Biden's F Bomb Not a Big Deal

As I was scrolling through Huffington Post yesterday (the political equivalent of US Weekly, in my opinion) I came across a headline about Joe Biden dropping an F bomb on live television. Naturally I was interested, as the latest drama in Kim Kardashian's life just wasn't grabbing my attention. I watched it a few times, heard the F bomb, had a small chuckle, and moved on. [Warning: The video's audio is LOUD]



So you can imagine my surprise when I picked up amNewYork and it's front page was a picture of Biden and his colorful language. It's also front-page fodder for the New York tabloids. It's just odd to me that the day after an historic health care bill is officially signed into law by the president the biggest news maker is the fact that a grown adult said "fuck" in what he thought was a private-enough manner. The fact that the mics picked up what he whispered into Obama's ear speaks more to microphone technology than anything else.

The fact of the matter is that adults use salty language. George W. Bush called a New York Times reporter a "major league asshole" during his 2000 presidential bid. Dick Cheney told Senator Patrick Leahy to "go fuck himself" when Leahy was probing the veep's ties with Halliburton during a Senate photo session (the nicety was returned to Cheney a few years later while touring Katrina devastation in the Gulf). As long as politicians aren't using it in open Congress, in any official capacity, or all the time, it's really not that big of a fucking deal.

Kristol Monday: More War Drum Beating for Iran

Brill Kristol never ceases to amaze. This week's column was basically last week's column, only instead of talking about Hamas and Israel before making it sound like war with Iran is inevitable, he talked about Obama and how much of a politician he is before saying war with Iran is inevitable. For some reason Kristol's absolute and utter desire to go to war with Iran remains as strong as ever and he is using his column at the New York Times to start drumming up support for military action against the Middle Eastern nation.

First, though, let's look at the beginning of his column (after he makes some lame jokes about the Obama family's choice of a family pet). Kristol slams Obama for not fully breaking from the Bush Administration in terms of foreign relations. This is fair, as the barometer for dealing with other nations on earth should be look at what Bush and Co. did, then do the opposite. But here is the irony in Kristol's statement: he has been a cheerleader of the Bush Administration from Iraq to defending the indefensible Dick Cheney. So to slam Obama for not breaking with Bush's policies (he's not even in office yet, so if you're going to call him a grandstander and someone who only has rhetoric, wait until he is in office and judge his actions, not his words) is to say, "Hey, you suck because you're continuing to do what I think is right, even though I slammed you for saying you wouldn't do what I think is right a few months ago and now you're saying you're going to do what I think is right but I'm still going to find a reason to slam you." Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Bill Kristol's war advice is well documented (see my post here). Why would he think anyone cares what he thinks about engagement (military or otherwise) in the Middle East? He must suffer from the same grand delusion that I do when I think people read and care about my writing. But in all seriousness, Kristol is not the man to turn to when it comes to diplomatic advice. It all goes back to the snake bite analogy; maybe cutting off my leg is a good idea because of the horrible situation I'm in now, but if I hadn't listened to you in the first place I wouldn't be here thinking about cutting my damn leg off. Kristol used all of his "Listen to me" points with Iraq. With such a war-weary population in America, the last thing anyone should be advocating is military action against a large nation like Iran. But Kristol and common sense are like water and oil; they just don't mix. I guess we'll have to wait until next week to see what topic Kristol discusses before trying to convince people that we need to go to war with Iran. Peace.

Photos - Bill Kristol (ThinkProgress)

Kristol Defends Cheney by Blasting Blagojevich

I'm thinking of devoting every Monday to pointing out why Bill Kristol should not have a column at the New York Times. This Monday he defends Dick Cheney's legacy while comparing Cheney to Rod Blagojevich of Illinois. Now it's natural that Kristol would defend Cheney (who has about 60% disapproval ratings), because Kristol is chairman of the Project for the New American Century, which Dick Cheney helped found (with the help of such respectable people as Paul Wolfowitz and Scooter Libby). Why bring Rod Blagojevich into all of this? Well, as Kristol explains, he is "the nation's most unpopular Democrat."

Let's break Kristol's defense of Cheney down point by point. We all know about Cheney's infamous "go fuck yourself" comment to Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont when Leahy tried to make an issue of Cheney's connection to Halliburton, the company picked to essentially rebuild Iraq when the government is done with it. According to Kristol, Cheney's remark "shows a well-considered sense of justice," because four years after Cheney uttered it, he defended his statement by saying that he though Senator Leahy deserved it. That's a "well-considered sense of justice"? Usually when someone tells you to go fuck yourself, they're just caught up in the heat of the moment and get so frustrated that they start uttering profanities. But to Kristol (who wholeheartedly championed for the Iraq War, so maybe his sense of what is "well-considered" is a bit askew), this is a valid response to a fight that, by accounts, it seems that Cheney himself started.

Kristol turns to "defending" Blagojevich after admitting that he had been defending Cheney. But his defense of Blagojevich is really a mocking of the scumbag (not that it is not deserved). But here is the problem: Kristol uses Blagojevich's shortcomings as a backdrop as to why Cheney is not that bad. That's like comparing a rotten apple and a rotten orange and trying to convince you to eat one over the other. Why not state facts as they are? They're both rotten.

Cheney has a long history of seedy business. In 1975 he brainstormed ways to curb the freedom of the press. After Seymour Hersh published a front-page article in the New York Times about covert Navy missions tapping into Soviet communications, Cheney came up with various ways to discourage similar future publications (clearly Cheney had not read New York Times Co. v. United States). But '75 is just the beginning. How can we forget Scooter Libby? I don't have time to get into everything, but suffice it to say that Cheney's history in public service is dubious (and highly secretive).

But the most damning of all Cheney indictments is his lust to go to war with Iraq. We all know how he claimed that there were ties between Saddam and Bin Laden (later proved false), and we all know that he was a leading cheerleader in the months leading up to Iraq (particularly his September 8, 2002 appearance on Meet the Press). Kristol was also a cheerleader for war in Iraq, saying in September 2002 that war in Iraq "could have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." He's made other highly erroneous statements about what to expect in Iraq. Why should this surprise us, though? Kristol has shared the same lust for a war in Iraq as Dick Cheney did. Hell, Kristol was calling for military action in Iraq back in 1998.

Yet people like Kristol and Cheney continue to defend themselves instead of admitting a mistake. Kristol attacks the left, and Obama specifically, for not believing in the surge, when the few people who opposed the war in the first place (Obama included) came from the left. It's back to the snake-bite analogy. Cheney has gone so far as to say that he would do Iraq over again back in 2006:


In summation, Kristol's roundabout way of defending Cheney is ridiculous. He talks about two political donkeys in his column, but sees the need to defend one and saracastically blast the other. Call a spade a spade, Mr. Kristol. There's a reason that Cheney and Blagojevich are so unpopular. Dick Cheney's legacy will be that of an architect of Vietnam Part II, a power-hungry, highly secretive Vice President who got away with a lot because he knew how to pull the levers of power in Washington. Peace.

Photos - Bill Kristol (New York Times), Bush and Cheney (CTV)

Next They'll Be Calling Them Freedom Fighters

If you have not read Seymour Hersh's article in the latest New Yorker, do it. If you were alive during the 1980s you may think that Hersh's article is merely a history lesson from the Reagan era, complete with toppling Iranian governments, CIA-funded middle eastern minority factions, and moronic decisions coming from the White House. Alas, Hersh's article is a startling look at America's covert operations in Iran meant to destabilize the ruling government to make an invasion easier on the ground. What is even more worrisome is that Congress's intelligence leaders - a group Hersh calls the Gang of Eight - know little about the program, thus allowing the Bush administration to wield unchecked power (kind of like in late 2002 and early 2003 leading up to the Iraq War).

To begin with, to invade Iran would be a grievous mistake. It would prove that the leaders of the current administration have learned absolutely nothing from the situation in Iraq. One would think that Vietnam would be an indication that America should stop fucking with other parts of the world where it has no business, but if that is not enough, then Iraq should certainly prove to be sufficient evidence. But when you're as thick-headed as Dick Cheney and the rest of the administration, logic is as scarce as cheap gas. Hence, the step-up of covert ops in Iran.

The most mind-boggling part of all of this is the complete and utter resemblance it has to Reagan's mistakes of the 1980s. Where do you think the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda came from? If you think they just popped out of the blue in the early 1990s and came to existence solely to do harm to the United States for no reason, then I truly feel sorry for you. With the millions and millions of dollars pumped through Pakistani intelligence to Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviets, the Taliban formed, followed by Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. Washington's logic was that both the United States and the ultra-extremist (and America-hating) "freedom fighters" both wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan. It's middle school philosophy: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But 9/11 showed us how flawed Reagan's logic was. Without American help in the Middle East, Bin Laden and company would not have existed. Bin Laden has been kicked out of every country in the Middle East; only the Taliban (formed with American help) would accept this wealthy outcast. So he sets up shop in the tunnels of Tora Bora (again, with American help) and plots his revenge on America (who left him and his new country in ruins once the Soviets were defeated).

So what do we do in 2008? We pump money into minority factions, just like Reagan did in the 1980s, in order to fight a common enemy using the same philosophy, even after it proved tragically wrong on 9/11. The funny thing is, the 2008 case is almost a carbon copy of the 1980s. Instead of Khomeini spouting anti-American rhetoric to stir the masses, we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (both figures were inspired to rail against America due to CIA reasons - Khomeini because of revelations that the CIA and Israeli intelligence helped form and fund the oppresive, brutal secret police of the Shah [SAVAK] and now Ahmadinejad due to covert American ops in Iran's borders). Replace the mujahideen, Reagan's "freedom fighters," with new minority groups like the Kurds and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. Replace the setting of Afghanistan's mountains to the deserts of Iran. Brilliant.

Let's look at one of the factions we are funding: the Kurds. The Kurds are a significant minority spread throughout northern Iraq, western Iran, and southern Turkey. The Kurds probably do not like America too much due to our dealings with Turkey allowing Turkish forces to enter soveriegn Iraqi land to attack Kurdish extremists (some of whom we are now currently funding). Just like the mujahideen, the Kurds are not America's biggest fans. When all is over and the proverbial dust settles, the Kurds will want America to set up a Kurdistan, just like Britain set up Israel for the Jews. However, America will not set up a Kurdistan because it will bring more instability to the region, just like Israel did. Turkey will be pissed, as will Iraq (though by then we will have set up a puppet government to do whatever Washington wanted) and Iran will be in pieces and won't have time to deal with the headache. We'll be there for decades trying to sort shit out, or we'll leave after stirring the shit beyond recognition and wait 12-15 years for a major terrorist attack to happen on American soil to realize we made a huge mistake. Either scenario is unacceptable.

If Cheney, Rove, and company are not going to be put in jail, they should at least be forced to read a history book. Of course, Bush's legacy will be forever stained by the leeches he surrounded himself with. Bush is not bright enough to come up with all of this (look at his one piece of legislation - No Child Left Behind - that was his pet project). Of course, what can you expect when you surround yourself with Nixon-era crooks (Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular). To end this post I will quote Immortal Technique on a song from his new mixtape: "The government pimped 9/11 to go to Iraq / And now history repeats itself right on track / Cuz it's a tragedy and then the comedy begins / Because it's funny motherfuckers don't see it come around again." Peace.

Photos - Two men making a huge mistake (Time), Bin Laden, whose power is arguably a product of disastrous American foreign policy during the Reagan/Bush era (Encyclopedia Britannica), Neo-Cons, a major threat to American security (Writing Shop)