Article: Two Republican buzz word bombs

(1.) "BIPARTISANSHIP" Sounds like a nice and fair minded word, doesn't it, but here's the pug translation:

Over the last seven years, the Bush/Republicans have pushed America, let's just say, 25 giant steps to the right. We have long sense left the lunatic fringe and are now floating upside down in a right wing universe. So, bipartisanship for a bushivick means taking one or two baby steps back to the left, even though that would still leave us in a position at least 23 times worse than where we were before the year 2000! The Senate Democrats actually tried to be bipartisan about the Iraqi resolution, but ended up not only with egg on their face but elbows in the ribs.

The pugs are like a bunch of thugs who steal your cars, your house (inside and out), and then hack into your online financial transactions, but in the interests of "bipartisanship" they grudgingly agree to return the wheels of one of your cars and maybe the silverware, fully expecting the world to regard this "generosity" as fair minded and just. This is called having your cake (i.e., "our" cake) and eating it too. Or, to say it flat out like we used to talk when I was in high school, it means we walk away from being politically gang banged with a sh*t eating grin.

The morale is self evident. Bipartisanship is fine IF AND ONLY IF it is a civilized way to revitalize populist America, and we should have no illusions that this won't take years and years of systematic commitment. We've got to change the Royal Bush Family's bought and paid for Supreme Court for openers and then bring America's environmental protection agencies back from the dead. We also must stop these infinitely self destructive Cheney/Halliburton oil wars and bring home America's heroes. And on and on. You know the list. The point is we will never get within light years of any of these reforms so long as we continue to be suckered into a lose/lose definition of the Republican "bipartisanship" -- which, by the way, are exactly the bipartisanship agendas of dem "centrists" like Judas Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton (the DLC Carville/Clinton smiley face doll).

The tragic irony of Hillary is that if America ever needed the healing wisdom and strength of the Goddess, we need Her now, but Hillary Clinton is a commitmentless desecration of this energy

(2.) "CONSPIRACY" This is the fire wall word the pugs have militantly erected around all plausible high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush/Republican administration. And make no mistake (to borrow some Catholic theology), we're not talking about "venial" sins, but "mortal" sins, i.e., acts of Evil and pathology that trivialize business as usual political hypocrisy and greed.

Such as?

Well, the biggie is the "real story" about 9/11! If you do a search you will find literally hundreds (probably thousands) of carefully researched studies which argue that the Bush/Republican administration wasn't merely guilty of criminal ineptitude, but of much darker activities: specifically, that 9/11 wasn't limited to default stupidity, but that it was in some very real sense "actively encouraged" by elements in the Bush Administration.

We should never forget that Bush was in the political toilet before 9/11, but AFTER 9/11 he suddenly because a media created cardboard patriot (but why, for hiding out in basements?). The truth of the matter is that for millions of Americans this possibility has long since evolved into an effective certainty. However, for this discussion, let's keep all the cards on the table and stay with possibility only.

The factual evidence is overwhelming that literally hundreds of warnings that 9/11 was in the wind were conspicuously ignored by the Bush Administration and how can this not suggest the possibility that these warning were not acted on intentionally?

Our country has long since discounted the first Bush spin on 9/11, which was that the bushivicks were caught with their pants down and 9/11 was a totally unexpected meteor from hell.

The second, and damage control, spin was that 9/11 (to some trivial degree) was a Bush mistake, and the pugs should have been more alert and protective of America.

However, the 3rd scenario is as straight from hell as 9/11. It is that 9/11 was neither impossible to predict, nor a Republican screw up; rather in this treasonous scenario, 9/11 was literally encouraged (however indirectly) IN ORDER to metamorphose Bush into a war time President

A President, lest we forget, who then immediately became a mortal enemy of our Constitutional Republic and dragged America into two quicksand Middle Eastern oil wars (with a 3rd one in the wings) and who is criminally annihilating the American middle and lower classes with munificent tax breaks for multimillionaires and billionaires -- including Texas energy companies which are raping and murdering Mother Nature as we speak.

The point is, the Bush atrocities started virtually the next day after 9/11. Before that he was an ineffectual wimp and disliked by most Americans (remember he did NOT receive the popular vote!).

Well, possibility or reality? Clearly it's up to each of us to choose, but so long as that firewall is strong, we will never be able to find out the necessary facts to make that determination.

Of course, that in itself is a little damning, isn't it? My goodness, if this possibility is without basis, why doesn't the Bush/Administration come clean and share with America the thousands and thousands of documents which would quickly result in a thumbs up or thumbs down?

Lastly, if history says it's thumbs down, without a doubt, this will be the most monstrous patriotic and moral betrayal in American history.
**********************************************************************
W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

more op-eds, poetry, fiction, and essays from Bill at

The Liberation of Realism

(still a blog in progress -- submission and/or response capability will be available soon -- thanks for waiting)