That’s one of the best things about a president who can rely on the media lowering the bar so much that just showing up is considered some major accomplishment. Thanks to the glowing media coverage and their pulse the March of History, the vote in Iraq will be touted as a monumental success, the kind that shows democracy is on the move, and helping the Administration demonstrate that our Iraqi Expedition was really all about voting.

Now, don’t get me wrong: yes, the vote in Iraq was historic considering that we’ve moved away from a totalitarian regime that gets 99% of the vote. But the run-up to the vote was almost a mirror of the election here in America: a lot of posturing about history and a helluva lot of fear-mongering. And taking their cue from Bush (who recently stated in an interview that voters ratified his Iraq policy by electing him), the media will be vomitting streams of hyperbole about the New, New, New Iraq. This along with the chorus of war-mongering apologists who strive hard to accomplish the apotheosis of George W. Bush before his term is up: W. means freedom! I can almost see Rupert Murdoch’s erection from here, what with the boon this bullshit line will mean for Fox News.

It’s at this point that lickspittle, right-wing acolytes of the Bush Cartel will start saying things like, “Liberals were hoping the terrorists would win!” Puh-leeze. The rationale for invading Iraq has changed so many times that it’s impossible to keep up with flip-flopping, although their theme always remains the same: back the Administration all the way, all the time. Bitch about liberals and throw in a line about supporting the troops, and you’re on your way to becoming a highly-paid conservative columnist.

Yet again, I ask, now what? What does this mean? These simple questions are lurking behind the self-congratulatory nonsense (just you wait, you’ll hear the phrase “political capital” come up again) that demand an answer. How long will it take for this new government to form a constitution? And did the vote take place everywhere in Iraq, or only in certain villages and towns?

Despite the lack of media analysis and my constant eye-rolling every time I discerned Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Brian Williams being on-so-serious, I did have one moment of levity about this election: wouldn’t it have been funny if the results indicated that Iraqis elected Bush as their leader?

The Bush Administration has just asked (Republican-controlled) Congress for another $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to which I ask: after the Iraqi elections, can we get a refund for our expenditures?

The brilliance of war-time spending is that the public isn’t going to question the amount, much less ask what all that money is going to and most importantly, where the money is coming from. Since most people continue to see our Iraqi Expedition as our Noble Cause, huge amounts of money are required, and no one wants to look cheap. Even better, the Administration will encourage the false assumption that surely a lot of that money is going to support the troops, so why vote against it? Remember this thinking disorder is what allowed many idiots in middle America to bitch that John Kerry didn’t vote for the troops during another billions-of-dollar request the Bushies asked for. People’s wishful thinking will always trump a logical instinct.

But it’s far too much to ask for the media whores to report on this with any analysis or detail -- or even at all, for that matter. While the White House is ramping up its war on Social Security (imminent crisis, anyone?) why is no one asking about how the billions being poured into Iraq alone is jacking up the deficit to ever new levels. You see, middle America, someone has to pay for this, and it does no one any good to pretend that the best, and most successful federal program ever launched is heading towards disaster while the real threat of debts hangs over the heads of at least two generations. Eighty billion dollars is a lot of money, but to hear the Bush Cartel speak is to catch a lengthy sermon on the true religion of free markets and how everything will pay for itself once Iraq “turns the corner.”

In other words, heaping up more and more debt but not acknowledging it, and yet believing that you’re gonna win the lottery and everything will be taken for, is the American way. So why should our dear leaders be held to a different standard? After all, it will eventually be someone else’s problem.

Now that the orgy we call an inauguration is over, and the car bombs in Iraq continue to claim lives, we can focus our attention on the upcoming 30 January election, which is being heralded by the media whores the Event That Will Change Iraq. Yeah, whatever.

Not that I’m disparaging what will be Iraq’s first free election in, well, ever, but it’s extraordinarily unclear what is actually at stake here. What is the outcome of the election? A national government that will suddenly take charge of everything and provide basic security and services? How long will that actually take to be realized? And how long will the American presence there continue?

No, what I’m disparaging is the fantastical notion that this election will be the real, honest-to-Allah elixir that has so far evaded Iraq. First it was the invasion, then it was the capture of Saddam Hussein, then it was the transfer of sovereignty - the list goes on and on about when the insurgency will end and when Iraq will “turn the corner.” After all these rosy scenarios have failed, are we supposed to believe that this election will finally change things?

To be sure, the media reports will all be solemn and full of gravitas about the historicity of this vote. We’ll see images and interviews with people who have never voted before, or voted for whom they wanted. Said images and interviews will be transmitted to middle America which will pat itself on the shoulder and say, “See, it really was worth it.” Of course, they’ll be oblivious to the carnage but they haven’t been paying attention to it now, so why should they start?

Human interest stories aside, what will be missing is the context: what happens if the vote doesn’t take place everywhere? What happens if the Shia are now the new power brokers in Iraq? Will civil war break out, or will the violence merely continue? And how many more government workers will get assassinated on the way to work? In short, will the election change the landscape enough to enable the United States to start withdrawing?

The short answer is no. But don’t expect the media whores to dig any deeper. They’ve already failed to do their jobs, so why buck the trend?

With all the obliviousness of the French monarchy on the eve of the revolution, the nation’s top power brokers and moneyed elite will lavish the worst president in American history with the Mother of All Inaugurals: a $40 million orgy celebrating war, jaw-dropping debt, disaster and lies.

And as they celebrate and pop their champagne corks, and the media remains in its torpor with its glazed eyes dancing with images of opulence and pseudo-grandeur, let us remind ourselves of the backdrop of this mendacity:





And a special note to all those mindless fucks who voted for Bush: you also voted for this. You were lied about war but said it was alright. Over 1300 dead personnel and — most outrageously — 100,000 civilian deaths and none of you care. So long as you convince yourself with smug superiority that getting Saddam was a good thing, you’ll nestle comfortably in your warm beds, heedless of the misery caused in your name. Because after all, the only good raghead is a dead raghead.

So I ask you, America, on the day when we officially give Bush four more years of lying and war: when is enough, enough?

Actually, it was a little difficult to come up with an appropriate title for this entry. I mean, there are so many, including my favorite runner-up: She’s a Liar, But Let’s Hire!

Condoleezza Rice, all smiles and swooshed hair, sits rather unperturbed during her “confirmation” hearing. Oh sure, there was a couple pointed words, but that description is just really for the media to pretend that there was something of a nail-biting cliffhanger in the making. No such luck: the entire process is just a formality at this point.

So, here we are, looking at her dismal record for the past three years and seeing her get a promotion out of it. It’s fitting, really, because in this corrupt Administration, the worse you fuck up, the bigger the rewards. Take a look at the three grinning idiots who just won Presidential Medals of Honor (George Tenet, L. Paul Bremer and Tommy Franks), who did more to make Iraq unstable and cause chaos than the usual cabal of Wolfowitz, Cheney and Bush. Tenet, especially, makes me sick: this sad fuck presides over one the greatest intelligence failures in modern American history and for his troubles, he gets an award.

But I’m forgetting my place: we should be talking about Condi. I would say that her record as National Security Adivsor is rather undistinguished, but then again, we’d be forgetting the two worst incidents: 9/11 and our Iraqi Expedition. With slithery charm, Ms. Rice spouts the bogus Administration claims about al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction and who could guessed terrorists would use planes as missiles and well, you’ve got the making of a first class charlatan who by duplicity alone, gets a raise and a new job. I don’t doubt her intelligence; I’m just appalled at how easily she gets rewarded for making a mess of things.

But that’s the American way, you know? Fuck up and get promoted.

Actually, this news caught me a little off-guard: the White House has finally disbanded the group looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The final report is due very soon, and it confirms what everyone has been saying: that Iraq possessed no WMDs and didn’t even have a plan to revive such a program. Barely a wave in the mainstream press, except for ABC News, which had the sense to run clips of two speeches by Bush and Cheney back rumbling ominously about mushroom clouds over American cities.

But, as we know, Americans don’t care. Like the raptured dupes of an apocalyptic cult whose prediction of the end of the world has failed to materialize, rationales starting abounding, beginning with Bush himself. You know the retread: the invasion was still justified, Saddam was a bad person, he gassed his own people, blah, blah, blah.

I also don’t believe the final seal of approval for those who were claiming Iraq had no WMDs (like Scott Ritter, for example) isn’t enough for middle America, who proved they didn’t care about truth when they voted for Bush the second time. Of course, they’ll hypocritically preach about “values” and “taking responsibility for one’s actions,” but they won’t remember those lessons when it comes to Bush, because that would ruin this whole cult-of-personality thing the Republicans have been nursing for some time.

So, if there are no WMDs and it’s official, does that mean the war is over? Will the troops be coming back home anytime soon? We know now that they’re not there protecting us or our freedom, so why should we watch the body count inch upward? Oh, I forgot: WMDs were not the real reason we launched our Iraqi Expedition. We’re there to spread democracy and freedom, because that will start rippling out everywhere in the Middle East and solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Oops, looks like the Palestinians managed to have an election despite needing to be taught a lesson by the upcoming Iraqi election. Maybe the real lesson is, we had an election under occupation, and you can, too!

Well, it obviously didn’t take long for someone to start invoking the Indian Ocean tsunami and God in the same sentence. The ironic thing is that it comes from two different parts of the globe, proving once again that hate is a universal trait.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that “radical preachers” in Kuwait openly declared the tsunami disaster as the work of God because of nudity and immorality on some of the tourist beaches there. And just yesterday, reknowned hate-speech, I mean, AM radio commentator Michael Savage declared that maybe God was responsible for it since “their brethren [Muslims] struck Christian America.” (For detailed excerpts of this loser’s theological arguments, click here.)

I don’t know about you, but it’s actually inspiring to see that we can have haters of mankind all over the planet, spouting their drooling filth to all who care to listen, molding weak minds with such potent poison that it overwhelms the senses. We have over 150,000 dead people, thousands still missing, but just to make sure we’re all on the same page, let us thank the Supreme Being for making it all possible, as instructed by small-dicked men who sit comfortably far away, surrounded by acolytes, who know the will of God.

Now that we have a clearer picture of the nature of the divine (by these two mens’ standards, a fiend of cosmic dimensions), we can only wait with baited breath over the next act of horrific destruction to see who one-ups the other, because right now we’re tied: Christian God 1, Muslim God 1.

Funny, as much as people revile atheists, you don’t see them invoking a higher power with glee over the deaths of so many innocent.

While it’s too early for the philosophers to ask why a just god would let over 150,000 people die (in the 26 December 2004 tsunami), it’s never too early for politicians to start positioning themselves with the tragedy as a backdrop.

I’m talking here about Florida governor Jeb Bush, who is supposed to travel to south Asia in order to “survey” the damage. And what, pray tell, will this surveying actually entail? Will it show him what damage the ocean can do? Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t he live in a state surrounded by water and is susceptible to little things like hurricanes?

Or he supposed to give his invaulable advice to relief agencies, who have never had to deal with catastrophe before? Does he possess some secret knowledge that he intends to share with everyone there? And -- more importantly -- who is paying for him to go along with Colin Powell, and stand around the natives, looking grave and concerned? Message: I care (in 2008).

If Bush was heading there on his own, motivated by an altruistic desire to help, you wouldn’t find me bitching. But the man is going along probably at taxpayer expense, along with an official representative of the United States government. What role does Jeb play that warrants him traipsing across the globe, if for no other reason than to use it as a future photo op in a bid for president? (He’s already denied that. And I believe him as much as I believe his family got to where they are by winning a truth-telling contest.)

Come on, media whores. Start the new year out right and openly question the purpose of this trip.