I miss Fearbush.com

Damn it, who else am I supposed to argue with and waste company time on?

Chen, is there any way to buy it from Jerry and get it back up? I’d be willing to throw down on it, but I’m not technical enough to run it. What do you think? You up for it? Is it even possible.

 grumble grumble grumble….

 Sliq

Advertisement

FearBush.com Is Down (again), And An Idea

It has come to my attention that one of my favorite sites, FearBush.com, is offline.  I admit that I haven’t been posting there as much as I used to because I’ve spent the majority of my online time working in the realm of the blogosphere. Also, because of my new job, I seem to have less time for this kind of thing in general.

I’ve sent out an email to a dozen FB regulars that I had in my address book to see if they are interested in using my blog as a hangout during the downtime.  If this situation is permanent, I’ve considered the idea of turning the Chamber into a “group” blog (a blog that has several authors).  Group blogs are quite popular, actually.  Most ordinary people have regular jobs, after all, and it’s tough to find the time to run a blog all by yourself and expect the site to be entertaining enough to keep regular readers and commentors.  And let’s face it, there are literally millions of blogs out there, so many of the people that post comments here are “drive bys”.

Most group blogs that are political in nature feature authors who are like-minded individuals and focused on a specific theme (for example, an anti-Hillary blog, or a pro-Brownback blog, or pro-life, etc.).  I’ve long considered something different, however.  My idea would be to open up my blog to authors (who I trust) that are unlike-minded.  The ideal would be a blog that features posts from a diverse range of viewpoints, and topics are debated in the comments sections in a relatively civil manner.  Incidentally, this is sort of the reason that I started the WordPress Political Blogger Alliance and why my blogroll features blogs from all over the political spectrum.  In fact, the reason why I named the blog the “Chamber” was because I had hoped that there would be a certain amount of honorable battling going on here.

I have already granted authorship to several individuals a few months back, but I thought I’d try to expand on it a bit.  I think it would be fun, for example, to feature an author who as a regular on LGF, and another that is a regular on Kos (two blogs that consistently go at each other).  Perhaps I’d feature an author who is part of the 9/11 truth movement, another who is a conservative Christian, another who is Muslim.  I could have someone from Canada, and another from Europe.  The idea would be to make the blog a kind of playground of ideas. 

There are, of course, many political message boards out there that feature an open exchange of ideas.  For blogs, however, I think this sort of diverse group dynamic would be fairly unique.  And blogs have an advantage over message boards, in that they are tapped into the arena of political discourse in the blogosphere. 

Anyway, I thought it would be a cool idea, and since I’ve met many diverse netizens in my travels thus far, I already have a mental list of a few people who I’d like to have on.  I would try to keep the number of authors fairly limited, while having enough to make sure that the site maintained a certain amount of balance.  I think it would result in a pretty entertaining site, and at the same time it might -in some small way- bridge some of the divisions and increase understanding while promoting intellectual honesty and attacking ‘group think’. 

My Use Of The N-Word

About a month ago, I received this response to one of my comments on LGF:

#30

DesertSage  6/03/2007 11:03:23 pm PDT

…but because they figure he isn’t one of the neocons.

“neocon” is Lefty code-speak for “Jews”.

ChenZhen uses the term “neocon” as a pejorative.
ChenZhen is an anti-semite, I new there was a reason I disliked him.
Babbazee is right!

If there’s one thing I really can’t stand is an anti-semitic Leftist.
The thing I like even less is an anti-semitic Leftist that denies that he’s an anti-semite…so don’t even try it ChenZhen!

Then, last night, I spotted this comment on another WP blog:

25. Mark – July 4, 2007

…Gabe, Neo-Con is a racist slur. No shock that you use it…

 

Am I missing something here? Isn’t ‘neocon’ just short for ‘neoconservative‘? It’s just political ideology, right?

Intrigued, I did some searching, and I stumbled upon some old opinion pieces:

Blame It on Neo -Don’t call me a “neocon” unless you are a friend.

One big culprit has been Air America. Tune in to the proudly liberal radio network, and you’ll hear actress-turned-activist Janeane Garofalo and other hosts frequently blast the “influence” of the “neocons” on the Bush Administration, then go on to name names such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Libby. Not a single gentile name makes the list, so it’s the Jewish influence to which the network takes particular exception.

‘Neocon’: Slang for ‘Jew’?

After laying the groundwork of neocons as superhawks, the Business Week piece informs readers that the key members of the movement who advise President Bush are “Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith and Defense Policy Board member Richard N. Perle.” Fair enough. All three have, at various times, been labeled neocons. But then, Mr. Dunham draws an interesting distinction. He describes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney as “key allies,” but not as “neocons.” In the remainder of the article, former Reagan administration official Ken Adelman and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol are identified as other “neocons.”

I have to apologise.  I had no idea that when I called Francis Fukuyama a ‘neocon’ in this post a year ago I was actually using code to label him a Jew.

I’m hoping some of my fellow bloggers could help me out here. What would be more politically correct? Should I just spell out ‘neoconservative’? Or should I adopt some sort of family-friendly way to post the word, like n**cons?

Edit- That was sarcasm, BTW.

One final note.  I see all this as grievance theater.  Accusations of anti-Semitism seem to get fired at people on a hair trigger all the time, and I think this is a perfect example. 

My July 4th Sentiment

I have a confession.  I was pretty close to celebrating the 4th of July on my blog by posting a nice video of flags waving or fireworks bursting and the national anthem blaring.  I must have searched YouTube for a half an hour looking for the perfect vid.  However, as I sat there watching these videos I couldn’t help but to think that the whole idea just didn’t seem sincere. 

Call me unpatriotic if you want, but displaying such a video while our country is being led by a dangerous administration and an equally broken Congress wasn’t going to encapsulate my attitude this day.  I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that ‘taps’ would be the tune that jumps ahead in one’s mind, actually.  So, I’ve decided to post a different video.

As I mentioned a couple of posts down, I did a lot of blogging on the FearBush.com site before starting the blog here (I’m still a regular in the forums).  I thought of it as kind of a privilege, since it was one of the few sites out there whose founders were prophetic enough to have actually predicted the Bush disaster back in early 2000.  In fact, the url was originally intended as a warning (as you might have guessed).  Since then, many others have joined on the anti-Bush bandwagon, and I suppose by now I feel a sense of vindication for having felt passionately about this for so long. 

Of all the anti-administration rants I posted over there over the last couple of years, I never posted any of the Keith Olbermann “Special Comments”, since I preferred to give my own perspective.  Today, however, I’m gonna give Keith a post on this blog, because tonight’s edition was one heck of a doozy.  On this 4th of July, we should all consider what’s being said here and what it really means to be patriotic.

(video hat tip: Suzie Q)

Enjoy the fireworks.

For The Record, Bush Said He Regretted “Bring ‘Em On”

I noticed that there were a few blogs talking about the fourth anniversary of Bush’s famous “Bring ’em on” line, and I thought I’d just post a little reminder for my fellow bloggers.  Bush did say this last year:

“Saying `bring it on,’ kind of tough talk, you know, that sent the wrong signal to people,” the president said in answer to a question about mistakes he made in Iraq. “I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner — you know, `wanted dead or alive,’ that kind of talk.”

Now, as readers who are familiar with my posts know, I’m about as far from a Bush apologist as one can get.  In fact, before I started this blog, I did all my blogging on FearBush.com (sorry I haven’t updated in a while, but I think most of America ‘gets it’ by now).  When I saw this story, I did in fact give him credit on that site for saying this.  I remember this because it’s probably the only time I’d ever seen Bush express regret….for anything.

So, I’m posting this now in light of the posts out there who are beating him up over this without giving full disclosure.  I have stated on here before that I wish bloggers would be more intellectually honest, and that goes for both right and left as far as I’m concerned.  I know he can’t undo the damage that reckless remark has probably done, but I think that perhaps there are other things that my fellow administration critics can focus on at this point.

So, just for the record, here is the original “Bring ’em on” comment:

And here is Bush saying that he regretted that comment:

When Satire Becomes Reality

Flashback to January 2001.  The Onion posts one of their “satirical” articles about the future of the Bush presidency, which included (among many other statements that turned out to be prophetic) a faux reaction from Rush Limbaugh to the newly-elected president:

“For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped,” conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. “And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that’s all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up.”

Read the whole thing (it’s pretty good):  Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’ (hat tip: ThunderDawg)

Judith A. Klinghoffer’s Bizarre View On ‘Winning The War On Terror’

As the blogs react to a recent opinion poll that came out regarding terrorism and the Muslim world, one column by Judith A. Klinghoffer caught my attention:  Poll: US unpopular but winning War on Terror

Now, anyone who’s read a bit of my blog will probably be thinking that my head exploded just reading the title (you’re not far off), but I thought I’d comment on it.  I’ll skip the long analysis of what was prefaced as a ‘push poll’, and move right to the conclusion:

All in all, the glass is 3/4 full. Yes, theoretically, Muslims would like to see a day when they will all unite within the border of a righteous Khalifat but they disagree with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden means and unwilling to pay the high price needed to achieve it. The As it was the American led War on Terror which raised that price, it is a small wonder America is not popular in the Muslim world. I am sure the US was not popular in Germany during W.W.II. or in the USSR during the Cold war. Trying to be popular with the enemy is a strange idea anyhow. Actually, as we have learned with victory comes even a very short lived boost of popularity. All in all, PIPA push poll contains encouraging news.

Stumbling through the grammatical errors in that, and ignoring the fact that Judith slipped in her opinion that the ‘Muslim world’ is the ‘enemy’ (and validating our unpopularity in the process), it’s clear that I’ve come across a rare brand of Kool-Aid here.  

On one hand, we have the quest for ‘victory’ in the ‘War on Terror’.  A war which, by definition, can only be ‘won’ the day that people stop wanting to blow us up. On the other hand, we have a poll showing our rampant unpopularity and sympathy to al Qaeda across 4 Mid East nations .  The verdict: ‘encouraging news’.  Even if it is a push poll, I don’t know how anyone can view this as a positive step towards victory in a war that is unwinnable to begin with anyway.  In fact, I think I would have learned more if she would have just taken the poll herself and posted her answers.

Something tells me that this all comes back to Bush and Iraq.  The war has worsened our post 9/11 position.  The war supporters don’t want to admit that us ‘BDS’ sufferers were right all along, so they whitewash news like this by screaming ‘push poll’.  It’s the same type of thing when people say that the ISG doesn’t know what the hell they’re talking about (as if they do either), or try to spin the NIE’s assessments.  No one wants to admit that they supported what turned out to be an unmitigated disaster.

So, just for the record, this has been the most popular forum on FearBush.com, and has run like this since 2002:

World War III
September 11th was undoubtedly one of the most tragic days in American history. It’s unconscionable that Bush has used those who lost lives on that day as justification for an endless campaign of fear, misinformation and hate. Bush’s sudden need to wage war on Iraq will only breed more world hatred for the US, inspire more terrorism, at a cost of even more untold civilian lives. War should always be a LAST RESORT, not a matter of policy.

Registration is open.

Update:  More ‘encouraging news’ : Annual terrorism report will show 29% rise in attacks

WASHINGTON – A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.

Karl’s In Charge

Please forgive my semi-lame play on the title of an old ’80’s sitcom, but I’ll try my best to have it make sense.  I wanted today’s entry to be all about everyone’s favorite Bush administration figure, Karl Rove, as he seems to have a hard time staying out of the news lately:  Rove warns of threat of terrorism

In a question-and-answer period after his speech, Rove was asked whose idea it was to start a pre-emptive war.”

“I think it was Osama bin Laden’s,” Rove replied.

Someone on the Think Progress thread pretty much stated the response to this as I would have:

Actually Rove is right. Getting the US bogged down in a nasty guerrilla war in the heart of the Middle East is exactly what Bin Laden was after when he launched the 9/11 attack.

So the question becomes, why were Rove and the rest of the Bushies so eager to give Bin Laden what he wanted?

Comment by A Hermit — April 19, 2007 @ 3:15 pm

Now, it’s pretty easy to pick on Rove for silly comments like that, as it is just another example of the ridiculous spin that has come from this administration over the last 6 years.  If you’re really interested on why I agree with A. Hermit’s post, check out this thread in the fearbush forums. My real reason for this post has to do with Rove’s involvement with this A.G. Gonzales fiasco (called by some as a non-scandal scandal). First, a few pertinent links:

• E-Mails Show Rove’s Role in U.S. Attorney Firings
• Rove E-Mail Sought by Congress May Be Missing
• White House: Millions of e-mails may be missing
• Gonzales’s testimony leaves senators frustrated

All this presents quite a few question marks, and an immediate impression that the administration may be covering something up here.  Although that might be true, I’m not convinced that it means that they are covering up anything improper or illegal, per se.  It has been noted by many that Bush is well within his right to fire attorneys at any time.  So…. why?

As you might expect, I have a theory…

What Rove’s conveniently missing emails and Gonzales’s abysmal memory are hiding has less to do with the firing of U.S. attorneys, and more to do with Rove’s power in general.   They’re covering up the uncomfortable revelation that Rove has been wielding more power and asserting more influence over our branches of government than his title of Deputy White House Chief of Staff would seem to imply.  In other words, it could very well be that when it comes to who’s really running things in the White House, Karl’s in charge. Unfortunately, considering the Bush administration’s terrible luck with finding documents (along with their secretive nature in general), we may never know for sure.

Update:  The L.A. Times is reporting that there will be investigations into Rove’s scheming: Low-key office launches high-profile inquiry (for the digg link, click here). 

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

First, the inquiry comes from inside the administration, not from Democrats in Congress. Second, unlike the splintered inquiries being pressed on Capitol Hill, it is expected to be a unified investigation covering many facets of the political operation in which Rove played a leading part.

Hopefully they won’t run into too many missing documents or administration officials with preemptive alzheimer’s, but this is definitely something worth following up on. 

Others blogging the L.A. Times story:

The Blotter, Shakesville, TPMmuckraker, The Carpetbagger Report, Discourse.net, CANNONFIRE, NION, PoliBlog (TM), DownWithTyranny!, On Politics, CorrenteWire, Think Progress, Balloon Juice, AMERICAblog, TIME: Swampland, Tennessee Guerilla Women, The Heretik, The Agonist, Macsmind, Little Thom’s Blog, Prairie Weather, On Deadline and Liberal Values

 

The “War On Terror” Is Just A Phrase

I’ve had a problem with the way the slogan ‘war on terror’ has been used by the Bush administration for quote some time.  In fact, anyone familiar with my posts on this blog or FearBush.com will find the sentiments expressed in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s op-ed in the Washington Post  a bit familiar-sounding: Terrorized by ‘War on Terror’

The damage these three words have done — a classic self-inflicted wound — is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

That’s always been the problem with this whole concept.  In order to ‘win’ the ‘war on terror’ we would have to erase the word from the dictionary.  There is no ‘winning‘.  Not to mention that counterterrorism efforts didn’t exactly begin on 9/11:

I’m not going to say that I agree with everything that Brzezinski posted there, but it’s a well written piece. Here is Zbigniew Brzezinski in his interview with Bill Maher Friday night:

Fear Of Clowns Turns Deadly?

This story has got to be one of the weirdest murders I’ve ever heard of: Colombia clowns killed on stage. (Hat Tip: reffric)

Two circus clowns have been shot dead during a performance in the eastern Colombian city of Cucuta, police say.

The attacker jumped into the arena and fired before fleeing, police chief Jose Humberto Henao told Efe news agency.

Local reports say the audience of about 20 people, mostly children, thought the shooting was part of the show before realising both men had been killed.

Maybe this was a case of some gambling debt or some love triangle, but the fact that it was done in plain sight makes this a weird case.  I think that detail, plus the fact that there were two clowns shot, makes me want to look at coulrophobia as a possible element:

Coulrophobia is the fear of clowns.[1] In discussions of causes of coulrophobia, sufferers seem to agree that the most fear-inducing aspect of clowns is the heavy makeup, often accompanied by the bulbous nose and weird color of hair, that conceals the wearer’s identity.

One possible suspect would be SNL’s very own Jack Handy, who famously pondered:

To me, clowns aren’t funny. In fact, they’re kind of scary. I’ve wondered where this started and I think it goes back to the time I went to the circus, and a clown killed my dad.

Or, you might want to check out these people: ihateclowns.com

FearBush.com Down Thread

The fearbush forums seem to be down (hopefully for some much needed anti-spam upgrades), so I thought I’d start a thread for members to chime in here if it’s down for a while.

I’ll even throw a topic out there, like the news that we’ve struck a deal with North Korea.

Bushbots On A Mission

Mark Noonan and Matt Margolis, editors of the internet’s most obvious independent kool-aid stand for Bush supporters (Blogs For Bush), have turned their attention to the subject of corruption. Not Bush and Cheney’s corruption, mind you, but the alleged actions of a handful of Democrats. You see, when you’ve planted your flag in the camp that unconditionally supports the worst president in US history, there comes a time when denial reaches critical mass and you have no choice but to start the process of deflection and begin lashing out at his critics in Congress:

For years, Democrats have tried and succeeded in using a phony ethics war to punish Republicans for being in power. Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay have both paid the price for Democrat scandal-mongering. Enough is enough.

Caucus of Corruption by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan is the first book to specifically discuss the hypocrisy and corruption of today’s Democratic Party. The book not only exposes the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party’s ongoing plan to regain power by portraying the Republicans as corrupt, it also details the rampant corruption deep in the Democrat’s ranks.

Caucus of Corruption provides readers with concrete evidence of the hypocrisy within the Democratic Party and tells the story of a Democratic Party that plans to employ a phony ethics war to regain power.

In Caucus of Corruption, you will learn about

• Nancy Pelosi’s penchant for cronyism,
• Harry Reid’s connections to Jack Abramoff,
• Rahm Emanuel’s love for dirty money.
• Chuck Schumer’s clashes with campaign finance laws.

and much, much, more!

• Who in the Democratic Party is connected to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff?
• How many have run afoul of campaign finance laws?
• Who are taking free trips, accepting bribes and lobbyist cash?

It’s all in Caucus of Corruption!

As the definitive resource on Democrat corruption and hypocrisy, Caucus of Corruption is a must have for conservatives, Republicans, political junkies, and anyone concerned with cleaning up politics in Washington.

I’m sure it’ll be a real page-turner! I wonder if Scooter reserved a copy? Mr. ‘Freedom Fries‘, too? The cover appears to proudly display the endorsement of congressional corruption expert Tom Delay (although I can’t make out what it says), so I assume he’s getting one!

The book couldn’t come at a more critical time, as we’ve recently seen the decider’s approval rating drop to an abysmal 32 percent. Time to kick that deflection and denial into high gear!

(cross-posted at ;I posted it here because they seem to be getting defensive about it now)

Conyers To Probe Bush’s Use Of ‘Signing Statements’

There was a story that popped up on the Raw Story feed, with excerpts from a paid-restricted site (Roll Call):

The Michigan lawmaker said the investigation would include both Democratic and Republican staff and will focus on the approximately 150 signing statements issued by Bush, which the American Bar Association estimates have affected more than 1,100 provisions of federal law.

House Democrats have criticized the use of such statements, arguing that they not only undermine the separation of powers of the legislative and executive branches but also threaten legislative authority.

“All too often, the administration has engaged in these practices under a veil of secrecy. This is a constitutional issue that no self-respecting federal legislature should tolerate,” Conyers said.

I’ve been following the whole ‘signing statement’ issue for a while now;  I’ve posted a few things about it on the FearBush site. 

If you haven’t been following this, here are some good links to get you up to speed:

• Bush challenges hundreds of laws
• Bar group will review Bush’s legal challenges
• Bush Ignores Laws He Inks, Vexing Congress
• Full index of Bush’s signing statements

Just a reminder;  Bush did, in fact, recite the oath of office with his hand on the Bible at his grand inaguration:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Right.

Great Moments In Flame War History

Reposted from July 2006, cause it was so damn funny:

To have a little fun in the forums I decided to host the first FearBush Forum Skills Competition. The purpose was to call out two of our more senior (in age) members and see if, after thousands of posts, either one of them had learned very much about how the message board works (posting links, images, bold, italics, etc.). The results are in, and they are disappointing. Unfortunately, neither of them were able to complete any of the challenges. Plenty of excuses were made, and plenty of flak was delivered by the other members. The competition did bring out some very funny responses, however. I promised that the loser of the competition would be put into the FearBush Hall of Shame (this blog). Since the final score was a pathetic 0-0, I am going to highlight both members here. It should be noted that these members fall on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Let’s meet our two contestants…

Rocky

Quick to post and unafraid to speak his mind, Rocky represents a kind of ‘shoot from the hip’ commentor. He has never started his own thread, and has never even posted a link to back up any of his statements. He simply calls it like he sees it, and moves on. The poor guy doesn’t even have an avatar. He claims he’s not ‘right wing’ , but has no admiration of ‘librals’. His best quote from the competition:

I told you before, I won’t lie to you. I consider it an honor to be able to jerk off twice a day at my age.

Tom Brady

Tom used to go under the handle of Bilhar, and with both entities combined he has well over 6,000 posts. In his recent interview, he divulged that he has been a Democrat for 60 years. Often picked on for his garbled posts and lack of proper grammar, Brady can often find himself fending off jabs from other members (even those who generally agree with him). Tom’s skills using the message board are notably more advanced than Rocky’s (he can use smileys, attach images, and has an avatar), but are still far behind the average member in terms of linking relevant material and using the quote feature properly. It was for this reason that he was included in the competition. Tom Brady’s most memorable quote from the competition was directed at….me:

If I really wanted to do this, I would just have a Worm like you do it for me, thats what worms who work in holes are for.

Frickin hilarious!