Monthly Archives: May 2008

Bush Mislead the U.S. about Iraq? I’m Shocked!!

Former Press Secretary to George Bush Scott McClellan has written a new book, due out in June, titled What Happened:  Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.  Scott McClellan was deputy press secretary for George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas, and served as his traveling press secretary during Bush’s 2000 Presidential campaign before taking over as White House Press Secretary after Ari Fletcher left in 2003, so you could say he is a “loyal Bushie.”

It is not kind.

According to the Washington Post, “Bush is depicted as an out-of-touch leader, operating in a political bubble, who has stubbornly refused to admit mistakes,” and “able to convince himself of his own spin.”

The New York Times sums it up by stating “President Bush ‘convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment,’ and has engaged in ‘self-deception’ to justify his political ends.

The White House said McClellan is “obviously disgruntled,” although they didn’t actually take the time to deny the claims in the book were factual.  (hmmmm . . . )

He criticizes much of the Bush Administration, from Hurricane Katrina (the Bush administration “spent most of the first week in a state of denial” and “allowed our institutional response to go on autopilot.”) to the ousting of CIA agent Valerie Plame for political purposes (“I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the President himself.”)

But based upon news sources, much of the book seems to be centered on the lies and misinformation the Bush administration used to lead us into an unjustifiable war in Iraq.  He accuses the administration of staging a “political propaganda campaign” designed for “manipulating sources of public opinion” to “downplay the major reason for going to war.”

Ultimately, even McClellan himself admits the Iraq War was a “fateful misstep” and a “serious strategic blunder.”  Although he doesn’t lay blame squarely on Bush’s shoulders.  He also (justifiably) criticizes the media for going along with the story too easily, claiming they “become complicit enablers of [Washington’s] polarizing effects . . . If anything, the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House and to the administration in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during my years in Washington, the choice over whether to go to war in Iraq . . . The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise. … In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

“Over that summer of 2002,” he writes, “top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the President’s advantage.”

The effect was the White House “almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.”  They “allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie . . . What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

“[Bush] and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war.  The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise.”

Well no shit.



Filed under politics

The Great Geno on Sirius Radio

On Friday, May 30, The Great Geno will be on “The Blog Bunker” on Sirius Radio Indie Talk 110, between 4:00pm and 5:00pm Central Time.

If you get the opportunity, please check me out. I would love to hear any feedback.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

McCain’s Iran Ignorance: Updated

Late last night (technically early this morning) I wrote that McCain doesn’t even know who runs Iran. The point I was trying to make was that he (and Bush, for that matter) are trying to scare Americans into a Cold War-type fear of Iran using their eccentric (and crazy) President, Mahmoud Ahmanidejad. Of course, Ahmanidejad doesn’t actually run the country; he doesn’t even have control over the country’s nuclear or foreign policy. Iran’s Supreme Leader, currently Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, is named by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran as the highest ranking official, and dictates the country’s policies in these two areas. To be honest, I didn’t actually think McCain was unaware that President Ahmanidejad held a mostly ceremonial post, but was using a high-visibility official most Americans thoroughly despise as a way to garner support for his viewpoint. Pretty bad, that one would lie about such things in order to slant public opinion. And since he made the claim, I thought the tongue in cheek comment of “how can we expect McCain to appropriately deal with the leadership of Iran when he doesn’t even know whom the leadership is?” was legitimate.

Well, it turns out that I was wrong. Not that it was a low blow, but that McCain apparently doesn’t know who Iran’s real leader is. In fact, when confronted with this information, he not only admitted he was unaware that Ahmanidejad was not the de facto leader of the country, but even denied that Ayatolla Khamenei held that post.

Now, lest you think John McCain might be better informed on such matters than I, you don’t have to take my word for it. The CIA lists the “Chief of State” as Khamenei. According to, you know, our own government, evidently he is appointed to a life term by the “Assembly of Experts,” has control over the appointment of “more sensitive ministries” in the Cabinet, and appoints many of the members of the Executive Branches’ three oversight committee. Oh, and he also determines the country’s foreign and military policy (did I mention that?)

Time Magazine’s Joe Klein, a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (so what would he know, anyway?), broached the subject to McCain because it turns out, in contrast to the Senator’s statements, Barack Obama didn’t actually ever say he was going to engage in formal discussions with Ahmanidejad. McCain objected to this correction, at which time Klein promptly informed him that he had said meeting with the leaders of the country may be appropriate, but not necessarily Ahmanidejad himself. McCain laughed, and alerted us to the (incorrect) fact that Ahmanidejad is the leader. And when Klein said that he “might be mistaken,” McCain’s response was “he’s the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country’s policy . . .”

Of course, the President of the United States very seldomly goes to the United Nations to declare our policies. Currently, the person who does that job is Zalmay Mamozy Khalizad. So by McCain’s logic, Mr. Khalizad, and not George W. Bush, is the leader of the United States. (Boy, if the people who don’t like Obama because they think he’s Muslim ever find out about that . . .)

But the fact that he speaks in front of the U.N. was not the only evidence McCain brought out to support his position. He reinforce the accuracy of his claim by stating “I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.” So evidently countries half way around the world determine who their leader is based upon public opinion in the United States. Now, six out of ten 18-24 year olds in the United States can’t even find Iraq on the map, so these countries may want to think twice before picking their leaders based upon what Joe Sixpack in Biloxi thinks.

Of course, 68% of Americans think that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, and the same margin thinks we should either withdraw all or some of our troops in Iraq, so I’m guessing a McCain speech detailing a shift in policy regarding the war will be forthcoming very shortly.

Senators are weighing in on the feud between Obama and McCain. Take these two partisan comments, one by a Republican Senator and one by a former Democrat Senator, and try to guess which one made which.

First: “I’m very upset with John with some of the things he’s been saying. And I can’t get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he’s been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things.”

Second: “There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as President, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.”

I’ll give you a hint – you’re wrong. The first statement was made by the Senator of Nebraska Chuck Hagel, a Republican. The second was made by the Senator from Connecticut and former Democrat Vice President candidate Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, in case you forgot, was the one who clued McCain in that Iran wasn’t providing weapons to al Qaeda because, to put it bluntly, Iran hates them. (Also, his claim that Obama has “a blanket policy of meeting personally as President” is incorrect. He stated that the Obama White House would meet with leaders, not necessarily Obama personally. I’m quite certain that’s not even logistically possible.) The good news for Democrats is Lieberman might end up being on the McCain ticket.

Finally, an interesting story came across the wire today that two superdelegates were bribed into endorsing Clinton with a one million dollar contribution to their organization, Young Democrats. They declined the, um, “offer.” Man, she can’t even buy votes these days.


Filed under politics

McCain’s Foreign (to Reason) Policy, Fun with Math

John McCain thinks that Iran has the power to be every bit as threatening to the United States as the Soviet Union in its prime. If I was Russian, I’d be pretty insulted.

At the time, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were competing for supremacy in mid-Europe, the Mideast, Central America, and Southeast Asia. Iran and the U.S. are fighting for supremacy in a couple of areas in Iraq. The Soviet Union had a nuclear arsenal larger than every other country on earth combined, including the United States. Iran doesn’t even have a nuclear power plant, let alone a nuclear weapon. The U.S.S.R. had the world’s second largest economy; Iran doesn’t have the second largest economy in its region. The United States was fearful of Soviet weapons in space. Iranian space travel requires the use of heavy psychedelics.

But where McCain’s statements turn from moronic to Iranic (get it?) is that he made them to illustrate the fact that negotiations with Iran should not be on the table, that the U.S. needs to take a hard line with the country and not engage in discussions which “would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically.” I tried to find some quote in which McCain explains how a country which is so powerless they need open negotiations with the U.S. in order to “confer international legitimacy” poses such a great threat to us.

More to the point, McCain seems to forget that when confronted with a foe as dangerous at the Soviet Union, intense discussions were necessary for thirty years in order to prevent war between the two states. If Iran poses such a great danger, shouldn’t similar policy be enacted to confront it? And wouldn’t the policy of “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” be a little, um, crazy?

The truth is, McCain doesn’t really seem well prepared to deal with Iran at all. Forgetting for a moment that he seems to forget what side they fall on in the whole “shiite vs. sunni” thing, the primary focus of his fear-mongering against Iran seems to be the dangerous and unstable leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Funny thing about that is the President of Iran is largely a symbolic position, with no power over the country’s military capacities and no authority over its foreign affairs. That honor goes to Ayatollah Alie Khamanei. How can we expect McCain to appropriately deal with the leadership of Iran when he doesn’t even know whom the leadership is?

And in another showing of complete international idiocy, he chided Obama for claiming that dialog should be initiated between the U.S. and Cuba; on Cuba Day no less! He claims: “These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators — there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms.” Instead, he says his Presidency will ensure that Cuba releases all political prisoners; legalizes all political parties, labor unions, and media; and holds internationally monitored elections. All very good ideas. Of course, since we’re not going to have dialog with the Cuban government, evidently he’s going to wish these reforms into existence. The United States policy in Cuba has not worked for fifty years; Fidel Castro was the world’s longest leader until he finally had to give up his position . . . to his brother. If the United States truly wants reform, we’re going to have to engage in open discussions with the leadership of Cuba. Otherwise all we’re doing is enabling the continuation of the dictatorship which McCain so despises.

By the way, one interesting little note about how much McCain values labor unions in Cuba. On the same day, the exact same day, he insulted Obama by claiming he was merely “a tool of organized labor. So labor unions in Cuba good, labor unions in the U.S. bad. I’m sorry, but I’m missing the connection.

Obama is a big jerk, a “tool of organized labor,” if you will, because he has the audacity of being against free trade with such wonderful countries as Colombia. Evidently Colombia is a “beacon of hope” in the region and deserves the free trade agreement because they have illustrated such wonderful worker and human rights activities as the murder of thousands of union leaders, illegal child labor, arbitrary arrest and detainee mistreatment and torture, and, of course, the largest provider of narcotics to the United States. But, in showing his fanatical devotion to American labor unions, Obama seems to think that American jobs are more important. Tsk, tsk.

I learned some fun delegate math!!:

Right now the number of pledged and superdelegates required to win the Democractic nomination stands at 1026. If that number holds, Obama could actually have that wrapped up on June 3 with solid showings in the two remaining states and Puerto Rico. Probably not, but it will certainly be close enough that Clinton could concede that night. However, the Clinton camp argues the magic number should be 2209, which would include Michigan and Florida. That number doesn’t quite hold up, though, because if Michigan delegates were to be awarded based solely upon election results, some 58 delegates would be in limbo as they would be awarded to an “uncommitted” candidate. So the total would really be 2151. But Florida and Michigan won’t be awarded in full; Clinton’s own campaign manager (Terry McAuliffe) says the “rule is fifty percent” while Howard Dean and members of the DNC have made it very clear that Michigan and Florida need to be punished in some way. The specifics will be hashed out on May 31, when the DNC Rules Committee meets. Probably the most likely scenario is that Michigan and Florida are halved, and if the full amount of superdelegates are awarded (which should be in Clinton’s favor) the magic number will be 2131. If delegates are halved, I would expect the pledged delegate counts to be 35-29 in favor of Clinton in Michigan, and 62-31 in favor of Clinton in Florida (estimations are made using Slate’s handy-dandy delegate calculator). Obama will probably end up with about 1700 pledged delegates from the other states and providences, giving him 1760 total. Clinton will have about 1545, giving her a total of 1642. He already has 305 superdelegates to her 281 (per NBC’s count, which is the most pro-Clinton of the major news companies), meaning Obama will need to pick up 66 more superdelegates while Clinton would have to pick up 208. In other words, under the best conditions, Clinton would have to pick up over three times the amount of superdelegates Obama has to pick up to win the nomination. Just over 75%

Considering most of the remaining undeclared superdelegates in the Congress have said the winner should be the candidate with the most pledged delegates, and Obama will win the pledged delegate count under any scenario, it is certainly not unreasonable to see the total amount Obama would need to clinch the election less than two or three dozen within the next week after May 31. This could push the margin of victory required for Clnton to take over the nomination well over 85% going into June. And keep in mind that’s with things more or less working out for Clinton.

As it stands right now, there are 314 total delegates (counting both pledged and superdelegates) yet to be allotted. Obama needs 72, or a mere 23%. Clinton needs Florida and Michigan not to win, but to merely survive.

More fun with math: With Clinton’s big win in Kentucky and Obama’s large but not-so-big win in Oregon, two things have become clear in regards to the popular vote. It will be virtually impossible for Clinton to win the popular vote without counting Michigan, where Obama is not on the ballot, and virtually impossible for Obama to win it counting the Wolverine State. Of course, this is ignoring the caucus states. Still, an interesting little tidbit, albeit meaningless (is Michigan going to sway the superdelegates, who are more likely to decide upon the nuances and intricacies of the party rules than a candidate’s notion of fairness? Obviously not.)


Filed under politics

Politics (mostly) Riff

A few news stories that I find interesting but not necessarily worth a full blog:

First, according to Jonathan Alter of Newsweek, the fight over seating the Michigan and Florida delegates has actually led superdelegates to support Obama. Mostly his piece is about how Clinton could use the issue to help define her role in the convention, or even the party as a whole, in a post-Hillary ticket. But he does say the effect will be limited because, at the end of the day, the people who make the decisions in the DNC don’t really feel sorry for Michigan and Florida, and view Clinton’s stance on it as somewhat hypocritical, given that she agreed the votes shouldn’t count last fall and her chair (Terry McAuliffe) held a similarly hard line against Michigan when he was running the DNC. It’s been so distasteful for some, that Simon Rosenberg of the New Democrat Network said it was “instrumental” in securing many of Obama’s superdelegate support.

Now, the New Democrat Network is a combination of a (527) group and a PAC, and that’s always dangerous. But Simon Rosenberg was a finalist for the DNC chair in 2004 before ceding the position and putting his support behind Dean, so he obviously has some high-powered information. It’s not surprising that the superdelegates didn’t put much weight on the role of Michigan and Florida when casting their decisions. One thing that has always confused me is Clinton keeps making public arguments out of the nuances of the nominating process, when her only hope now lies in the superdelegates. She can try to sway her supporters into believing that caucuses aren’t democratic or that Florida and Michigan Democrats did nothing wrong and shouldn’t be punished, or that we should only count the votes in a certain, convoluted way, but she’s had the delegate count lost for quite some time now and her campaign has admitted for the last couple of months that she would need strong superdelegate support to win the nomination. The problem is, these superdelegates are party insiders; they know how the system works, are (assumedly) very well informed of its developments, and have gotten their prestigious jobs from this process. It’s absurd to think they’ll bite into the propaganda just because the Clinton’s ask them to.

But to hear that it not only didn’t sway support to Clinton, but actually led to support for Obama, did take me aback. Evidently, they were just as insulted by the rhetoric as I have been.

In related news, Democrat Rules Committee Member, former chairman, and Clinton supporter Donald Fowler said that Obama could pretty much let Hillary have her way, within reason, without “threatening his postion.” In other words, a very powerful Clinton superdelegate admitted that Obama’s more or less got this locked up and Florida and Michigan cannot make a meaningful impact. “If he thinks he’s threatened, he won’t do it, and I don’t blame him. But unless something unusual happens between now and then, he will be in good shape.” Not only is the writing on the wall, but Peter Parker took its picture, printed it in the Daily Bugle, and it’s now on page 537 of your son’s high school history book.

To her credit, Clinton has done her part and laid off the rhetoric lately, apparently abandoning her “kitchen sink” strategy for one which, while ultimately ineffective (of course, so was the kitchen sink), should help make her case without damaging Obama for the general election. Yesterday she went so far as to express regret for saying that he won’t be able to win over “hard working Americans, white Americans.” In an interview with ABC News, she was told that Congressman Charles Rengel from New York called the remark “the dumbest thing you could have possibly said.” Clinton’s response? “Well, he’s probably right.”

Her only real argument for staying in the election seems to be that she’s “not a quitter,” and it would be wrong to leave before every state votes. This was pretty much Mike Huckabee’s argument before McCain won the nomination. As long as she continues to be more Huckabee than, let’s say, Hillary Clinton, this thing should end pretty smoothly.

Though Clinton supporters will have another “Obama’s sexist” log to throw on the fire. Evidently, Obama had to call a reporter and leave a voice mail (he’s been leaving a lot of voice mail recently) to say he’s sorry for calling her “sweetie.” This is really a non-story; I don’t know how many times a black woman has called me “honey.” I find it rather endearing. But since some of these Clinton supporters (in my belief, a very small but much too vocal minority) seem to want to find sexism in every thing about this nomination, I’m sure it will come up. Be forewarned. I guess I can’t seem to blame them too much. A person they thought was entitled to win the nomination lost, and of course that can’t be the candidate’s fault. Human nature. How can the Patriots lose the Super Bowl? Obviously they weren’t outplayed; the officials must have screwed up the timing, or something.

Finally, I would like to say something about fantasy baseball. I love fantasy sports. I’ve been in two leagues; I was the champion in my football league debut and took home the (digital) third place trophy in my baseball debut. And now I’m tearing up, absolutely shredding, my second baseball season. How good am I? Jake Peavy, one of my starting pitchers, was hit hard by the Cubs, giving up four runs in only four innings of work. Then Kerry Wood, one of my closers, gave up a run and let four people reach base in his only inning of work, which wasn’t even a save situation. And yet my lead against my poor opponent increased from 6-5 to 9-2. Last week I won 12-0 in the league’s only shutout of the year, and over the last two weeks my record was 22-2.

That, my friends, is a powerhouse.


Filed under politics, sports

Timing is Everything

Last night I was watching a losing campaign and starting to get a bit depressed (of course, I’m referring to the Cubbies), and I thought to myself; I wonder if Obama asked any superdelegates to hold off on publicly supporting them until tomorrow, to offset the expectedly large loss in West Virginia?

It seems like I was correct.

Before the sun came up today, Obama’s camp announced the support of two superdelegates, Rep. Peter Visclosky of Indiana and Democrats Abroad chair Christine Schon Marques. Later in the day, pro-choice group NARAL gave him their endorsement (I’m going to vote for Obama anyway).

And just about an hour ago it was announced that a very (un)important person endorsed him: John Edwards.

Let me tell you, John Edwards looked good standing next to Barack Obama. He looked like a VP standing next to his Commander-in-Chief. I’m not sure picking Edwards is the best move for a variety of reasons (mostly because he didn’t do much for Kerry), but I do thoroughly like him, and wouldn’t complain at all about seeing him in the White House come next January.

We’ll see what his endorsement does. He has seventeen to twenty delegates (depending on the source), which means his endorsement could potentially be a bigger prize than Hillary’s “big” (meaningless) win in West Virginia. More importantly, it could start a flood of superdelegates to Obama’s side.

Personally, I doubt that this will clinch the nomination. For example, I don’t think older women and “working-class” whites (I hate that term; I’m a college grad who makes more than $50,000, and I work harder now than when I was a poor, “uneducated” HR rep) won’t start flooding to him. But what people forget is that Clinton is winning this segment; not McCain. Just like the party rallied around McCain after he got the nomination, the Democrats will rally around Obama. The only reason there’s even a doubt is because Clinton is exploited it for political gain (though she’s said time and time and time again Obama will beat McCain). Nor do I think the flood will actually occur (not that it’s needed; there will continue to be a steady stream for the next three weeks, but he will have the necessary votes shortly after June 3, if not before). However, I do think it will sway a few delegates over and I find it hard to believe any of Edward’s delegates will come out for Clinton. Most importantly, it should push the endorsement of several unions to Obama’s corner, which will be big in the primary, if not in the general election (I have doubted a union’s ability to bring their members to an individual ticket for quite some time).

I would say it should show some people who’s biggest strength seems to be denial that this thing really is over for Clinton. It seems like Clinton is staying around until June 3, at which point she will quickly drop out. It’s her own comments, as well as interviews with her staff, that lead me to this conclusion. This way she gets to take the high ground and say she made sure “every vote counts.” (Well, not every vote. Caucus states don’t count.) She will also get to claim the high ground when Florida and Michigan get some of their delegates seated (even Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe admits that “the rule is 50 percent.”). Of course, by that time it won’t matter.

I’ve gotten used to the fact that Obama has won the nomination, but this is pretty sweet. The only thing that would be better is if Gore endorses, and I would be surprised if that happens before the convention regardless of the outcome of the primary. Excuse me if I crow for a little while.

Now it’s the Cubs turn . . .

A little point of irony. I just heard on MSNBC that George W. Bush gave up golf for lent. No, just joking. But he did give up golf for the Iraq War. He said that “playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.” I wonder where he could have possibly gotten that idea?? Hmmm . . .

I guess he does listen to his father, after all.


Filed under politics

Cubbies Sweep and Prior Weeps

Friday I said that Daryl Ward has been practically useless off the bench. Actually, as of Friday afternoon he was literally useless, as he had not had one hit in a pinch hit appearance.

Saturday, off the bench, he had an RBI single which scored Mark DeRosa (who’s been one of my better fantasy league pickups, but that’s another blog) which tied the game, and yesterday he hit a two run double which ended up being the winning hit in the final game of a series sweep against the Diamondbacks at Wrigley.

So you know, I’m taking full credit. You’re welcome.

Of course, the other side of that story is Ward pinch hit for Felix Pie. Now, I understand the theory is Pie has nothing left to prove in the minor leagues. Last year he hit .362 with a Bonds-esque .973 OPS, so that certainly seems to be the case. But if a guy can’t hit in the majors, he can’t hit in the majors. And this guy can’t hit in the majors. Meanwhile, Matt Murton is hitting .368 with a .870 OPS in Iowa, so it’s not like he has a hell of a lot to prove, either. But he can hit in the majors; he has a career .295 BA, which most people would think is pretty damn good. And even though his field work’s not as good as Pie’s, he’s not exactly Manny Ramirez or Adam Dunn, either (of course, they would argue that he’s not exactly Manny Ramirez or Adam Dunn, either).

Sean Gallagher had a great game in his first major league start (Zambrano was supposed to start but was held up because of an hour rain delay). He couldn’t make it past the fifth inning, but he has been a reliever for quite some time now so five innings at one go is asking a lot. Not sure I want him to stay in the starting five all year, but he certainly deserves another start or two to see what he can do, and if it seems to be just a fluke then hopefully Rich Hill will have his stuff together by then, or at least Sean Marshall will be ready to step in. And since the rotation includes Jason Marquis, it’s always good to have that one extra guy who can step in just in case.

In other news, Mark Prior is having shoulder problems again. According to the Chicago Tribune, the San Diego Padres (or as Mom would say, the South Dakota Padres) wanted him to be in a minor league rehab assignment by now. Instead, this is his second delay due to shoulder soreness, and he hasn’t even made it out of extended spring training yet. This is a familiar story. In case you don’t recall, last year he wanted to make the Cubs 25-man roster and start the season in the bigs. The Cubbies thought that wasn’t such a good idea, said he would start the season in the minors, and had him pitch in extended spring training. Of course, the Cubs were being complete jerks about the situation. He was fine, but there was nothing he could do because he was “just an employee.” “It’s up the Cubs if they want me,” he said bitterly, joking that he could be in the minor league Futures Game because he was going to pitch so well and show us all. He was shut down by the end of April, and hasn’t played in the majors or minors since.

What a loser.

Leave a comment

Filed under sports