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!

Torn Between Two Liars and Feeling Like a Tool

By Kanrei There are all kinds of games that are played in all kinds of ways. Most games are fun and enjoyable for at least some people and some games even make the world a better place. There are other games that are more about making sure another person loses regardless of what it takes to win. This is the type of game politics is and we must play whether we want to or not. It is not that we are active players in the game of politics. No, we are the pieces of the game that are used by those who actually play it and the way for them to keep score. We are the beads moved around the board, the chips gambled on a hand, and the battleship that just got sunk. The more of us they collect and the more they win. We are valued to them as points and nothing more. The gaming season has just begun and the players are all out in force. We had Bill Clinton on Sunday yelling at Chris Wallace. We had ABC show a partisan movie blaming Clinton for 9/11. We now have Rice saying they have done at least as much as Clinton did to stop terrorism. "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years" My first reaction to this statement by Rice was “I thought Clinton did nothing so are you now saying Bush did nothing” until I thought about the statement more. It was a brilliant statement designed to bring that reaction out of people. Condi Rice is better at “doublespeak” than I first thought. The value of words are very important and no word is just thrown into a sentence. This is even more true of political speak than it is of daily speak. Politicians know that every word will be analyzed and dissected by the opposition so they pick their words very carefully. Think about what exactly Rice said and you will see she is not saying Clinton did anything, nor is she admitting Bush did nothing. The most important words in what she said are “at least”. She never said that Bush was as aggressive as Clinton. She never claimed Clinton did anything to be honest. She said Bush was “at least” as aggressive. Think about it like this: if you do nothing at all and I do something, anything, I have been at least as active as you, if not more. We must be on guard for these little verbal tricks that are being played on us right now. Chris Wallace asked a simple question surrounded by accusatory rhetoric and wonders why Clinton got mad. Rice has, in kind, just planted the latest seed for the left to be distracted on and I can see from the blogs today that it is working. They are thinking Condi just claimed Clinton did something and she did nothing of the sort. Clinton claims that the 9/11 Report clears him and Bush claims the same thing, yet 9/11 happened. We have a duty as Americans to read this report and I doubt we will fulfill this duty. The right and the left are both hiding behind it and claiming that it proves their side right and the other anti-American. They know most people have not read it and will rely on their summaries. What I propose is that every American planning to vote in November must take the next 40-something days to read this important report and learn for themselves. The security of this country is too important to be left up to partisan squabbles. Time for us to stop being game pieces and points in the game and to become the players we were intended to be. They work for us, not the other way around. They are liars and power hungry and will lie, cheat, and steal for the power they crave and “they” have no political party. “They” exist on both sides and get the most press. Learn the game instead of trusting “they” to tell you how it is played and who is winning. Remember that we are the only ones who can truly lose.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!

The Fox and a Slick Willie (Not a Porn Story)

By Kanrei There is a huge deal being made about Clinton’s behavior on Fox last Sunday by the partisans and they are discussing it in a vacuum. They are talking about things Clinton says in a context free clip montage. The interviewer’s question is not even given in its entirety. No, this clip fest being shown on news shows around the world is custom designed to show Clinton as a raving madman. Even Chris Wallace is playing the part of the innocent interviewer being ambushed by an insane guest. He told the AP today in an interview that "All I did was ask him a question, and I think it was a legitimate news question. I was surprised that he would conjure up that this was a hit job."  He is surprised a “legitimate news question” would bring up an angry response. A quick examination of the question in question should reveal exactly what the fuss is all about. “Why didn't you do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?” I will say that the above would be a fair question if asked like that and the question did start off as Chris Wallace asserts, but it was not the innocent question he alludes to.  His question started off with a reference to The Looming Tower which is a book placing much of the blame for 9/11 at Clinton's feet.  It is also the book that ABC based parts of its Path to 9/11 miniseries that Clinton so protested.  His question then wandered and meandered from bin Laden and Al Qaeda to Somalia in 1993 to the Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa. Now the question is no longer about Clinton not doing enough to get Bin Laden. No, now the question is “why did you do nothing to get Bin Laden?” He is asking Clinton about the book “The Looming Tower” and its claims that Clinton is responsible for 9/11, and not the innocent question he claims to have asked about why Clinton did not do more. It was a brilliant ploy by Wallace and Clinton took the bait. I mean think about how Clinton first began his response and you see who he is talking to and what he is talking about quite clearly. He says “I'm being asked this on the FOX network. ABC just had a right- wing conservative run in their little 'Pathway to 9/11,' falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.” The three things (Somalia withdraw, the Africa Embassy bombings, and the Cole) were just put in the question asked of him as well. It is Fox backing up assertions made by ABC. Clinton is defending himself against two right wing networks in the interview. This is not something he is good at. I have always said that Clinton was not impeached for the affair or even lying about it; he was impeached for being a bad lawyer. Everyone knows you do not answer those questions when asked in court, or you plead the fifth, but you never lie. Clinton picked the third option which showed how well he handles pressure. He folds, panics, and reacts. That is what got him impeached and that is what got him in the Chris Wallace interview. Chris Wallace knew exactly what he was doing bringing up “The Looming Tower” so early in the interview and knew the reaction he would get. Most of all, he knew Fox was going to control the footage and would be releasing the clips. They had all the control over how this would look. It was a Sunday morning interview after all. 90% of the public will only see the montage of Clinton yelling without ever hearing Chris Wallace’s question. Who watches the Sunday morning talking head shows anyway? With Chris Wallace proclaiming it was such an innocent question however, I wonder where is the news reporting the full question and not just the “Did you do enough to connect the dots and go after Al Qaida” part. Liberal media, where are you? I am not exonerating Clinton at all. He should have known what he was getting into. If he really believes what he said about Fox, then he should have been on his guard and not surprised by the switch. It takes two to tango and Clinton is a willing partner once again in a mess. In context his anger is justified and it appears his opinion of Fox News is justified as well. Too bad the story will never be told fully. Besides, montages are more fun to watch.

Continued Inside. Click to Read more!