Rumsfeld Invaders

A tough question for the candidates

2008-02-11T22:09:00.000-08:00

First of all, to any "moderates" who might be reading this: There is a substantive difference between McCain and Hillary. McCain might have been a straight talker in 2000, but now he is beholden to the far-right, including neo-con pro-war Repubs that lurk behind Bush's worst policies. Hillary, even if she chooses Wesley Clark as her running mate, will be need to keep Nancy Pelosi and others more liberal than her happy. Think about it.

Second, I believe Obama is more electable than Hillary, due to her divisiveness. After 8 years of Bush, what a waste to make the election a referendum on Hillary rather than a referendum on Bush. Obama would pick up the states Hillary won (CA, NY), but Hillary would not pick up Kansas, Idaho, etc. Think about it, superdelegates.

Finally, I think that the candidates need to be asked a serious question, since all 3 of them are in the Senate and may get to vote on this horrendous military budget that swallows up all chance of making any real social or environmental progress on this ice-cap-melting planet. The answer to this question may determine who I end up voting for (and I'm not above a write-in), so c'mon candidates, answer this one right, and you may get the prized Rumsfeld Invaders constituency:

“Senator, in all your previous debates, you have not criticized the bloated military budget so often documented by the media, Pentagon audits and GAO reports for Congress to be replete with waste fraud and abuse. The Soviet Union is gone. Yet military spending now consumes half of the federal government’s operating expenditures. 1/2 a trillion dollars a year?! While New Orleans still lies in ruins?!

“Specifically, what would you do to significantly reduce the tens of billions of wasted dollars and eliminate redundant weapons systems? Would you support cutting the military budget in half, starting next year?

“And, further, would you abolish the missile defense project, deemed by the American Physical Society and other leading physicists to be technically unworkable (and the original inspiration for Rumsfeld Invaders)? It costs about $10 billion a year with a total expenditure of over $150 billion since its inception under Ronald Reagan, without any indication that it can fulfill the function for which it was designed?
What about the Iraq War? Remember, the sooner you de-fund it, the sooner our troops come home, and the sooner we can work on Real National Security, and Real Homeland Security (renewable energy, green collar jobs, healthier diets and lifestyles, etc.)
Please be specific.”

Homeland Security Means Being Vegetarian

2008-01-30T18:48:00.000-08:00

From a terrific article in the New York Times:

Excerpts from "Rethinking the Meat Guzzler":

In the last five months alone, the Brazilian government says, 1,250 square miles were lost to burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land.

Per capita meat consumption has more than doubled since 1961.

The U.S. kills nearly 10 billion animals a year for food, more than 15 percent of the world’s total.

An estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

The majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. Meat contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Meat contributes to health problems in the U.S. - heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes.

“When you look at environmental problems in the U.S.,” says Professor Eshel, “nearly all of them have their source in food production and in particular meat production. And factory farming is ‘optimal’ only as long as degrading waterways is free. If dumping this stuff becomes costly — even if it simply carries a non-zero price tag — the entire structure of food production will change dramatically.”

If price spikes don’t change eating habits, perhaps the combination of deforestation, pollution, climate change, starvation, heart disease and animal cruelty will gradually encourage the simple daily act of eating more plants and fewer animals.

My comments: This all goes back to my proposal to change the focus of Homeland Security to reducing meat consumption. At the airport, a nurse would ask you about your eating habits. C'mon, let's follow the numbers and spend the money where we can save the greatest number of American lives. It's patriotic. God bless America, and on July 4th, or President's Day, let's eat veggie burgers.

Edwards drops out, Nader drops in?

2008-01-30T18:35:00.000-08:00

Well, I liked Edwards a lot. I'm sorry to see him go, just like I was sorry to see Kerry concede in 2004 when there were voting irregularities to be investigated and possible recounts to be recounted.

But, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.
I got to admire Nader's timing.

I wonder if he was waiting, because Edwards had a great platform, and if Edwards made it further, Nader might have sat this one out.

I know a lot of people who supported Edwards, including people who had been Greens for decades, who switched, "just this once," to vote for Edwards on Super Tuesday. Now those people look sorta foolish.

Those votes may go to Nader now, or maybe to Cynthia McKinney, who actually registered Green, has congresssional experience, and could bring some fresh faces into the Green Party.

I just read that Cindy Sheehan just resigned from the national board of the Progressive Democrats of America. Cindy and Cynthia...hmm...(but they can't both be from California).

Well, this may be a new phase in the '08 campaign.
OK, Kucinich supporters, the panty lines are drawn, which side are you on?

Hey Bush, waive this!

2007-12-20T09:14:00.000-08:00

The U.S. EPA's denial of California's waiver request regarding regulating greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles represents a larger effort by the Bush Administration to marginalize West Coast liberals. This makes Governor Schwarzenegger the Achilles' heel for Bush. Bush signed the new Energy Bill that increases CAFE standards, and is using that as cover for a supposedly federalist philisophy on tackling climate change. What about States' rights (a Gingrichian mantra), let alone all the cities and counties that are taking action on climate? Bush (or I should say Cheney) would try to stop those too if he could, since they impede oil company and automaker profits.

Well, let's hope Bush's war against West Coast liberals is as (un)successful as his other wars have been.

Note: A Cheney-like graphic originally accompanied this thoughtful and measured posting. It was removed voluntarily. Click here for more information on the Million Finger March.

On the short-lived candidacy of Colbert

2007-11-02T09:52:00.000-07:00

Colbert's candidacy was confusing. Was he running as himself, or as his character? I thought if he won the nomination he should choose Borat as his running mate, or Borat's creator, Sascha Baron Cohen. Then you would have two fictitious characters who are parodies of right wing sentiment, asking their liberal fans to vote for them instead of voting for "serious" candidates.

Colbert's candidacy also asks, what is a serious candidate? As someone who has voted for Nader in the past (and maybe will do so again in the future), I do face that question, and people, especially Democrats always want to convince me that Nader is not a viable option. People say the same of Kucinich or Ron Paul. Any "protest" vote is supposedly "wasted." Well, Colbert was more of a fictitious candidate than a protest candidate, but those lines are blurred in media-infested American politics.

Is all of American politics a joke? The campaigns are ridiculous. And Republican sexual antics in airports are so funny that I forgot to laugh. But the consequences of bad politics are not funny at all. See the Iraq War for details. So, really, we need to take the actual results seriously. And a protest vote is a strategy. It's unclear if it is a successful strategy. Maybe in the long-run. Maybe Al Gore's renaissance as Nobel Prize winner shows that if you have guts and say what you think, you will be more popular, than if you cower and try not to offend anyone.

Back to Colbert, he helped educate his viewers about getting yourself on the ballot. I think his candidacy was a positive experiment in taking his show outside the studio. Colbert's other famous time doing that, when he gave a speech in front of Dubya, was a huge success. Good job, Colbert, for being brave, putting yourself out there, and raising questions. I know several people who will be writing in Jon Stewart's name on the ballot again. Take heed, "serious" candidates.

Homeland Security means Clean Water in the Developing World

2007-10-14T22:30:00.000-07:00

I heard a representative of UNICEF the other day at a World Water Forum event. She said that 4,000 children die every day from lack of clean water and sanitation. That is more people than died in the World Trade Center on 9/11. Does Rudy Giuliani know about this? Will his gritted teeth address this problem?

In another post on this blog I proposed that Homeland Security focus on heart disease, the #1 killer of Americans. Now, I propose that they also address the global clean water and sanitation problem, the #1 killer of children on the planet.

If thousands of children are dying everyday, my Homeland (the Earth) is not Secure.

OK, presidential candidates, let's hear you propose to change the focus of Homeland Security to the UN Millennium Development Goals.

Gore gets Nobel, Bush doesn't

2007-10-14T22:17:00.000-07:00

I'm happy for Al Gore. I'm glad that the Nobel Committee chose to focus the world's attention on climate change.

But, there is a nagging voice that asks, would Gore have won the peace prize if Bush wasn't so horrible? Did the Nobel Committee consider that giving Gore the peace prize might imply that Bush should get the Nobel War Prize?

I would bet that Tony Blair has given more speeches on climate change, and enacted more action on a national and global scale, than Gore. Gore is known by environmentalists as the pragmatic non-visionary in his political career who watered down the Kyoto Protocol to its present ineffective state and then failed to even bring it to the Senate for debate. Gore promoted the research focus of U.S. policy, but I can't think of a national program that Gore enacted on climate that had anything to do with actually reducing GHGs. Tony Blair showed over a decade of global leadership on climate, moving the whole G-8 on the issue, and has put forth pragmatic solutions to global warming setting the EU on their trajectory of global leader. Oh, but Blair has a European constituency, and in Gore's defense, Gore is saddled with the mid-Western and Southern U.S. And Blair sided with Bush on the Iraq War, so the Nobel Committee chose Gore.

OK, Gore, now give us some vision. Feel free to endorse my preferred solution, www.carbonshare.org.

Ah well, the fake choice of Gore versus Blair are mere idle thoughts, while GHGs pour out of the world's exhaust pipes, and the Iraq War rages on.

Rumsfeld goes to Stanford - Academia sinks to new lows

2007-09-23T13:37:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld got a fellowship at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

What could students or society possibly learn from Rumsfeld?
He is an example of what NOT to emulate.
His worldview is so warped, it frightens me to think of him as a "teacher." What next, Stanford, Jeff Skilling to teach Business Ethics? Dubya to teach Linguisticology?

Berkeley passed a resolution asking Rumsfeld to be prosecuted for war crimes, and Stanford offers him a position.
I hope Cal beats Stanford by at least 200 points in the Big Game!

Homeland Security means Eating Less Meat

2007-09-18T08:49:00.000-07:00

What kills more Americans: terrorism, or hamburgers?

According to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, heart disease killed 654,092 Americans in 2004.

Terrorism deaths (victims of 9/11, plus Americans put in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan) have not yet reached 10,000 Americans (though if you count Iraqi civilians and others, then you're in the ballpark). If 1,792 Americans die every day of heart disease, then every 3 days, there is another 9/11 in this country. What do you think of that, Rudy Giuliani?

We are spending $500 billion per year on militaristic death machines.
How much are we spending to prevent the cause of the highest number of American deaths?

Therefore, my fellow Americans, I propose that we shift all the money from the Department of Homeland Security (or just change their programs to better fulfill their mission of protecting Americans from what is killing them) to screen American travellers at the airport for heart disease.

When you put your luggage through the x-ray machine, you will also answer a few questions from a Homeland Security Nurse about your diet and lifestyle. If you eat several Big Macs per week, you might be taken into a special screening room where you have to watch a 2 minute video about fast food, heart disease, obesity, etc.
There will be scary brochures, posters and annoying recordings over the loud speaker about how to live a healthier lifestyle to prevent heart disease. The threat level will be orange.

C'mon, let's follow the numbers and spend the money where we can save the greatest number of Americans.

I know, someone reading this might say, "But those are apples and oranges." Homeland Security was created to fight the terrorists, not provide health care. And people want to feel safe at the airport.

But, I respond, Homeland Security is actually just Homeland Paranoia, and they haven't done anything to make us actually safer. They were created to give lots of government pork subsidies to private security and aerospace companies (bringing the war and bacon home), creating a Cold War here in the U.S. against an invisible enemy to boost corporate, Republican contributor profits. Also they are there to create a police state infrastructure to suppress dissent against the war, or against government economic policies which benefit the few and hurt the many. Fearful citizens are less likely to speak out, demonstrate, or criticize.

But, someone might say, they have been successful because there weren't any more attacks after 9/11.

Well, I respond, let's do a test scenario, and spend all the money on current Homeland Security in some states, and change the money to my idea with heart disease and lifestyle in other states, and see which ones have more terrorist attacks, and which ones save more American lives. (my friend says, fine, but he wants to live in the states where it is the current system. this is just a question of whether you think screening grandmas makes you feel safer. it is psychological, but not empirically proven, security).

An Election Year's coming up, who is going to propose change Homeland Security to Eating Less Meat?

The new Carbon Share video

2007-09-07T14:18:00.001-07:00

Carbon Share is a way to solve global warming by distributing emission rights to people and make polluters pay. Any cap and trade system should protect consumers, and not give windfall profits to polluters. Find out more at www.carbonshare.org.

Gone-zalez! Next, Cheney, please?

2007-08-27T09:20:00.000-07:00

Getting rid of Gone-zalez is a relief. No one liked him. It was time for him to go. Along with his other bad deeds, he was preventing the Dems from doing an inquiry into the lies that led us into the war in Iraq. OK, Dems, Gone-zy is gone. Time to go after Cheney. Please don't find some bureaucratic pigeonhole, and spend the next 10 months going after some low-level administrator. I'm sure that the Deputy UnderSecretary of the Interior is doing bad stuff, and I'm sure you could bluster about it on C-Span for the next 10 months, and get to the bottom of it all, but the top evil doer in the Administration (now that Rumsfeld is gone) is the President of the Senate, (a.k.a. "PResident Evil: Apocalypse") Mr. Undisclosed Location, who works for an undisclosed branch of government. All evil deeds are traced back to him (and to his Exxon and Halliburton friends). Take him on, and change the tenor of the 2008 race. Don't distract yourselves and us with some low level administrator, and leave Level 2 of Rumsfeld Invaders unfinished.

What's changed since 1994?

2007-08-16T09:29:00.000-07:00

Condi, Rummy, and Wolfie must have changed Dick's mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Bush tries to be Bartlett, pardoning Ziegler

2007-07-05T10:58:00.000-07:00

Dubya may have recently seen the West Wing episode where President Bartlett pardons Communications Director Toby Ziegler. Bartlett struggled with the moral implications of a pardon, but at least in the TV show Ziegler's infraction had a moral undertone (trying to prevent the militarization of space, a theme of Rumsfeld Invaders). I doubt Dubya thought for 2 seconds about the decision. He just went with his gut. Being a loyal Bushie trumped honesty, ethics, and the law. Scooter Libby made no attempt at morality, he simply lied to protect Rove and Cheney's role in outing CIA agent Valerie Wilson. Dubya is sending a signal that political hits are worthy of reward. Happy July 4th everyone!

Adios Wolfie!

2007-05-17T16:53:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld's protege Paul Wolfowitz was forced to resign in disgrace from the World Bank refuge he fled to when he sensed that the Iraq quagmire he created would soon engulf the flailing neo-con agenda. Sorry, Wolfie, you can run, but you can't hide. The Europeans are draining the swamp you were hiding in. Now it's time for you to write your memoirs, and whine about how abused you were and are. The question is: will you come to regret your actions, or will you cover them up? Will it be "Fog of War II"? Or will it be "Neo-Con's intellectual perspective led to lots of destruction, but he can't face up to it, and is in denial about his messed up world view." C'mon, Wolfie, even Fukuyama says that neo-cons are messed up. Time for a neo-con 12-step program. You can join Thomas Friedman and become a "geo-green." It almost rhymes with neo-con, and it has a cool hyphen too. (Although, I don't know, if you became a geo-green, then people would run the other direction, so you better not.) The other aspect I've always been interested in is Wolfie's personal life. After the comb thing in Fahrenheit 911, you got to wonder about Wolfie's girlfriend. Sounds like a Condoleeza Rice-type. Black stilletto heels, gritted teeth, and a frown. But I don't know, maybe she's a nice woman. Idealistic to work for the World Bank, with the mission of lifting the poorest nations out of poverty. And it's true that women in Muslim countries need some advocates. (Sad record of accomplishments for the World Bank, funding dams and deforestation, causing climate change, and linking to harmful IMF policies- see Stiglitz and Sachs for references on that.) And poor choice in men. Wolfie was the worst one since McNamara. Another one bites the dust.

Billions wasted

2007-05-07T09:26:00.000-07:00

I've been working on climate change policy, and encouraging a cap and trade system which auctions (sells) permits to companies, and uses the money for public goods (renewable energy, transit, research and development of new technologies), and to compensate consumers for fuel price increases on a per capita basis. Sounds good, right? It could raise $2 or $3 billion per year.

Other people are emailing me, saying, "Oh, we need a carbon tax, it'll solve all of our problems." It'll raise all this money and help with the transition. Well, a carbon tax would have to be very steep to change any behavior. Politicians are not into raising taxes, they lose elections for doing that. But even more important, let's look at a few numbers:

$504 billion. This is the money spent on the war on terror and Iraq between 2001 and 2007.

$344 billion. This is money spent on the Iraq war. Not counting the current $100 billion pending before Congress.

$213 billion. Cost of the War on Terror in 2006 alone (Rumsfeld's last year in office).

$2 trillion. Possible total long term cost of the Bush wars, once you count veteran's benefits, health care for all the soldiers with injuries, disabilities, Gulf War II syndrome, etc.

(These figures come from a USA Today article "Researchers weigh war's other costs", January 31, 2007)

In some ways, we don't need a cap and trade system, or a carbon tax. All we need to do is move all those war costs into renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a new war on climate change. Yeah, let's use the National Guard for its true purpose, to guard the nation (climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity and 50% of all species on the planet). Of course, a cap and trade system that refunds money to consumers through a rebate/dividend/share would be nice too. But the $3 billion versus $300 billion gives us a little perspective about how we do things when we think they are really important (the military-industrial complex) versus just give lip service, so that the Rumsfeld Invaders Blog will go away and leave us alone.

I want to hear 2008 candidates say, "Capitalism 3.0."

B-town steps up to Rumsfeld

2007-03-09T15:08:00.000-08:00

Ah, B-town, for all your flaws, you still have some life left in you. If the resolution passes, it may qualify for a High score on Rumsfeld Invaders.

BERKELEY, Calif. Berkeley City Council members are set to consider signing on to an international lawsuit seeking a war crime investigation of Rumsfeld.

The suit was filed last November in Berlin by lawyers for inmates of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay. It alleges former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered and condoned torture.

Abramoff and Borat?

2007-02-06T09:42:00.000-08:00

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the focus of the video game JackAsstroids, wrote that he wished he could have hired Borat for a lawyer when he was under investigation.

Abramoff: 'Perhaps I could have hired Borat to represent me.'

Yag shamesh...

Rumsfeld's Last Day- 6 years too late. His next career move: Lurking in the shadows with Kissinger

2006-12-18T10:06:00.000-08:00

Today is Rumsfeld's last day at the Pentagon. For Rumsfeld Invaders, it is the end of an era. Like when Jerry Rice retired from the 49ers. Except way, way better for the country and the world. Apologies to Jerry Rice, he does not deserve to be compared to Rumsfeld. The only person who really deserves that is Henry Kissinger.

Is Rumsfeld really going away? Or is he just changing jobs. Until he publicly repents and repudiates his positions of the last 6 years, and those of the military-industrial-empire complex of the last 50, he will still pose a threat to the possibility of world peace. Like Henry Kissinger, he will cling to beliefs which make sense only to him, while the rest of the world has weighed the evidence, drawn the obvious conclusions, and tried to move on (as I thought we had after Vietnam).

I read on another blog that the U.S. is spending around $200 billion a year to fight less than 5,000 jihadi-type terrorists and their worldwide network of supporters. This works out “to roughly $40 million per year, per terrorist." That doesn't even account for the money spent to employ people to take my toothpaste and my shaving cream away from me (which really pissed me off), and my hair gel when I'm trying to get on a plane. Is the country safer because my hair is sticking up? These people see every American citizen as a potential threat to empire, and want to anally probe grandmothers in public. They are sick people and need therapy, not jobs at the airport. I'll look for an accounting of how much money is wasted by Homleand Paranoia and get back to you. The money is spent only to ensure that more money gets spent. The purpose of spending this money is so that more money must follow down the rat hole. Hegelian economics: Thesis-Antithesis. War-Insurgency-counterIntersurgency-countercounterInsurgency. Homeland Security-Paranoia.

What we need is Hegelian economics for good: Sustainability-The Commons-Social justice- education- Water quality for all- economics as if people mattered- investing in human capital- peace dividends. This money would follow more money and the more money invested in these things, the more money would continue to be invested.

The Homeland is not secure when the military is halfway around the world, violating human rights, and inflicting civilian collateral damage on a daily basis in order to steal oil out from under the Middle East. It is another reprise for White Man's Burden and Manifest Destiny. Our missionaries are in fatigues and driving Hummers, but it's the Crusades of the Middle Ages all over again, and the flashy graphics of television and the Internet can't mask the Iraq War's basic nature.

Rumsfeld's next career move: Lurking in the Shadows with Henry Kissinger. He already has the veneer of Rasputin. So, Rumsfeld Invaders isn't going away. We've still got a mess to clean up.

Congratulations, Rumsfeld, on instigating Jihad versus McWorld. Your legacy will be proving Benjamin Barber right.

Post-Rumsfeld Nostalgia

2006-11-22T09:39:00.000-08:00

Online documentary about Rumsfeld and how he invaded.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

Still getting over the shock of Rumsfeld's tenure coming to a close.
Will the world suddenly be a peaceful place? Rainbows will come out, and we'll all start singing Kum-ba-ya?

(please let the euphoria continue a little while longer, I'm not ready for the years of crushing cynicism and pessimism to return yet)

Post-election Afterglow

2006-11-12T20:23:00.000-08:00

Congratulations, fellow Rumsfeld Invaders!

After 6 years of struggle, against adversity, in the face of American flag stickers in the back windows of Hummers, when the media had been infiltrated by gay Republican operatives and worshipped the devil, when only violence and Constitution shredding were seen as patriotic and Murtha was still waiting to see how things would go, when the Senate Intelligence Committee was acting like an oxymoron...you stood your ground.

You supported Rumsfeld Invaders, because you knew that only by making fun of Rumsfeld by playing a version of Space Invaders on the Atari 2600 featuring Rumsfeld would America awaken to the stupidity of his policies and save our country from further disaster.

Well, it took 6 years.

But on November 8, 2006, Donald Rumsfeld resigned as Secretary of Defense.

It is a new day for America.

Let's not celebrate too soon. The war in Iraq is still quagmiring along. Death every day. The U.S. Treasury is being drained (if there's anything left), and the no-bid contracts are still being awarded to Halliburton. Cheney is still #2 (and smells like it too), and I wouldn't be suprised if he still talks to Rumsfeld every day on the phone. Prisoners are being rendited, and probably tortured, with no American provision for humane treatment, the Geneva Conventions, or habeas corpus. Mark Foley and his kind still garner close to 48% of the vote, even after resigning in disgrace and acknowledging their disgusting corruption. The two party system still chugs along squelching democracy wherever it tries to break through the concrete with real ideas and ecological perspectives.

But still, it was a nice election result. Pombo is gone. Santorum - out! unTalent from Missouri, sent home with no dessert. Close elections in Montana and Virginia went the right way, amazingly. California voted for a Secretary of State who will take action on the voting machines situation, finally. Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell have rigged their last election, and are consigned to the post-political backwaters. It's been a long, dark time, but it is nice to have a tiny bit of hope again.

As one Rumsfeld Invader observer noted, it is back to 1998 again. Sure, it's better than 2005. But it's certainly no utopia. We were out on the streets in 1998, preparing for a showdown in 1999 in Seattle over the WTO's anti-environmental, anti-labor policies. Maybe the blue-green alliance will return. Maybe 2007 will be the next 1999, and we can shut down the 21st century threat to global democracy, the United States War Machine. It was until recently piloted by Donald H. Rumsfeld. Now it needs a new direction. More humanitarianism and less bombs. More healthy people, clean water, and Millennium Development Goals, and less threats, lies, and swagger.

We'll be sending notes and encouragement to House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. A woman's place is in the House...and the Senate! Kick Rumsfeld Butt! Nancy, feel free to subpoena Rummy, and ask him the tough questions. He cut and ran before you could get him to testify, but it's not too late for a War Crimes Tribunal. Maybe we'll even let him have access to an attorney and due process of the law. Maybe.

Rumsfeld Invaders will be evaluating its mission over the next month or two. We will stay active and engaged. And we will be blogging and enraged. Let us know what you think.

Now, on to Level 2: Cheney.

Saddam Verdict Timed to Coincide with Midterm Elections

2006-11-07T09:22:00.000-08:00

Was it coincidence that Saddam's verdict was given out two days before the U.S. midterm elections? After 6 years of "staying the course", with Karl Rove trying to milk every angle he can out of the disastrous Iraq war? The "court" was created and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, and governed by Rumsfeld. The Iraqi government is still a puppet of the U.S. government. And the U.S. government is a puppet of Cheney and Rumsfeld. If not, then why did the verdict happen in such a convenient way for the Republicans? The entire Iraq adventure aims to vest Dubya with a "war president" image to cover for all his other inadequacies. Dubya is now stalling in a State of Denial to keep running up the debt to hamstring all domestic social programs for the next decade. If the Democrats, when they take the House, don't immediately call for an end to the war in Iraq, with the threat of hearings and impeachment proceedings against the President for lying to them about Weapons of Mass Destruction, then the Democrats are part of the Republican plan, and it doesn't matter who runs the House.

I'm still looking for evidence that the Saddam verdict was timed by Rove. Or evidence of any media speculation of this. Tony Snow said "preposterous," and that put the issue to rest? Oh, if only Nixon had said the magic word! And, I'm still looking for evidence that Cheney did the Anthrax mailings.

Polls tightening - let the rigging begin

2006-11-06T22:35:00.000-08:00

Somehow, with hours to go before the election, the polls are magically "tightening". So say the pollsters Karl Rove paid, so that when the Democrats fail to win the House he can point to the alleged polls as proof.

This, despite the fact that the vote will once again defy the exit polls, two standard deviations outside of the margin of error, and the likelihood of all the polls being wrong would be 1/300,000.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593681/

Plundermaxx Plots Demise of Securities Laws

2006-11-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

Secret backroom deals. Are we talking about more Republican repressed homosexual stalking of 16 year old boys? Sadly, not this time.

Plundermaxx, a corporation whose purpose is to maxximize Plunder, is combining the worst aspects of the public and private sector, subverting democracy, and slyly undermining laws meant to protect Americans. Their Press Releases show what evil they are up to.

http://www.plundermaxx.com/secsucks.pdf

Yes on 87, no on 90

2006-10-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

Rumsfeld Invaders endorsements for California for the November 7 election (abridged):

Yes Prop 87. Tax the oil companies to fund renewable energy technologies. Don't believe Chevron's anti-87 propoganda. Prop 87 is a good measure and will reduce greenhouse gases.

No on Prop 90. This is an attempt to roll back planning and environmental laws across the state. They use sneaky language like "eminent domain" to mask their intent to overturn smart growth planning and zoning.

Laughing at the losers

2006-10-23T10:17:00.000-07:00

Here are some highlights from
http://www.thefrown.com/frowners/becomerepublican.swf:

"We can't be spending money on wussy, boring crap like health care. We've got wars to fight! Would you rather have a million stupid mammograms, or one kick-ass Tomahawk missile?
...
Animals belong in a zoo, in your closet, or on your plate. If you want to see Nature as a majestic Circle of Life, just order a meat lover's pizza.
...
Forests are much better off without trees, according to a new study by the best scientists in the Lumber Industry."