“Mugsy’s Rap Sheet”

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
BREAKING NEWS: While Senator John McCain didn’t come right out as say he was conceding the election to Barack Obama, he might as well have. On Friday, Senator McCain used his 72nd birthday to announce he had selected Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

You CAN’T tell me this is the most qualified person he could pick for the job. If I were to guess, after seeing the images of 84,000 people crammed into the 70,000 seat Mile High Stadium Thursday night, every high-profile Republican whose name had been floated as a likely McCain VP pick (Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, Huckabee, Thompson (Fred), Jindal, Giuliani, Hutchinson, Lieberman, etc) all suddenly realized this election was over, recognized that running with McCain is political suicide, and came to the conclusion that running against Obama meant risking looking like a total bigot while finding themselves in the uncomfortable spot of defending the Bush legacy.

McCain chose a 2 year governor. Former beauty queen, under investigation, has a pregnant 17 year old daughter (now confirmed), opposes “stem cell” research (unlike McCain), pro drilling in ANWR (unlike McCain), pro-Union (unlike the rest of the GOP including McCain, who are virulently anti-union), who’s not even sure what the VP does, and will simply be demolished in a VP debate against Joe Biden… to be his running mate. Palin didn’t need to “step forward”, clearly everyone else “stepped back” when proffered the job.

How does the now 72 year old cancer survivor McCain make the case that Palin is “ready from day one” to fill his shoes should the worst happen? How does he continue to argue that Obama is “too inexperienced” to be President after picking a first-term Governor of a sparsely populated state? Even simply on the basis of gender, how does he argue she is more experienced than even Senator Kay-Baily Hutchinson of Texas?

I’m left to draw only one conclusion: the Republicans have given up on any chance of winning this election. No one wants to be on the losing team and are now simply concentrating on 2012.

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
Get ready to hear that title often because I just can’t say it any plainer than that. Thursday night, the country was introduced to someone that bared no resemblance whatsoever to the “unpatriotic, angry Muslim” that the Right has falsely tried to paint Barack “Hussein” Obama.

They say “a picture is worth a thousand words”, so let’s start with several thousand:

(click to enlarge)

Best line of the night:

“John McCain may pay $500 for his shoes, but we’re the ones who’d pay for his flip-flops.” - Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)

Regular readers of “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” know that I’m a fan of Gov. Bill Richardson. As one of the keynote speakers, he was introduced as “a man with one of the longest resume’s in Washington”. Richardson delivered the first speech to really hit on just about every bullet point. He used McCain’s own attack ads against him (the “Celebrity” ad suggesting voters aren’t thinking for themselves while McCain votes with Bush 95% of the time.) Too bad more people won’t see/hear his wonderful speech, but I’m grateful he was at least given a coveted Primetime slot.

Of course, former Vice President Al Gore was his usual brilliant self. His speech was, as expected, heavy on the environment and being green, but he also talked about how important it is for everyone to get out and vote. And unlike his former boss Bill Clinton, he didn’t have to shy away from direct criticism of George Bush.

In another portion of the event, a series of “ordinary people” told the crowd about how bad the Bush economy has been for them. By no coincidence I’m sure, at least half of them were “former Republicans”. One of the best lines came from the final speaker, one “Barney Smith“, who talked about how his job of the past 30 years was sent overseas, ending his speech with the line: “We need a president who puts Barney Smith before Smith Barney.“

Obama’s historic speech (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) was exactly as you’d expect. He acknowledged the historic event for what it was, noting how he was accepting the nomination for President of the United States on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, given at the height of desegregation. He talked about how the other side has relied heavily on “personal attacks”, how John McCain was “more of the same”, and how a voting record that agrees with Bush 90% of the time is a “10% gamble on change”.

While watching this incredible historic event, I found myself thinking the same thing I was thinking after the opening Olympic Ceremonies in China earlier this month: “How are the next guys going to top this?” Forget, you can’t. While the DNC was forced to “turn people away” from the Thursday event after packing 84,000 people into the 70,000 seat stadium, the McCain campaign is having trouble finding enough people to fill the stadium where he will be announcing his VP pick.

Because of the historic significance of Obama’s speech, the ratings will be MUCH higher for his big night than it will be for McCain, which means (obviously) more people will have viewed Obama’s speech than will view McCain’s, which should translate into a bigger post-convention bounce for Obama than McCain. What does McCain have to offer this country? A “too old” Republican following on the heels of the most unpopular President in history, with a similar voting record, who has (documented) flip-flopped on more issues than they ever (falsely) accused John Kerry of. And if he selects Mitt Romney to be his VP as many expect, not only is Romney disliked by a majority of the Republican’s Evangelical base, but would only highlight the fact the GOP is “the rich old white-guy” Party. I just don’t see that ticket winning in today’s climate.

A few more photos for you:

A huge crowd

The Generals endorsing Obama
How does the McCain camp top this? Simple answer: they can’t.

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
First, it appears my “lack of enthusiasm” for Hillary’s big speech (transcript) Tuesday night ruffled a few feathers. I found Hillary’s speech to be full of more references to herself than Barack Obama. And while she “endorsed” him and “supports” him, you could have replaced Obama’s name with anyone and not needed to change a single word of her speech. While everyone else seems to have “loved” her speech and says she “said what needed to be said” and “couldn’t have done better”, I heard the speech of someone “leaving the door open for 2012″. Here are some examples of the praise I saw/heard that seem to make my point (emphasis mine):

“She knocked it out of the park! After hearing that speech, I’ll bet some people are having buyer’s remorse!” - Radio host Ed Schultz
 
“She excited the crowd, she made me excited about her.” - Commenter replying to me on Democratic Underground.

After the speech, the blogs were abuzz about Hillary and how well Hillary did. I challenged people to cite a single example where she talked up Obama’s strengths or how he was the “right man for the job”. Not one person could give me an answer. Speaking at the convention isn’t supposed to be all about the person speaking, it supposed to be about the candidate. Am I wrong?

But that was Tuesday.

Last night, “Big Dawg” showed her how it’s done. The pundits pontificated over how Former President Clinton would be received by delegates on the convention floor. They were concerned that there might be some residual “bad blood” from the campaign where he criticized Barack Obama. But instead, he was greeted by a three minute standing ovation where he had to say “Please, sit down” so many times, he became visibly annoyed as the crowd went on cheering so long it was preventing him from speaking.

Unlike his wife’s speech the night before, President Clinton’s speech was wall-to-wall praise of Barack Obama, filled with references to Obama’s life and achievements. Contrast this to Hillary’s speech the night before where she spoke mostly about herself. Hey, don’t get me wrong, Hillary gave a great speech, attacking the Republicans and John McCain, stressing all the reasons to “vote Democrat” and what a mistake it would be for her supporters to vote for John McCain, but in this reporters opinion, if you were a Hillary-loyalist threatening to “write-in” Hillary’s name on your ballot vs casting your vote for Obama, she gave you little reason not to.

By contrast, Bill talked about how Barack, after graduation, “could have done anything” (no doubt. As a black graduate from Harvard Law and the first black editor of the “Harvard Law Review”, he could of written his own ticket) “and made millions on Wall Street”, instead he took a job in Public Service on the South Side of Chicago to “give back to the community”. And most importantly of all, President Clinton talked about how when he first ran for President in 1992, people told him he was “too young and too inexperienced. Sound familiar?” And what must be a first for Bill, his speech was less than 30 minutes long! I remember his 1988 Convention speech that went on for 70 minutes… longer than even the Presidential nominee, Mike Dukakis’ own speech. Bill’s biggest applause line in 1988: “And in conclusion…” He seems to have learned a valuable lesson in the twenty years hence: “Brevity is the soul of wit”.

As a former President, Bill was careful to avoid direct criticism of President Bush (Presidents just don’t attack other Presidents. It’s just not done), but former Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry had no such compunction. I was never a huge Kerry fan (full disclosure, I was a “Deaniac”), but Kerry laid into George Bush like no one else thus far in this convention. And he didn’t stop there. He also referenced Senator McCain’s penchant for flip-flopping… a charge the Republicans dogged Kerry with mercilessly during his 2004 campaign.

In a segment of his speech… “Senator McCain vs Candidate McCain”… Kerry pointed out several examples of Candidate McCain opposing Senator McCain’s own bills! “Talk about ‘Being for it before you were against it!’ Come on!“

The night was opened with a surprisingly good speech by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who blasted the Republicans for increasing our dependence on foreign oil. He even went after Bush & Cheney, noting how we had “two oilmen in the White House”. He blasted McCain for taking millions in campaign contributions from oil lobbyists and his plan to give huge tax breaks to the oil companies while continuing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Being “National Security” Night, we finally saw our first veterans of the convention, with special emphasis on women in the military, with speeches by at least two retired female “three-star generals”, who talked about how Barack Obama’s judgement in Iraq is exactly what is needed right now.

So, with one great speech after another, I was concerned that every great talking point may have been used up, leaving nothing for VP nominee Joe Biden to talk about. Boy, was I mistaken. Bill Clinton is a tough act to follow, but the good Senator from Delaware had the inside track on “his good friends John McCain and Barack Obama” and could talk about each of them on a personal level that no ne else could have. (Video: part1, part2, part3). Wednesday night was a great night to be a Democrat, and I fully expect Thursday to be even better.

Oh, which reminds me, following up on yesterday’s note of the Religious Wingnuts “praying for rain” to ruin Senator Obama’s big acceptance speech in an open-air 70,000 seat football stadium. The weather report for the “Invesco Field” zip code still reads “Sunny” with temperatures in the mid 70’s.

Meanwhile, concerns have arisen over the possibility that “Tropical Storm Gustav“… which will likely be a full hurricane before making landfall in the Gulf of Mexico this Saturday… threatens to disrupt the weather the night of John McCain’s big speech at the RNC Convention next week in Minneapolis/St. Paul.

Pardon me while I laugh my ass off.

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
(Full video and transcripts available at the Official DNC Convention website.)

Tuesday’s convention theme was “Renewing Americas’ Promise”, but with it being the 88th anniversary of the passage on the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote, and with it being the night of Hillary’s big speech, women seemed to dominate the stage more than men.

Following a surprisingly hard-hitting opening speech by (of all people) House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the most camera face-time was granted to women speakers such as Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona; Katherine Marcano, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa flood victim; Anna Burger, Officer with SEIU & 1st Chair of America’s newest labor federation, “Change to Win”; Pauline Beck, a Homecare worker & member of SEIU from Oakland, California; and The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor of Arizona.

One speech worthy of special mention was that of Gloria Craven, a laid-off North Carolina textile worker with huge medical bills. Not an elected official or leader of any organization, and by my initial impression, looked like a mistake to have such a large, heavy-set woman in a faded blue mu-mu address a national audience with a thick Southern accent. But she then related the story of how, after working in a textile mill for 30 years, her company went bankrupt and 8,000 employees suddenly found themselves without a job. She developed medical problems, but with no insurance and little savings, she could not afford medical attention. Most people in her town never finished High School, but when the mill closed down, President Bush told everyone to “go back to school” (presumably college). Both her and her 62 year old husband did, but not everyone has the time or the money to go back to school, and there aren’t a lot of opportunities for people in their 60’s just starting out in a new trade. This was a very personal story from someone that I think many Americans can identify with. While you can expect the Republicans to put on their own parade of people telling us just how well they are doing in the Bush economy, that’ll go over like a lead balloon because most Americans know better.

Knowing how Republicans think, I highly expect to see a number of veterans parade across the RNC stage talking about how we’re “winning” the war in Iraq and how “pulling out now would be a disaster”. By contrast, the Democrats have yet to put a single veteran on stage. This is partly due to the military code of conduct that you “don’t criticize a sitting Commander-in-Chief”, but all ignorant voters will see is one Party (the Republicans) “honoring the troops” by allowing so many of them to speak in support of the current strategy in Iraq, while the Democrats look like “they don’t want anything to do with the military”, seemingly “ashamed of our troops” and unable to find any military personnel that agrees with them. No one ever said the average American voter was bright.

The most entertaining speech of the night, which Primetime networks popped into the middle of, was that of Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey. The pundits were quick to repeat the popular misconception that Senator Casey’s father, the late former governor of Pennsylvania, was barred from speaking at the 1992 Democratic Convention “because he was pro-life”. No. The governor was not permitted to speak because he refused to endorse the Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, for President. And you don’t bestow an honored speaking slot to someone that refuses to endorse the nominee. But still, the myth continues. Senator Casey also noted that he “strongly” disagreed with Senator Obama over the issue of abortion, but was throwing his full support behind him. Thus, he received a speaking slot… and made the most of it.

Two of the best lines of the night belonged to Senator Casey: “When you vote with George Bush over 90% of the time, that’s not a maverick, that’s a side-kick!” to which the audience laughed and cheered. He continued, “We can’t afford four more years of Bush/McCain politics. Not four more years. Four more months!”, which provoked the crowd into chants of “Four more months! Four more months!”

Casey was followed by the nights’ marquee speaker, Senator Hillary Clinton, who, despite delivering a great pro-Democrat, anti-McCain speech, failed (in my mind) to give a rousing endorsement of Senator Obama. I was waiting for an “I was wrong” or “Since then I’ve learned…” moment from her, but none was forthcoming. Only once did she ever directly address those who would dare vote for John McCain: “Were you supporting ME, or what our Party stands for?” (not an exact quote), trying to remind any “PUMA’s” out there that a vote for John McCain means voting for someone that supports everything she’s against. But I still came away feeling I never heard an enthusiastic endorsement of Barack Obama.

The biggest “missed opportunity” of the night was Chelsey Clinton’s introduction of her mother. Though preceded by a video retrospective of her mother & grandmother, she then introduced her mother without additional comment. What I was really hoping to hear was Chelsey tell any potential “PUMA”s still out there, “When I was 14 years old, Senator McCain told the joke: ‘Why is Chelsey Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.‘ Now, I want any of my mother’s supporters still thinking about voting for John McCain to look me in the eye and tell me you’re going to vote for that man.” That would of been great. Sadly, a missed opportunity in my opinion.

Republicans were all over the airwaves immediately following Hillary’s speech and the next morning to continue the “Obama should of picked Hillary” meme to try and sway disenfranchised Hillary supporters over to McCain. I wish I could say people are bright enough to see through this, but they wouldn’t be doing it if they knew it wouldn’t work to a least some extent. I mean, REALLY, are you going to take advice from Rudy Giuliani on who to vote for? Do these voters REALLY think these people genuinely have the Democratic Party’s best interests at heart when they tell us “what a mistake it was” for Obama to not pick Clinton? (To quote Saturday Night Live) “I mean, really.”

On a humorous side note, upon learning that Senator Obama would be delivering his Thursday night speech before a record 70,000 supporters in the open-air Invesco Field football stadium Thursday night, “Focus on the Family” leader James Dobson encouraged his fellow religious wingnuts to “pray for rain“. So if God sends a deluge to spoil Obama’s big night, obviosly it would mean God agrees with them and doesn’t want Barack Obama to be elected.

Which had me thinking, if instead of being spoiled by rain, Senator Obama is “rewarded” with beautiful weather the night of his big speech, would not the opposite be true?  
 

Weather forecast for Obama’s Thursday night speech:
 
 
Notice the surrounding days. Almost like “one day of good weather” is being cleared out just for Senator Obama’s big speech. Hmm.

ADDENDUM: A quick check ofthe blogs this morning reveals that anyone that dare disagree (as I do) that Hillary’s speech was anything but a Home Run, are being met with open hostility. To those who feel as such, I’d argue that you aren’t thinking like a “PUMA” or a “Republican” who are saying that Hillary’s speech is evidence “the wrong candidate got the nomination”. We wouldn’t still be hearing this nonsense if she had stressed Senator Obama’s strengths more. - Mugsy

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
(Full video and transcripts of the convention are available on the Official DNC Convention Website.)

Michelle Obama’s primetime speech, the only part of the DNC Convention to play on all four networks, rescued an otherwise disappointing first day at the DNC Convention. Meanwhile, John McCain appeared on Jay Leno and joked about how old he is (you’ve gotta hand it whoever at the McCain campaign thinks this is a winning strategy).

I watched the closing three hours of the convention on PBS… the only network to cover more than just the final hour on National TV. Rather than showing an awareness that this would be the world’s first look at the DNC Convention, the first thing we are treated with is coming in in the middle of a discussion about economics with four commentators led by Senator Sharrod Brown. A conversation so dull that clearly few, if any, delegates on the convention floor were paying attention.

Mercifully, following an opening speech by House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi that was decent, but I was grateful did not air to a wider audience as it reminded me of just how much she has failed to restrain the criminal Bush Administration, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg introduced her “Uncle Teddy”, Senator Ted Kennedy, who gave a moving speech to an eager crowd. One point the Senator made that caught my attention was his promise to be there in the Senate in January to serve the new President Obama. I’m sure I’m not the only person to take note that it appeared the Senator, which was diagnosed with an in operable brain tumor last month, isn’t making any plans for more than 6 months from now. Very sad.

Next came Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, who gave a surprisingly effective speech about how the current administration has failed the American people.

Former President Carter was introduced with a video of him and his wife Rosalind talking to victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and how the Bush Administration not only showed these people just what they think of the poor in this country, but showed the world just how we treat the poor in this country, to our great shame. President Carter and his wife then did a walk-on/walk-off without giving a speech to the eager crowd, though he did give a private interview to Jim Lehrer of PBS. I was hoping that President Carter, who was elected following the national disgrace of Nixon’s resignation following the Watergate scandal, would of given a rousing speech reminding people how the Bush Administration has proved Republicans never change, how they’re willing to lie, cheat & steal, with a total disregard for the rule of law, to seize and retain power to help their powerful friends at the expense of the country. But instead, he continued the discussion about how the Bush Administration has failed the poor of this country (at least I think that’s what he discussed, as his badly hemorrhaged left eye was so distracting, I kept waiting for someone to interrupt to send him to the hospital).

Thankfully, after a nice long introduction by her big brother Craig and a video retrospective of her life, Michelle Obama gave an excellent speech about life with Barack and the people that touched her life, including Senator Hillary Clinton (who was not there).

Following Michelle’s moving speech, the white male pundits on PBS gave it only mild praise, calling it “a missed opportunity” to show America how Barack is “more like them”. Boy, talk about clueless. The speech was not for white male voters like themselves. It was clearly intended to appeal to female Hillary Supporters, which, judging by all the footage of female delegates with tears in their eyes during her speech, archived that goal remarkably well. Hillary voters just want to know that someone that understands them will be influencing public policy in the Oval Office. In that regard alone, her speech was a smashing success, probably helping to win over a few Hillary loyalists.

Following her speech, the young Obama children, their two daughters aged 10 & 7, were brought on stage to say “Hi” to Daddy speaking to them via remote from Kansas City, MO. This first look at the youthful Obama family together before a global audience, the young Senator, his attractive young wife with the “Jackie-O” look down pat, and two young children being as cute as can be, gave America an image of a energetic future First Family that will grow up before before our eyes over the next four-to-eight years.

Then, by contrast, Senator McCain appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno to make sure no one forgot about him. Leno joked about how old McCain is (McCain was “the young soldier that put out the fire when the British attempted to burn down the White House is 1812″), and joked about providing McCain “seven dressing rooms to make him feel at home”. McCain then came out and continued the “I’m older than dirt” theme, repeating Leno’s jokes about him. I suspect the McCain campaign believes that joking about the Senator’s age helps “neutralize” the issue. No, all it does is remind everyone how old he is, rather than reassure people with concerns that he might be too old for the job.

Hopefully the next three nights of the DNC convention will be a bit more disciplined. Thank goodness for Michelle Obama.

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 

(Editor’s note: Last weeks early posting of our extended report has thrown our schedule off slightly, and next weeks DNC Convention will do so as well, but we should get back to our regular Wednesday posting schedule after that. - Mugsy)

I just don’t understand the Hillary Clinton loyalists… ESPECIALLY the ones that say they’ll vote for John McCain over Barack Obama… apparently out of spite. These people would rather destroy the country by electing another Republican that will not only continue George Bush’s policies, but also would be interpreted as a vindication of George Bush by The Rabid-Right (”Apparently President Bush wasn’t that bad if the country voted for another Republican after him, knowing he will continue those same policies”, they’ll say), rather than vote for a guy that agrees with them on 95% of the issues, just because they think his nomination “wasn’t fair”.

They’re willing to risk adding another two Conservative judges to the four Right-Wing radicals already on the Supreme Court (as I’ve previously noted, three of the four most Liberal judges on the SC are also the oldest and most likely to be replaced by the next President). These are lifetime appointments, so even if Hillary wins years from now, she’ll find herself strapped with a Conservative Court, and who knows just what Neo-Conservative agenda they’ll okay that no one, not ever Hillary, can rescind?

Following Senator Obama’s pick of Joe Biden as his running mate, all the Sunday political talkshows could talk about was “Why not Hillary?”, some even predicting we will hear (for the first time) delegates from the Convention floor saying “they will not support the nominee.” The Hillary camp has said they want a “roll call” so that Hillary’s supporters votes are counted (despite pledging to support Obama), and there are even a few die-hards that still hold out hope for “a miracle” that Hillary ends up with the nomination.

All this is INCREDIBLY short sighted. Besides the points I mentioned above about the potential for disaster by electing McCain, here are a couple of other facts Hillary voters should consider:

1) If McCain wins, it’s not a gimme that she’d be the nominee in 2012. Obama, with 70% support among Democrats, if McCain wins, Hillary is likely to be seen as a “spoiler” that cost Democrats an election they should of won with both hands tied behind their back. So don’t count on the 2012 vote if McCain wins in ‘08.

2) Joe Biden is currently 65 years old. Even if Obama had chosen Hillary to be his VP, she wouldn’t have a (”real”) shot at becoming the nominee again until 2016 (sitting Presidents almost always win renomination, and never has a sitting VP challenged their boss for the job). By then, Biden will be 73 (going on 74), older than Grampa McCain is now. Should Obama win re-election, we’re looking at another “wide open” campaign in 2016 just as we’re seeing now in 2008. So even without being the nominee, Hillary is in the best position to run in 2016.

The McCain camp is already running ads of Hillary criticizing Obama. You want to know why Hillary wasn’t chosen? THAT’s why. Imagine the next two months with McCain ads replaying clips of Obama’s own VP criticizing him (even praising McCain over Obama):

…potentially costing him the election.

Obama choosing the 65 year old Biden as his running mate should be the best news Hillary fans could of hoped for. So stop this nonsense about “voting for McCain” or “still holding out hope for a miracle at the convention” and look at the huge gift laying at your feet.

(PS: I hope to provide short daily commentary on Convention Highlights next week, so be sure to check in! - Mugsy)

ADDENDUM: A question has come to mind. Might Obama of selected the 65-year old Biden to appease Hillary?

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
This is one of those obscenely complicated and convoluted subjects that is difficult to explain without sounding like a ranting lunatic. And like any complicated subject, it takes a while to explain, so get comfy while I take this step-by-step (I’m getting this report out early because, after working on it for nearly a week, some of my points are already being scooped):

(Let me preface this by saying Russia has committed enormous crimes here. They over-reacted to Georgia’s invasion of the breakaway regions, going WAY beyond protecting them to actually invading Georgia itself and killing over a thousand people. So no one get the idea I’m suggesting Russia is blameless in all this. - Mugsy)

First, the recent conflict in Georgia didn’t begin with the August 8th invasion of Ossetia by Georgia. Not even close. It was the culmination of months (years?) of Diplomatic failure by the Bush Administration, negotiating talks between Russia and Georgia.

The Democratic Republic of Georgia, a former Soviet satellite nation, has been a very good friend indeed to the Bush Administration. Despite a population of barely 250,000, Georgia contributed 2,000 troops to fight in Iraq, making them the third largest force in Iraq after the U.S. (135,000) and Great Brittan (7,500). Considering their small population, that’s a pretty massive commitment.

To describe the relationship between Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili (SA-cosh-villi), and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev (med-VYEH-dev) as “stormy” would be like describing the relationship between Cindy Sheehan and George W Bush as “cordial”. These two men despise each other. Both view the others’ election as illegitimate. Saakashvilli, a American-educated lawyer was just 35 when he led Georgia’s “Rose Revolution” of 2004 into the Georgia Parliament and demanded the resignation of President Shevardnadze. Medvedev was Putin’s hand-picked successor. Both Putin and Medvedev opposed the invasion of Iraq and never provided any troops. Saakashvili saw great opportunity in befriending the U.S., with the big prize being admission into NATO. Just last March, President Saakashvilli visited the White House to discuss membership into NATO. President Bush pledged to push for Georgia’s admission at the next NATO summit in April.

So why all the love between the Bushies and Georgia? Dirt poor with no real assets of its own, already an ally in the “War on Terror™” what’s left for the them to exploit?

Turkish Caspian Oil Pipeline

Gosh, who could of seen THAT coming?

Georgia doesn’t have oil, but neighboring Turkey is building an enormous pipeline stretching from the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Mediterranean Sea, all but cutting Russia out of the lucrative $100+/barrel oil market the Bush energy policy has produced. Why should Russia benefit from the catastrophe in Iraq when they didn’t sacrifice a red cent to create it?

Here is another map that might help explain things a bit better:

That pipeline runs just 100 miles South of the Separatist “autonomous region” of South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia, making it a ripe target for anyone looking to disrupt the flow of oil cutting into Russia’s market.

A week ago Friday, opening day of the Beijing Olympics, Georgia suddenly decided that was the perfect time to invade Ossetia & Abkhazia (ob-KAZ-ia) and re/claim it as their own (I mentioned last week about how Bush and Putin exchanged smiles and chatted in the stands later that same evening while cameras looked on? I could kick myself for not capturing the video, but former US Ambassador Richard Holbrook described the scene during CSPAN’s “National Journal” last Wednesday). Despite claiming Ossetia to be part of his own nation, Saakashvilli ordered the shelling and outright attack of the region, killing scores of people (Russia is now investigating the possibility of a “war crimes” trial for Saakashvili). Russia, who had been expecting something like this following all the recent saber-rattling by Saakashvili, had troops on the Georgian border at the ready, who then swooped into Ossetia and pushed the Georgian Army back into Georgia.

Unfortunately, Russia didn’t stop there. To further secure the former Russian province, they pushed on into Georgia, even commandeering a main highway that splits the country in two, effectively cutting one side of Georgia off from the other. Had Russia of stopped at the Ossetia border, they might have won The P.R. War as well, but instead, pushing further on into Georgia gave the Bushites justification to scream bloody murder. Without a hint of irony or a shred of self-awareness, President Bush denounced Russia:

“Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such action is unacceptable in the 21st century.”

(…)

“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”

Excuse me… barf.

But as I said before, this conflict didn’t start two weeks ago:

In February of 2006, Georgian police arrested “a Russian” they accused of trying to sell weapons-grade uranium inside Georgia for $1million U.S. dollars. Russia called it “a public relations ploy to discredit Moscow”. The amount of uranium in question: 100g (3.5oz), enough to fuel “part” of a bomb, but not all on its own. The uranium was smuggled into Georgia through Ossetia (where the uranium originated from was never determined).

As the U.S. became involved, things got worse:

Tension Between Russia, Georgia Heats Up
Washington Post, October 1, 2006

TBILISI, Georgia — The Cold War is long over, but the tension between Georgia and Russia revisits many of its issues… allegations of spying by Moscow, suspicions of interference by the United States and concerns that a hot war will start without some sort of compromise.

Last week’s arrest of four Russian soldiers on charges of spying pushed a decade of animosity between Russia and Georgia to new heights. Russia recalled its ambassador, called Georgia a “bandit state” and stopped issuing visas to Georgians.

The reactions were far stronger than the tit-for-tat expulsions that usually accompany espionage scandals.

(…)

Georgia’s West-leaning government resents Russia for its close contacts with two separatist Georgian regions, for its reluctance to pulling out thousands of troops based in the country as a Soviet-era holdover and for economic pressure including sharply increasing the price of natural gas to banning Georgian wine, one of the country’s major exports.

Russia in turn resists Georgia’s drive to join NATO, its demands for the withdrawal of Russian forces and President Mikhail Saakashvili’s determination to re-exert control over the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which seek possible annexation into Russia and have Russian forces present as peacekeepers.

It was also annoyed that a major oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Turkey runs through Georgia, bypassing Russia, and bristled when Georgia arrested a dozen opposition figures that Tbilisi claimed were plotting a coup with Russian backing.

(…)

So now you can see why the Bushies got involved. And after nearly two years of negotiations between Russia and Georgia, the war Russia feared might happen, did. Another diplomatic coup for Condi Rice and the Bush Administration. Bravo!

I’m going to make some intuitive leaps here, so stay with me. Remember when the Bush Administration wanted to put a “nuclear missile shield in Poland” last year? (ignore for now the fact it doesn’t even work) They claimed the purpose of putting it there was “to protect our European allies and our friends” from a possible missile strike from Iran. The fact Iran doesn’t even have an ICBM missile system is apparently irrelevant.

The point of putting interceptor missiles (ie: a “missile shield”) so close to Russia has nothing to do with “defending Europe”, but instead has everything to do with intimidating Russia should we decide to invade their ally Iran. Russia’s ability to threaten the U.S. diminishes considerably if we can not only shoot down any Russian missiles fired in response to an attack on Iran, but possibly even fire missiles into Russia from Poland. Bush wasn’t fooling anyone with his “missile shield”. Russia made a reasonable counter-offer of putting the “missile shield” in the Russian territory of Azerbaijan (over 1,500 miles to the South-East and ON the Iranian border). The Bush Administration rejected the offer. But you know who’s right next door, NOT under Russian control, but within striking distance of both Russia and Iran? C’mon, guess! Did you guess Georgia? Give yourself a cookie.

So we’ve got a Georgian President, close ally of the U.S., despises Russia, has provided the third largest troop commitment in Iraq, is sitting on the nuclear doorstep of both Russia and Iran, is allowing a massive oil pipeline to be built through their country that could have serious economic repercussions for Russia, and wants entry into NATO. Sounds like a match made in NeoCon heaven.

Which takes us back to politics in the U.S….

Remember a couple of weeks ago when the media couldn’t stop talking about Obama’s trip to Europe? They called it “presumptuous“. John McCain himself lambasted Obama for “acting like he’s already President”.

Flash forward two weeks to the Russia/Georgia conflict. Senator McCain, clearly siding with Georgia… the instigators of the deadly conflict… was on TV denouncing Russia and pledging U.S. support for Georgia. McCain blanketed the airwaves:

McCain told the crowd in Pennsylvania that he had just been on the phone with the Georgian leader. “And he wanted me to say thank you to you,” McCain said. “To give you his heartfelt thanks for the support of the American people for this tiny little democracy, far away from the United States of America.”

On Tuesday, McCain announced at a rally, “Today, we are all Georgians.”

“Presumptuous”? “Acting like he’s already President”? Of course not! Speaking out on the Ossetia conflict shows us that “he’s comfortable with these issues”, shows off “his foreign policy credentials”, “allows him to talk tough on foreign policy” and “good, politically, for John McCain”. Pardon me while I barf again. Oh, and did I mention that McCain’s top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was until recently, a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government? And what was Randy lobbying for? If you guessed “NATO Membership for Georgia“, give yourself another cookie! (Note: The Jed Report finds that after lambasting Russia all last week, McCain is suddenly not sure just who’s at fault here.)

Saakashvilli decided that the day Senator Obama went on vacation was the perfect day to invade Ossetia. Coincidence?

And where was Obama while all this spotlight-hogging is going on? Despite being on vacation, Senator Obama was also quick to respond to the conflict in Georgia:

“For months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and international intermediator and a genuine peace keeping force, not simply Russian troops. No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia.“

So while McCain has clearly taken sides, siding with Georgia over Russia and threatens to restart the Cold War, Senator Obama has called for International peace-keepers and acknowledged the likelihood that Russia did not instigate the conflict. But according to the Media, this conflict “is good for McCain” (just not anyone else).

Another facet of this conflict: it has given Secretary of State Condi Rice an opportunity to bask in the spotlight day-after-day denouncing Russia for invading Georgia (my minds eye keeps picturing thousands of Rednecks, shotguns in hand, amassing around Atlanta City Hall in a tizzy because “the Ruskies have invaded Georgia!“)

Condi hit just about every Sunday political talkshow there is yesterday (sans ABC’s “This Week“) to denounce Russia and defend Georgia (the instigators of the conflict). On NBC’s “Meet the Press”, fill-in host David Gregory asked her point blank, “Did Georgia provoke this crisis?“

SEC’Y RICE: This crisis has been going on for, as I said, more than a decade. It has been a hot zone and a volatile zone where there have been skirmishes over a significant period of time. It is absolutely the case that we have cautioned all parties against the use of force. In fact, I also talked to the Russians repeatedly in this period about the railway troops that they were bringing in, about reinforcing their peacekeepers, about overflying Georgian territory. So this had been a zone of conflict. We were trying to resolve it peacefully.

Does it sound to you like she was addressing Georgia’s role in instigating this conflict, or more interested in making the Russians look like the aggressors? And if you follow the McCain campaign, that’s the route they’ve decided to take as well:

“I don’t think this is the start of another Cold War with the Russians.” (…) “For anyone who thought that stark international aggression was a thing of the past, the last week must have come as a startling wake-up call.”

Apparently, the only one who got a “wake up call” is Grampa-John, who must of been asleep himself for the past five years if he thinks anyone believes “stark international aggression was a thing of the past”. Not once has he mentioned Georgia’s siege of Ossetia and Abkhazia as acts of aggression. The Republicans want you to believe that the tiny country allied with the U.S. and supplied the third largest troop commitment in Iraq is within its rights to try and take back the separatist regions, while the ever-troublesome Ruskies, who opposed the Iraq war, are behaving like “bullies” and are alone to blame for the ongoing conflict in Georgia.

French President Sarkozy may have derailed the GOP’s grand scheme to turn the war in Georgia into a pressing “national security issue” in the run up to the November election by brokering a cease-fire agreement between Russia and Georgia. And he did it in the worst way possible: HE TALKED TO THEM. He didn’t threaten them with military force or restraint of trade. On August 13th, the U.S. announced it was canceling this years joint military exercises with Russia (which we have participated in, along with France and Great Brittan, every year since 1988, even when Russia was still “The Soviet Union” and the Berlin Wall had yet to fall). The very next day, France made a deal with Russia to hold the exercises by themselves, without the U.S. or Great Brittan.

“Fringe” benefits

So what exactly is going on here? Is this a simple matter of Georgia suddenly… out of the blue… deciding that now, after two years of U.S. arbitrated negotiations with Russia, was the perfect time to try and reclaim the breakaway provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia? Or is there more to it?

A reasonable argument can be made that the U.S., either deliberately or through sheer incompetency (neither of which would be new), “encouraged” Georgia’s assault. Former Russian President (and 1990 Nobel Peace Price winner) Mikhail Gorbachev wrote in an Op/Ed Sunday:

Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a “blitzkrieg” in South Ossetia.

So who on Earth would want to restart the Cold War? To quote Bob Woodward’s infamous source on the Watergate break in: “follow the money”. There was BIG money to be made in the defense industry during the Cold War, which nearly came to an end with the fall of the Soviet Union. But after eight years of a Democratic Presidency that didn’t turn the U.S. Treasury into the Pentagon’s personal bottomless piggy bank, in comes Bush/Cheney and their policy of “Leave No Contractor Behind”. From day one, the Bush Administration was already planning to invade Iraq, which would become a bonanza for defense contractors greater than their wildest dreams. “Terrorism” wasn’t even on their radar. And how do I know this FOR A FACT? Because George Bush picked a Professor of Russian Studies fluent in Russian, Condoleezza Rice, to be his National Security Advisor, despite the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a string of U.S. embassy bombings, an unwieldy number of terrorist threats to disrupt the New Years Millennium celebrations (including an arrest at the Washington/Canada border), and an attack on the USS Cole just four weeks before the November election. To George W. Bush, the greatest threat facing the U.S. as he entered office wasn’t “terrorism”, it was “the Russians”.

The Cold War might be over, but the “War on Terror™” has been very kind to Contractors indeed. And now, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, with the very real likelihood that Barack Obama will become the next President and start pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq his first day in office, the Bush Administration looks as if it wants to restart the Cold War, assuring defense contractors that the gravy train will go on for at least another four years.

And suddenly, Bush’s Russian expert, Condi Rice, who must have been hiding in Dick Cheney’s “undisclosed location” for the entire year after 9/11, suddenly is anywhere and everywhere “talking tough” about Russian aggression in Georgia and of how hard she’s working to end the conflict between the two countries (if Sarkozy doesn’t get there first).
 
 
So I’m watching Condi hit the airwaves day after day, after eight years of keeping a relatively low profile (compared to other Bush Administration officials), and I’m thinking, “this conflict seems to be tailor made for her“. I didn’t mean it “literally”, but the more I thought about it, the more I began to wonder. “WAS this conflict concocted as a way to elevate Condi’s profile in the closing days of the Bush Administration? And if so, why?“

Only one answer comes to mind: “They’re prep’ing her for the VP slot with McCain.”

Condi repeated nine ways to Sunday that she had “no interest in running for President” prior to the Primaries in 2007. But less has been said about the possibility of her accepting the VP slot. She has said she is not interested, yet the possibility remains open.

I still doubt that John McCain will announce Condi Rice as his running mate, but where I once put the odds at 20:1, with this recent conflict in Georgia, I’d now put those odds at 3:1, along with Mitt Romney and Tom Ridge.

One week from today, the Democrats will hold their convention in Denver, which means the Obama campaign will be announcing their choice for VP sometime this week. Typically, out of political courtesy, the opposing Party doesn’t try to “upstage” the others’ campaign by pulling any political stunts during the others’ convention.

I loath making predictions that will be proved/disproved in a matter of days, but let me make one here:

On the fourth night, Barack Obama will give his historic acceptance speech as the nominee for the Democratic Party. If John McCain has picked Condi to be his running mate, he will pick that night to announce it, in an attempt to upstage Obama’s big night.

I’ve noted before that if Condi were ever chosen to be VP, it would clearly be because she was simply both black and female, not because of any particular qualification for the job. But this conflict in Georgia might be just the ticket for the Russian-speaking Russian-history expert to show off her political skills.

And if McCain DOES pick Rice to be his running mate, that means… absolutely, without a doubt… that the U.S. is behind this conflict in Georgia. I guarantee it.

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
(Since the DNC Convention is less than two weeks away and there is going to be LOTS to blog about, I’m going to wrap up the remaining two parts of this 4-part series with today’s entry. - Mugsy)

WAR! blared newspaper headlines across the country on December 8, 1941… the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Ever since the invasion of Iraq five minutes before midnight on March 19, 2003, Bush defenders have tried to draw a historic parallel between “the U.S. going to war with Germany after being attacked by the Japanese” to “going to war with Iraq after being attacked by al Qaeda in Afghanistan”. Of course, it is helpful to have little or no knowledge of history when making that absurd comparison… and as I’ve said many times before, NeoCons have NO “accurate” historical memory (oh, they love to make historical references, but they are almost always inaccurate), nor can they see more than two steps ahead when considering the repercussions of their agenda.

Japan, Germany and Italy were part of the “Axis Alliance” (no relation whatsoever to Bush’s “Axis of Evil”). While Japan sunk our battle ships in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii (it wasn’t made a state until after the war), Germany declared war on the United States just four days later. Unlike Germany, Iraq was not “allied” with the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 (though, as was revealed just last week, the Bush Administration did try to concoct a phony connection between the two on at least one occasion, giving them a false pretext for war.)

Which brings us back to the 1945 Nuremberg Trials.

Count Three: War Crimes - the more “traditional” violations, including mistreatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlawed weapons. And Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity - the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

The fact that there is even a debate in this country today on whether or not the use of “torture” is acceptable is already the “canary-in-the-coalmine” of just how much damage 28 years of Conservative politics has destroyed America’s sense of morality. Even John McCain, who owes his political career to his celebrity as a former POW, once decried the use of torture by America on “detainees” held in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, stating on the floor of Congress that, “It’s not about who they are, it’s about who WE are”, only to “flip-flop” in his quest to become the Republican Presidential Nominee because his opposition to the use of torture was unpopular among Republicans.

The crimes that were committed at “Abu Ghraib” are well documented. And reports of similar practices having taken place in “Gitmo” have likewise been reported. “One” incident of torture in a fluke. The existence of “black-site” prisons regularly using torture to elicit information from prisoners, coupled with a Republican Party that defends the practice, and an administration that has made torture “official U.S. policy“, is a pattern showing those abuses were by design.

The Bush Administration defends the practice of using torture on “detainees” (they can’t call them “prisoners of war” without opening themselves up to possible prosecution) on the grounds that “al Qaeda is not subject to the Geneva Convention”. There are several problems with this defense:

One: It assumes that ONLY members of al Qaeda or rogue Iraqi “insurgents” are detained in our military prisons, or ONLY al Qaeda and insurgent detainees are being subjected to torture.  
Two: As I mentioned last week, the Nuremberg Trials pre-date the Geneva Convention. It was, in fact, this trial that pointed out the need for a globally agreed-upon definition of “war crimes”.  
Three: The “International Criminal Court” (ICC) has concluded that members of The Taliban ARE protected by The Geneva Conventions because they were the ruling government power in Afghanistan.  
Four: Iraqi soldiers captured at the time of the 2003 invasion are likewise protected under Geneva because they were part of a governmental military at the time.

Taking these one at a time, first, the Bush Administration paid “bounties” to anyone that turned in a “member of al Qaeda” to dirt-poor Afghan farmers and unemployed Sectarian Iraqi’s, neither of whom thought twice about handing over a personal enemy… guilty or not… to U.S. troops for the reward. And why would we be torturing “Iraqi insurgents” anyway? One of the arguments defending the use of torture the Cons use is the “ticking time bomb” scenario. There is not, nor was there ever, a threat of “massive imminent attack” by street fighters in Iraq against the United States. Second, using the “Geneva” defense to justify the use of torture in the execution of any conflict does not automatically mean “war crimes” were not committed, because WE prosecuted “war crimes” PRIOR to the existence of “Geneva”. Three, while no one is eager to defend members of the Taliban, just as with “member of al Qaeda”, there is no way of knowing just who is or is not a member of the Taliban. So if you torture someone and they turn out to be a member of the Taliban, you’ve committed a war crime. And the fourth is self-explanatory… former Iraqi Soldiers are not “stateless sponsors of terrorism” that can (according to the neocons) legally be tortured without violating the Geneva Conventions.

I remember playing “made up” games when I was a child with my friends… you know, the kind of games where you make up the rules as you go along? (”Oh, I forgot, that tree is out of bounds.”) The Bush Administrations’ torture policy feels a lot like that. “You can torture this guy, but you can’t torture that other guy.” And if they believe they REALLY NEED TO torture someone that the law says they can’t, they’ll just demand a new law that makes an exception, OR, as he’s already done more than 150 times to circumvent over 1,149 proclamations he personally signed into law, President Bush will simply issue a “signing statement” that says “he doesn’t have to obey his own law”.

The second part of Count Three, “slave labor”, does not appear to have been violated. If anything, the Bush Administration has been eager to grossly overpay American contractors Billions of dollars worth of “no-bid” contracts to provide every service imaginable, from cooking, cleaning and general services, to building weapons and constructing military facilities.

This brings us to the third part of Count Three… the use of “banned weapons” (mini-nukes, depleted uranium, “white phosphorus”, etc).

President Bush broke a 35 year old nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) from 1970 when he refused to promise the United State would not develop any new nuclear weapons. Their excuse: the need for 5 megaton mini-nuke deep penetration “bunker-buster” bombs that could reach into terrorist fortresses built deep into the mountains of Afghanistan.” But the excuse of needing “bunker-busting mini-nukes” was just that… an excuse. President Bush was already seeking to break the nuclear non-proliferation ban from almost the beginning. CommonDreams reported on whether or not President Bush was already seeking to opt out of the nuclear test ban treaty in this article… notice the date: June 30, 2001, more than three months before 9/11, when the only thing on Bush’s radar screen was invading Iraq. Whether or not these low-yield “mini nukes” were ever built is not known, but the fact President Bush broke the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1970 is indisputable.

The United States under George Bush has been using mortar rounds made of “depleted uranium” (DU), leftover (waste) uranium from other sources like nuclear reactors and such. Still highly radioactive, but too weak to be used in an actual reactor. But when shaped into a military shell, it has the unique ability of slicing through a tanks iron walls like a hot knife through butter. DU is also fairly brittle (as metals go), so when it scrapes its way through a metal target, the scrapped away metal “aerosols” out in a cloud of dust that wafts through the air, permeates the ground, comes in contact with human skin and contaminates ground water (the shells themselves, highly radioactive, are also left behind on the battlefield… which in this case, is often the public streets of Iraq. Though not a “bomb”, DU is considered a prohibited “nuclear weapon” by international law.

Third is a chemical known as “white phosphorus” (WP). WP was not designed to be used as a weapon. It is an incendiary (ie: fire) device whose purpose is to light up the sky during night battles. Problem is, not only does WP allow you to see your enemies, but it allows your enemies to see you. Since the advent of “night vision goggles”, the military has had little use for white phosphorus, yet it still keeps a steady supply on hand. If WP comes in contact with human skin, it will (or course) cause severe burns. As such, the use of WP as a contact weapon was banned by international law in 1925… a ban that was strengthened by George HW Bush Sr. his last week in office (January 13, 1993) to include banning the stockpiling of the incendiary for military use. The United States accused Saddam Hussein of using white phosphorus as a weapon in 1991. Despite the international prohibition of the use of WP as a weapon, and condemning Saddam Hussein for using it in ‘91, the Bush Administration allowed its use as a contact weapon in the 2005 Battle of Falluja.

Without a doubt, the Bush Administration has willfully and recklessly violated Count Three of the Nuremberg charges. So on War Crimes Count Three, without question: Guilty.

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity, actions that took place inside the concentration camps and various other “death rampages”, seems like a slam-dunk (apologies to George Tenet). But crimes of “prisoner abuse” were already covered in the third indictment. This is a bit more tricky because, if the simple act of rounding up and imprisoning innocent civilians was a sufficient violation, then the United States itself was already guilty of this crime following the (atrociously named) 1942 “Japanese Family Leave Act”, where thousands of “Japanese” Americans, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, were forced to live in U.S. Concentration Camps for the duration of the war. Since the United States prosecuted Germany for this crime three months later, it can be assumed that simply imprisoning innocent people without charge is not enough to justify a “war crime”.

So when does a “concentration camp” become a “war crime”? When people die in the camp at the hands of their captors. In mid 2004, the Pentagon revealed that 37 Iraqi & Afghan POW’s had died while being held in U.S. custody. I can find no more-recent statistics, but I think it is safe to assume that more than four years later, that number is likely considerably larger.

“Death rampages”. How does one define a “death rampage”? The simple act of war could be considered a “death rampage”, but I doubt that is how it was defined during that trial in 1945. The invasion and slaughter of every living thing in an individual town could be defined as a “death rampage”. Whether by soldiers on the ground or carpet-bombing from the air, the total annihilation of a town full of civilians could be regarded a “death rampage”.

I feel there is insufficient evidence (based upon my limited research capabilities) to conclude whether or not it is possible to return a guilty verdict on this indictment, and must therefore rule count four as: undetermined.

Conclusion - The Bush Administration is clearly guilty on both Counts One & Three of the Nuremberg Tribunal, with Count Four clearly unresolved. Guilty on even one count is enough to subject members of the Bush Administration, and even the President himself, to the death penalty.

Current historical perspective:

On Friday, the Russian army invaded the neighboring country of Georgia. Like Bush, former Russian President-turned-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was spoiling for a fight, and Georgia handed it to him on a silver platter when they (I’m a bit fuzzy on the actual circumstances here, so don’t quote me) sought to reclaim the Ossettia region of their country back from Russia.

Friday evening, as the world watched the stunning opening day celebration at the Beijing Olympics, President Bush and Prime Minister Putin could be seen in the stands sharing smiles and exchanging “small talk”, separated only by their wives, while Russia was in the process of slaughtering 1,400 Georgians… American allies in Bush’s “War on Terror”, the third largest contingent in Iraq with 2,000 soldiers. The very next day, President Bush was on TV condemning Russian aggression against Georgia:

“Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state, and threatens a democratic government elected by its people,” he said. “Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.”

The utter hypocrisy of George Bush admonishing another country for invading a sovereign nation was almost too much to bear. And don’t try and tell me Bush didn’t already know about the invasion earlier that morning when he was smiling and chatting with Putin in the stands that evening. Makes one wonder just how sincere President Bush’s condemnation of Russia truely was the next morning.

Let us not forget that soon upon entering office in 2001, President Bush met with the former KGB Agent and told us he knew Putin was a good person because he “peered into his soul”. Since then, Putin has imprisoned political opponents, rolled back many Democratic reforms, and was quoted saying:

“One of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century was the fall of the Soviet Union.”

With judgment like that, is it any wonder we’re in the mess we’re in?

Please REGISTER to post comments or be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE7 users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts!

 

WRITERS WANTED - Keeping this blog current can be a bigger job than for just one person. “Mugsy’s Rap Sheet” is looking for VOLUNTEER guest writers to contribute to our blog to help make it worth visiting more than once a week. To contact us, please send an email to the address on our About Us page along with a sample and/or link to your writing skills. - Mugsy

 
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

That’s not the actual quote by the way. The exact quote is:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana, American philosopher - (1863-1952)

I’m often astounded by just how short the public’s collective memory is. This is one of the reasons why I created the BI30 Video Archive on YouTube in addition to our original “Bush in 30 Seconds” Archive. The mission of the BI30 Video Archive is to “get it on the record”, documenting comments or events, so that when some uninformed idiot says something patently false, there’s a place where you can pull up a video proving/showing otherwise.

Such was the case earlier this past week when the McCain campaign accused Senator Obama of “playing the race card from the bottom of the deck” (does anyone ever play “the race card” from the top of the deck? Whatever.) Such was the offensiveness of this slander, that I was forced to add a new category… “Deception”… to our “Master List of McCain Flip Flops & Gaffes”:

Deception: The McCain campaign was quick to jump on comments by Senator Obama at a July 31st campaign rally:
 

OBAMA: “[They say:] You know, ‘He’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name.’ You know, ‘He doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills.‘”

By saying “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills“, the McCain campaign suggested Obama was “playing the race card”, indirectly accusing the Obama campaign of racism. When in fact, it was the McCain campaign who, in a TV ad just last June, ran a commercial replacing every president on Mt. Rushmore with the face of Senator Obama, and replacing the image of Ben Franklin on the $100 bill with Obama’s image as well. It was this ad that Senator Obama was referring to during his widely criticized comment.

The media when into full “hysterics” mode when the McCain camp cried “race card”, and every Sunday Network News Talkshow (”Fox News Sunday”, “Meet the Press”, “Face the Nation” and “This Week”) ended up talking about “did Senator Obama inject race into the campaign?” Not once did I hear anyone remember the McCain’s ad from barely six weeks earlier that Senator Obama was clearly referring to. It was Bloggers who quickly pointed out that it was McCain and not Obama that first injected “race” into the public debate with their “Mt. Rushmore” ad. Unfortunately, where a Google News search on “McCain ad” “race” “dollar bills” (no mention of the McCain ad) returns literally THOUSANDS of hits to stories accusing Senator Obama of “playing the race card”, with almost as many polls showing how that widespread belief has hurt Obama in the polls, a Google search on the words McCain, Rushmore, and “dollar bills” (”Rushmore” inserted to limit results to those mentioning the McCain ad) returns just three hits, one of which is the Huffington Post, which first broke the story.

Back in 2004, investigative author Ron Suskind uncovered documents from the Pentagon dated March 5, 2001 entitled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts” that clearly divvied up Iraq’s oilfields among the different U.S. and British oil companies.

On Tuesday, Suskind reveals in his latest book, “The Way of the World”, that The Bush Administration ordered the CIA to draft a phony letter from lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta to Saddam Hussein in order to cook up a nonexistent link between Iraq and 9/11.

Naturally, the White House denies this event ever took place. But keep in mind that prior to the invasion of Iraq and as recently as late 2007, Vice President Cheney was still repeating the debunked rumor that Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence in Prague. So pardon me if I question the sincerity of the Bush White House when they deny trying to link Atta to Iraq.

Also mentioned in Suskind’s book, the revelation that the Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Habbush provided British intelligence evidence that Iraq had no WMD’s. The Bush Administration dismissed Habbush as “unreliable” and his claims of “no WMD’s” out of hand.

This brings up a serious question: We know of the infamous 2002 “Downing Street Memo”, where, in the recorded minutes of a meeting between President Bush in the London home of Prime Minister Tony Blair:

“There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action [against Iraq] was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.“

Then there is the “White House Memo” where Bush & Blair discussed painting an American U2 spyplane in UN colors and flying it over Iraq in hopes of luring Saddam into firing upon it, giving them an excuse for war.

And here we have the “Habbush” revelation where he provided British intelligence with evidence Iraq had no WMD’s prior to the invasion of Iraq. So the question becomes:

We know why President Bush was eager to invade Iraq and of his willingness to trump up an excuse for invading the country, but why was Tony Blair so willing to go along with it? This was Bush’s vendetta, not Blair’s. What was in it for him that he was so willing to overlook the Bush Administrations’ obvious eagerness to manufacture a false case for war?

Anywho… the collective memory of the American public seems to rival that of a week-old goldfish. It is the duty of The Media to keep the story straight and in context because the masses seem incapable of doing so on their own. But as we have seen, the Media also seems to suffer from the same case of journalistic-Alzheimers. So I guess it is up to WE, the bloggers, to do their jobs for them.

“Those who do not remember history…”, right?

by assistant blogger Jason Pence:

The well-oiled machine of the right-wing attack dog is back in action and looking for blood in this year’s election by launching a swift boat-style whisper campaign against Barack Obama.

“Obama is a Muslim, a traitor, friend of terrorists, an appeaser, anti-Israel, was sworn into office with his right hand on the Koran, refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, wants to lose the war in Iraq, can’t produce his birth certificate”, and my personal favorite: “Osama wants Obama to win the election.”

Odds are that you’ve seen at least one of the above claims in an email sent by misguided friends, family or coworkers — claims that are so ridiculous and easily refuted that I often wonder if the architect is some computer-savvy kid locked away in his bedroom making up stories about Obama for shits and giggles.

Mark Twain once said that a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its boots on. That was well before the arrival of the information age. These days an email laced with misinformation and propaganda can circulate the globe many times before the truth has its first cup of coffee in the morning.

To most of us these outlandish attacks are pure fiction — fabrications designed to pour sugar in the gas tank of an Obama campaign — and would be laughable if not for the fact that damage has been levied.

So much damage, in fact, that the Obama camp launched Fight the Smears, a website devoted to debunking the lies and conspiracy theories about Obama circulating the Internets like freedom fries at a neo-con cookout.

The site, complete with a copy Obama’s birth certificate, is a great idea in theory. However, it’s likely that the majority of its traffic will come from Obama supporters — most of which already know the truth about the skinny candidate with a funny name — and not the targeted audience of those who seem to know very little about Obama’s stance of the issues, religion, or status as an American citizen.

What’s more disconcerting is that the whisper campaign is gaining traction.

A recent Pew poll reveals that some 12 percent of American voters believe that Obama is a Muslim — up from 8 percent in December — a statistic that shows the smears are achieving the desired effect.

Fear and confusion have been the main ingredients in the conservative campaign casserole since 2002 when the current administration masterminded the color-coded terror alert system and used it on a weekly basis to keep the flock in line.

It’s a rare occasion that we hear terror alerts these days — most likely due to the fact that Bush & Co. have no more elections to steal.

This does not mean, however, that the right has abandoned the politics of fear.

Last month a fabricated op-ed piece from the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd surfaced with allegations of Middle Eastern ties to the Obama Internet fundraising network.

The June 29th peice, complete with the Times font, layout and Dowd byline, suggests that wealthy financiers from Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are the driving force behind Obama campaign contributions.

“What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn’t have been surprised that when it comes to fundraising there are simply no rules that can’t be broken and no ethics prevail.” [...]  
 
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama Internet contributions were from $15 to $25 or so.  
 
I the $200 million is right, and the average contribution was $15, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all of that happen?”

Of course we know these claims are absurd and Dowd penned no such column. Her June 29th piece (It’s Over, Lady!) was actually about Clinton supporters.

Dowd denied writing the piece saying “by the time I got to the second line I knew it wasn’t me.” She joked that it was the first time that she had been indirectly involved in a smear.

Another fear-based email went out en masse a few weeks ago claiming that Obama, if elected, planned on raising taxes on everything from capital gains to water.

In true fearful fashion the intro to the email says it all:

“This is something that you should be aware of so you are not blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry.”

Factcheck.org released the following statement after reviewing the dreadful email:

“Alert readers may already have noted that this claim does not provide links to any of Obama’s actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up. This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama’s tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.”

This deliberate deception isn’t the first, nor the last to invade inboxes of the unwitting in weeks to come. Misleading, scaring, and confusing the American public is the only way that the right can win elections when they are out of ideas — and they are damn good at playing the game — just ask John Kerry.

This may very well be the most important election of our lifetime. This country, and the world, cannot afford a third Bush term via McCain.<