SOME WORDS FROM THE SHORT SMART-ASS ON THE BUS

One of the really great things about samizdat (that Russian word for "underground writing" fits way better than blogosphere -- I'm using it and trying, in vain of course, to make it viral) -- is that no matter how sick of doing it you get, there's always something new and unpleasant to deal with. No matter how up your own ass you get with your own thing and your own hassles, "they" keep coming up with new ways to piss you off. Not like the way the Mets do because the Mets are non-pareil at that, and the way "they" fuck with your head is predictable and more toxic than a baseball result. That said, there is no New York Metropolitan player, coach, manager, front-office person or owner who is quite so repulsive and evil as the subject of this little tract: "DR." CONDOLEEZA RICE.

The text from AP:

Rice: Iran resolution doesn't OK war Sun Nov 11, 3:51 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday she does not believe a Senate resolution authorizes President Bush to take military action against Iran.

"There is nothing in this particular resolution that would suggest that from our point of view. And, clearly, the president has also made very clear that he's on a diplomatic path where Iran comes into focus," Rice said.

The Senate in late September voted 76-22 in favor of a resolution urging the State Department to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

While the resolution, by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, a small group of Democrats said they feared labeling the state-sponsored organization a terrorist group could be interpreted as a congressional authorization of military force in Iran.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure. Her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. Clinton insists her vote would not support military strikes and instead was a vote for stepped-up diplomacy.

On Sunday, Rice echoed that view. She said Bush was focused on diplomatic options — not waging war.

"Obviously, it can be the case that he will never take his options off the table, but this particular resolution has nothing to do with that from our point of view," Rice said. "This resolution is saying that there needs to be strong measures taken against Iran, which we have definitely done."

"And if the Iranians suspend their enrichment and reprocessing, I'm prepared to meet my counterpart anyplace, anytime, anywhere," she added. "So the question isn't why will we not talk to Tehran. The question is, why will Tehran not talk to us?"

Rice spoke on ABC's "This Week."

There really is no end to this, is there? I don't even mind that Senator Clinton voted for this shit because she's running for president and I'd like her to win. A while back I wrote about some analysis Cockburn did showing that Jerry Ford was head-and-shoulders the most progressive president in American history and that Ronald Reagan was somewhere near the mean of the distribution. Fair enough. I accept that a guy like Jerry Ford may come around in a generation or two but Center-Right is the best you can hope for in a U.S. President. Americans have grown accustomed to two long, useless, wasteful wars with no end in sight. I truly don't believe the polling that Americans are against ANY of this. Americans love war more than they love their own children, clearly. It's kind of a toss-up whether they love war more than they dislike Spanish and Arabic-speaking immigrants. War is more "fun". Brown immigrants are less abstract. Call it a toss-up.

Senator Clinton is very bright. Velly, velly bright. She knows all of this drill and I have no doubt she has the hard data to back it up. Why else vote this way? She's a tremendous politician a sine qua non of which is being very, very cold-blooded. She's not, however, a sadist in the way George W. Bush is or your average NASCAR fan is. So, should I decide to vote -- I'm really leaning to passing and rooting PRD here -- she's got me. I hope she's doing the "yeah-yeah-war" thing the way The Big Dog did the "yeah-yeah-family-values." She's not only extremely bright, she has enough common sense to realize that her life is pretty damned great and maybe taking Putin at his word is not such a bad idea. I highly doubt she'd initiate anything with Iran. A year and change to go which means...

...at this point with Bush very much holding the whip hand, three (IQ+AF+IR) seems inevitable with four (+NK) possible. Five (+CU) is tolerable but could fuck me up if it has a destabilizing effect on the whole of the Americas. Six (above+ the entry of: VZ+EC+PE+CO+PA+AR+CH+BZ) is where I cry "Uncle!" Should the option of three be nuclear involving Russia, China, Nuclear EU, Pakistan, India and Israel, 200 Valium and a liter of Wild Turkey 101 would spare me the six-month death by radiation sickness and I can honestly say I've lived every day of 46 years and change.

Let's get back to Ol' Spyglass Nostrils for a minute. I've already gone through what "sanctions" meana. No, they're not like parking tickets nor are they like a fine for an overdue video from Blockbuster. They are devastating not only to Iran but to EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH. What exactly in Lieberman-Kyl is there to prevent aggression against Iran? Please, someone explain. You are all smart people and I am about as dumb as block of concrete. Haven't we seen this movie before? Get the darkie to tell the bald-faced lie so the press is double-plus-squared into it and fucking "liberals" have to go to the PC manual to see if they are allowed to object.

If I'm on the ruling council of Iran, I'm not even worried about war. I've got my hands full with the sanctions alone. If I am the head-of-state of any country which has substantial trade with Iran, I'm pissed. If I am the CEO of a company that does business with Iran, I'm pacing the floor and chewing down great handfulls of tranquilizers, followed by antacid tablets and figuring out which public schools might be OK for my kids and which country houses I should be selling. If I'm an employee of a company anywhere in the world the lion's share of whose business is with Iran I'm weighing up whether I can tolerate sucking cocks for a living. And if so, for how long?

As for your Uncle Kelso, well.. I'm long oil for my son's grandson's huevos. I've long accepted that at the very least the war in Iraq will go on and on and on. That's the peaceful outcome.

And it's really not all that bad. While I take no pleasure in anyone else's suffering, I've grown indifferent in a way. The phrase "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" really does have no meaning beyond "BRING THEM HOME NOW". If they're not coming home anytime soon, and they're not, if I wanted to "support the troops" how would I even go about that? If I wanted to NOT "support the troops" how would I even go about THAT? I would like the wars to end, to un-wind my oil shit, collect my money and not have to see the likes of "Dr." Rice lying to me. I am all "What's-So-Funny-About-Peace-Love-And-Understanding." That's not going to happen, so, ironically, I guess I'm in the weird position of supporting the war but not supporting the troops. Just like George W. Bush. But Tim Russert told me that was Georgia-peachy, so...cool, then. We'll see what happens, I guess. If it ends with a Russian missile with a nuclear warhead hitting SoCom, I've got the Mother's-Little-Helpers and the Big-Bird handy and I'll see you all in the next life.

Kelso's Nuts love you