bt’s Weblog

Today’s Washington Post reports:

…after flying to Jackson, Miss., to receive a briefing from Southern governors on hurricane preparations, McCain called on delegates to take off “our Republican hats and put on our American hats,” as he put it in a televised briefing for reporters from St. Louis.

So, Republicans aren’t Americans? They have to put aside their party and act like Americans? McCain sounds as mixed up as the Bungler-In-Chief.

Speaking of whom, the GOP breathed a sigh of relief when Shrub and Darth Cheney skipped the nominating convention in order to pay attention to Hurricane Gustav and hope Americans don’t pay attention to how badly they fucked up New Orleans after Hurricane Katarina.

Meanwhile, Evangelicals are praising their Lord and Master for delivering them from supreme embarassment at having to applaud the dimwit who has made “Republican” a dirty word. He hasn’t done much better for “American.”

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and was sanctioned by the United Nations Environmental Programme’s governing council. For the past twenty years this consortium of the planet’s experts in climatology, meteorology and related disciplines has studied the world’s climate and the factors that contribute to its change.

The IPCC has released four “assessments” from 1990 to the most recent in February 2007. Each one is the result of study and review by world experts that passes any test of scientific authenticity and objectivity. The most recent finding, for which the IPCC was awarded a Nobel Prize, states, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level”

The opening section {1.1} of the summary report says,”Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report. The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans”

BUT in an August 2nd letter to the editor of The New Haven Register Mark Schuler of Hamden, CT says, “I am becoming increasingly tired of the environmentalists’ agenda and alarmists’ screeds on global warming. There is no global warming.”

He adds with equal confidence that, “The average temperature of the planet has decreased over the last 10 years. There is more Arctic ice than at any point in the last 10 years. Any past or future warming cannot be proven to be caused by humans.”

The IPCC assessment continues, “There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (human generated greenhouse gas) concentrations.

“It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica)

“During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.”

Mark Schuler has a right to hold his uninformed and totally incorrect opinion on global warming. The Register has the right to publish that opinion. And since crazies generate more response than reasoned arguments it gets more people to read the paper. However, the bloviating of people with either elevated blood alcohol levels or onset of inflamed hemorrhoids shows a type of willful ignorance that is harmful to the efforts to make a better and safer environment for ourselves and our children and grandchildren. It is sad evidence that political entities with a ‘them vs us’ agenda can get individuals to act like intolerant idiots who think they are being noble in opposing the common good.

House Republicans stood bravely with their Commander-in-Chief Bush to defeat the attempt to extend health care opportunities to 10,000,000 American children. They celebrated their victory with due restraint (in public) but in private they clapped each other on the back and said, “YES!! We beat those Democrats.”

Naturally, the Schoolyard Bully-in-Chief blamed someone else when he was confronted with the simple truth he fucked over American children in favor of the Insurance Industry that has given him so much money. “The Democrats made me do it,” he was heard to say. “I want to help the poor and am ready to compromise and have to draw the line on spending,” he said without blinking or turning red with shame.

Next, the Deserter-in-Chief will ask for $45,000,000,000 to continue paying his contractor friends in Iraq. This, of course, is supplemental spending and not part of the budget which will be balanced any day now.

Thank the Shrub that many children will die before they have to face paying the monster debt he and his Republican shits have run up on their watch.

Here is what two Republican Representatives had to say about their victory;

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) charged that “SCHIP stands for Socialized, Clinton-style Hillarycare for illegals and their parents.”

“Americans are tired of the rhetoric,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). “They’re tired of the political games, and they want us to find a way to work together.”

Now doesn’t that make you proud to be an American? Or does it make you want to puke in King & Boehner’s faces?

What a surprise!! I never would have guessed it. The current occupant is going to get behind General Petraeus.

WTF does that jackass think we are?

For starters, the General offered no plan. As in NO PLAN STAN.

And there’s the small coincidence of days of high level talks between the General and the White House that in no way had anything to do with what the General reported to Congress.

I’ve heard better cover-up stories from high school freshmen who insist they wrote the paper on the effect of the Trojan War on Northern European Tribes.

How can anyone believe that a mere general is free to be independent of the Deserter-In-Chief who is the ultimate commander of him and all our armed forces? I mean shrub is fucking stupid beyond belief.

(This site has gotten fouled up somehow as the links insist on putting in the effing www and I never use that nine syllable word to say ‘world wide web’ which is only three syllables. I thought I’d fixed the sucker but guess it needs more looking at.)

(Fooled around a bit and I believe the blog is showing the nice misty field and greenish border and so forth. The ‘www’ is kaput.)

In December 2000 after the Supreme Court effectively made ‘Dubya’ president, his right wing supporters began calling Gore supporters “sore losers.” If was very adolescent but hurtful nonetheless to those who saw their assumed right to vote taken away as (paid) Republican hoodlums attacked polling offices in Florida screaming “Shut it (the recount) down.”

A hallmark of Karl Rove’s low-life methods is to denigrate his opponents by accusing them of having a fault which his candidate has. Recall the “Gore is a liar” campaign. We know now that Shrub lies like a rug (as my father used to say). Recall the hired Swiftboat assassins who attacked Kerry’s Vietnam service. We know now that while Kerry was being shot at Shrub walked away from his cushy Texas Air National Guard post with two years left in his ‘commitment.’

The “sore loser” taunt reminded me of something I read during the 2000 campaign about Shrub. It was an anecdote about his hating to lose so much that he would change the rules or keep upping the points needed to win until he either won or the game was called. This is not unusual with some teenagers who have yet to develop enough confidence in themselves to be able to admit defeat without fear or rancor.

It seems that once more Rove labeled the opposition with his patron’s weakness and that Shrub has never gotten beyond that adolescent flaw. It wouldn’t be so bad if he weren’t also commander-in-chief of the armed forces who are currently engaged in the Iraq killing fields. Shrub continues to talk about ‘winning’ and ‘victory’ and ‘not quitting’ as if he were playing a game of one-on-one and losing. Now as in his youth he keeps the ‘game’ going until either time runs out or he scores the winning point. Apparently thousands of needless deaths and their attendant pain and suffering mean nothing to this stunted individual for whom (his) winning is everything.

Think about it because it isn’t so far fetched as it seems at first reading.

I am grateful to Lisa Adams whose article “Is Bush a Sore Loser or Merely Simple?” convinced me I wasn’t alone in my belief about Shrub, Sore Loser-in-Chief.

Part I : Sunni and Shiite Muslims, two sects of one religion.

Sunni Muslims comprise 85% of the world’s Islamic population. Shiites make up most of the remaining 15%. The six million Muslims in the U.S.A. (2% of the population) are found in the same proportion. BUT in Iraq the proportion is much different.

In Iraq the Muslim population is 2/3 Shiite and only 1/3 Sunni. Got that? Two-to-one in favor of the Shiites.

Under Saddam Hussein the mostly secular Sunni Baath Party ran the government and the army while the majority Shiites got shat on.

I realize both the names start with “s” but so do “shit” and “shine-ola” and those who can’t tell them apart are considered stupid (another ‘S’ word like “Shrub”).

Okay, now Shrub and Dick fake, mislead and even lie to us (Americans) about Saddam’s weapons potential. On March 20, 2003 they unleash a hellfire storm of missiles under the operational name of “Shock and Awe.” I kid you not. After launching more firepower than was used in Europe during the entire Second World War the troops go in and in three weeks Baghdad ‘falls’ while Shrub and his fellow boobs believe it will all be wrapped up in a few months. Pretty wrong, yes?

So Saddam is gone, the government and army are disbanded and the Baath Party is outlawed. That means the minority Sunnis are up Shit Creek without a paddle. OTOH the Shiites are dancing in the streets because they are the majority and they are going to make up for all the wrongs done to them by those (insert bad thing here) Sunnis.

So there the Sunnis were - out of power and outnumbered two-to-one by Shiites. What is amazing is that the current blood bath didn’t start until much later. It was called ‘civil war’ by everyone but Shrub & Dick et al and then ’sectarian violence’ but the war’s instigators seemed to be in total denial about all of the demons their unprovoked war had released in Iraq. We are seeing a re-run of the Serb vs Bosnian genocide of not so long ago. Remember Bosnia?

Part II: Sunnis, Saudis and alQaeda

I’ve quoted this before and I’m doing it again. This is one of the LIES President Shrub told in his “Mission Accomplished” speech. “We’ve removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding.” Je repete, il est faux. I’ll back up just a bit.

The notorius Osama bin Laden is (was?) a Saudi national. Saudi as in, Saudi Arabia loaded with oil, rich as a bitch and the site of Mecca, THE holiest place in Islam with an overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims. Osama is an ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim who either left or was thrown out of Saudi Arabia and took up residence in Afghanistan toward the end of the Russian army’s occupation. It is said that his organization which became known as al-Qaeda (the ‘foundation’ or ‘base’, as in military base) was one of those funded by the CIA as proxy fighters against the Russian occupation.

So Osama is a Saudi Sunni Muslim, ultra-conservative to the point of wanting to rid Islamic countries of Western influence, rid the world of Israel and establish an Islamic Caliphate (something like a golden age for Sunnis).

Saddam Hussein was a secular leader “whose government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.” (Wikipedia) For this and other “blasphemys” he was disliked (hated?) by Islamic conservatives. However, his power base was the minority Sunnis who made up the working class of the country.

Saddam relied on the Sunnis to shore up his control of the country but he was an enemy to Sunni conservatives like Ossama bin Laden who despised secularism. The feeling was mutual and al-Qaeda never had a prayer (pun) in Saddam’s Iraq. As for supporting terrorists with cash, Saddam had no use for the likes of Ossama bin Laden. The fact is that our own CIA and our “friend” Saudi Arabia were the ones who funded Ossama’s al-Qaeda.

Part III: Conservatives vs. secularists

The main branches of Islam, like those of Christianity and Judiasm, all contain their conservative and reactionary elements. Thus it is not a simple case of Sunnis vs. Shiites in Iraq. Both sides have their conservatives who happen to be the ones who want to kill the “other” side. Al-Qaeda lines up with the Iraqi minority Sunnis. The majority Shiites have a number of religious leaders who are in control of virtual and actual armies of followers. Moktada al-Sadr being the most prominent and powerful.

What the Shrub Administration is doing is getting the word “al-Qaeda” in every place it can. The propagandists want to reenforce the false premise that all “enemy” Iraqis are really al-Qaeda terrorists. However the organization calling itself “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” is “a homegrown Sunni insurgent group with some foreign operatives” according to Stephen Farrell of the NY Times. It is a fact that the spread of al-Qaeda’s influence in Iraq was directly caused by Shrub’s invasion and subsequent neglect of the country.

You will note that the repitition of “insurgent,” “militant,” “terrorist,” “al-Qaeda” give the impression that we are really fighting terrorism, as Shrub continues to blare at everyone he can. He relies on our ignorance of Sunni-Shiite  and religious-secular tensions. Our troops also fight Shiites who are responsible for killing mostly Sunnis and recently each other. From an Iraqi point of view our military is more or less helping rid the country of Sunnis while the Shiite clerics call for our withdrawal and/or death.