Bayosphere

Given the non-stop revelations that just zap Bush and given his continuing support in the polls, I have to conclude that Bush’s political team is too damn good!

I just have not read a clear, cogent analysis of what they are doing so effectively. Anyone? Anyone?

Bob:

They are successfully playing the FEAR card. Somehow since the death of John Wayne, America has been overrun by puling infants begging for a chance to sacrifice their birthright of freedom in exchange for a fairytale land where nobody gets a boo-boo and all the children are above average.

In short, the Bush team is treating the electorate like the losers they’ve become, while the Kerry team is making the mistake of treating the electorate like informed citizens with a love of self-government and liberty. And free drugs if you’re old.

It’s mind control.

Bypasses the cerebral cortex.

Goes directly to the limbic and primitive (reptilian) parts of the human brain. The reptilian brain responds with panic to the invocation of fear, terror and imprisonment.

What does your reptilian brain tell you to do when you hear these command barks:

TeRRORisT THreaT
MiXeD MeSsAgEs
They who are ENEMIes of freedom
Flip Flop
Flip Flop
Flip Flop
9/11
9/11
boom: it’s Mushroom Monday (nuclear threat)
terrorists
terrorists
terrorists
…

Reason and intellect have nothing to do with this. That is why 60% of the public still thinks Sadam struck on 9/11

(Deeper query: How has your brain been programmed to respond to the words “Sadam Hussein” ? When did the programming occur? Step back and re-play the tapes from the shock, awe and embed days. It’s been embedded deep in your brain. Look in the mirror. You are the Manchurian voter.)

It is, of course, contrary to Judeo-Christian doctrine to believe in mind control. It cannot exist because
we all have “free will”, the ability to use our thinking brain (cerbral cortex) for distinguishing between true and false, between good and evil. It has been scientifically proven. Do not question this. Ergo, mind control is B.S.

Sadam Hussein did strike on 9/11. He “harbored” TeRRorists.

Please repeat.

Do not ask yourself how Reverand Sun Young Moon controlled his moonies.
Do not ask yourself how Jonestown happened.
Do not ask yourself how countless cults convince young people to give up their worldly possessions and sacrifice all to the leader.
Do not ask yourself why jihad suicide bombers are always young and idealistic, never old and loaded with wealth.

Sadam Hussein did strike on 9/11. He “harbored” TeRRorists.

Please repeat.

“It is worth recalling that when Gen. Eric Shinseki…”

Um, no, actually, it’s not: at the time he made his “bill-yuns and bill-yuns of troops” statement, he had been a lame duck for about a year. It does seem to be the case that Rummy announced (in 2002) that he was being put out to pasture in 2003 because he has the kind of “old-fashioned” attitudes about the “proper” structure and tactics for land forces that led him to make that statement. But his early retirement was not a result of the statement, itself.

Okay, so let’s say that there aren’t enough troops in Iraq. Kerry is so looking in the rear-view mirror.

What is Kerry going to do? He said he’s going to hold “that summit.” Kerry admitted today that he knows the French and Germans aren’t going to help him. But why should they? Kerry keeps saying it’s such a quagmire, that he’ll get very little help. Isn’t Kerry a great negotiator! (laugh)

So Kerry, therefore, will have to send in more troops. Oh, he won’t say how many now. Wanna bet that if Kerry gets in that we really won’t need that many? Why will he say this? Well, a) because Europe, with their social program armies, doesn’t have many people to send (or the means to even send and support them), b) Europe has too many internal squabbles going on, c) Kerry desparately wants to make “friends” so the World isn’t going to feel obligated and Kerry won’t twist their arms.), and d) people here don’t really want to send too many more in.

So I don’t know how all you Kerry supporters extrapolate a Kerry win to a quicker democratic Iraq. If you belive his rhetoric, then, as Edwards the Trial Lawyer says about Bush, “you’d be crazy to vote for him.

Remember Walter Mondale? He told the truth in 1984–that whoever was elected would raise taxes. Reagan scoffed, Mondale lost in a landslide, and then Reagan raised taxes. Americans keep teaching their candidates to lie, and then complain about it. Whoever is elected in November must either declare victory and withdraw from Iraq, or re-institute the draft and dig in for the long haul. But to tell the truth about this would be political suicide, because American voters don’t want to hear it.

They also don’t want to hear that uncritical U.S. support for Israel feeds Muslim terrorism, or that we can’t really support democracy in the Middle East because Arab voters wouldn’t support governments friendly to the U.S., or that we need the support of Arab countries because we depend on their oil.

American voters get the leaders they deserve.

“L. Paul Bremer’s remarks, before a group of insur
ance agents at DePauw University”.

Telling. How far they fall, after an abject failure.

It is indeed petty.

The Bush Administration has quite directly and accurately pointed the finger at Bremer, but only in those specific areas that his personal mismanagement of the reconstruction slowed the effort in Iraq.

In too many ways, Bremer was a flaccid devote of the weak-minded, defeatist visions of Thomas P.M. Barnett, and wandered off the reservation at all the worst times — often kowtowing to Democrats raising objections having nothing to do with securing Iraq, winning the war and building the peace.

Bremer, now a lecturer to *insurance agents* (LOL) is sadly attempting a vindictive broadside of the Administration that gave him a historic but, unfortunate for him and the Iraqis, an ultimately squandered opportunity.

Lacking in loyalty, backbone and decency, but obviously effusing false pride, I doubt he’ll fool the American people. And Democrats shamelessly magnifying this gutter vindictiveness will just further shame themselves.

Always amazes me that Democrats don’t allow for any of the realities of war to exist. Comments from any official related to the Iraq war ie Bremer, McCain etc (and according to my sources he did not intend for his comments to be seized upon by Bush’s critics in the manner that they have been) are immediately seized by Democrats whose hate for Bush has rendered their judgement useless. I am sick and tired of all the second guessing. I am sick and tired of the transparent efforts of the newly radicalized & mobilized & move on dot org fomented Democratic left. I see no semblance of common sense applied to the reality that wars suck. Things often go horribly wrong.

Get a clue Dan. I thought you were smarter…

Nick

Uh, Nick, the reality that wars suck, that no plan survives contact with the enemy, that the general who can commit reserves last usually wins, is the foundation of the criticism of an unneeded, undermanned war in Iraq.

The Iraqi invasion concept was criticized before, during, and after the war, by dems, some republicans, currently serving military leaders, past military leaders, the dad of the commander in chief, and just about everyone else who didn’t stand to make a buck off the military or anticipate getting rich from running the Iraqi economy. This wasn’t and isn’t second guessing or hindsight, it was adult, educated knowledge. Today there’s some schadenfreude, but mostly it’s “get the hell out before more of our kids get killed and burdened with $100,000 apiece of war debt”.

Reaching this conclusion is a bit easier for those of us who don’t have to fight through the denial of realizing we were lied to, led by the nose by a cynical party and a compliant mainstream media. You’ll get there someday, unless you want to be one of those who 30 years later claims we “lost Vietnam due to a failure of resolve”.

More fundamental is the “top-down” pyramid view of the world that Cheney & Bush hang on to.

According to the Commander-in-Veep, every organization in the world has a Commander-in-Chief at the top of its pyramid.

If you decapitate the commander/tribal-chief, the whole organization comes tumbling down according to Dick and George.

Remember the “decapitation” strikes in the early part of Operation Shock & awe Shucks? If only we get Za-Damn Whose-damn (Sadam) then we will “win”.

Well we got Sadam. Pulled him out of his spider hole and put him in his place. But the Iraqi masses did not come streaming out of their bunker busted homes, eager to kiss our feet and hinies.

It is a grass-roots opposition in Iraq, not a top down pyramid. That’s what Dick & George don’t understand. Even if we get Zakawi, the Iraqi masses will still hate us. Even if Halburton fixes their water, sewer and electricity problems, the Iraqi masses will still hate us.

All the current talk about who is going to be a better “Commander-in-Chief” for our country is a red herring with shiny mirrors attached.

The real question is who will install a bottom-up organization that fixes all the messes this country is quagmired in, i.e. the oil crunch, the job loss squeeze (Perot’s sucking sound), global warming, Enron style corruption, etc. etc.

George talking: What should we do now Le’cheney? What should we do? Can I pet the rabbit?

In case you Dan, and the rest of you, have forgotten, Bremer’s announced intention post-Iraq was to attend a private cooking school.

LOL.

Maybe you should read Bremer in the NY Times today and try to quote his sentiments exactly.

What was that you said about Cheney lying again? How on earth can Cheney lie? How on earth is it possible?

Lol, Bremer shut up all the distortions of his comments pretty quick. How about I post his comments just for those who willingly want to still believe in this latest distortion:

What I Really Said About Iraq
L. Paul Bremer

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I’ve made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it’s important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush’s Iraq policy.

This effort won’t succeed. Let me explain why.

It’s no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq’s already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we’ll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition’s top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq’s security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and
hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president’s strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror – wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

“Always amazes me that Democrats don’t allow for any of the realities of war to exist.”

Last time I checked, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (the major players in the efforts to deny “the realities of war”, from the planning phase to this very day) were all Republicans, not Democrats.

As were the overwhelming majority of the people who gave answers ranging from “sadly mistaken” to “downright delusional” in response to recent polls about what’s been happening in Iraq.

“I see no semblance of common sense applied to the reality that wars suck.”

Then I suggest you stop watching Bush/Cheney cult meetings, and start supporting people who will only engage in war when it’s clear that all the alternatives suck even more.

Wow, it looks like L. Paul Bremer’s own words will be ignored. Not surprised. Only news that can be used to criticize Bush is considered newsworthy.

Dan,

I do not think that Ellison is ‘setting the pace’ in the software industry, at least as far as M&A is concerned. For the past 25 years, and for the forseeable future, the industry experiences a regular cycle balancing consolidation of slow growth/older technologies (e.g. customer base driven transactions), with emerging, fast growth arena’s that are driven by innovation, leading edge technologies or business practices (e.g. IT governance/compliance, grid, p2p initiatives). From a customer and investor perspective, consolidation in slow growth areas is necessary and good.

Companies with the profile similar to Peoplesoft should seriously consider declaring victory while maximizing shareholder value and clearing the decks for the next generation. The industry is not well served by the poisoning defensive tactics promulgated by entrenched management.

In this situation, Mr. Conway has made Mr. Ellison look like a shareholder and customer good guy.

That the same Larry E whose losing market share and having his entire business undermined by open source mySQl database’s?

The same Larry E who signed his own darth warrant with that offer to set up the Totalitarian Information Agency for Reichsland Security post 9-11?

That same Larry E who cant win a boat race to save his life and whose love life is a running joke?

That vain, bloviating ,ex-CIA, thin client comedian and crashing bore; that Larry E?

If Larry E is the answer, pardon my french, but what was the fucking question again?

Dan,

After reading the editorial below, do you think Sun would deceive its investor?

Did Sun deceive its investors?

I recently wrote Scott McNealy and asked the following questions.

1. Did Sun deceive investors when it published its 2004 fiscal fourth quarter earnings report?

2. Considering the fact that Sun has a former SEC employee on the audit committe of its board, why did this restatement of earnings happen?

3. Is Sun using the practice of earnings restatements as a tool to deceive investors?

Irma Villarreal called me in response to my letter to Scott McNealy. She said she is the person, who prepares Sun’s submissions to the SEC. She would not answer my questions in writing as I requested. She claimed that Sun never announced a $1.05B restatement of its 2003 fiscal fourth quarter results. I later sent her a Forbes article about the restatement. She did not respond. She said Sun had already answered these questions for media – WSJ, Forbes, Businessweek, etc. She said they were satisfied with Sun’s answers. I said I know the media never asked these questions. She said Sun is in compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley. She never denied that Sun deceived investors.
I sent Ms. Villarreal my notes from the aforementioned conversation for her review and correction. She has never responded.

Why would Ms. Villarreal be willing to talk to me about the questions that I raised, but would not put her answers in writing? Why did Ms. Villarreal lie about the $1.05B restatement of Sun’s 2003 fiscal fourth quarter results? Why did she not respond when I sent her a copy of the article about the restatement? I have checked with the media to see if any of them have asked Sun those questions. None of the media has confirmed asking Sun any of those questions. Why did she lie about the media asking and receiving answers to those questions? Why did she not deny that Sun had deceived investors?

This writer believes that Scott McNealy directed Ms. Villarreal to contact me to try to convince me that Sun had not deceived investors, but told her not to respond to any questions in writing. He also told her not to admit to anything, including the obvious such as the $1.05B restatement. After she was caught in these mendacities, McNealy told her not to respond, verbally or in writing, to any question or statements.

If asked those questions under oath, how would Ms. Villarreal respond? How would Scott McNealy respond? If Sun has never deceived it investors, why did Ms. Villarreal handle our telephone conversation and my subsequent inquiries the way she did? Is it probable that Sun deceived its investors?