BUSH SHOWS HIS MEGALOMANIA IN DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS WORLD'S HERO

George W. Bush has made some recent statements that show what an egomaniac he is. Indeed in his remarks to Arab journalists on the eve of his trip to the Middle East, he often refers to himself in the third person as "this guy," as if some impartial observer were engaging in a Bush encomium. Talk about an inflated sense of self-importance! This Bush actually believes all the rosy and boastful claims he makes about himself and his "principles."

Dan Froomkin points these out in his column yesterday in The Washington Post. This is George W. himself talking:

""I can predict that the historians will say that George W. Bush recognized the threats of the 21st century, clearly defined them, and had great faith in the capacity of liberty to transform hopelessness to hope, and laid the foundation for peace by making some awfully difficult decisions," Bush told Yonit Levi of Israel's Channel 2 News. Bush held several interviews with Middle Eastern journalists last week in anticipation of his trip to the region, which starts tomorrow.

""When he needed to be tough, he acted strong, and when he needed to have vision he understood the power of freedom to be transformative," Bush said of himself to Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

"As for the people of the Middle East, Bush told Hisham Bourar of al-Hurra Television: "I would hope that they would say President Bush respects my religion and has great love for the human -- human being, and believes in human dignity.""

This stuff is unbelievable. Bush thinks of himself as a hero, as a great humanitarian, as the saviour of the world. Here's Froomkin:

"Here's Bush talking to Hisham Bourar of al-Hurra TV:

"Q. "Last question, Mr. President. How do you think people in the Middle East will remember you?"

"Bush: "I hope they remember me as the guy who was willing to fight extremists who murdered the innocent to achieve political objectives, and at the same time, had great faith in the people, the average citizen of the Middle East, to self-govern; that the Middle East has got a fantastic future and that I admire the great traditions of the Middle East and believe that the average man can succeed mightily; that societies are best served when they respond to the will of people, and that we must reject the extremists who have a different view of that, the people that only prey on hopelessness. That's what I would hope.

""I would hope that they would say President Bush respects my religion and has great love for the human -- human being, and believes in human dignity. I know my image can be different at times, but I had to make some tough choices on war and peace. On the other hand, I hope people are now beginning to see the emergence of a free Iraq, based upon a modern constitution, is part of my vision for achieving peace that we all want.""

Thanks to Dan Froomkin for picking up on Bush's megalomaniac statements. After reading this tripe, perhaps we should petition for Bush to be canonized a saint. Then we could all bow down and pray to him, "Dear St. George W. Bush . . . help us mere mortals to be more freedom-loving . . . "

MEAN JUSTICE SCALIA SAYS CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MANDATE LACK OF PAIN IN EXECUTIONS

One of the most important reasons to oppose any more judicial appointments by Bush and Cheney is the position the Bush cronies and supporters take on capital punishment. Consider today the comments of Justice Antonin Scalia on the death penalty in which he seemed unmoved by any discussion of pain caused by a three-drug cocktail administered to the condemned, as if the Constitution said nothing about "cruel and unusual punishment."

Mark Sherman reports for the AP appearing in today's The Washington Post:

"Supreme Court justices indicated Monday they are deeply divided over a challenge to the way most states execute prisoners by lethal injection, which critics say creates an avoidable risk of excruciating pain.

"With executions in the United States halted since late September, the court heard arguments in a case from Kentucky that calls into question the mix of three drugs used in most executions."

The difference of opinion on allowing the death penalty is the hallmark of conservative judges. Conservative jurists love the death penalty, and they don't find anything repulsive or cruel about it in any of its forms.

Consider the report on über-conservative Scalia:

"Justice Antonin Scalia was among several conservatives on the court who suggested he would uphold Kentucky's method of execution and allow capital punishment to resume.

"States have been careful to adopt procedures that do not seek to inflict pain and should not be barred from carrying out executions even if prison officials sometimes make mistakes in administering drugs, Scalia said. "There is no painless requirement" in the Constitution, Scalia said."

Has Scalia ever heard of the Eighth Amendment that bars cruel and unusual punishment? Furthermore, the U.S. is among the few countries that still impose the barbaric death penalty. Other countries include China, Iran and Iraq. Why must the U.S. still cling to the outdated and repudiated reason that criminals will be deterred from committing murder because of the death penalty?

"Both sides in the case said they are bothered by the seemingly endless series of death penalty cases that come to the court.

"Justice David Souter urged his colleagues to take the time necessary to issue a definitive decision about the three-drug method in this case, even if it means sending the case back to Kentucky for more study by courts there.

"Scalia, however, said such a move would mean "a national cessation of executions. We're looking at years. We wouldn't want that to happen.""

BUSH/CHENEY INVENT NAVAL CONFRONTATION WITH IRAN

This is all so predictable. Bush and Cheney have been blindsided by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran does not have any program for the development of nuclear weapons. This removes their reason to mount a military attack against Iran and the Iranians.

So now they have the U.S. Navy come out with a story that Iran has been threatening U.S. naval ships in waters off the coast of Iran. And the U.S. Navy claims that the Iranians said that some U.S. ships would "blow up."

Come on! This is all total spin and smoke. If Iran has no nuclear weapons program, then Bush and Cheney must make up something else to constitute a casus belli. Anything to demonize Iran and the Iranians. Cause to bomb Teheran and start a military action to topple the Iranian government.

I say to Bush and Cheney: stop this war mongering against Iran. Instead of dropping bombs and killing Iranians, sit down with the Iranians and talk about how governments in countries like the U.S. and Iran can live and work without shooting missiles and dropping bombs.

ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD NAME A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE DESTRUCTION OF CIA TORTURE VIDEO TAPES

I want to see Attorney General Michael Mukasey name a special prosecutor outside of the Department of Justice to investigate the destruction of the torture video tapes made by the CIA. Appointing someone from the Justice Department is like having the fox guard the hen house. Even if the designated prosecutor is as pure as Caesar's wife, still there remains a suspicion over picking someone from the government to do the investigation of the government, especially in this case, when the highest officials, viz., Bush and Cheney, may be involved.

STOP TALK ABOUT "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" - WE NEED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL AMERICANS

I could not believe what I was hearing and watching on CNBC's Fast Money this past week. One of the guest traders, John Najarian, was commenting on Barach Obama's win in Iowa, consoling himself that at least Obama's health care plan did not constitute "socialized medicine" the way the plans of the other Democrats did (i.e., plans of Clinton and Edwards).

As if requiring all persons to be covered by health insurance constituted "socialized medicine." Perhaps the trader would like to see the 40 million+ Americans without any health insurance grow to 100 million. And like Bush, the trader probably would urge such uninsured to stop whining and resort to the emergency room when they need immediate care.

The term "socialized medicine" is loaded with historical baggage going all the way back at least to the Republicans' objections to FDR's proposal for Social Security retirement income. When the government provides SS retirement income to people generally over the age of 65, some conservative critics like Najarian would call this "socialized medicine." Imagine the hardship for the older population without social security income!

Consider Medicare, the program providing health insurance for seniors over 65. Even today, George W. Bush and his Republican supporters have tried to overturn the government's involvement in Medicare by substituting and subsidizing private insurance providers, conspiring to have them take the place of government. Fortunately, Bush's efforts have gone nowhere.

Medicare of course provides health insurance to those over 65. Now when the Democrats come out with plans to extend the same coverage to those under 65, the reactionaries scream and cry "socialized medicine." But if most people value Medicare as a good way to provide health coverage to those 65 and over, why is it bad to do the same thing for younger people? Why in fact would such health insurance for the young constitute "socialized medicine"?

Why shouldn't the government be involved with health insurance? What is so bad about that? What then does the "socialized" in "socialized medicine" really mean? What is the alternative to not providing universal health coverage? Can American society afford to abandon those children and under-65 adults who struggle with health crises simply because they cannot afford proper insurance?

I don't think so. And I wish that Fast Money on CNBC would require that anyone like Najarian who spouts about "socialized medicine" explain why universal health insurance should not be enacted as a priority of the next administration.

CHEERS TO OBAMA AND EVEN TO HUCKABEE FOR VICTORIES IN IOWA

Cheers for everyone in Iowa who voted for Barach Obama. And cheers also to Mike Huckabee for defeating that phony Mitt Romney. Now it's on to New Hampshire.

Now about Romney. Mitt just oozes with political opportunism. That guy changes his colors depending on what position he thinks can get him elected. Mitt is against "sanctuary cities," yet he fails himself to turn in his undocumented gardeners. Mitt would double Guantanamo's cells - after all, those guys who have been kept incommunicado and without a lawyer for the last five years can't vote, can they? Mitt also does not know whether waterboarding is torture. I guess that means that Mitt would be in favor of it but only if it secures him votes.

So congrats to Huckabee. And above all, the country has someone in Obama who can overturn Bush's regime of trampling on civil rights. How many more days till Bush is gone?

SOME THOUGHTS WHILE WATCHING IOWA CAUCUSES

The Democrats have so many attractive candidates, anyone of them would make a president far superior to Bush/Cheney. That includes Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson and Obama.

However, my ideal candidate must oppose the dreadful Wall, stop the unjust war in Iraq, and have a health insurance plan that covers all Americans.

Oh, and one other wish. May Mike Huckabee defeat that phony Mitt Romney and knock him out of the race once and for all.

DID BUSH AND URIBE CONSPIRE TO PREVENT HUGO CHAVEZ SECURING RELEASE OF FARC HOSTAGES?

Hugo Chavez has come up empty handed in his attempt to get the FARC to release three Colombian hostages. Chavez believes that George Bush had something to do with the failed release, and so do I. It has been reported on Univision, the Spanish TV network, that Bush apparently consulted with President Alvaro Uribe of Colombia in recent days. This leads to the suspicion that both Bush and Uribe hatched some sort of obstructionist plan to thwart the release of the FARC hostages.

Chavez called Bush the great Satan when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly last year. Consequently, Bush's foreign policy treats Hugo Chavez as an "enemy." Therefore, I believe Bush will do anything to prevent Chavez from getting credit, notwithstanding Chavez' extraordinary attempts to mediate a peaceful solution between the government of Colombia and FARC.

2007 AWARD FOR UTTER RECKLESSNESS GOES TO BENAZIR BHUTTO.

How could Benazir Bhutto have been so reckless? Her caravan was hit by a deadly suicide bombing upon arriving in Pakistan and yet she recklessly offered herself as a target after a rally in Rawalpindi by sticking her head out of the sun roof of her bomb-proofed SUV.

Bhutto also believed Condoleeza Rice and the Bush gang when they whispered that she would be able to bring a softening to the military and dictatorial rule of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf did not appreciate her return. The Pakistani Army did not appreciate her return. Many anti-Western elements in Pakistan also did not want to see her come back. The U.S. blessing was merely that - encouraging words doled out to an ingenue, a modern Jean d'Arc, who believed she had a mission to save Pakistan

So there she was on the day she died. No body guards. No crowd control. No party intelligence to warn her of opposing elements that were out to take her life. She was on her own.

Did she have to be so reckless?

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL OUR READERS FOR 2008

Another year has gone by and so we begin 2008. Wishing all of my readers a happy New Year.