Eden Hill Journal

Comments, dreams, stories, and rantings from a middle-aged native of Maine living on a shoestring and a prayer in the woods of Maine. My portion of the family farm is to be known as Eden Hill Farm just because I want to call it that and because that's the closest thing to the truth that I could come up with. If you enjoy what I write, email me or make a comment. If you enjoy Eden Hill, come visit.

My Photo
Location: Maine, United States

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Swarms of US

The Gruesome Reality of Operation Swarmer
An example of how the media isn't covering the "good news" in Iraq? I don't find any confirmation of this story and this is my first visit to this website. But this sounds like other Iraq stories that have been coming to the public's attention recently.

Out to Get Them

You know, whenever Republicans screw up and get caught, the conservative take on it is always that the "liberals" were out to get them. I mean wasn't that Gannon's gripe? And when Cheney shot his hunting buddy and then found a creative way to reveal it to the public, wasn't that the claim? And don't they claim that Joe Wilson was out to get the White House? And all the critics of the war, aren't they just using the war to score politically against the Republicans? Today there's the Barbara Bush mess.
So we have all these Republican blunders, and many many more, but the blundering Republicans are never the real problem. Nor are their blunders. The main problem is the "liberal" media who criticize untouchable conservatives.
What really needs to be done is for these liberals to just shut up. Let the conservatives expose themselves. And when they do, then sweep the whole dark mess under the rug.
Use the prison torture issue as the example for how to deal with Republican blunders. Systematize the blunders but do it underneath the public's radar. Twist the Constitution to shreds. Lie to the voters. Bribe and swindle. Turn American values upside down. Bankrupt the whole country in every way you can. Distort Christianity until it appears to advocate for the destruction of Creation. Oppose science. Ignore truth. Declare war on terrorism and then fight the war with terror as your main weapon. And call anyone responsible for all these blunders "patriots."
That's the Republican way to handle things. Anything the liberals say is just them "out to get us."


Get out the violins, folks. Yet another Republican has become the victim. It's time once again to cry in our stale beer. What these poor victims of the abusive "liberal media" really need is to form a support group. Maybe they could elect a reformed gay whore as their fearless leader, someone to help bolster their damaged self-esteem.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Unitary Patriot

It seems that the compromises worked out by Congress in order to renew the Patriot Act weren't welcomed by President Bush so he excused himself from the requirements of the law in another of his "signing statements" which basically amount to a line-by-line item veto of any and every law ever written by Congress. After reading the signing statement myself, all I can think of is Bush telling Congress [go fuck yourself].
Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont responded:
''The president's signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word[...] The president's constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so."

Apparently the term "faithfully" means something quite different in the White House than it does to the rest of us.
''The signing statement makes clear that the president will faithfully execute the law in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Or rather with the White House interpretation of the Constitution. Before the Republican Party neutered the nation's courts, it was the responsibility of the courts to determine what was and what was not constitutional. Now that power is in the hands of the "unitary executive branch" and the only power remaining for Congress is the power of impeachment. How long will it be before the Republican Congress gives that power to the White House as well?

Thursday, March 23, 2006


Dear William ,
The word is out. Their position is clear. Last week, Sen. Russ Feingold floated a reckless plan to censure the President, and some Democrat leaders have ecstatically jumped on Feingold's bandwagon.
And, if they gain even more power in November, they won't stop there.
Feingold says that censure actually represents "moderation" and calls the terrorist surveillance program an impeachable offense. Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, fails to rule out impeachment if Democrats retake Congress. Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin is talking "high crimes and misdemeanors." And 31 House Democrats are calling for a committee to look into impeachment. Their leader? John Conyers, who would become House Judiciary Committee chairman under Democrat control.
The Democrats' plan for 2006? Take the House and Senate, and impeach the President. With our nation at war, is this the kind of Congress you want? If your answer is a resounding "NO", I need you to make an urgent contribution to help us win this fight.
Democrat leaders' talk of censure and impeachment isn't about the law or the President doing anything wrong. It's about the fact that Democrat leaders don't want America to fight the War on Terror with every tool in our arsenal. Your immediate action will send these reckless Democrats a message and help preserve our Republican majorities.
And what happens if we stand on the sidelines, and give the likes of Russ Feingold, John Kerry, and John Conyers control of Congress? Here's what the The Wall Street Journal says: "In fact, our guess is that censure would be the least of it. The real debate in Democratic circles would be whether to pass articles of impeachment. ... [E]veryone should understand that censure and impeachment are important -- and so far the only -- parts of the left's agenda for the next Congress."
The world is watching. Using every tool at our disposal to fight terrorists should not be a partisan issue. Democrats should be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind.

Ken MehlmanChairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. Russ Feingold's censure resolution and Democrat talk of impeachment have raised the stakes for 2006. Make your contribution sign the petition , and help make sure this fight is won.

Strong Words

Commenting on an article about the Israel Lobby:
Profs Document Hijacking of U.S. Foreign Policy

Another Day in the Empire concludes an article with this statement:
Once again, Bush reminds us of the tight relationship between Israel’s territorial aspirations and its connection to the military prowess (now in obvious decline) of the United States. “The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace,” said our Caesar. “I made it clear, and I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel.”
In fact, this is the only approach, as long ago sketched out by the Straussian neocons and their Jabotinksyite overlords, and diplomacy is but a shell game introduced to make the neocons appear reasonable, when in fact they are neo-Jacobin radicals. Bush’s neocons, in control of the Pentagon, plan to eventually attack Iran, certainly not this month as initially speculated, but some time down the road, maybe this summer, maybe next year, but eventually, as the Straussian neocons, the anti-American AIPAC, and the reprehensible Israeli Jabotinskyite racists have long planned, even if it results in the ultimate destruction of America.

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Future Presidents

From the White House press conference on March 21:

Q Sir, you said earlier today that you believe there's a plan for success; if you did not, you would pull the troops out. And so my question is, one, is there a point at which having the American forces in Iraq becomes more a part of the problem than a part of the solution? Can you say that you will not keep American troops in there if they're caught in the cross-fire in a civil war? And can you say to the American people, assure them that there will come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Bob, the decisions about our troop levels will be made by General Casey and the commanders on the ground. They're the ones who can best judge whether or not the presence of coalition troops create more of a problem than a solution -- than be a part of the solution.
Secondly, I've answered the question on civil war. Our job is to make sure the civil war doesn't happen. But there will be -- but if there is sectarian violence, it's the job of the Iraqi forces, with coalition help, to separate those sectarian forces.
Third part of your question?
Q Will there come a day -- and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable -- will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq.
Q So it won't happen on your watch?
THE PRESIDENT: You mean a complete withdrawal? That's a timetable. I can only tell you that I will make decisions on force levels based upon what the commanders on the ground say.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Those Lying Republicans

Permanent Bases in Iraq?
No, says Karen Hughes, ethics trooper for the Bush administration, December 8, 2005.
No plans, says Rumsfeld on his Christmas 2005 visit to Falluja.
Do not intend to have any, says Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt in Washington state, January 27, 2006.
Yes, says Gen. John Abizaidon Tuesday March 14, 2006.
So, in a government where secrecy and deception are primary ingredients to national security, are we to think of these carefully crafted lies as a good thing or as a bad thing? And just what was it that caused a shift in policy here? Perhaps a newfound desire to ignite a fuse in Iran's derriere?