Here's What I Don't Get....bombs in London and Karl Rove's big mouth

First of all, I'm not implying anything, just making an observation...why do terror attacks seem to happen whenever it is most advantageous to the Bush Administration?

Last week during the G8 Summit, a meeting Bush couldn't have been eager to go to, the focus was going to be on Global Trade and Global Warming. Two of George's favorite topics--neither of which win him any points in the polls. Terrorism was going to be a mere footnote on the agenda.

Then the worst attack on London since the Blitz, bin Laden is center stage again, Bush gets to go on world television telling everyone how we're going to win the War on Terror, conservatives get to simultaneously offer sympathy to the Brits, condemn them for being soft on terror, and berate English liberals for criticizing their government's support of the Iraq invasion. Bush's points go skyward and he comes off as a strong world leader (albeit an inarticulate one) instead of the bumbling trickle down economist and detractor of "bad science" he was going into the summit.

Who's going to talk about Global Warming when the Terror Alert Level goes to Orange for the first time since the election? Nobody. Except America Hating Ultra Leftist Wacko Liberals like me. Or so goes the conventional wisdom.

I'm sure there's a suite at Club Gitmo reserved in my name, but I still contend that problems don't go away just because you're not talking about them.

And while we're talking about things I don't understand, why have the "liberal media" still been doing more stories on Deep Throat than they have been on the whole Valerie Plame scandal? I know, Rush, its because the liberal media is obsessed with their glory days and mad as hell they can't bring down another Republican Administration through scandal mongering. That's what you say, but I don't think so.

The Plame scandal is bigger than Watergate. Or it should be. Hey, Media! If they're going to accuse you of being liberal, go ahead and be liberal!

But no...they know better than the rest of us why they shouldn't criticize the Bush Administration. I hate how the conservatives have the press completely cowed and still bitch and moan about how persecuted they are by bias in the press.

I kept asking people all last week why it was that only reporters from the New York Times and Time Magazine were facing jail time when it was conservative columnist BOB NOVAK who broke the story in the first place. Not only could no one I asked answer my question...They had a few of their own.

Like, "What are you talking about?" and "Who are you talking about?"

At which point I had to recount for them the whole saga going all the way back to Bush's State of the Union speech when he lied about the Niger Yellowcake, the debunking of this claim by Joseph Wilson, and the reprisal exposure of Wilson's wife's identity as a CIA operative by Bob Novak quoting "a Top Administration Source."

To which they stared at me blankly like I'd suddenly started speaking French.

Today we find that the source was Rove. Rove....The Architect.

And this revelation that Rove committed a potentially treasonous act by outing a CIA operative in the middle of the GREAT WAR ON TERROR is barely a blip on the news. The liberal media just keeps replaying footage of Hurricane Dennis, the carnage in London, and Bush's latest saber rattling speech to a uniformed audience.

My God, is a spatter of Presidential DNA on a blue dress of a willing sex partner the only thing this country is capable of outrage over? Why is Clinton's lie worth impeachment and Bush's use of documents he should have known were forged to get us into an unending war something we don't have to bother foriving because we go straight to forgetting?

Are the same people who screamed about Clinton's definition of the word "is" going to actually defend Rove by saying the law specifies you have to mention a name, instead of just saying "his wife works over at the CIA on WMD matters" so he didn't actually commit a crime? These guys have no sense of irony.

Is Senator Dick Durbin's likening of actual acts of torture by US troops to actual historical torturers in an effort to stop that behavior by our troops a greater and more obvious act of treason than Karl Rove actually tossing an American CIA operative to the terrorists by revealing her identity to the press?

Or is the greatest act of treason in this country now simply to be a Democrat who disagrees with the current administration?

You don't have to answer....The question was rhetorical. I'm all to aware of how ready people in this country are to defend freedom of speech that expresses an idea they don't share. Ask the guy kicked out of the mall for wearing an anti-war t-shirt he bought at that same mall. Ask the people who put up the Free Speech Zones. Ask Dick Durbin.

Too bad so many people are dying to protect something the Republicans don't really want us to have...The right to dissent and plead for justice in the face of tyranny.

Sic Semper Tyrannus*

*State motto of Virginia, not to be interpreted as a threat to any tyrant living or dead. Any similarity of Republicans to actual or fictional tyrants is purely coincidental. No sympathy for John Wilkes Booth or the cause of the Confederacy implied. I'm a liberal. We love everybody.

Even you.