Lynne Lies About Her Sisters

By Kanrei There is a scene towards the end of the movie Seven where Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are driving Kevin Spacey out into the desert. They are detectives and Spacey is a confessed serial killer leading them to his final two victims’ bodies. It is a long drive and naturally they talk: an informal interrogation of the killer. Brad Pitt asks Spacey at one point if he knows he is insane. He wonders if there is ever a point where Spacey stops and says to himself that it is amazing how insane he really is. I wonder if those in Washington ever stop and say to themselves “Wow, it is amazing how big of a liar I really am!” Jim Webb is running in a nasty Senate race against George Allen and he is also an author of fiction. It appears that Webb wrote a book with a nasty scene in it involving a man, a boy and a sexual organ. It seems he also includes sex scenes in many other of his fictional books. These books have so upset the 2nd Lady that she told Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room that she does not want her grandchildren to turn on the television set. "This morning, Imus was reading from the novels, and it -- it's triple-X rated.” What channel is Imus on? Oh yes, MSNBC. Why would her grandchildren be watching that channel exactly? Must we always hide behind the children for everything? Those in we fight we accused of using children as physical human shields, but how much better are those who use them as metaphorical shields? In response to the GOP’s constant moral outrage at Webb’s works of fiction he has released a statement that points out that ". In 1981, Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, wrote a book called "Sisters", which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes." While appearing on the Situation Room Wolf Blitzer decided to ask her about this accusation: BLITZER: Did you write a book entitled "Sisters"? CHENEY: I did write a book entitled "Sisters". BLITZER: It did have lesbian characters. CHENEY: This -- no, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I'll stand on that. The book is out of print, but can still be found at Amazon.com. The back of the book quite clearly does layout the framework for a story of prostitution, rape, and lesbianism. It says “Waiting for Sophie was a world where women were treated either as decorative figurines or as abject sexual vassals...where wives were led to despise the marriage act and prostitutes pandered to husbands' hungers...where the relationship between women and men became a kind of guerilla warfare in which women were forced to band together for the strength they needed and at times for the love they wanted.” This is becoming complicated so I think I need to break it down for my benefit. Either Jim Webb is lying or Lynne Cheney is. Let’s look at the facts only of the case. The accusation: Jim Webb accuses Lynne of writing a book with “lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes.” The denial: Lynne Cheney says Jim Webb is a liar and pervert who writes nasty books and she does not and never has written anything of the sort. The evidence: The back cover of the book “Sisters” describes women treated as “decorative figurines or as abject sexual vassals”, “prostitutes pandered to husbands' hungers”, and women banned together for the “for the love they wanted.” The verdict: Lynne Cheney lied to Blitzer and the description of her book as having “a lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes" is accurate. I have to wonder if she knows she is lying though. She may just be pathological and unaware. Perhaps one can only live in denial of reality for so long before one forgets what reality really is. I do not know and should not care. Why exactly does anyone what to know what Lynne Cheney thinks about Webb or any other subject to be perfectly honest? Who elected her to anything ever? Who elected any Washington wife to any position of authority? Why should their opinion matter more than mine or anyone else’s? This is not sexist either because I feel the same way about the husbands, but “Washington Spouses” sounds so weird. Tipper Gore, Nancy Reagan, Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney: no one elected you to anything ever. Being married to a powerful person does not make you powerful! I do not understand why the media gives you an outlet for influence, but it must stop. BLITZER: This is an opportunity for you to explain on these sensitive issues. CHENEY: Wolf, I have nothing to explain. Jim Webb has a lot to explain. You are part right Lynne, you have nothing to explain and should have no format to explain it. You are not running for ANYTHING let alone running against Jim Webb. Your influence does not extend past your vote.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Spinning on the Axis

By Kanrei Condi Rice has issues with reality. It may seem like I am picking on Condi Rice because I am picking on Condi Rice. It is not my fault, but she keeps saying really stupid and easily shown deceptions. She does try really hard to adjust current reality to meet with her preconceived notions of what is real, but the two are so far apart that the gap is Grand Canyon in its girth. Condi Rice was on Sean Hannity according to the AP today and was asked about Bush’s “Axis of Evil” comment in view of current world events. Her response was that it was “a pretty good analysis.” I think Bush and Rice need to learn a few terms and how to use them. “Axis” is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary as “An alliance of powers, such as nations, to promote mutual interests and policies.” To say Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were part of an Axis of Evil is to say that the three countries were working together towards a common goal. Did they have a common goal? Yes, nuclear weapons. Does this mean they were working together? No. As we have seen taking out one (Iraq) has only spurred the other two “Axis powers” on. There is no joint venture between these countries and there never was. How can anyone who has paid even a little attention over the last two decades even begin to think Iran and Iraq had any type of relationship besides hostile? How can they think for even a split second that Jong-Ill has any interest at all in the Middle East while South Korea and China and Russia are around him and not very fond of the guy? "The president three years ago realized that in order to manage the North Korean nuclear problem, a problem that's been going for decades, we have to have a regional coalition." A problem that has been ongoing for decades, yet he decided to take troops from Afghanistan to chase fictional boogieman weapons of destruction. He decided to destroy the good will needed to form a regional coalition with a cowboy attitude of “bring it on” and “dead or alive”. The worst part of it all is that the more he messes up the more the faithful cheerleader/mother Condi Rice justifies and cheers on. She is like the Jewish-mother from Hell or something. Nothing Bush ever does is wrong and she can explain exactly why it was not his fault if it did go badly. Rice is not some part time political junkie or passing fly-by-night news person- this is her job! I understand she did think a daily briefing written in future tense was a historical document so her perception skills are not very good, but come on. It was not a “pretty good analysis” it was an excuse to invade Iraq and nothing more. We are not even fighting “terrorists” in Iraq, we are fighting Iraqis. That would make us the invaders. Isn’t that what one usually calls a foreign army fighting against natives? Iran and North Korea were threats and are threats. Afghanistan was a threat and is rapidly becoming one again. We need troops to defend us from these growing problems and we are tied up in Iraq because of some oedipal vendetta and Neocon wet dream. They need to just admit they messed up, but I realize there is an election coming up so that will never happen. Tragic thing is that there is always an election coming up. After this one they will not want to jeopardize the 2008 presidential race so the spin will continue on. Axis…and they wonder is our children learning?

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Don Jon Il's Request

By Kanrei There are many reasons to not want North Korea to join the nuclear family. One reason could be their preoccupation with fighting the South Koreans. A reason could be the fact that the country is run by a delusional egomaniacal midget with a Napoleon complex. The reason I choose to not like the news of their recent successful test is that they are not mature enough to play with the big boys yet. The AP is reporting today that North Korea is basically demanding congratulations from the U.N. Security Council. I did write “demand” and I did mean “demand”. The mere fact that they do not understand the universal condemnation is enough proof they lack maturity to handle nuclear power, but to demand respect for it is beyond the fold. Pak Gil Yon who serves as North Korea’s ambassador to the U.N. told reporters Monday that the Security Council should congratulate them instead of passing resolutions. "It will be better for the Security Council of the United Nations to congratulate the DPRK scientists and researchers instead of doing such notorious, useless and rigorous resolutions or whatever." This is a veiled threat if ever I read one. By saying “it would be better” to give us what we want instead of trying to hurt us, they are implying consequences. Are they really this out of touch with reality? Do they really believe one successful nuclear test will bring the world to their knees? They cannot honestly expect the countries they threaten on a daily basis to congratulate them on gaining the ability to destroy them. Maybe in Kim’s twisted little mind this entire thing is not about nukes at all. Maybe he has watched so many gangster movies that he simply views the Security Council as the “Five Families” of Godfather fame and he simply wants a seat at the table. He thinks testing a nuke is how he makes his bones. He thinks America is too involved in other matters to bother with him and the other “families” will respect his move. He is making the Security Council an offer it can’t refuse. Something tells me from studying history that North Korea will not enjoy how Communists deal with small dictators. It usually ends horribly for the leader and his country if memory serves me right. Yon still continues in his "Baghdad Bob" worthy rhetoric: "The nuclear test in the DPRK will greatly contribute in increasing the world deterrence of the DPRK…to the maintenance and guarantee of peace and security in the peninsula and the region." For some odd reason, and I am not sure why, but I believe Iran’s claims of wanting nuclear power for energy more than I believe North Korea claiming to want a massive weapon for peaceful reasons and I do not believe Iran even a little. It probably has something to do with the fact that technically we are still at war with North Korea. I am not sure how many people realize that the Korean War ended in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty. The war has always been stalled because of the nuclear issue: that issue being that we had them and they did not. Now they have them as well so I cannot help but wonder about the cease fire’s standing. With South Korea getting the next head of the U.N. spot, is giving North Korea a veto in the Security Council something that should be thought about or is that out of line? Whether we like it or not, they are now a nuclear power. They have asked for recognition as such and are insane enough to throw a fit if they do not get it. Do we cave in for world peace? I honestly have no answers here, just questions. I am counting on you for the answers.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

Dennis Hastert: Self-Foot Shooting Extraordinaire

By Kanrei Speaker of the House Dennis "Jabba" Hastert gave an interview to Rush Limbaugh on his radio program yesterday. The transcript of the interview is readily available at his site, but I would never send anyone to that hell hole. I took the hit so you don’t have to and here is what I found. First things first- I believe Dennis the Menace Hastert is lying. Yes, I said it. He has told two versions of the famous "what did you know and when". I love the bad liars who forget what they said in one interview as they go through another. It is great because their previous answers are there for everyone to see. Well, everyone but Hastert who probably could have used the notes. The problem with Hastert's tale is that his is not a new problem with Mark Foley. He has been steadily harassing male pages pretty much since 1995. There have been complaints in the past about his behavior and everyone, including Hastert was aware of his problem with the dirty talking. There are currently two different stories being blurred into one and Hastert is using the distraction rather well. He is not lying when he says he had not seen the emails before Friday. He did not “see” them, but he knew about them and that is the where the lie is. In the Limbaugh interview Hastert admits to knowing about a previous problem with Foley. “There were two pieces of paper out there, one that we knew about and we acted on; one that happened in 2003 we didn't know about.” What is the one they knew about then exactly and how did they act on it? The action is where Hastert can be saved or destroyed. If he had an internal investigation on it and found nothing I cannot blame Hastert. They impeached a President for having a similar situation arise with an intern. The Republicans have set themselves up as the moral party, so Hastert must have unloaded on Foley when they acted on it, right? Well, Mean Mr. Hastert did confront Foley on his knack for the young. He did ask Foley directly (while not under oath) if there was anything sexual in the emails and Foley said no. “He said he wouldn't do it anymore. He was sorry. He was just trying to talk to the kid -- he liked the kid, nice kid -- and he wouldn't do it anymore. We told him not to do it anymore there or to anybody. Period.” Did I read that right? I must not have because Hastert said they acted on it. I do not think asking him if he did then saying “don’t do it again” really is acting on it. I really must have read that wrong. I would not ask if an email was sexual unless I thought the person would do it. If I thought the person would do it I would not trust them to readily admit to it. “We did know what the text of that message was because the parents held it and they didn't want it revealed, but we stopped it. We went to Foley; told him to stand down, "Don't do this." We asked if there was any sex or explicit language in this message. There was not, and we thought we had the thing resolved.” Obviously some new definiton of "resolved" I have never seen before. Hastert claims to have not known about the “vile and repulsive” emails before the story broke on Friday, so then what emails was he talking about to Rush exactly and how many kids has Foley “contacted?” He claims that Foley “duped” a lot of people, but he really did not investigate or act on it very hard, did he? He would have known the content if he asked a little harder. “Did you do it?” “Yes” “Was it sexual?” “No” “OK, don’t do it again.” A slap on the wrist would have been harder action. Hastert must go. I was not sure where I stood on this until the Rush interview. The man is tailor fitting his “truth” to fit the audience. He covered this story to protect the seat in November. The joke is on him because the story is out, the damage is done, and Foley remains on the ballot. Just like Clinton and just like Nixon before him, it is not the act that is their undoing, but the cover-up. Hastert would be clean had he done a real investigation to the parent’s complaints. Now he is going to go down with Foley and who knows how many others. Que Sera Sara

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!