Just a brief update on the previous fisking of Heart’s transphobic rant:

I recieved a trackback to a LiveJournal blog owned by B. C. Holmes where she linked my entry riffing on Heart’s madness…and promptly accused me of “fanning the flames”.  Her exact words, as posted at her blog:

That last link [to Heart's original post] can be an uncomfortable read, especially for transfolk. It’s fair to say that I disagree with it. But what I want to say right now is that, generally, I think there’s a lot of fruitful stuff in the writings of radical feminism, and I’m not supportive of tarring all of radical feminism with the evil brush. (There’s a specific response, here [link to my rant] that, in my opinion, only fans the flames).

Now, I do think that B.C., from a quick glance at her blog, apperars to be a reasonable woman and a decent person who happens to be both a transperson and a feminist who does support some radfem theories. At the very least, she does tend not to be as quick to choose sides as some of the more strident followers; thusly, she does deserve the decency of proper respect for her and other radfems who don’t go as far over the cliff as the caucus of Heart/Witchy-Woo/delphyne/luckynkl/et. al.

Nevertheless, the idea that I am “fanning the flames” by calling out Heart’s BS kinda got to me enough that I posted this response over at her blog a few minutes ago:

anthonyjk_6319 wrote: Jul. 31st, 2007 03:19 am (UTC) Well..you are entitled to your opinion… …and I won’t be disrespectful of it or of you.I really don’t think, though, that my response to Heart’s madness really amounts to “fanning the flames”…at least not nearly as much than the anti-transphobic and extreme commentary over at Heart’s place already does enough of that.

No, all of radical feminism does not deserve all of the evil brush…but the particular brand of pseudo radfem theology that Heart and her followers do promote constantly at her blog certainly does, in my own opinion, cross the line of common decency several times over enough to deserve the highest of criticism and denouncement.

If that be considered “fanning the flames”, then so be it. You can’t please everyone, and sometimes you have to stand by your words. I stand by every single one….take it or leave it.

Anthony Kennerson
Founder/Owner, The SmackDog Chronicles Blog

I am more than willing to hear from D. C. and other transwomen who share her views; and I really have no beef with her or those more moderate transwomen who may the basic philosophy of feminism or even the more radical tenents thereof….after all, I’d hate on MRAs and traditional right-wingers with the same brush that I do the more strident Womynz’ Caucus when they pile their nonsense on innocent people. I will, however, stand by what I say and say what I stand by….and you are totally free to either love it, hate it, ignore it, or whatever suits your fancy.  I only speak for myself, and myself alone.

Hopefully, that clears things up a bit.

vJust when you think that she couldn’t find new depths of lunacy in her crusade to defend “radical feminism” from the scurge of erection-wielding men, transfolk and sexbot women, Heart(less) digs deep into her yoni (or would that be the other end??) and breaks out this nice little rant at her place against the latest in “radfem slogging” (to steal Stormy’s apt phrase) and trashing of her “critique” of transfolk who pollute her sacred womynspace.

Interpretation and added emphasis by me is included just for entertainment purposes only.

A Few Words About the Latest Round of Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda

A few responses to the latest anti-radical feminist tactics, screeds, attacks, propaganda:Radical feminists are no more “transphobes” than we are “manhaters.”  To allege that we are is to indulge in sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist propaganda.   The herstoric position of radical feminism is that those who are born male into this world enjoy male privilege, for all of the years they live as males and as men.  It is never “_phobic” for an oppressed people group - which females certainly are - to castigate its oppressors, even in harsh and mean-spirited terms, with name-calling, swearing, and hyperbole.  It might be mean-spirited, we might be generalizing, we might be stereotyping, we might - and likely are - angry, but we aren’t “manhaters” because we denounce what men do or because we denounce male privilege, which again, all who are born male into the world have or have had.    Male to female transsexuals/transgendered persons have enjoyed male privilege, for all of the time that they have moved and lived in the world as males or continue to.  To call them out for their sexism whenever we see it, find it, hear of it, know of it, are targeted by it,  are impacted and affected by it  is not “transphobic.”  It is feminism.

Ahhhh…eeeeee-yah. Of course, when “radical feminist” women trash transsexuals as simply rapists and “chicks with dicks” trying to get into real womyn’s panties, it surely isn’t bigotry or hatred or even “transphobia”…it’s just decent classic feminist critique of “male privilege”. Now, the fact that most transsexuals don’t have the choice to lop off their dicks and become real womyn (not that even that would suffice in the deranged den of cobwebs that consists of Heart(less)’s brain, since only “biowomen” can be truly oppressed as women by the patriarchy), or that such “privilege” that they are alleged to retain usually comes at the steep risk of getting beaten down by other men of “privilege”, doesn’t seem to register at all with her radfem manifesto.  And besides…some of those evil transfolk happen to be born with vaginas, too; but never mind that….just having a dick makes you powerful enough. So why am I not a freakin’ millionaire, Heart, just by osmosis??

 Female-to-male transsexuals/transgendered persons are situated much differently than male-to-female transsexuals/transgendered persons.  Transmen have not enjoyed male  privilege for any of the years they lived as females and as women, and they never enjoy male privilege as men do.   When radical feminists call out transpersons, we are calling them out on their sexism.  This means that most of the time, we are calling out transwomen or trans-identified men, not transmen. 

Ahhh…hold up a sec……so, FTM “transmen” (I assume that Patrick (nee Pat) Califia would be an exception, because he’s against everything Heart(less) stands for), who now live as men, are exempt from being part of the evol patriarchy because they lived as women prior to their surgery and their change in sexual orientation?? But by that logic, shouldn’t they be the ultimate sellouts to womynhood for abandoning their natural “sex” and taking on that penis??? Why should they get a free ride??  Oh, and if male power is so overwhelming, then shouldn’t MTF “transwomen” actually get some credit for rejecting and repudiating such “male privilege”??  Oh, but nooooooooosiree…..it’s all about their schlongs attempting to distort and destroy the purity of natural womynspace.  Oh, and the fact that they might attempt to seduce real biowomyn in bathrooms out of the sisterhood doesn’t help their cause, either.

Were that the worst of Heart’s rant, I could barely let it slide…..but then she attempts to seperate herself and her transhating minnions from the Religious Right….and only ends up making things that much worse.

To compare radical feminists to the Religious Right is propaganda, it is a smear campaign, it is disingenuous, and it is transparently and hatefully misogynist.   Shame on “progressives” who can’t find more positive ways to articulate their perspectives than to engage in down and dirty cheap shots of this nature.

Oh, but she must be right…..I mean, giving the nod and wink to the likes of Luckynkl and MarySunshine and delphyne comparing transsexual women to evil gay men cruising public restrooms is certainly much different than the lunacies of NARTH or the ex-gays.  Really, it is. And woe to such “progressives” who simply attack the fundamentalists who rip on the perversity of “the gay/tranny lifestyle” without understanding the subtle nuance of radfem theory which is at least more “positive” in its willingness to suck up to….errrrrrr, criticize traditional conservatives for their beliefs against sexual dissidents.

I was personally put out of business by the Religious Right.  I sued eight fundamentalist organizations including several fundamentalist churches in federal court in 1997 and I won by a unanimous jury verdict.   It’s silly to attempt to lump me in with the Religious Right.   Having said that, I would much rather deal with the open and unapologetic misogyny of the Religious Right than with the veiled and unapologetic misogyny of white leftist liberal men.  At least with the Religious Right, all the cards are on the table, and I do not have to, for example, deal with someone who is calling himself a “feminist” who prostitutes women, makes, uses, or benefits from the making of pornography, and engages in other acts of male oppression and privilege while pretending to be my ally .

Translation: “No, I’m not a fundamentalist antisex hatemonger, but when fundies happen to share my fear and loathing of evil ‘white leftist liberal men’ (hey, Heart, I’m not a liberal or White; so am I exempted from your wrath??) who defend porn, prostitiution, and other evil “male oppressive” sex acts, I can work with them anytime.”

There are plenty of transgender/transsexual people who are religious fundamentalists and the Religious Right does not take any unified  or unitary position as to transgender/transsexuality.  To suggest that it does is to participate in, and be guilty of, the willful ignorance around issues of religious fundamentalism and religion in general of which far too many liberals, self-identified feminists, and ”progressives” so-called are guilty, which ruins whatever shreds of credibility remain so far as the Left goes and clouds the credibility of progressive movements in general.  

Ahhhhh….I get it now; Heart’s brand of antipornradicalfeminism is really a page from her conception of the “Religious Left”; a nice means of retaining political credibility while appealing to social conservatives. But I guess that “credibility” amongst the Left can only be found by parroting the Right on social policy and making sexually Puritanical women the new vangard of the progressive movement.  Didn’t the Democratic Leadership Council already try that tact for the last 20 years, and fall flat on its face??

People need to do their homework about the Religious Right if there is to be any productive confrontation or challenge to fundamentalisms (as opposed to tickle-for-a-nickle demonizing and scapegoating).  There are female persons, girls and women, being horrifically oppressed by fundamentalist men.  They deserve and need our educated and intelligent SUPPORT.  Women and girls in fundamentalist religion are not similarly situated with men in fundamentalist religion and should not be lumped in with men in fundamentalist religion.  Women in fundamentalist religion are an oppressed people group .

Yeah….Phyllis Schafly and Kathleen Parker and Mona Charen really are radicalfeminists, however they may deny it. They just don’t know it yet…because they are soooo oppressed.

Mary Daly did not “compare transsexuals with Frankenstein.”  This is a lie.

Well, we’ll just let Daly’s own words be the judge of that. From a comment (which was altered by Heart for “snarkiness”) by nexyjo, quoting directly from GYN/Ecology (pp. 70 - 71):

“Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophillic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.” 

[Emphasis added by me.]

Remember, this is the same Mary Daly who proposed “Misterectomy” as a cure for all of womyn’s ills.

Going back to Heart(less), who’s never, never out of control (often):

Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights.  It has nothing to do with feminism.  As such, as feminists,  just as we oppose men’s rights, in general,  we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.

Because, of course, in a perfect womynhood, men would have no rights that womyn would be bound to respect…in fact, men would probably be reduced in population for the survival of the human race and the good of society in Heart’s grand vision of “progressive radicalfeminist” society. And, of course, transsexualism would not even exist, since technology and womyn’s wisdom will be able to nip any such deviancy in the bud through “natural selection”…or merely trashing “male nanates”.

And finally, Heart concludes with the grand finish:

One more.  Critiques of transgender/transsexuality are no more meant as attacks on individual transgender/transsexual persons than critiques of prostituting women are meant as attacks on prostitutes or critiques of pornography are meant as attacks on women in pornography or critiques of motherhood are meant as attacks on mothers or critiques of marriage as an institution are meant as critiques of married women or critiques of high heels are meant as critiques of those who wear them or critiques of lipstick are critiques of those who wear it or critiques of shaving are critiques of those who shave or critiques of boob jobs are critiques of those who have them, and on and on and on, infinity.   Some ought to get over themselves and learn the difference between critiques, analysis, opinions, politics and them.  I can critique the hell out of your politics and your theories and ideas and go to the mat for you,  love the hell out of you, and be willing to lay down my life for you.   This is what any mother knows.  This is what any lover knows.   If you want to know how to critique and analyze the hell out of something without making it personal, try unconditionally fucking loving somebody, would you?  Then you’ll understand.  Maybe unconditional love is just so goddamn rare right now, nobody knows what it is any more.  And if people don’t learn, then there will not be any revolution, not any time soon.

So, now, all you funk-filled bratwurst lovers, you lipstick faux-lesbians, you stripper prostitute sexbots, you patriarchy/mixed gender fuckers…listen up; Mama Heart has only your best interests at heart (sorry for the pun) when she tells you that you are betraying the sisterhood by getting those implants or dabbing on lip gloss or shaving your legs or putting on those stilettos for your oppressors. How can she show such unconditional love for you if you don’t reciprocate by adopting her ideas to the hilt?? If you’d just stop taking yourself so seriously and just give in to her and her whacked-out beliefs, then she and her Womyn Nation will love you forever and ever….and all will be right with the world. After all, it’s only analysis and science, it’s not personal.

Sure, Heart.  Nothing personal about The Bell Curve or Birth of a Nation, either.

Ann and Nancy Wilson (of the 80’s rock group Heart) oughta sue this woman for libelling their good name. Most decent progressive people should do the same out of general moral principle.

Gee…..how so typical of our imperial President.

Your war isn’t going as good?? Just blast your political opponents as traitors and enablers of “the enemy” (from Time magazine).

The Pentagon has issued a stinging rebuke to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguing that she is boosting enemy propaganda by asking how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq.Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman wrote a biting reply to questions Clinton raised in May, urging the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.A copy of Edelman’s response, dated July 16, was obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.“Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia,” Edelman wrote.He added that “such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks.”Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has privately and publicly pushed Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace two months ago to begin drafting the plans for what she said will be a complicated withdrawal of troops, trucks and equipment. “If we’re not planning for it, it will be difficult to execute it in a safe and efficacious way,” she said then.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called the response “at once outrageous and dangerous.”

“Redeploying out of Iraq with the same combination of arrogance and incompetence with which the Bush administration deployed our young men and women into Iraq is completely unacceptable, and our troops deserve far better,” said Reines, who said military leaders should offer a withdrawal plan rather than “a political plan to attack those who question them.”

As she runs for President, the New York Senator has ratcheted up her criticism of the Bush Administration’s war effort, answering critics of her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq invasion by saying she would end the war if elected President.

Edelman’s letter does offer a passing indication the Pentagon might, in fact, be planning how to withdraw, saying: “We are always evaluating and planning for possible contingencies. As you know, it is long-standing departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department.”

Ahhhh…so that essentially means that Hillary Clinton (who, in case you haven’t heard, has been one of the biggest boosters of the war in Iraq, not to mention expanding the war into Iran, and who has done next to nothing as a Senator to stand by her newly found antiwar views)…is suddenly the moral equivalent of Cindy Sheehan as a dangerous al-Queda agent???

And what does that say for the overwhelming majority of the American people who consistently support a withdrawal from Iraq, Mr. Edelman??  I guess that they are traitors, too??

Hillary’s reaction so far: draft a nasty letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates (Edleman’s boss) challenging him to either openly endorse or repudiate this “attack on my patriotism”.

[excerpt follows; taken from Talking Points Memo Cafe]

I am in receipt of a letter from Eric Edelman, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy who wrote that he was responding on your behalf. Under Secretary Edelman’s response did not address the issues raised in my letter and instead made spurious arguments to avoid addressing contingency planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.As I noted in my original letter, “the seeds of many problems that continue to plague our troops and mission in Iraq were planted in the failure to adequately plan for the conflict and properly equip our men and women in uniform. Congress must be sure that we are prepared to withdraw our forces without any unnecessary danger.”Rather than offer to brief the congressional oversight committees on this critical issue, Under Secretary Edelman - writing on your behalf - instead claims that congressional oversight emboldens our enemies. Under Secretary Edelman has his priorities backward. Open and honest debate and congressional oversight strengthens our nation and supports our military. His suggestion to the contrary is outrageous and dangerous.[...]I renew my request for a briefing, classified if necessary, on current plans for the future withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq or an explanation for the decision not to engage in such planning. I also renew my concern that our troops will be placed in unnecessary danger if the Bush Administration fails to plan for the withdrawal of U.S. Forces. Finally, I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman’s letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense.

OK….so it wasn’t so nasty, but you get the gist of it.

Fortunately for the rest of us, Keith Olbermann, being a journalist and a commentator, isn’t bound by the politician’s rules of comity and legalspeak.  Fortunate, indeed…..because he unleashed the mutha of all smackdowns onto Wannabe King Dubya last night on his Countdown show….as his latest Special Comment. As a lead off. (KO usually concludes his shows with his Special Comments, so you know he must have been pretty pissed off….and you could see the smoke and fire spewing from every word.

Only problem I have, KO….it’s really not just Bush’s war…..Democrats like Hillary who voted down the line to fund this war and made no real attempt to end it should bear as much responsibility, too.

Either way…turn the sound up and feel the fire.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehmw3dJ2YbM]

“Countdown with Keith Olbermann: Special Comment on Defense Dept. Slam on Sen. Hillary Clinton…and Us” (via YouTube; w/ hat tip to the Weasels Yahoo! Group)

Aight (or as my younger, more hip-hop enable nephew would say)…I’ve been swamped this last few weeks by tons of work, and only now have I had the chance to actually exhale and get some rest….so I guess that I have to update this blog of mine before it stagnates.

So, here we go:

Issue #1:  “Vittergate”: Dirty Diapers and Dirtier Sexual Hypocrisy

Ahhhhh, lookee here….my home state’s junior US Senator David Vitter busted with his hands in his Depends undergarments (oooh, diaper fetish!! Gotta love the freakery!) over at Debra Palfrey’s DC ‘ho house, and, allegedly, several other brothels in N’Awlins, too)..  Oh, the hypocrisy!!!  The seaminess!!  The sight of a hard-Right religious conservative (he openly sponsored an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment, and was one of the loudest voices for Bubba Clinton resigning over spilling his seed on Monica Lewinsky’s blue dress) having to fess up to his “sin”…while blaming the media and the Democrats for sticking their noses into his personal sex life. Hey, at least his wife didn’t give him the Lorena treatment as she once threatened.

And to think that Vitter actually got his political start as a replacement for Bob Livingston (the former Repub US House Majority Leader), who was also hoisted on his own pecker for his own sexual indiscrections.  And by basically the same source, too…Larry Flynt must have some love for the Great State of Louisiana, must he?? Or maybe we’re just oversaturated with right-wing sex perverts who want ot jail and kill everyone else for doing the things they do surrpendiciously and privately. I can say this for Mr. Vitter….at least he didn’t attempt to mount a horse.

For the moment, though, he does seem safe; the state Repubs have rallied around him for the most part, with some exceptions.  (There is a campaign afoot to get him to resign and get our present guv Kathleen Blanco to appoint former guv Dave Treen to fill out his term until the next scheduled election of 2010. So far, Kitty Blanks has balked, probably because her own party bigwigs would prefer insurance commish John Kennedy to take over rather than switch to the GOP and take on Mary Landrieu for the other Senate seat.) Obviously, I’d think that the national Dems would love to see Vitter fall, mostly to cover their asses if Holy Joe Lieberman decides to follow his voting record and bolt to the GOP; thus swinging the actual control to the Senate back to the Repubs. 

And of course, most of the liberal blogosphere is in total orgasmic overkill over the hypocrisy angle…as if it was only Repubs who visit brothels and engage in sex fetishes; and if this would in any way move the pure believers into exile and stunned silence.  Nice try, y’all, but knowing the Religious Right as I do, they probably won’t let a scandal like this one block their efforts at political takeover.  They already have Fred Thompson (Tennessee US Senator) waiting in the wings to play the role that Dubya played in the 2000 elections, when it was thought that the RR was toasted after the PTL/Jim Bakker scandals that rocked the evangelical communities back then.

I’ll just let Dr. Susan Block to fill in the blanks on Vitter and right-wing pols cloaking their inner sex freaks:

If Senator Vitter were not such a rabid social conservative, I would say leave the poor sorry schmuck alone with his God, his wife and his hookers. But this particular poor sorry schmuck is mightily trying to impose harsh, inhumane restrictions upon the sexual freedoms and rights to privacy of the rest of us, and he’s been doing it for years. On the back alleys of the French Quarter, Vitter might be a tomcat, but in Congress, he’s a vociferous crusader for “family values.” He was an aggressive Clinton critic during the Lewinsky scandal, calling for the President’s resignation to “preserve the moral fabric of the country.” The New Orleans Times-Picayune quotes Vitter saying that “infidelity, divorce, and deadbeat dads contribute to the breakdown of tradition.” Vitter has also vowed to outlaw abortion in almost all cases, even when the pregnancy results from rape or incest (wonder how he’d feel if he learned he’s knocked up one of his hookers?). Senator Dave is a stern master with the kids too; he’s sponsored legislation to federally finance abstinence-only programs at the expense of real sex education. Of course, “abstinence education” has been proven to be spectacularly ineffective, in part because the kids simply lie about whether they’re having sex, having learned this behavior handily from their elders like Vitter.

The Senator has been particularly colorful in his metaphor for same-sex unions, having called them “the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita,” gaily mocking the agony of his own home state in the wake of the actual hurricanes. Vitter is so vehement in his condemnation of all things homo that he has introduced legislation calling for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage, stating that this is “the most important issue” of our time.

Vitter sounds like an Evangelical, but he’s Catholic. He’s also Southern regional campaign manager for the Giuliani campaign and was rumored to frequent French Quarter prostitutes even before his phone number appeared on Palfrey’s published records). Interestingly, Vitter first ran for Congress to fill the seat of Speaker of the House Bob Livingston, who resigned after his extramarital affairs became public during the Clinton Follies. While Vitter was campaigning, his wife Wendy was asked what she would do if her husband cheated on her. Mrs. Vitter responded: “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”

Ouch. Wonder if castration was one of Wendy’s prerequisites for the “forgiveness” that Vitter said she (and God) gave him when he confessed to his “very serious sin.” Is that a Catholic thing?

Nope, Doc Suzy…probably more of a “differentiat yourself from them librul Democrats” thing than anything else.

Anyways..I’m eager to see what other Repub freakery comes out of the woodworks, since Flynt says he has leads on up to 20 high ranking conservatives.  Should be plenty of fun.

——————————————————————

Issue #2: Iran: The Dimocrats Cave In…Again

Now…not nearly so funny or fun is the prospect of extending war into Iran…..and guess which “opposition” party decided to cast it’s vote for a possible military invasion??

You got it….your great Dimocratic Party caves in one more time (this from Chris Floyd’s “Empire Burlesque” blog)::

As you may know — unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course — yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to. The bipartisan Senate resolution - the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin’ Joe Lieberman - affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper’s front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.

It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as “proof” justifying any and all action to “defend the Homeland.” Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.

To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is “committing acts of war” against the United States should not be taken as an “authorization of military action.” This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to “defend our troops?” Answer: you can’t. And you know it.

This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge “Plan B” that’s been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the “Iraq Study Group” plan when the “surge” (or to call it by its right name, the “punitive escalation”) inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week (”Him not gonna do nothin’ that Daddy’s friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!”), but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a fall-back position - or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the “war leader” and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.

Of course, the United States is already at war with Iran. We are directing covert ops and terrorist attacks inside Iran, with the help of groups that our own government has declared terrorist renegades. We are kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq and holding them hostage. We have a bristling naval armada on Iran’s doorstep, put there for the express purpose of threatening Tehran with military action. The U.S. Congress has overwhelmingly passed measures calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And now the U.S. Senate has unanimously declared that Iran is waging war on America, and has given official notice that this will not be tolerated. It is only a very small step to move from this war in all but name to the full monty of an overt military assault.

And just so you noticed, EVERY SINGLE DIMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (including Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Biden) voted for this proposal.  Hell, even Russ Feingold (who was praised among some quarters for being the “guiding light” in the earlier surrender on funding Bush’s war in Iraq, voted for this amendment.

So…tell me again about the difference between the two parties???

More updates later as I have time……

Ahhh, lookee here…guess who got really fed up with being misinterpreted and distorted??

And look what she has created in response??

And who in the hell is that whom she invited to guest host there?? Gee….who’d thunk it??

YeaPornies of the world, go there and unite!!!!