Thursday, November 17, 2005

Eyes On Cheney Eyes As Fitz Eyes Cheney

Read this recent update.

Imagine what Cheney is thinking.

What do you see in his eyes?

Those are not your grandmother's carbuncles.

"... the timing [of events outlined] suggests an attempt to obscure
Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability. The vice president is shown
by the indictment to be aware of and interested in Plame and her CIA status
long before her cover was blown."

Have some empathy. Your eyes would be in bad shape too, if you were implicated in this leak investigation.

Fitzgerald is not a good adversary for Cheney. Neither is Jack Mutha, for that matter. The character contrasts are too stark.

Incidentally, did you notice Cheney's eyes becoming carbuncular* only after his foul mouth tirade in front of some Senators a couple of years ago? Maybe political infection?

Fitzgerald's press conference now looks like it was Cheney's sixth deferment.

The first five deferments saved Cheney from going to Vietnam.

The sixth 'deferment' has saved him from being indicted - - for the time being.

As the article continues:

"Even some White House aides privately wonder whether
Libby was seeking to protect Cheney from political embarrassment.
One of them noted with resignation,
"Obviously, the indictment speaks for itself."

Deferment or not, it's still possible Cheney will be indicted

Tom DeFrank of the Daily New, now says Cheney's relationship with the President has cooled.

Without Bush's solid support and public opinion, Cheney's power continues to erode and his political exposure expands. Without power, what does he have? Character?

Ask not for whom the chickenhawk cackles.

Do ask those on the receiving end of these allegations -not just Plame's contacts, but Plame herself and her associates, along with related parties.

Recall those eyes. Now, notice the projection of Cheney's conscious or subconscious feelings.

Thanks to his government rolodex, Cheney was once made the CEO of Halliburton. Cheney's record as a CEO was judged weak due to poor asbestos-related acquisitions. He managed to make money for himself though.

Bush may have saved "big time" big time when he made him VP. If not for Iraq and Afghanistan, Halliburton may have faced big unprofitable trouble from "big time's" days.

Now Cheney has to worry about being implicated by Rove, Libby, or others. It looks like a number of folks may have committed crimes, in response to Joe Wilson's politics. Did the Bush admin. criminalize politics?

Cheney is in trouble, not just because of what he told Libby, as noted in the investigation, but because of the resulting damage likely done to Plame, her colleagues, and her covert contacts.

Even if Cheney escapes indictment, like he escaped Vietnam, the consequence of Plamegate and the Iraq War will weigh on his conscious.Can you see it in his eyes yet?

If eyes are the windows into the soul, then Cheney watchers should consider this:

... And thus o'er-sized with coagulate gore,
With eyes like carbuncles, the hellish Pyrrhus (Cheney?)
Old grandsire Priam seeks.

...Striking too short at Greeks ("Plot Against Wilson"?) ;
his antique sword (I. Lewis Libby?) , Rebellious to his arm, lies where it falls ("Grand Jury"?),
Repugnant to command: unequal match'd, Pyrrhus at Priam drives;
in rage strikes wide (Compromise Plame's status and contacts?);

...So, as a painted tyrant, Pyrrhus stood, And like a neutral to his will and matter, Did nothing.
But, as we often see, against some storm, A silence in the heavens, the rack stand still,
he bold winds speechless and the orb below As hush as death, anon the dreadful thunder
Doth rend the region, so, after Pyrrhus' pause, (Cheney now trying to smear war criitcs?)
Aroused vengeance sets him new a-work (post Libby's plea or trial? further Indictments?)

Selective parallels? Secret parts of mis - fortune - from Hamlet's discussion with an actor?

Update: Cheneymammon gets sloppy.

*Note - Another possibility - The redness and inflammation are just illusions due to poor photo editing and/or Cheney's reaction to flashbulbs, not boils.

We are not eye specialists, nor are we professional photographers, so we'll refrain from making a definitive judgement as to why they are the way they are.

Ralph Kramden Haunting Republicans?

Have the Republicans come down with a case of The Kramdens?

If so, what can Democrats do about that?

A few days ago we wrote about the GOP's odd new defense of Bush's reasons for the Iraq war.

A few questions and notes:

1.) Why would Republicans try to boost Bush's credibility, by associating Bush's
Iraq related arguments with the previous statements and arguments of Bill Clinton? Republicans think Clinton was dishonest.

2.) Why try to divert accountability? Just because Republicans hated Truman does not mean Republicans need to think Truman was wrong when he said, "the buck stops here."

3.) Since it's well know what Republicans think of Clinton, when they cite Clinton's word to defend Bush's policy, they are saying, in effect, their older criticism of Clinton, were disingenuous.

4.) Or else, Republicans are implicitly admitting that "Bush's word" now, is as bad as "Clinton's word" was then.

5.) What part of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, signed by Clinton in the wake of his Lewinsky woes, mandated an American invasion of Iraq by Bush? What part mandated hundred of billions of dollars spent for who knows what?

6.) Republicans are now saying, by implication, that Clinton's statements about Iraq, made while Clinton was in office and under immense political pressure, are to be trusted. From that, it follows Republicans would think Clinton is even more trustworthy now, since he out of office and under far less pressure.

7.) "Ugh oh," is what the Republicans will have to say after reading Clinton now says invading Iraq was a "big mistake." GOP citing Clinton in defense, are now exposed to Clinton's offense. Clinton's GOP credibility boost is fungible.

8.) "Hum an ah, hum an ah, hum an ah," was what Ralph Kramden of the Honeymooner's used to mutter when he was caught saying something foolish or wrong.

9.) "Hum an ah, hum an ah, hum an ah," is how the Bush defenders, who have been citing Clinton, will reply to the link in number seven if they are honest.

10.) "Hey hey Ralphy boy," is what Democrats should say, as if channeling "Norton" (Art Carney), the next time they hear Republicans defend Bush, by citing Clinton.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Chalabi Baba And The Charlie Rose

Iraq has issues with Jordan, I don't have issues with Jordan.
~Ahmed Chalabi

Charlie didn't stand a chance.

After being critiqued for his underwhelming interview with the Mr. Sulzberger about the Judy Miller controversy, Charlie risked losing a bit more interviewing skilled Ahmed Chalabi last night.

His interview failed to ellicit much. It shows the limitations of the media elite. Maybe Charlie, like Bob Woodward, is too woven in with the powers that be. Maybe he cannot take risks like when young.

Charlie Rose deserves credit for trying. Chalabi gets credit for winning.

Chalabi is not just a sly Machiavel. He is obviously a genius. That is not a compliment. It is a description.

Is Chalabi a lying machine? Maybe that is the wrong question.

Who are the believing machines? Why do they believe? Do they believe or just pretend? These are the correct questions.

Chalabi's loyalty is to his cause, whether it be Iraq or Chalabi or a bit of both. His loyalty is not to the U.S. Constitution. Chalabi never swore an oath, unlike our elected officials. Chalabi's principle loyalty is not with America.

Why would anyone expect otherwise? He is not an American. He is and Iraqi Shiite.

Critics of Bush waste time being outraged at Chalabi's for his alleged deceptions. Deception is the fundamental principle of all war. If there is a war, then there is deception.

One things that really puzzles is when you hear fans of Bush say "we are at war," and then say, "there is not deception." If that were true, it would a first in history.

The real question: Are the deceptions aimed at the foreign enemy or at a domestic audience. What are the deceptions and why? Who believes them? Why?

If someone says there is no deception, they are either stupid or they are lying. If there is no deception, then there is no war. Since we know there is a war we know there is deception.

It is those who chose to believe Chalabi that matter. They are our elected officials. Do not be distracted.

Sometimes beating around the Bush sometimes beats talking about Bush.

Some questions:

If you were Chalabi, would you have lied? If you were Bush, would you believe him? If you were Cheney, would you believe? If you were a parent of fallen soldier, who would you blame? Why? If you were the beneficiary of the war, who would you give credit to? If Chalabi was lying and Bush and Cheney really believed him, then what?

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Habeas Bushbot