A year ago, an “event” occurred while we were fighting amongst ourselves as to which was the better candidate – Hillary or Barak – a major news event went whistling over my head, or rather – a major news event was hopelessly under reported in the U.S.

I found myself searching for a credible back up to support my argument with an office wingnut that Al-Qaida had nothing at all to do with Saddam Hussein pre 9-11. This asshole is hopelessly mush-brained from years of a steady diet of Fox News, he thinks Hannity is “a good man” and that O’Reilly is “fair and balanced”.

I took it for granted, since I have been paying attention and have not subjected myself to the mind control of Fox News Propaganda, that when the media FINALLY forced the issue and made George Bush admit that Iraq, in his words, had “NOTHING”  to do with 9-11 that the issue was finally closed and everyone knew it. Until the office wingnut kept insisting that I didn’t know my history.

HA!! Guess What Folks!?? There are STILL wingnut idiots that didn’t get the memo. They still believe what they were told by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, et al that somehow someway sometime Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaida and had his share of responsibility for 9-11.

Last night on Hardball I watched a clip of Rush “anal cyst” Limbaugh contorting facts until they were unrecognizable, which is usually not surprising, but for the blatant hypocrisy of the direction he was going.

He was trying very hard to convince his audience of drooling idiots that the elderly Annapolis resident that spent his life on the extreme political fringes even further to the right of the Ku Klux Klan was actually, you guessed it, a lefty liberal pinko Berkenstock wearing Prius driving hippy.

He made this convoluted and dubious argument in part by stating that James von Brunn, the 88 year old white supremacist and vile racist that went to the Holocaust Museum exercising his Second Amendment Right by killing an innocent employee was a liberal because he opposed the nomination of John McCain.

That’s right, the same Rush Limbaugh that opposed the nomination of John McCain.

The latest in a long string of screw ups, the economic decline towards Hooverism, is not being blamed on George W. Bush for some reason.

Harlold Meyerson at the Post says: http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Herbert Hoover, we should recall, had a program for dealing with the Depression. It consisted of lending to banks but opposing fiscal stimulus or direct aid to individuals. Which is why Hank Paulson’s frenzied endeavors to prop up the banking sector and Bush’s dogged resistance to assisting anybody else amount to pure neo-Hooverism.

As the 1930s began, Hoover believed that the coordinated actions of the private sector could save the beleaguered economy. It soon became apparent that the only action that private-sector businesses could agree upon was closing down factories and offices and throwing people out of work. Under immense pressure to do something, in late 1931 Hoover asked Congress to establish the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, to provide funds to banks it deemed creditworthy.

Does this sound familiar? A “commander”, inept or otherwise, forcefully closing his eyes so he won’t see the locomotive juggernaut of failed economic policies and how they affect us little people not included in his “base”.

As breadlines lengthened, he [Hoover] vetoed a bill appropriating funds for public works on the grounds that it was inflationary and contained pork-barrel spending. Bankers would be saved; everyone else was effectively damned.

History repeating itself? Isn’t this administration focusing its efforts on the lending institutions and ignoring the homeowners unable to pay off their mortgages? Do they still think it’s going ‘trickle down’ after 28 years of proof that the only thing that trickles down is warm and wet and unwelcome.