RMcG Message Board


The former president takes your questions about national security

Q: Dear Ronnie, is there a difference between overseas covert agents and stateside covert agents?

A: Whether you work in Langley or a faraway nation, whether your tasks are in operations or analysis sections, it is upon your intellect and integrity, your wit and intuition that the fate of freedom rests for millions of your countrymen and for many millions more all around the globe. You are the trip-wire across which the forces of repression and tyranny must stumble in their quest for global domination. You, the men and women of the CIA, are the eyes and ears of the free world.
-- Ronald Reagan, June 23, 1982

Q: And President Reagan, what do you think about those who might break this new law?

A: This carefully drawn act recognizes that the revelation of the names of secret agents adds nothing to legitimate public debate over intelligence policy.
-- Ronald Reagan, June 23, 1982

Read more of Ronnie's national security comments here! Thanks, TIMBUK3


Is Bill O'Reilly really just a troubled little schoolboy?

I know a heck of a lot more about Bill O'Reilly after that NPR interview. Because he acts like such a 'regular guy', I had no idea he was educated in severe Catholic schools-- put in "the dumb row" where "no one worried about my self-esteem", abused by his father, went to college in London.

This ain't some reasonable guy who happens to be a bit to the right. He's all screwed up from a lifetime of abuse from authoritarians. He's got that creepy Stockholm Syndrome thing-- where the absence of a decent father-figure makes him a slut for whatever Darth Vader Daddy comes down the pike wearing an SS uniform.

Also, I didn't realize O'Reilly spoke neocon code so fluently. Is this a new thing? Or has he always done this? If it's new, I'd guess that he sees the writing on the wall-- that his mainstream audience days are numbered. So he's buttering-up the extreme right wackos to milk their gullible circuit after the sun sets on his A-list celebrity.

He used the word "secular" so often, and in so many contexts-- that Terry Gross had to ask him what he meant by the word. And he launched into a conspiracy theory about how the New York Times and Harvard are engaging in a secret scorched earth war to obliterate Any Mention of anything spiritual in public. Yikes!

Then he referred to his own college alma mater as "secular", so... are they in on the conspiracy?!

O'Reilly even said Creationism should be taught in schools.

Previously, I would have thought he was just an opportunist telling the yahoos what they wanted to hear. But now Im not so sure. He's so personally screwed-up. Maybe he's constructing all these twisted fables for his own consumption.

Posted on The Titty Board by "ICD_Ghettosuperstar"
Click here for original message.

Dumb, dumber, hoo-boy

Fortunately, America does not hold any patent on dumbasses

A 26-year-old man will be hospitalized "for months" in Illawarra, Australia, following an August accident that authorities speculate might have been inspired by the film "Jackass." The man was apparently walking across a room with a lighted firecracker between his posterior cheeks when he slipped and fell backward to the floor. The explosion resulted in a fractured pelvis, severe genital burns, hemorrhaging from the buttocks and ruptured urethra, leaving him incontinent and sexually dysfunctional. [Illawarra Mercuty, 9-3-03]

In August at Scotland's Edinburgh Fringe Festival, the Sweet Productions company staged "Sweet FA," a "play" in which the audience take their seats, but then absolutely nothing happens on stage for the next hour, and then the house lights come back on, and any remaining patrons leave. (News of the Weird has previously mentioned the "musical" piece by the late American composer John Cage, whose "4'33" consists of exactly 273 seconds of silence, which "Sweet FA" beats by 55 minutes, 27 seconds.) [Reuters, 8-4-03]

*Source: News Of The Weird


Thousands make pilgrimage to DC in hopes of touching Bush's halo

Throngs of right-wing Bush supporters flocked to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Monday in hopes of witnessing the latest miracle apparition, an apparent halo around Bush's head.

Despite the fact that Bush is as about as holy as Guido Sarduci, the worshippers believe the halo is a sign from God that the president really is in charge of his own staff, an assertion many experts deem unlikely.

"Never mind the mysterious ways the Lord works," said Father Feeli Maboney of the First Church of the Perpetual Deduction, "there isn't a man alive who can figure out how Bush's head works."

An explanation for the halo is not so difficult, according to some scientists. "Bush's head is so full of himself, his ego is so huge," offered Dr. Bob O'Ganoush, "what we're witnessing is likely a reaction caused by the tremendous forces of his ego colliding with the opposing forces of reality. In the right conditions, especially in a room full of heated air, this reaction is certainly possible."

Observers noted that Bush had been speaking for nearly 10 minutes when the apparition first appeared, offering a possible explanation for the hot air. "He was stroking himself so much, and yammering on about what a great hero he was...it's a wonder his whole damn head didn't exlplode!" said O'Ganoush.

It has been also been rumored that Vice President Dick Cheney's company (but not really), Halliburton, would soon present a bill to Congress seeking rights to drill into the President's head in search of alternative energy. Mr. Cheney could not be reached for comment, but his office issued this statement: "Piss off, peasant!"

White House spokeswimp Scott McClellan followed up with a statement later in the afternoon, in which he asserted that both Condaleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are in charge, and so is Bush.

Seeing the Forest for the trees

Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the lie.

My old buddy, Scotty McClellan, called me the other night. He was sounding stressed, which is not an unusual reaction to have when one comes to realize one just might be working for the most morally bankrupt administration since...uh...Nixon sounds so cliche.

Scott was having a problem with the constant lies he is forced to recite. He told me he wasn't sure he had the stamina to make it through 'till November, let alone Bush's second term.

At that, we both shared a hearty laugh, and I offered Scott some tips on how to deal with life in the spotlight of Bush's glaring ineptitude. It is really quite easy to lie to the press once you come to grips with one simple concept... control.

As in, we (the GOP) control the whole damned shooting match. Everything, from the House to the Senate, to the Judiciary, and even a few bigtime news outlets.

He gave me a puzzled look. So, we played a little game. I asked Scotty to ask me a tough question, one of the ones that really raises the b.s. barometer. "Why won't the president fire the people responsible for the CIA leaks?"

"Ahem," I began. "The president takes such matters very seriously. You can be sure he wants to get to the bottom of this."

"Huh?" he said. "I say that kind of crap all day long, that is the problem! How do I justify the lies?"

"The lie is only in the words you speak, young Grasshopper!" I said. "The truth lies deep within..."

:WTF?" he shot back. "What's with the metaphysical shit? I'm looking for answers!"

"Scott," I asked. "You forget one simple thing...we control everything. The truth becomes relative."

I could tell he was still puzzled. "Scott, the GOP controls the courts, the Congress, even the media." "So how does that make this crap I spout any less of a lie?" he demanded to know.

"Let me phrase it differently, and maybe you will understand." He leaned closer.

"If the GOP cuts down all the trees in the forest and there is no one listening..."

A smile came to his face. Just wait until we start the clear cutting.

An educated electorate is the right-wing's worst nightmare! Learn their tricks and tactics in this enlightening slide presentation...

Volume 2, Number 8e


"The great postulate of our democracy is confidence in the common sense of the people and their maturity of judgment, even on great issues - once they know the facts." - Justice Wm. O. Douglas

He said one thing, he should do another, and now we should all just move on to something new

By Garrison Keillor, for The LA Times

I was in San Francisco on election day and the fine Democrats I met could sense Arnoldism on the march and said they felt embarrassed by it all and I had to reassure them: A recall election is a beautiful thing. Chaos? What chaos? The voters got a chance to fast-forward to 2006 and click on Arnold. Why wait three years if you can cut to the chase?

Government can be such a dreary, drawn-out business, and an election is swift and dramatic. A few weeks of foofaraw and bluster and warmed-over wisdom and then the blessed day arrives and all the sweet rituals of voting and then, whammo, come the results, the shock and disbelief, the grinning and waving, and the next morning we're on to something new.

Here in Minnesota we're pleased that California has an action-hero governor, though there isn't much similarity between Arnold and our man, Jesse (The Body) Ventura. Jesse was a lone ranger, a man on a horse, and Arnold is a whole posse of Republicans. He doesn't look any more like a Republican than Barbara Boxer does, but the Republicans embraced him because he smelled like a winner, just as Time Warner embraced AOL. A merger — like the lady who went for a ride on the tiger and came back inside.

"Californians are like anybody else in that they want a great four-course dinner for $8.95. They want to live in the Greatest State (Fine Roads, Excellent Hospitals, Best Parks, Great Schools in which All Children are Above Average), and they also want low taxes. God bless them. People in hell want ice water."

- Arnold wants to be known as "The Collectinator."
- Sex and Nazi's safely under the rug, Bush schmoozes the Gropinator
- The Dumbing Down of America

Arnold stretches the bounds of Republicanism so that it simply means the unDemocrats, the We Who Are Not Responsible for the Mess Party. This was good enough to get a man elected, but now comes the deluge. Now Arnold is saying that the state's budget crisis may be worse than he had thought. Welcome to government. Success in this line of work is short-lived. Politics consists of mostly all gas, and gas evaporates or it cools, and the beautiful balloon gets wrinkly and descends. Arnold will need to act fast lest the crisis worsen and he be held responsible for it.

Californians are like anybody else in that they want a great four-course dinner for $8.95. They want to live in the Greatest State (Fine Roads, Excellent Hospitals, Best Parks, Great Schools in which All Children are Above Average), and they also want low taxes. God bless them. People in hell want ice water.

Arnold is going to have to put through an enormous tax increase while the bloom is still on his cheek, meanwhile decrying big government for all he's worth. This is a good strategy for Republicans and has worked in the past. They have created a fine reputation as fiscal conservatives so that if they get lightheaded and throw money out the window, nobody holds them responsible. Leadership is not for the fainthearted. Sometimes a good leader has to charge courageously forward in full retreat. You get elected to office by telling wonderful stories and then you do what you have to do.

When Arnold takes office, he should do exactly what he promised not to do, and then smile and say that he didn't really do it, and if he did do it, which he didn't, he didn't mean to do it, the thing that was not done, and will never do it again. We eat the cake and after we eat it, there is even more cake. Yes, we have no bananas, but we do have apples, which also are oranges. And if Arnold can be a Republican, then we're all Republicans, and we Democrats are even more so. SOURCE

Return To Top of Page

The attempt to pass off form letters as soldiers' own may have had roots in a similar White House act of desperation


Still mired in a state of arrogant indifference over the CIA leaks, the Kay WMD report, a derailed mid east peace plan, poor economic performance, and turmoil within his administration, pResident Bush faced new allegations today that he is lying through his teeth about virtually everything, including a new set of letters purported to be from members of his own administration.

Copies of six of the letters, all typed on yellowed letterhead left over from the first Bush administration, and each bearing the signatures of White House senior staffers, surfaced this morning. They speak of the good will they are encountering on their first tour in the White House, and of the many good things they are doing.

The letters were sent to editors at this web site, as well as Truthout.org, Democratic Underground, MoveOn.org, BartCop, and BigTitRussianBitches.com. Curiously, it was the editors at BigTitRussionBitches.com who first spotted the fakes. Repeated calls to BTRB.com were met with recorded messages, and resulted in a $350 phone charge, billed discreetly to our VISA card.

©2003 RMcGWhen first asked about how the same letter from troops in Iraq reached eleven different newspapers, under eleven different names, Bush moved his lips emitting a scratchy rendition of "Happy Days Are Here Again." However, when contacted by NBY for comment on these new allegations, Bush broke into a rousing rendition of "Mony, Mony," apparently not aware that "money" has an "e" in it, and the Mony in the Tommy James song is a girl's name. Yet, he still refused to answer questions in regard to the forged letters.

"I can tell you one thing, and that one thing is this one...that I don't know anything about any letters," stated a defiant Bush. "Laura and I are still working on ciphering, and letters don't come 'till my second term. So, a vote for me is a vote for literacy! Because I is the education president!"

As a service to the readers of NBY, we are publishing the letters here, in their entirety. And we swear on the Patriot Act, we did not receive these letters from Karl Rove, or even Dick Cheney. They were too busy hiding from the CIA thing to issue a statement.


Dear (Contributor's Name Here);

I have been serving in Washington for nearly three years now as a foot soldier in the 1st AWOL Chickenhawks Regiment, otherwise known as “The Neocons.”

Our forward divisions laid the groundwork for our rapid overthrow of the capital via the Supreme Court on December 12, 2000; a thousand of my fellow soldiers stepped from100 stretch limos onto the cold, rainy steps of the White House after a brisk ride down Pennsylvania Avenue. A few protestors were encountered, but they were the only hostilities we would encounter. The “1st Amendment Zone” barricades have done a fine job of protecting me and the troops from images of dissent, which Commander Rove feels could be a negative influence on our morale.

Things have changed tremendously for our transition team since those first cold, wet weeks spent in the liberal enclave of Washington. The Beltway, as the locals call it. The majority of the city has welcomed us with open arms. People are still running from their homes, waving to us and tossing fruits and vegetables as our limos drive by on daily trips to undisclosed locations. Children smile and run along us as they shake their fists; I am told that that is a sign the urban Negro uses when he considers you his brother. So, as you can see, we are very much loved here.

The troops here have been very busy on our goodwill missions to help the beleaguered locals. Fortunately, the dark lords of the Clintonista regime left behind the keys to the treasury, so we have been able to get much needed aid directly into the hands of those who most need it. I must say to you, despite their small numbers, these 1% have shown 110% of the gratitude, and we are proud to be able to return the favor, all wrapped in freshly stitched American flags.

The fruits of all our soldiers’ efforts are clearly visible. We are building new schools and providing education opportunities for all. We are upgrading aging and failing infrastructure, bringing new power and water plants online. We are training new doctors and nurses to work in the new hospitals, which will provide health care for every man woman and child. The good we are doing is enormous, and I only hope the people back home are getting an accurate story of what we are doing.

Because, when we are done doing all those good things for Iraq, we're hoping some more tax cuts will provide the resources for us to do the same here in America, too.

Pfc. Scott McClellan
Bullshit Co., Prss Scy2, mthpce

Return To Top of Page


"They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce." -Greg Thielmann

(CBS - Oct. 15, 2003 )  The person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell says the Secretary of State misinformed Americans during his speech at the U.N. last winter.

Greg Thielmann tells Correspondent Scott Pelley that at the time of Powell’s speech, Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to anyone – not even its own neighbors. “…I think my conclusion [about Powell’s speech] now is that it’s probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to the nation,” says Thielmann.

Pelley’s report will be broadcast on 60 Minutes II , Wednesday, Oct. 15 at 8 p.m. ET/PT.

Thielmann also tells Pelley that he believes the decision to go to war was made first and then the intelligence was interpreted to fit that conclusion. “…The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence,” says Thielmann.

“They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to the senior administration officials.

Steve Allinson and a dozen other U.N. inspectors in Iraq also watched Powell’s speech. “Various people would laugh at various times [during Powell’s speech] because the information he was presenting was just, you know, didn't mean anything -- had no meaning,” says Allinson.

Pelley asks, “When the Secretary finished the speech, you and the other inspectors turned to each other and said what?” Allinson responds, “’They have nothing.’”

Allinson gives Pelley several examples of why he believes Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. One time, he was sent to find decontamination vehicles that turned out to be fire trucks. Another time, a satellite spotted what they thought were trucks used for biological weapons.

“We were told we were going to the site to look for refrigerated trucks specifically linked to biological agents,” Allinson tells Pelley. “…We found seven or eight [trucks], I think, in total, and they had cobwebs in them. Some samples were taken and nothing was found.” SOURCE

Return To Top of Page


Pundits and others have lately been urging the Democratic presidential candidates to lay off the president and just tell us what they would do as head of state.

By O. Ricardo Pimental, The Arizona Republic

Even a stern Judy Woodruff briefly lectured the candidates during their recent CNN debate in Phoenix to talk about issues and to avoid criticizing the president.

Here's a news flash. They have been talking about many issues. But Bush is the issue, now and in the general election.

Virtually every candidate in the field has pitched ideas on everything from Iraq, to getting the UN involved, to education, to health care, prescription drugs and immigration.

But let's not talk about those and the differences among the candidates. Instead let's pretend that all the candidates are out there just having a grand old time bashing Bush.

To acknowledge that the candidates are, in fact, talking about issues and then examining what they're saying would be just too much like serious observation. Instead, let's cast Bush as victim to all those nasty Democrats.

"This president got a lot of people to vote for him by hammering the other guy on such issues as character and values. If you believe that many of his initiatives have been reckless and involved deception, how do you not use these words?"

But here's another news flash: You can't talk about all those issues (the ones we're pretending the candidates aren't discussing) and ignore the guy responsible in very substantive ways for getting us where we are today on those issues.

You see, the major issue in this race is whether we want more of the same for an additional four years. The primary is as much about focusing voters on why a party is preferable as it is about why folks in the party are preferable to others in the same party.

This president got a lot of people to vote for him by hammering the other guy on such issues as character and values. If you believe that many of his initiatives have been reckless and involved deception, how do you not use these words?

Are not character and values still valid issues?

If you want four more years of the same, fine. Then vote for Bush. Tune out the Democratic primary.

But don't pretend that criticizing the guy who makes the decisions is supposed to be suddenly off limits. You can't talk about the decisions without considering the guy who made them and the reasons he did so.

And the fact is that some candidates have been better at opposing Bush's policies than others. Those who voted for his war resolution, for instance, are still dancing around the fact that they did. Democrats notice such things.

But how, for instance, do you look at the sales job in our rush to war in Iraq, the war's aftermath and the failure to get broad international support and not use words like "reckless" and "deceiving"?

This is not name-calling. This is accurate description.

How do we examine the president's statements in selling the tax cuts as a boon to the middle class and the economy without examining what they really did?

Bashing is in the eye of the beholder. After the Democratic field winnows to one, do we suppose that the president won't go after this person in similar fashion? And then will the folks now complaining about the Democrats lecture the president on how he should just stick to the issues?

Not likely.

At Thursday's debate and others preceding, the candidates told us they have plans on health care, prescription drugs, education, small business, Iraq and tax policy.

But the few minutes allotted each of nine candidates in a debate do not lend themselves to chapter and verse. They give us the framework.

It's just easier for us to listen for those zingers, consider the whole affair as a mud-fest horse race, then blame the candidates when they rise to the bait and issue zingers.

Yes, they also focused on Wesley Clark. A new poll anointed him the frontrunner, the status the media gave him even before he formally entered the race.

But was I alone in wanting to hear a discussion of Clark's conflicting statements on the Iraqi war and why he said, before he entered the race, that he thought the folks in the White House were just dandy?

If CNN's Candy Crowley and Jeff Greenfield ask the question, we call this pointed journalism. If the other candidates ask it - in the format designed by CNN - we characterize it as attack politics.

To this ear anyway, Clark's answers were unconvincing. We should want to hear more from him on this.

But just as his statements are fair game in the Democratic primary, Bush's conduct is fair game throughout.

Four more years? That's the issue and there's no way to talk about that without mentioning the job done so far and the guy who has done it. SOURCE

Return To Top of Page

In 2000, W told American voters that he would run the nation like a business. How unfortunate it is the only promise he's kept

I just re-read a comment I posted on another message board, wherein I called the Bush administration a rudderless ship of state. Rereading just made me realize that this is exactlly what George Bush promised us; the government run like a business.

In any corporation or partnership I have ever been involved with, it is every man for himself. Each person spends most of his time negotiating his own best deal, knowing full well that it could all be gone tomorrow, in a bankruptcy or a lawsuit; or knowing full well that it all might just work out great, and billions could be made.

That is all we are seeing. Each of the power players lining their nests before the fall/buyout, getting irrevocable contracts in place. Remember, part of the neocon pathology is the unnerving (to democrats) ability to simply say "I'm sorry! Get over it!" every time -- more and more frequently, I might add -- they gut busted with a big mouthful of morally repugnant hypocratic crow. "So the hell what? I said I'm sorry, now let me take the $149 million dollars I stole from the shareholders and go home!"

That's business. If you're dumb enough to enter into a contract with them, that is your problem...you DID have your lawyer read it over, right?

We need to stop running America like a business. Businesses are too prone to failure. How many are boarded up in your little subsidiary of BushCo? We need to run America like a proud nation who is but one among a community of nations, interdependant, that demonstrates the moral clarity of its vision by adhering to its own laws, and respecting the individual rights and basic human needs of its own citizens, as a model for what could be, something to which each member of the community can aspire.

Instead, we are in the business environment of hostile takeovers, poison pills, secret board meetings, profiteering and cronyism.

Exactly what Bush said we'd get. It's just business. - RMcG

Return To Top of Page

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. RMcG Creative/NBY is making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Site design Copr. 2002-2003 Rob McGrath/RMcG. All artwork on this site Copyright Rob McGrath unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.
"Bitch" scrawl, HOO Cares!, International Cheese & Tobacco are trademarks or service marks of fictitious companies or entities...and I own 'em.
All other insignias or trademarks are the property of the respective registrants. PLEASE RESPECT COPYRIGHTS.