacturers CAN tell their retailers the absolute minimum they are allowed to charge for their products. Conservatives in the High Court ruled that Suppliers could demand that no Retailer charge so little as to undercut their other customers. Progressive judges pointed out that allowing the supplier to set the market prices for ALL of its customers amounted to “price fixing”, a violation of the Sherman (Antitrust) Act. Again, precedent was overturned with the Conservative ruling.

So many rulings breaking “5-4” demonstrates a growing and dangerous ideological split within the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). President Bush, having had the coveted opportunity to appoint not one but *two* Supreme Court judges, plays a major part in the High Courts new found polarity. His two appointments, Roberts and Alito are the youngest of the nine Justices, ensuring Conservative rulings long after President Bush retires to Crawford.

On the other side, Justices Souter (67), Stevens (87), Ginsburg (74), and Breyer (69) are all well within retirement age. Souter, despite being the youngest of the four, is said to be pondering retirement. At 71, lone swing vote Kennedy is also well within retirement age.

On the Conservative side, three of the four Justices Thomas (59), Roberts (52) and Alito (57) average more than 18 years younger than their Liberal counterparts if you don’t count Justice Antonin Scalia (71), who shows no signs of retiring anytime soon.

With this age imbalance, the odds favor that the next vacancy will be that of a Progressive judge, and the possibility that President Bush fills that third vacancy with another hard-Right nominee before he steps down in 2009 becomes a very real possibility (Presidents filling multiple vacancies is not that uncommon. FDR holds the record with EIGHT appointments during his three terms following the deaths of seven and the retirement of one (George Washington technically leads the pack with ELEVEN, but to be fair, there was no Supreme Court at the time, so he had to nominate the first nine before getting two vacancies).

Thursday’s ruling demonstrate like fire in the night sky the need for the remaining four Progressive judges to stay right where they are, and the critical need for the next President to be a Progressive Democrat.

Justice Stephen Breyer’s frustration with this new ultra-polarized Court becomes all the more understandable when he took the unusual step of reading aloud a scathing 77 page dissent, stating that “Rarely have so few, so quickly, changed so much“… a direct reference to the way in which the Conservative members of the Court have regularly ignored precedent and ruled in favor of big business and against Civil Rights, adding just one more asterisk to just why the 2008 Presidential election is *so* important.

During the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts, the subject of “precedence” and/or “stare decisis” came up a total of 44 times during four days of confirmation hearings. On the subject of modesty, Roberts told the panel:

Another part of that humility has to do with respect for precedent that forms part of the rule of law that the judge is obligated to apply under principles of stare decisis.”

During hearings for Judge Alito, the subject of precedence was broached a total of 47 times. During his confirmation, Judge Edward Becker (now deceased) praised his colleague Sam Alito with this gem:

He scrupulously adheres to precedent. I have never seen him exhibit a bias against any class of litigation or litigants.

To which Judge Anthony Scirica added:

He has a deep respect for precedent. […] His personal views, whatever they might be, do not jeopardize the independence of his legal reasoning or his capacity to approach each issue with an open mind.

Judge Gibbons praised his friend with:

A thorough review of his record shows that, in fact, he’s a fair-minded jurist who pays careful attention to the record below and who takes great pains to apply precedent.

There is no way to unseat a sitting judge. No “impeachment” proceeding or Presidential Executive Order can unseat a sitting judge. So if a nominee and/or their character witnesses lie their asses off just to get appointed, the onus falls on Congress to expose them for who they really are and prevent them from ever making it onto the court.

Somehow, I can’t help but feeling a bit swindled. How ’bout you?

Debunking the Four Basic 9/11 Conspiracy Myths
Jun 21st, 2007 by Admin Mugsy


I know it seems like a stale topic, but thanks to the (2008) Republican Presidential race, the subject is rearing its ugly head again. Earlier this past week, Presidential non-candidate Fred Thompson once again bravely stood up to his opponents from the safety of behind his desk and lobbed insults worthy of a twelve year old at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after he criticized the newly ousted Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace on a radio show that also included comments by 9/11 Conspiracy defenders. Thompson lumped the Majority Leader (and by extension, ALL Democrats) in with the “tinfoil hat, UFO believing” crowd. Apparently now, the next “dirty trick” to come out of the GOP will be painting Democrats as a bunch of crazy “9/11 conspiracy nuts”. Unfair as the portrayal may be, I think it IS safe to say that more “9/11 Conspiracy Believers” vote Democrat than Republican.

Air America radio host Thom Hartman commented last week that he has received well over 150 emails from people who are willing to go on his show to debate evidence that “9/11 was an inside job”, but not one email from anyone willing to take the opposing view debunking those claims, which prompted me to write this weeks column.

More than 1/3 of all Americans believe the U.S. government was somehow involved in the attacks of 9/11. That’s certainly not a “fringe”, but it IS against “common sense”. I’ve had a beef with 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists for a long time now, mostly because of how easily and readily they accept arguments and suppositions as “fact” that don’t stand up to even the most cursory analysis. Yet the true believers continue to believe, making the rest of us look bad. And it is SO easy to believe when you/we distrust the Bush Administration SO much that we are willing to believe they are capable of just about anything.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not about to argue that the Bush Administration *didn’t* take advantage of the events of that fateful day, nor am I above entertaining the idea that they *may* of even allowed it to happen… though probably never knowing the extent of the attack to come… in order to use it to their advantage. There is plenty of evidence out there to support both ideas. My “Liberal Democrat” bona-fide’s need no defending, having produced this blog for nearly a year now, maintaining the BI30 video archive that this blog is the companion to since 2004, and a lengthy collection of videos on YouTube (all links above) exposing the crimes, failures and hypocrisy of the Bush Administration, there should be no question that I am NOT defending the Bush Administration with this report.

But what I DO criticize is ANY idea that “9/11 was an inside job” and that the Bush Administration, and NOT religious extremists from the Middle East, attacked us on that day. Yes, I’ve seen all the films (“Loose Change“, “In Plane Site“, “Pentagon Strike“, etc) and have found fault with them all. These films and the “facts” depicted in them are easy to accept if you are already willing to believe. It’s no different than watching a magic show when you already believe in magic. It’s fun to imagine the elephant just disappeared into thin air. But logically, you KNOW there is no such thing as magic, you KNOW it’s really a trick, and you KNOW elephants don’t just dissolve into nothingness. But we believe because we WANT to believe. Such are the 9/11 Conspiracies. And just as we always feel a little stupid and let down when a magician reveals his secrets, so goes the 9/11 Conspiracy theorist… difference being that when a magician reveals his tricks, you don’t want to punch out the magician. But challenge a 9/11 conspiracy “true believer” regarding their fragile and well fed beliefs, and often you are asking for trouble.

I felt the need to create this list now because of recent attempts to label Democrats as moonbats… people out of touch with reality. The Right is more and more often now trying to destroy the credibility of anyone that still doesn’t get “the genius that is the Bush foreign policy” (pardon me while I gag) because it works. Don’t have a leg to stand on? Take the weakest branch of your opponents base and flog him/her with it until they cry for mercy. Remember that I do this for your own good.

There are four basic myths to support the argument that “9/11 was an inside job”:

Myth #1: The Bush Administration themselves actually orchestrated 9/11 and pinned the blame on Osama bin Laden. This is the core belief. If you don’t believe this, then none of your other theories will make any sense. You MUST believe OBL was “framed” if you are to believe the Bush Administration is actually responsible for the attacks. There’s no other way around it. It’s an odd position 9/11 Conspiracy believers find themselves in… defending Osama bin Laden in order to blame someone they hate even more: George W. Bush. The theory goes this way: OBL first denied that his terrorist organization, al Qaeda, was behind the 9/11 attacks. And later video showing him accepting responsibility for the attacks look nothing like him. It was only after being seen as a “hero” in the Muslim world for the spectacular attack that he willingly accepted responsibility for something he didn’t do because it was beneficial to him.

In the movie “Loose Change”, they compare a still frame from his “confession video” (center image) to other authenticated photos of OBL to “prove” that the man in the video looks nothing like him:

OBL from Loose Change

And true enough, the center image does not look like the others. But might the video itself be at fault? One can’t help but notice that the image of bin Laden is quite dark and distorted. It appears to be somewhat “smooched” and not at all clear. A few minutes with PhotoShop proves that the man in the video is indeed OBL himself:

OBL frame corrected

Correcting for color/brightness and stretching out the image to its true proportion, it is easy to see that the man in the video is indeed bin Laden. No question about it.

Example image of OBL from “Loose Change”

“Corrected” still from “Loose Change”

The video alludes to the fact that, unlike his wanted poster describes, “the man in the video” is right handed (his Wanted Poster says he’s a lefty), and can be seen writing with his right hand. Also, “the man in the video” is wearing a gold ring, with the point being that wearing gold is prohibited by Islam… which is not exactly true. Islam prohibits wearing “purely decorative” gold/jewels for no purpose other than fashion. Wedding rings and other symbolic jewelry is not prohibited. Both “facts” are easily debunked with a quick 30-second Google image search (as seen in this frame from bin Laden’s last pre-2004 video):


As you can plainly see, it is indeed bin Laden claiming responsibility in the video, gesturing with his right hand while wearing a gold wedding ring. Dissecting videos such as “Loose Change” for inaccuracies would take FAR more space than I have here, but if you want more, there are about a half dozen good sites out there that do.

Which brings up another obvious point: Why blame “bin Laden” specifically? George Bush and his neocon buddies from the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) had been after Saddam Hussein since the last Gulf War, even urging President Clinton to invade Iraq and depose Saddam back in 1998. If they were going to frame anyone for the attacks of 9/11, it would of been Saddam, not bin Laden. Going after the Taliban in Afghanistan was a distraction from what they were really after: Saddam and his imaginary “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. If they were going to “frame” someone for 9/11, it most assuredly would of been Saddam Hussein (Hell, Cheney is STILL trying to link Saddam to 9/11 to this day).

If, in light of this new evidence, you are massaging your theory to now believe “Bush and his close friends the bin Laden’s planned 9/11 together“, they STILL would have framed Saddam for it.

This leaves just the belief that the Bush Administration was even capable of planning and executing the 9/11 attacks themselves…

Tell me, what’s easier to believe: the most inept administration in U.S. history pulled off the most elaborate conspiracy in history, involving thousands of military, government and civilian participants, a mere eight months into office, without anyone coming forward to confess their involvement and without any physical evidence of their crime?



The most inept administration in U.S. history “dropped the ball and failed to prevent the most deadly terrorist attack in U.S. history” despite literally *dozens* of warning signs, a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled “Bin Laden Determined to strike in US” and a Terrorism Czar (Richard Clarke) unable to get the Bush Administration to even sit down and TALK about al Qaeda until September 4th, one week before the attacks on 9/11?

I mean, really now.

Myth #2: The Towers came down as the result of a “controlled demolition“. I think this theory irks me most of all. People with no more training in “structural engineering” than I do in open-heart surgery can look at the video of those towers coming down and declare with all the authority of Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schaivo from a 10-minute video, that the way they fell is “concrete proof” of a controlled demolition.

First, I’m not aware of a single example of a skyscraper collapsing on its own for which to compare what such a collapse should look like. A skyscraper wouldn’t fall “straight down”? Who says? Bob from down the street? I’d argue that, had the building fallen ANY other way, THAT would be evidence of foul play. Realize that neither of the towers were damaged at their base, which might result in them toppling. Both towers were struck near the top and pancaked straight down. For the Towers to have fallen to the side, basic physics dictates that a force equal to the weight of the buildings would of had to of pushed them over from the side. The force of the planes were the only force applied to the sides of the buildings, which did not fall for at least another half hour afterwards. The first plane hit dead-on in the middle of the floors, distributing the damage fairly equally, creating no imbalance. The second plane struck closer to the corner of Tower Two, and as a result Tower Two DID collapse in on that corner first, toppling towards the side before the weight of the top floors collapsing downward brought the rest of the building straight down.

For any building to “topple” something needs to push it over or support must be removed from one side “at the base“. Once a building starts to fall, it’s going to come straight down as the floors above come crashing straight down.

Accounts of “explosions” heard inside the Towers can likewise be explained away by combusting chemicals, “backdraft” as air trapped inside empty offices/closets/etc with closed doors are suddenly breached by fire, and/or just the sound of unseen internal structural damage taking place (steel girders snapping like twigs). “Loose Change” points to “jets of smoke” they call “squibs” seen shooting out of the sides of the building just below the collapsing floors, pointing to them as *concrete proof* of a controlled demolition as pre-installed charges appear to be set off, collapsing each floor above.



Two problems here: First, had someone of “planted” explosive charges inside the Towers to trigger a collapse, they would of had to of known EXACTLY where the planes would hit… down to the exact floor… to know where to place the charges. There were no flames in these “squibs” that would be associated with an explosive charge, no “squibs” appearing “20 or 30 floors below the points of impact”, and no “squibs” appearing *before* the Towers had already started to come down to have triggered the collapse (if the buildings needed assistance to fall, the time they would of needed it most was *before* the collapse even began). No examples of “squibs” before the collapse begins have been produced (photos of what some “claim” to be of squibs prior to the collapse have been shown, but what is seen in the images do not resemble the “jets of smoke” seen above. Nor is there any way to know exactly *when* the photos were taken to prove that the building had not already begun its collapse to produce the smoke).

So what then were those “squibs”? Most likely, air inside the building being forced out the sides as the floors above compress the air inside them down and out. Following the paths of least resistance, air would be pushed down elevator shafts and halls, shooting out open windows wherever it finds them. Notice there is no fire or flame in those “squibs” to suggest they are the result of a detonated charge capable of taking out an entire floor half the size of a football field.

Arguments that “airplane fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the steel supports between floors” are irrelevant as well. The steel girders between floors didn’t need to “liquefy” just to become structurally unsound enough to no longer support the weight above them. They only needed to “soften” to the point of bending, which takes place at a MUCH lower temperature well within the range of burning jet fuel.

(UPDATE: A massive fire beneath a highway overpass caused a section of “Interstate 85” in Atlanta to collapse on March 31st, 2017. Extreme heat alone was enough to cause structural failure.)

Also, the architectural design of the Towers themselves was partially to blame for their collapse. Since “vertical support beams” in the center of a skyscraper that tall would be impossible, the Towers were designed to bear all their weight on the ridged outer skeleton. People who worked in the Towers often complained of how “narrow” the windows were, making them difficult to look out of. That’s because the outer skin of the Towers were bearing all the weight, and once that was compromised, that support was gone.

Myth #3: Building 7 was also a controlled demolition. The mystery of World Trade Center building-7… a 47-story office building at the foot of the Towers that collapsed 9-hours after the attacks of 9/11… is a great big flashing neon sign to conspiracy buffs that says “PROOF OF CONSPIRACY” written all over it. Now retired talkshow host Rosie O’Donnel generated a lot of buzz when she perpetuated the “WTC7 conspiracy proof” meme on ABC’s “The View” last month. To the faithful, there is just NO excuse for why a building NOT hit by one of the airliners should collapse on its own. Yes, the building was on fire, but “no fire has ever brought down a building on its own” the faithful cry (UPDATE 5/1/18: Raging apartment fire in Sao Paulo brings down tower.)

The problem here is that WTC7 WAS damaged in the strikes. Not only did pieces of the wreckage from the first strike on WTC-1 come out the other side and rain down on WTC-7, but so did a huge amount of building debris when the towers collapsed. WTC-7 suffered *tremendous* structural damage in the attacks, with one entire corner of over a dozen stories high having suffered damage where tons of hot steel and concrete punched its way through the Southwest corner of the building.

Damage to WTC-7


To make matters worse, Mayor Giuliani decided the basement of WTC-7 was the perfect storage facility for two massive tanks of diesel fuel (one containing 6,000 gallons, and four more holding a combined 36,000 gallons) to be used in the city’s emergency electrical generators, which naturally caught fire and gutted the interior of the entire building. After 9-hours of raging fire, the building had become a danger to rescue workers in and around the Towers. Talk of deliberately “pulling” WTC-7… an engineering term for intentionally demolishing a building… began to make the rounds, overheard by witnesses unfamiliar with the term and/or the reasons for suggesting it. However, while the decision was still being made as to whether or not building-7 should be intentionally demolished (and how?), it collapsed on its own 9 hours later that same afternoon (as predicted).

And if raging fire and structural damage weren’t enough, how about an earthquake? The entire World Trade Center complex sat atop a major subway interchange. The basement of the Towers was home to a primary NYC Subway station. The ground beneath the entire complex was “hollowed out”. So when each Tower fell, WTC-7 was subjected to the equivalent force of a 2.3 earthquake twice within the space of 30 minutes. The fate of WTC-7 was sealed almost from the moment of impact.

Despite all we know about that day at the WTC, memories have a way of fading, especially when particular facts don’t fit into your theories. I recently came across a freshly posted video on YouTube showing footage of the WTC Towers that morning asking, “What Could Cause the Plumes of Smoke at the base of the WTC?”, suggesting that the video showed “proof” of something damning being caught on film. I quickly responded, “Uh, WTC-7?” Obviously, the poster forgot that “there was a 47-story building *on fire* at the base of the towers”. You’d think that I spat on grandma’s grave the way I was attacked by later viewers for pointing out the obvious. Be it religion or conspiracies, when you attack someone’s beliefs, you’re just asking for trouble.

Myth #4: The Pentagon was struck by a missile. Photos of damage to the side of the Pentagon all seem to suggest something smaller than a 757 jumbo jet crashed into the SW side of the Pentagon:

Plane Pentagon overlay

The controversy was anything but “laid to rest” when the Pentagon released six frames from the partially obstructed Pentagon Parking Lot security camera that caught the planes’ moment of impact on film:

Pentagon impact

Conspiracy proponents quickly pointed out that the tiny blur seen shooting into the side of the building could hardly be an enormous Boeing 757. “It looks more like a cruise missile” or “fighter jet in a kamikaze strike.”

One crucial factor that is overlooked here is the quality of the camera that recorded the incident. Parking lot security cameras… even ones at high security government buildings… are of notoriously bad quality. And video is far worse than film when it comes to resolution and detail. While the image on film appears to be quite small, it is far more likely that only the glint of the sun shining off the mirrored aluminum skin of American Airlines flight-77 made an impression on the video camera sensors as it rocketed past at over 500mph, making the image appear to be that of a much smaller object.

Then there is the obvious unlikelihood that any of the hijackers were skilled enough to fly such a large plane “just inches off the ground” to impact the side of the building. Well, as you can see from the still image above comparing the size of the plane to the width of the point of impact, it is unlikely the plane struck the Pentagon “dead-on” anyway. For the impact zone to be as narrow as it is and still be caused by a vehicle of that size, it would of had to of been “banking” in at an angle when it struck. This would place the plane higher off the ground as it plunged toward the Pentagon. An orientation far more likely if under the control of a less skilled pilot. Even the angle of the collapsed roof suggests that the plane hit the building at an angle (banking left) and not straight-on:


Another point made in various videos of the Pentagon strike is the presence of “unbroken windows” near the point of impact as seen above.

This should come as no surprise when you consider that the Pentagon, the nerve-center of the United States military, was built to withstand a nuclear strike… windows and all. It is this reinforced structure that limited the damage as much as it did. And plunging into such a highly reinforced building at such a high rate of speed, much of the plane would have… and did… disintegrate on impact, which is why no wings or tail section is apparent in photos of the impact site.

“Where is the debris field we so often see in other plane crashes?” We see no debris because in an *accident*, the pilots are trying NOT to crash. The plane is traveling at a reduced rate of speed and breaks up on impact. As we see both here AND IN THE PENNSYLVANIA CRASH, there is no debris field because the hijackers were traveling at maximum speed with the intent of destroying the vehicle. (Update 3/30/15: GermanWings Air Disaster Destroys Your Last Good Argument.)

Engine found in Pentagon debris Fuselage skin found on Pentagon grounds

I’ve written all of this to try and tone down much of the “hysteria” that Republicans seem ready, willing and eager to use to label all Democrats as “tinfoil hat wearing, conspiracy freaks” that have no business electing the next leader of the free world. So please stop, take a deep breath, relax and remember to look at things logically long enough to let all the facts soak in, and deprive “them” of using yet another unfair characterization against us.

Look out Iran! As predicted, U.S. rejects Russian offer to relocate European missile shield. (Told ya so!)
Jun 15th, 2007 by Admin Mugsy


NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!

A shade over a week ago, I theorized why the Bush Administration suddenly chose *now* to put a “missile defense shield” in Europe in the Russian border state of the Czech Republic: With all that is going on it the world, why the sudden concern for “protecting” minor Eastern European countries from a missile attack by rogue Middle Eastern nations that have had few/no threats made against them? The obvious answer was that it was *really* a way to keep Russia from rushing to the defense of their ally Iran should we decide to invade; fearing a potential missile strike by a Russian border state lobbing ICBM’s with immunity. It’s the Bush Administrations’ way of making Russian President Putin “think twice” before getting involved in Bush’s next war.

I said the proof of this theory would be if the Bush Administration rejected Putin’s completely reasonable offer of placing the missile shield’s control station in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan under shared control.

Today (Friday, June 15th), U.S. Secretary of Defense publicly rejected Putin’s offer, stating that it would continue its plan to place the station in the Czech Republic. At this time, there has been no response by the Russian government.

Under the Radar: National Debt Now Affecting National Security. U.S. returns $20Million in North Korean drug/gun money.
Jun 15th, 2007 by Admin Mugsy


NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!

Arguably, this is not new… foreign policy being dictated by our debt. The Republican tax cuts, obscene spending and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan all on borrowed money has pushed our National Debt past the $8 Trillion dollar mark (once under $5T and shrinking before George W. Bush took office), but this is the first example I’ve seen yet of the U.S. being forced to do something it otherwise wouldn’t have because we lack any leverage.

Bear with me for a moment because this is a bit dry… In a story that likely slipped under everyone’s radar, the federal government transfered $20 million (U.S.) in illicit North Korean drug and weapons money Thursday from a Chinese bank to the Federal Reserve here in the U.S. where it was then wire transfered back to North Korea. The funds, described as “proceeds of crime” by the U.S. government, had been frozen in a Macao, China bank at the behest of the U.S. government in 2005. The Bush Administration promised to release of the much needed funds in negotiations last February, and in exchange, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il agreed to suspend his nuclear weapons program and allow inspectors back in (hailed by the WH and Republicans as a *triumph* of Bush’s tough foreign policy).

Briefly: Last February, the Bush Administration finally sat down with North Korea to discuss suspending their nuclear weapons program after they test-fired two crude ICBM’s last Summer (once again, the Bush Administration’s refusal to negotiate with countries until it’s too late, things go bad, and result in their rewarding bad behavior). Despite a nationwide famine sweeping the country, North Korea was spending millions to develop a missile system capable to striking the American West-coast to stave off the Bush military machine and threats against every nation in its “Axis of Evil” (Iraq/Iran/NK). To get North Korea to table their nuclear ambitions, the Bush Administration promised to release the $20 Million in desperately needed funds that were frozen in a Macao bank on the grounds that it was the proceeds of various crimes including drug trafficking and illegal arms dealing. The Bush Administration had China release the funds to the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, which in turn the U.S. then gave back to North Korea. In return, NK agreed to suspend its nuclear program and allow inspectors back in.

Now, if you’re a brain-dead Republican, convincing NK to stop its nuclear program just by laundering a little drug/gun money might sound like a bargain (just think of how much blood/treasure is saved by not going to war with yet another country!)

So is this where we’re at? The U.S. is giving back money made selling drugs to our kids and weapons to our enemies, in exchange for them to stop developing a weapons program that was bankrupting their country and starving its people? It’s a “win/win”… if you’re North Korean.

But if you focus on the money, you’re missing THE BIG PICTURE: China just dictated our policy towards NK and forced us to do something we otherwise would never have done because they own so much of our National Debt… $650 Billion at last count. We have no leverage to force nations that we are deep in debt to, like China, to put pressure on rogue nations like North Korea, even if doing so is in their own best interests. Instead, we must “buy off” North Korea by making sure they get their drug/gun money back. Is Iran next? What will we give Iran because we can’t convince their ally China to put pressure on them?

I’ve covered the looming disaster of our skyrocketing National Debt thanks to George Bush in previous blog entries, but today’s story raises the threat to “a whole… nutha’… level” (apologies to MadTV). It’s bad enough when the Bush Debt threatens to devalue our currency till it becomes so worthless it spurs “hyper-inflation” and turns the U.S. into a third-world country over-night, but when it costs us any leverage in forcing rouge nations to change their behavior, to where we’re actually REFUNDING their drug/gun running money derived from crimes against Americans in exchange for a little safety, then our debt has started to endanger our national security.

Do I really need to use the “I” word at this point? (that’s “impeach”, if you hadn’t already guessed.)

Why did Bush tick off Putin with sudden threat of European Missile Shield?
Jun 8th, 2007 by Admin Mugsy


NOTE: Register to post comments and receive e-mail notification every time this Blog is updated!

You’ve probably heard this past week about a possible “resurrection of the Cold War” thanks to President Bush’s impetuous suggestion of putting a new “missile defense shield” over the NATO countries in Europe. Russian President Putin naturally saw this as a threat to Russian national security (a country with a shield can attack with impunity).

The rhetoric only grew after Commander Guy criticized Vlad’s recent rollbacks of numerous democratic reforms (sorry if you almost swallowed your gum over that one). And despite President Bush’s clueless reassurances that such a shield was intended only as protection from Middle Eastern terrorist states and that Russia had nothing to fear, Putin still condemned the system as a threat that could resurrect the costly arms race of 1980’s.

Putin caught the Bush Team off guard Thursday with a reasonable offer of putting the systems’ radar control center in the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan. Not expecting the former KGB officer to act reasonably, after a quick confab (see photo), the Bushites hailed the compromise as “an interesting idea“. (Hey guys, easy does it with the enthusiasm!)

Quick confab

Never mind the fact that our so-called “missile defense shield” is only a little further along than the GOP’s plan to resurrect Ronald Reagan’s dead corpse and run him for President in 2008, why on Earth would G-Dub choose now of all times to start ticking off Russian President Putin just days before the G8? And why such a lukewarm reaction to such a welcome compromise that seems to give us everything we want?

I was pondering those very questions and getting nowhere until I remembered to think like a NeoCon (not an easy task mind you! Part of your soul must be sacrificed). That’s when it struck me: the Bush cabal wasn’t happy to be given an “easy out” because they don’t WANT an easy out. Despite all their assurances to Russia that such a missile defense shield was no threat to Russia, that is EXACTLY what it is meant to be.

Now, at this point, your average cynical Democrat like me would just assume The Bush White House WANTS to restart the Cold War as a gift to all their contractor buddies. But that’s not “Neocon-warped“, that’s ordinary “greedy bastard”. No, to understand the reasoning behind the Neocon’s sudden “piss off Russia” strategy, you need to think a little darker: Think Iran.

Russia and Iran have been allies all the way back to the Jimmy Carter “Iranian hostage crisis” / “Soviet Grain Embargo” days (if not long before), a fragile alliance that continues to this day. The new Russia may not support the policies of the radicals in the Iranian government, but they’d much rather be regarded an ally than a foe in a time when President Bush’s war in Iraq has only given rise to violent radicalism throughout the Muslim world.

So what are the Neocons thinking then? Simple: they want to bomb (bomb bomb, bomb bomb) Iran, a move that would almost assuredly put Russian President Putin in the uncomfortable position of having to defend their ally. So what’s to stop WWIII and a U.S./Russia conflict over Iran? The threat of missile strikes from neighboring NATO allies around Russia perhaps? And the liklihood of them doing so is greater if they knew they could do so with impunity. So, the Bush White House can then say, “don’t get involved in our attack on Iran or all these tiny countries in your backyard might just launch a few warheads in your direction.

So you see, the “missile shield” idea is all about keeping Russia out of Georgie’s plan to attack Iran; nothing to do with protecting our allies from radical Muslim’s firing nuclear missiles they ain’t got at them.

Think about it. The proof will come in the next few days when the Bush White House rejects Putin’s reasonable offer with its usual flimsy explanation.

BTW: In financial news, the Dow fell nearly 400 points in the past three days. Stay tuned.

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa