June 17, 2004
Son of a Bitch!
"Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this.
"We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more."
-- Nancy Reagan, 5/04
"Maybe one of the small blessings that will come from (Reagan's) passing will be a greater opportunity for Nancy to work on this issue, which of course means so much to her. I believe that it's going to be pretty tough for anybody not to have empathy for her feelings on this issue."
-- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), 6/04, in a letter signed by 57 other members of the Senate
I won't defend Bill Clinton or John Kerry. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't wipe my ass with a ballot marked with someone like Kerry's name, and the incredulousness of the situation - that I will cast such a vote for him in November - grows upon me daily. What I can never understand is the ability of some to look at Clinton and Kerry with such withering detraction, and how that relentless acumen completely disintegrates when turned anywhere near George W. Bush. You who will never view Clinton with an ounce of charity - and by all means, don't interpret this as a plea for it, I couldn't care less - who are still hung up on whose particular combination of medals and ribbons Kerry threw over a fence thirty years ago, please explain to me how you can see George Bush or anyone in his crew as a person who is fit to hold public office. You can stand up for Cheney and his miserable stooge Scooter Libby for lying over and over about Iraq's nuclear program, or the vicious and illegal outing of Valerie Plame? (But then again, who knows. Maybe it was George Tenet after all...) You can stand up for Bush, who repeated his unsubstantiated assertion that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "numerous contacts" the very same day the 9/11 commission reported that Osama bin Laden had reached out to Saddam years ago and been completely ignored? You can stand up for him praising John Negroponte - who still claims he doesn't remember anything about the Honduran death squads he helped set up - and appointing that wretched bastard our Ambassador to Iraq? (Doesn't the symbolism of that even bother you a little bit?) And you can stand up for fucking Donald Rumsfeld? That's the most inconsistent crap I've ever heard of. Hate Clinton all you want. Hate Kerry too. But you should realize the reason that you're totally unbelievable is you have nothing comparable to say about the obvious failings of George Bush and his band of miscreants - worthless scum on their good days, dangerous and evil when the moon is in the wrong part of the sky.
I won't disagree on John Kerry's cowardice. If the man had any pride, he would have properly denounced Reagan for being the miserable son-of-a-bitch of a president that he was. He would have given that man the most scathing eulogy since Hunter S. Thompson called Richard Nixon the man who broke the heart of the American Dream. It was Reagan more than any other president this century who perpetuated the vile myth that an elected official can be insulated by his inferiors. Reagan, through tacit approval or incontinent dereliction, killed 50,000 Nicaraguans in an illegal war funded by running drugs, smuggling weapons, and scamming the American people out of millions of dollars, and the people who perpetrated it for him are, at the behest of George Bush, moving back into their offices downtown. John Kerry, on the other hand, should be crucified for his sinister plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts. Does any of this make sense to you?
Whenever I hear anyone say (usually in regards to the 9/11 commission) "we need to look forward, not dwell on the mistakes of the past," I chuckle sardonically and then throw up. But this is George Bush's America. War criminals and public thieves don't go to prison, they get diplomatic appointments or book deals and weekly spots on Fox News. This bizarre double standard is what allows Cheney and Libby to give the lie that neither one of them knows what the other is doing (even though it is their job) and get away with it. Cheney is the worst of the lot. This man is such a relentless pigfucker...someone asked him yesterday if, since he disagrees with commission's finding that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and bin Laden, he had information the 9/11 panel did not. He said, "Probably." The reporter should have thrown his notepad at the man's head and then climbed over his fellow journalists to throttle him. I will be surprised if the members of the commission don't sneak into his house at night and hog-tie him. The arrogance of that remark stuns even me.
You may, of course, believe whatever you want. It is in your power to believe that Ronald Reagan single-handedly won the cold war by parachuting into the Kremlin and abducting the Politburo at knifepoint - thousands of people all over the world are firmly committed to equally ridiculous horseshit, as the rosters of the Church of Scientology will attest to. But it is beyond common sense or rational thought to believe that, mysteriously, when no-bid war profiteering contracts are being handed out or a CIA agent is exposed and national security betrayed, all lines of internal communication in the White House suddenly break down and the only discoverable crook is a ghostly stranger who fades into the details. To believe so is to slip into the fearful realm of willfully blind and severely paranoid delusion - much like William Safire has done of late. You too may soon find yourself conducting seances with the ghosts of dead presidents, or standing atop some poor bastard's brand-new Kia Sedona in your underwear, bleating painfully at your detractors and urging a host of imaginary allies forward to arms, spilling your whisky all over the Nordstrom's parking lot. (You may, however, simply become confused as to the length of time Bill Clinton has been out of office.) So please, if you can, answer these few simple questions for me. They may help me clear up what is obviously a vast yawning chasm of misunderstanding on my part.
Do you think that government officials who lie (demonstratably, repeatedly) should remain in office? (Think carefully about Clinton on this one...)
Do you think that government officials who allow their staff to engage in illegal activities using their positions should remain in office?
Do you think that government officials who do not realize that members of their own staff are committing crimes using their positions are fit to remain in office?
And, do you think the perpetrators of said crimes should remain in office, or should ever be able to hold office in the future?
If you answered "no" to any of those questions, how in the flying fuck are you behind George Bush? This has nothing to do with Clinton or Kerry. It has to do with being able to call a spade a spade one moment, then claiming you've completely forgotten what a spade even looks like the next.
Long live George Bush indeed. May he and his cronies rot in prison to a ripe old age.
- Lieb
"Science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that for so long have been beyond our grasp. I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this.
"We have lost so much time already. I just really can't bear to lose any more."
-- Nancy Reagan, 5/04
"Maybe one of the small blessings that will come from (Reagan's) passing will be a greater opportunity for Nancy to work on this issue, which of course means so much to her. I believe that it's going to be pretty tough for anybody not to have empathy for her feelings on this issue."
-- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), 6/04, in a letter signed by 57 other members of the Senate
I won't defend Bill Clinton or John Kerry. Under normal circumstances I wouldn't wipe my ass with a ballot marked with someone like Kerry's name, and the incredulousness of the situation - that I will cast such a vote for him in November - grows upon me daily. What I can never understand is the ability of some to look at Clinton and Kerry with such withering detraction, and how that relentless acumen completely disintegrates when turned anywhere near George W. Bush. You who will never view Clinton with an ounce of charity - and by all means, don't interpret this as a plea for it, I couldn't care less - who are still hung up on whose particular combination of medals and ribbons Kerry threw over a fence thirty years ago, please explain to me how you can see George Bush or anyone in his crew as a person who is fit to hold public office. You can stand up for Cheney and his miserable stooge Scooter Libby for lying over and over about Iraq's nuclear program, or the vicious and illegal outing of Valerie Plame? (But then again, who knows. Maybe it was George Tenet after all...) You can stand up for Bush, who repeated his unsubstantiated assertion that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "numerous contacts" the very same day the 9/11 commission reported that Osama bin Laden had reached out to Saddam years ago and been completely ignored? You can stand up for him praising John Negroponte - who still claims he doesn't remember anything about the Honduran death squads he helped set up - and appointing that wretched bastard our Ambassador to Iraq? (Doesn't the symbolism of that even bother you a little bit?) And you can stand up for fucking Donald Rumsfeld? That's the most inconsistent crap I've ever heard of. Hate Clinton all you want. Hate Kerry too. But you should realize the reason that you're totally unbelievable is you have nothing comparable to say about the obvious failings of George Bush and his band of miscreants - worthless scum on their good days, dangerous and evil when the moon is in the wrong part of the sky.
I won't disagree on John Kerry's cowardice. If the man had any pride, he would have properly denounced Reagan for being the miserable son-of-a-bitch of a president that he was. He would have given that man the most scathing eulogy since Hunter S. Thompson called Richard Nixon the man who broke the heart of the American Dream. It was Reagan more than any other president this century who perpetuated the vile myth that an elected official can be insulated by his inferiors. Reagan, through tacit approval or incontinent dereliction, killed 50,000 Nicaraguans in an illegal war funded by running drugs, smuggling weapons, and scamming the American people out of millions of dollars, and the people who perpetrated it for him are, at the behest of George Bush, moving back into their offices downtown. John Kerry, on the other hand, should be crucified for his sinister plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts. Does any of this make sense to you?
Whenever I hear anyone say (usually in regards to the 9/11 commission) "we need to look forward, not dwell on the mistakes of the past," I chuckle sardonically and then throw up. But this is George Bush's America. War criminals and public thieves don't go to prison, they get diplomatic appointments or book deals and weekly spots on Fox News. This bizarre double standard is what allows Cheney and Libby to give the lie that neither one of them knows what the other is doing (even though it is their job) and get away with it. Cheney is the worst of the lot. This man is such a relentless pigfucker...someone asked him yesterday if, since he disagrees with commission's finding that there was "no collaborative relationship" between Iraq and bin Laden, he had information the 9/11 panel did not. He said, "Probably." The reporter should have thrown his notepad at the man's head and then climbed over his fellow journalists to throttle him. I will be surprised if the members of the commission don't sneak into his house at night and hog-tie him. The arrogance of that remark stuns even me.
You may, of course, believe whatever you want. It is in your power to believe that Ronald Reagan single-handedly won the cold war by parachuting into the Kremlin and abducting the Politburo at knifepoint - thousands of people all over the world are firmly committed to equally ridiculous horseshit, as the rosters of the Church of Scientology will attest to. But it is beyond common sense or rational thought to believe that, mysteriously, when no-bid war profiteering contracts are being handed out or a CIA agent is exposed and national security betrayed, all lines of internal communication in the White House suddenly break down and the only discoverable crook is a ghostly stranger who fades into the details. To believe so is to slip into the fearful realm of willfully blind and severely paranoid delusion - much like William Safire has done of late. You too may soon find yourself conducting seances with the ghosts of dead presidents, or standing atop some poor bastard's brand-new Kia Sedona in your underwear, bleating painfully at your detractors and urging a host of imaginary allies forward to arms, spilling your whisky all over the Nordstrom's parking lot. (You may, however, simply become confused as to the length of time Bill Clinton has been out of office.) So please, if you can, answer these few simple questions for me. They may help me clear up what is obviously a vast yawning chasm of misunderstanding on my part.
Do you think that government officials who lie (demonstratably, repeatedly) should remain in office? (Think carefully about Clinton on this one...)
Do you think that government officials who allow their staff to engage in illegal activities using their positions should remain in office?
Do you think that government officials who do not realize that members of their own staff are committing crimes using their positions are fit to remain in office?
And, do you think the perpetrators of said crimes should remain in office, or should ever be able to hold office in the future?
If you answered "no" to any of those questions, how in the flying fuck are you behind George Bush? This has nothing to do with Clinton or Kerry. It has to do with being able to call a spade a spade one moment, then claiming you've completely forgotten what a spade even looks like the next.
Long live George Bush indeed. May he and his cronies rot in prison to a ripe old age.
- Lieb
