McCain & Lieberman Sought To Invade Iraq Just 3 Months After 9/11

Maybe Joe Lieberman is the perfect running mate for John McCain after all.

In December 2001, the Bush Administration had been trying to tie the then-recent anthrax mailings to Iraq, only to have those connections fully shot down.

So, members of Congress were enlisted by BushCo to 'get the party started,' so to speak. It seems a jointly signed letter was sent out on December 5th.

From UPI from 12/8/01:

"Two prominent American experts on Iraq cautioned the Bush administration on Friday not to go after Iraq in what is being termed as the possible "second phase" of America's new war on terrorism.

"The warnings came about as 10 key members of Congress sent a letter to President George W. Bush earlier in the week encouraging him to set his sights on Saddam Hussein's regime as the next target in the war.

"'As we work to clean up Afghanistan and destroy al Qaida, it is imperative that we plan to eliminate the threat from Iraq,' they noted.

"Signers of the letter included Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., Jesse Helms, R-N.C., Trent Lott, R-Miss., Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee."

The following day, States News Service (12/11/01), had the following to say:

"With possible U.S. victory nearing in the campaign to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are now setting their sights on another target in the war against terrorism: Iraq.

"Claiming that Iraq continues to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction 'intended for use against the United States,' nine leading members of Congress delivered a letter to the White House advising the administration to "directly confront" Iraqi President Saddam Hussein - "sooner rather than later."

"As part of that effort, the lawmakers advise that President Bush begin beefing up support for Iraqi opposition forces with military training, information gathering and humanitarian assistance.

"'Without allies on the ground inside Iraq, we will be handicapping our own efforts,'" reads the letter, which was spearheaded by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. 'Each day that passes costs us an opportunity to unite and professionalize the Iraqi opposition, thus ensuring it will be less capable when the conflict begins.'"

The 12/6/01 edition of the Washington Post had more details on the letter that was sent:

"The letter adds to the chorus of policymakers calling for efforts to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It follows warnings by Bush that Iraq will face serious consequences if it does not allow United Nations inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. 'We believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later,' the letter said.

"Noting that this month marks the third anniversary of the last U.N. inspection of Iraqi weapons programs, the lawmakers said the current economic sanctions are not enough to contain Iraq. They said the administration had struggled to close "loopholes" in the sanctions but had failed to stop illicit oil sales. They also said they have no doubt Hussein has "reinvigorated" Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs.

"The lawmakers urged Bush to provide more assistance to the opposition Iraqi National Congress. 'Successive administrations have funded conferences, offices and other intellectual exercises that have done little more than expose the INC to accusations of being 'limousine insurgents' and 'armchair guerrillas,' the letter said."

Face The Nation
McCain was a guest on CBS' Face the Nation on 12/9/01. From that transcript comes this revealing excerpt:

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) SCHIEFFER: Now, with another perspective on all of this, from Phoenix, Arizona, Senator John McCain.

Senator McCain, welcome.

U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: Thank you.

SCHIEFFER: I want to get right to it here.

You and a number of other senators, mostly Republicans, but along with Democrat Joe Lieberman and I think Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., have sent a letter to the administration urging the next target to be Iraq. You said, and here`s a quote from the letter, "We believe we must directly confront Saddam Hussein sooner rather than later." Two questions. First, what are you talking about? Are you talking about invading Iraq, or are you talking about something else?

MCCAIN: I think we`re talking about addressing the issue.

As you know, several years ago, we passed a bill that Senator Lieberman and I and others sponsored that called for assisting the internal and external opposition to Saddam Hussein and doing everything we can to overthrow him.

I think that the strategy and the specific tactics would be left to people like your previous guest.

But what I think we`re trying to say is that Saddam Hussein presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America. We know he is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We know he has had contact with terrorist organizations. We know he has violated the terms of his -- the cease-fire agreement of 1991. And recent defectors indicate that he has accelerated his efforts, particularly the acquisition of biological weapons. So he must be addressed.

I would suggest the first thing, as the president has already said, demand the return of the inspectors. And provide real assistance to this internal opposition.

Can they succeed? We don`t know, because we`ve never really given, neither the last administration nor sadly this administration, have given them the assistance that I think they need, to find out whether they are viable or not.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let`s say that Saddam Hussein, and there seems every indication that he`s going to, if he rejects that idea to let the inspectors come back in, then what do we do?

MCCAIN: Then I think, as I said, we continue -- or start to give real assistance to the internal opposition.

And then I think we examine our options. Whether that`s a direct military invasion, whether that`s a bombing campaign, whether that`s a number of other options, I think will be explored by the administration.

But I think it`s got to be a step-by-step kind of a scenario, because clearly we`re going to send young Americans, again, into harm`s way.

BORGER: Well, Senator, don`t you worry that, if we did get into that kind of an armed conflict against Iraq, that it could explode in the Middle East, that Iraq could attack Israel, say, for example, and then we`d have a larger problem on our hands?

MCCAIN: That`s always been, frankly, a nightmare scenario I`ve had, a biological weapon on a Scud missile aimed at Israel and Saddam Hussein making certain demands. I think that that`s a real problem.

Also maintaining the support or at least the acquiescence of other countries in the region would be difficult.

But I think the alternative is to sit by and watch Saddam Hussein cause millions of his own people to starve, which is sad in itself. But most importantly and most dramatically, is that it`s a matter of time before he acquires this capability. And the longer we delay, the more likely we`re faced with one of these nightmare scenarios which could entail casualties of enormous proportions, and, again, a direct threat to the security of the United States of America.

Time For Obama To 'Change' Course

Despite my discomfort with the way Barack Obama has been conducting his campaign, I have spent the past 6 weeks articulating a defense for him, primarily on blogs at the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. I figured that would get more play than merely just posting here, but I think it is important to keep this site up as well. For the run-up to the election, I am hoping to post regularly.

Today, Frank Rich has an op-ed piece titled, "Last Call For Change We Can Believe In." In it, Rich calls for Obama to be more aggressive in taking on John McCain. As is often the case with Rich, he hit a bulls-eye.

I posted the following in their 'comments' section:

If John McCain is going to continue touting foreign policy experience, shouldn't we demonstrate the result of his expertise?

Where are the quotes about how we would be greeted as liberators and how Iraqi money would finance the invasion?

Where are the misquotes on an alleged Iraqi-Pakistani border and his cluelessness over sunni and shia differences?

They are being obscured because Obama is falling into the Kerry trap...playing defense.

The game in politics is won on offense and it needs to be McCain who should be defending the GOP policies of the past 8 years to justify being given 4 more.

The fact that the mainstream media uses the term 'war hero' to gloss over anything that would tarnish the true McCain image, is the biggest joke of the campaign coverage thus far. As if they ever did that for John Kerry.

The very fact that McCain borrowed the Solzhenitsym cross-in-the sand story and the media has left it unexamined tells you all you need to know about the different levels of scrutiny for the 2 candidates.

The only solution is for Obama to constantly be on the attack with McCain. Not a personal attack, but an attack that reveals how wrong-headed McCain has been on policy, issues, and 'facts,' using his own statements against him.

If Obama does not force the issue and play offense, the media will not follow-up on McCain's errors and mis-statements on their own. We have seen that.

If Obama continues to merely fend off attacks, this race is over. I am hoping for a 'change' in that regard.

My Obama Dilemma

Ever since Senator Barack Obama voted 'yes' on the FISA bill, I have been in a quandary.

I initially switched my support from Senator Hillary Clinton to Obama because, shortly after the New York primary, Obama came back to initially vote against the bill, but Clinton chose not to vote. I find a 'yes' vote on this bill to be utterly unconscionable and pandering of the worst sort.

His vote has caused me to not support his campaign financially, pending what I see in future weeks from him. I had also made a vow to stop supporting him on internet blogs and forums. But honestly, I cannot just stand by and let supporters of McCain get by with some of the horrific slander that I see get posted.

So, I am back on a myriad of sites doing my best to articulate why a John McCain presidency would be a nightmare for America.

I even came up with my own pet phrase for McCain's accusing Obama of flip-flopping.

Considering McCain's pandering to the religious right and his seemingly daily changing of positions, I refer to the charges as 'the POW calling Obama black.'

I will say this, I am angry about a lot of things. I am angry that America has allowed BushCo to take this country so far backward and nearly bankrupt and destroy it. I am angry that in some polls McCain is in a dead heat with Obama. It infuriates me that in recent polling, the country apparently is actually split on Iraq? Split?
And, in these same polls, John McCain is seen as superior on foreign policy.

Yes, the same McCain who said we would be greeted as liberators, who didn't know the difference between shia and sunni, who said one could shop in Baghdad without protection, who said Iraqi oil would finance this incursion, who predicted it would be a short war, who needed Joe Lieberman to correct him about a mis-statement on al-Qaeda in Iraq....and on and on. This is the man viewed as the expert on foreign policy???

So, out of my anger, and fear that a Republican president will destroy the impartiality of the Supreme Court for decades to come, I blog to help get Obama elected.

I just hope my candidate stops being such a disappointment to me.

An 'alert' for race baiters

Here is a version for those who are using race-baiting:

***WARNING: RNC RACE CARD ALERT***

This poster has just followed RNC orders to
spread fear and racist panic about a possible Obama
presidency. No facts or persuasive arguments
were used, just a race-dividing message designed
to appeal to your emotions and scare you.

If this had been an actual posting by a person
with reason, it would have been supported by
logic and rationale behind their racist charges.

This concludes our RNC race card alert. We now return
to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Debut of the RNC Fear Alert

As I have written, I have spent most of my blog time on various boards and forums on the Internet, trying to engage in dialogue in support of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy.

One type of poster that has truly annoyed me, but is not worth the time to individually respond to, is the one who plays the old GOP fear game when they attack Obama.

I have come up with a way to respond to these trolls. Introducing my new RNC fear alert, which can now be cut and pasted to respond to that type of unsavory attack, underscore the GOP strategy involved, and cut the teeth out of any of the charges.

Feel free to come up with your own variation of the warning for yourselves, or use mine if you'd like.

Note: (made a couple of improvements suggested by 'anonymous' poster in my comments section. The additional text appears in boldface)

-----------clip here------------

***WARNING: RNC FEAR ALERT***

This poster has just followed RNC orders to
spread fear and panic about a possible Obama
presidency. No facts or persuasive arguments
were used, just a doomsday message designed
to appeal to your emotions and scare you.

If this had been an actual posting by a person
with reason, it would have been supported by
logic and rationale behind their nebulous charges,
and a response would appear here -- supported by
facts and logical analysis.

As it is, you are invited to simply ignore it and
move on, as we have done.

This concludes our RNC fear alert. We now return
to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Okay...Primary Battle Over...Game On

With all the acrimony that took place during the contest between Clinton and Obama during the end of the primary campaign, I made a vow to myself to wait until the issue was settled, before blogging again. It was very dispiriting to watch the Democratic party self-immolate.

But shortly thereafter, I decided to get involved again and chose to do it by posting on various forums throughout the net, not just progressive sites. I spent a lot of time posting on sites such as the NY Times and Washington Post. I then spread out beyond that and posted in other forums, whenever I saw a compelling reason to join the discussion.

I was finding it more compelling to speak my thoughts to those who might never consider reading a progressive blog. I liked sharing ideas with others on message boards, including both independents and conservatives. I also thought those type of posts reached many more people.

However, my blog should really include more of the source material for much of what I post elsewhere, anyway.

So today, I am making a vow to myself to re-invigorate this blog. I suspect I will be doing more, but shorter posts. The sources I reference, or comments I make on the message boards should have a central location here. So I plan on giving it a shot.

Michael Mukasey & The Manipulation of Truth

Last week, Michael Mukasey, speaking in San Francisco, made some startling comments about alleged pre-9/11 intelligence. He exploited the deaths of some 3,000 Americans to make political points in the FISA fight. Despite the fact that the media has been prepared to allow him to get away with those comments, there are those who have decided to expose what he said and actually hold the Attorney General accountable for his words.

What a concept!

I was listening to the Rachel Maddow show this evening on Air America, when she interviewed Glenn Greenwald, who has challenged Mukasey in a column at salon.com.

Greenwald writes:

"Speaking in San Francisco this week, Mukasey demanded that the President be given new warrantless eavesdropping powers and that lawbreaking telecoms be granted amnesty. To make his case, Mukasey teared up while exploiting the 3,000 Americans who died on 9/11 and said this:

"Officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

"At that point in his answer, Mr. Mukasey grimaced, swallowed hard, and seemed to tear up as he reflected on the weaknesses in America's anti-terrorism strategy prior to the 2001 attacks. "We got three thousand. . . . We've got three thousand people who went to work that day and didn't come home to show for that," he said, struggling to maintain his composure.

"At the time of the attacks, Mr. Mukasey was the chief judge at the federal courthouse a few blocks away from the World Trade Center.

"These are multiple falsehoods here, and independently, this whole claim makes no sense. There is also a pretty startling new revelation here about the Bush administration's pre-9/11 failure that requires a good amount of attention."

Greenwald asks the questions and makes the points that the corporate-owned media has chosen to ignore.

Among them are the fact that warrants were not required under the old FISA law to monitor a call that originated in Afghanistan. Additionally, in a worst-case scenario, the government would have been allowed to monitor suspected terrorists for 72 hours without pursuing a warrant. So, Greenwald wonders, "why didn't they" eavesdrop on that alleged call.

If Mukasey was speaking metaphorically, he needs to come clean, and quick. Otherwise, the charge that the White House had pre-9/11 intelligence and refused to follow-up, needs to be investigated for sheer incompetence.

Greenwald also catches Mukasey in yet another lie. The Attorney General has repeated the untruth that the telecoms cannot face trial or our national secret methods of tracking down terrorists would be compromised.

Greenwald writes:

"Mike Mukasey was a long-time federal judge and so I feel perfectly comfortable calling that what it is: a brazen lie. Federal courts hear classified information with great regularity and it is not heard in "open court." There are numerous options available to any federal judge to hear classified information -- closed courtrooms, in camera review (in chambers only), ex parte communications (communications between one party and the judge only). No federal judge -- and certainly not Vaughn Walker, the Bush 41 appointee presiding over the telecom cases -- is going to allow "disclosure in open court of . . . . the means and the methods by which we collect foreign intelligence." And Mukasey knows that."

Greenwald goes farther than this and I urge you to check out the entire column here.

After familiarizing yourself with the story it would be a good idea to demand that our local politicians and media outlets actually start asking questions to get to the bottom of this.

Et Tu Carville

I have gone about 6 weeks since posting. That is how turned off I have become with Democratic politics in the run-up to the convention and election.

My last post explained why I switched from Senator Clinton(who I briefly supported after John Edwards withdrew from the race) to Senator Obama.

Events of the past month-and-a-half have confirmed to me that I made the right decision, and my mood has gone from depressed to downright angry.

In my mind, Hillary Clinton and her surrogates are demonstrating that they care more about her personal ambition than they do about winning the 2008 election. As I write, it is being gift-wrapped for Bush light, Senator McCain.

Perfectly illustrative of the type of politics the Democrats need to purge from the party is the latest salvo from Mr. Mary Matalin, James Carville.

In commenting about New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's recent endorsement of Obama, Carville called the endorsement "an act of betrayal" and then had this to add: "Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic."

How pathetic that the man who is married to one of the top operatives in the GOP thinks this is all a game. How else to explain his decision to so discredit one of the top Hispanic politicians in America, because Richardson allegedly owes the Clintons loyalty for past high positions he was given in Bill Clinton's administration.

I know one thing, any person who is endorsed by cowboy Carville is somebody I will keep my distance from. I find his insider political gamesmanship more than a tad revolting, and if anybody is a traitor, it is Carville. It is comments like that that must make his home life with Mary so much more harmonious, as it plays perfectly into the GOP game plan.

And Carville damn well knows it.

Why Hillary Just Lost My Support

Call me a flip-flopper. It's been that sort of election season. In a president, I want a leader. Somebody who will go in and fight for what is right. I think I have been given definitive proof that Hillary is not that leader.

Once again, the Harry Reid-led Senate capitulated to George W. Bush in a disgraceful manner. The Senate, with substantial Democratic support, passed a bill that would give the president even more sweeping power to spy on Americans. Even worse, they have voted to grant immunity to telecom companies who obviously broke the law. Hey if they didn't, this would not be an issue.

Senator Barack Obama came back from campaigning to cast a 'no' vote. Senator Clinton, did not take the time to even vote. I guess she thought she wouldn't have to fight charges that the GOP will inevitably throw around...that anybody who voted no would be labelled soft on terror.

Give me a break.

I am so tired of the cowardice of the Democratic leadership. The continued caving in to the empty threats of the GOP instead of standing up for what is right. If the telecoms are granted retroactive immunity it will mean one thing...there is no rule of law in America if the one in power makes the claim that national security is at stake. Hey, why have laws at all? What hypocrisy!

Adding fuel to my decision to turn from Hillary was some powerful oratory I heard on my way home tonight. I was listening to the Thom Hartman show on Air America, and heard Obama speaking out strongly against both lobbyists and NAFTA.

Okay, maybe he's not all just touchy-feely as I thought. Maybe he does have the cojones to bring about a new era in government.

I just wish all of this had happened before the New York primary.

Hillary, you lost me. I will support you over any Republican candidate. But I do not think you deserve the nomination.

As for your efforts to seat the delegates in Florida and Michigan, you just can't do that. You can't change the rules midway through the game. I tend to feel the same about the superdelegate scenario as well. But I do think that after this election, the entire superdelegate concept needs to be disbanded.

It makes the Democrats look like Republicans.

Why This Edwards Supporter Voted For Hillary

Okay, I have to admit, I never thought in a million years that, when it came time for the New York primary I would cast my vote for Senator Hillary Clinton, but I did.

This isn't necessarily a good thing for Clinton. Everybody I have supported thus far has fallen by the wayside. Early on I wanted Feingold or Gore. No dice. I then rallied behind Kucinich and Dodd. See ya. Finally, right after I prepare to go gung-ho for Edwards he drops out BEFORE super Tuesday!

What's a progressive to do?

It wasn't so much that Clinton won my vote, but Senator Barack Obama lost it.

The first nail in the coffin was the Obama references to Ronald Reagan, while in the same conversation, lumping Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton together.

If you missed his comments, get them here.

After the resultant uproar, Obama disingenuously claimed that he wasn't really praising President Reagan. When one listens to that clip it is obvious that this is exactly what he was doing. And he was doing it because Obama sees himself as the great uniter.

Unfortunately, I do not feel that the GOP is going to feel like playing along.

In Senator Obama, I see a man who, if elected President, would probably not investigate the past crimes of the Bush administration, because he only seems to be thinking in a forward direction. However, if the sins of the past are not addressed and corrected, they will only be repeated.

I want somebody in the White House who realizes that we can still be unified while correcting the errors of the past 8 years. I am not so sure that Ms. Clinton would be especially good at it herself, but I think she understands better the gravity of the destruction that has been done to our government.

More than that, I cannot stand the hypocrisy of the mass media. And I need only one example to prove my point.

Michelle Obama, when asked if she would work to support Hillary Clinton, if she were the candidate, said, On the February 4th edition of Good Morning America, "I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone." Listen for yourself.

Can you imagine the media uproar that would have occurred had Hillary's spouse given such a lukewarm response about supporting Obama?? But Obama has been annointed by the mass media. He is their more compelling story. So we get treated to the daily demonizing of Hillary and the beatification of Barack.

Hey, I cannot stand the DLC, Hillary's wing of the party.

However, I do think that Clinton is vetted and tough and she probably will handle herself well against the typical vicious attacks that will most certainly come from the GOP.

The Democrats do not win elections by being nice. It didn't work for Kerry, or Gore (who won, but chose to let the steal go unchallenged), or Dukakis, or Carter (in his re-election bid). My fear is that Obama will, in his effort to project an upbeat 'unity' message, not fight back.

His inexcusable praise of Reagan signalled that for me. How he can even remotely praise a man and claim that he gave people hope, after all the people he allowed to be slaughtered in Central America, is obscene. And let's not forget the lasting damage that 'reaganomics' did to our country's fiscal health.

The media made its choice. Obama the saint, versus McCain the maverick hero.

Well, the media be damned. I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore.

Hence...my vote for Clinton. I was one person who was not especially enthusiastic about my vote. I will support whoever the nominee turns out to be, but this upcoming election hardly has me energized.

John Edwards For President

This has been brewing in me for weeks now, but in lieu of recent developments I have made the decision to support the candidacy of former Senator John Edwards for President.

Senator Edwards may not be the perfect candidate, but there is a lot to like about him. If I had my druthers I would have loved to have seen a President Russell Feingold. For that matter, Dennis Kucinich, or even Chris Dodd would have been comfortable choices for me. However, in the real world, even though the media and the DLC say otherwise, there are 3 candidates to choose from.

After initially supporting Edwards I had gotten turned off to him after his performance on the debate on glbt issues on Logo. It wasn't that Clinton or Obama were any better, but Edwards hardly inspired me. However, his anti-corporatism message resonates fully with me. Additionally, 2 recent events have made me realize how silly I was to have backed away from supporting his candidacy to begin with.

The first is the absolutely ludicrous performance of the mass media, especially since the New Hampshire primary. In the exit polling there, the economy emerged as the #1 issue for Democratic voters, so we then got bombarded with populist messages on our faltering economy by Clinton and Obama. Despite the fact that this has been Edwards' message all along, and these 2 were co-opting it for opportunistic reasons, the media acted as if this focus on the economy was somehow new and revelatory. It was, and for a long time has been, as if John Edwards was invisible.

No....it's more that the media has adopted a pack mentality and its reporting on the campaign has been stunningly inept and incomplete. They have focused on non-issues like the man's haircut and his wife's illness and have completely ignored the substance of Edwards' message.

Adding more fuel to the fire, and convincing me that I am right to support John Edwards, is the recent statements by leaders of the DLC, that this is a 2-person race. They have chosen to render John Edwards irrelevant.

All that action has done is make me realize that the DLC who are the irrelevant ones. They want the Democratic Party to be exactly like the GOP. They are in the pocket of the corporations and are trying to be bullying king (or queen)-makers.

Personally, I will never contribute money or time to a national Democratic Party organization again. I will only support individual Progressive candidates. In fact, I am so disgusted that I am considering renouncing my party membership and registering as an Independent.

The recent petty non-issue over race between Clinton and Obama is mindless. The media are not the only ones at fault here. So are the respective candidates for continuing to ratchet up the rhetoric. It makes it all the more easier to support the only candidate who seems to be speaking for me and not the corporations that control America.

That person is John Edwards.

Put that in your pipe, DLC.

What's Time's Point?

It's almost 2 weeks later, but this is the perfect companion to the preceding piece.

Again, no pic will accompany this post, because the point of the message is the remarkable lack of judgement from the press.

The last post had to do with the media giving too much coverage to a mass murderer, granting his request for fame. And now, Time Magazine, needlessly names the 2 victims of a tiger mauling despite a request for privacy.

Brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, were at San Francisco General Hospital with severe bite and claw wounds. Their names were provided by hospital and law enforcement sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the family had not yet given permission to release their names.

Since it is apparent that the family did not want the names released at this time, why would Time publish their identity? To what purpose?

And how much did they pay their "anonymous sources" to give them the info?

What is wrong with the news media today?

Time should be ashamed of their coverage.

Giving Serial Killers What They Want

There is deliberately no picture accompanying this post, which will be brief.

For a change, it is not related to politics. It is an indictment of what passes for news in America.

In the aftermath of the mass murder in Omaha, I was appalled to see MSNBC endlessly stating that the killer had left behind a letter saying that he wanted to be famous. All the while, these dolts kept the man's face plastered and gave him all the publicity he ever could have wished for. How many times did we have to hear his Internet rants and read about the letters he left behind?

And don't think that similarly-inclined people did not notice.

I didn't need to switch to other news networks to know that MSNBC was not alone in their coverage. This was the way this story would be played out. They all try and out-sensationalize the other, and their judgement is pretty awful.

So, I was more than a little bit relieved to see that maybe we have reached the tipping point.

The AP has a good piece today on the sensationalization of that crime and a debate on the merits of not giving these killers the publicity they seek.

At least I know I am not alone in my disgust.

You can access the story here.

Bill O'Reilly Opera!

Dana Milbank Takes Mitt Romney To The Woodshed

In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank has a devastating column on GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

In a piece titled, "Anything Goes," Milbank writes that Romney is such a panderer that "much of what Romney says can't stand up to the light of day."

He goes on to list examples from a stump speech that Romney gave in Des Moines, Iowa on Friday. They are scathing examples.

I have written about Romney in the past, including his ever-evolving opinions on glbt-issues. You see, he had to hold a different set of beliefs when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts, than he does now that he has to capture the right-wing of the GOP in a national election.

If ever a man was all facade, hypocrisy and pandering phoniness, Mitt Romney fits the bill.

What I find most shocking, however, is that a respected reporter with national creds actually had the cajones to call him out on it.

This article will haunt Romney for the rest of his quest for the GOP nomination. No way he'll get it, however. Stick a fork in him.

The GOP Hypocrisy On Stem Cell Research

I was glad to see that the most popular article on the Time magazine website today had to do with a potential new breakthrough on stem cell research.

As somebody who has been very active in working with both Alzheimer's and Diabetes charitable organizations, I know the implications of stem cell research and the enormous upside. I understand why Nancy Reagan and most Americans are fully in favor of funding. I am also equally nauseated with the official Bush position, those of his lapdogs (like Rush Limbaugh) and the sickening religious right-wing, who still acts as if this is somehow an immoral practice.

As I have written in the past, it is hypocrisy to be against stem cell research if one is in favor of in vitro fertilization. That is because the embryos used for the research are taken from embryos harvested in fertility clinics, and which would be discarded anyway.

I am glad to see a widely read piece from Time saying the same thing.

Michael Kinsley, who suffers from Parkinson's, wrote,

"although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies") involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells."

For the full text of his piece, click here.

Who Is Really Destabilizing Iraq?

In making his case against Iran, George Bush often uses the argument that it is the Iranians who are killing Americans in Iraq.

How interesting that new data from our own military, and published in today's New York Times, has revealed that 60% of the foreign fighters who are serving as suicide bombers, and engaging in other attacks in Iraq, hail from Saudi Arabia and Libya. A graphic representation of this, from the New York Times, is pictured above.

In fact, Saudi Arabia, BushCo's business partner, who provided 15 of the 19 terrorists who engineered the 9/11 attacks, provided a whopping 41% of foreign fighters. And, wouldn't you know, the impact of Iranian foreign forces is almost negligible, in comparison.

This begs the question...will Mr. Bush advocate an invasion of Saudi Arabia? Or of Libya, our newfound 'friend?'

Yeah, that will happen about as quickly as Halliburton offering their services at non-price-gouging rates.

It's all about the oil. Always is, and always was.

Bush: The Pro-Lie President

Who knew the Pillsbury Doughboy had the cajones to tell the truth about Dubya?

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, whose press briefings I used to check out more regularly than I should probably admit, was almost a sympathetic figure in that capacity. He always came across to me as somebody who was in way over his head for the task required of him...very much like Mr. Bush himself, actually.

I was not surprised when he left. However, I never expected him to be a newsmaker in retirement.

Imagine my surprise when he leaked a bombshell, from his upcoming book about his White House experience, that essentially blames Bush and Veep Cheney as being part of a cabal of 5 that deliberately misled McClellan on the Plame incident. I am referring to the infamous press briefing where McClellan told reporters he had been assured by both Rove and Libby that they had nothing to do with leaking Plame's identity as a covert agent to reporters.

From a story today in AP,

"In an excerpt from his forthcoming book, McClellan recounts the 2003 news conference in which he told reporters that aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were "not involved" in the leak involving operative Valerie Plame.

"'There was one problem. It was not true,' McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. '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.'"

Interestingly, we get no further details on what this means, as McClellan is refusing additional comment. However, if it is indeed true, the repercussions for whatever shred remains of Bush's credibility is enormous.

Forget about allegedly being pro-life, I have already discussed how ludicrous it is for folks like Bush to even use that term. This would solidify the Commander-in-Chief's standing as the first pro-lie president.

It's amazing what the lure of bucks and the marketing of a memoir will do to transform one's character, eh?

Giving Robert Novak Way Too Much Power

Columnist Robert Novak, who will always be a traitor in my eyes for leaking the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, in his role as propagandist for BushCo, is once again back in the news.

It has to do with today's Op-Ed column which starts out as follows:

"Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party's presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

"This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's now discarded plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

"Experienced Democratic political operatives believe Clinton wants to avoid a repetition of 2004, when attacks on each other by presidential candidates Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt were mutually destructive and facilitated John Kerry's nomination."

After the fiasco of the Plame leak, and the growing lack of credibility for the term 'unnamed source,' this alleged "scandalous information" is weak enough. Coming from Novak, it is downright meaningless, not to mention ludicrous.

So, how absurd is it for Sen. Barack Obama to go ballistic and immediately assume that this is a maneuver by Sen. Hillary Clinton?

According to reports today, an Obama statement released yesterday asserted that,

"her campaign appeared to be either digging for dirt on his personal life or working in conjunction with Novak to intimidate him.

"'If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve,' the Illinois senator said. He urged Clinton to 'either make public any and all information referred to in the item, or concede the truth: that there is none.'"

I am not a supporter of either Obama or Clinton, but I think this maneuver makes Sen. Obama look extremely weak. Why on earth would he give any credence to a story like this from Novak? What, does he think that Clinton will come forth and share the alleged dirt?

We are talking Robert Novak here. Discredited Robert Novak! The man who has demonstrated that he will sell the national security of the U.S. down the tubes to further the neo-con agenda.

What Novak did with his fraudulent news tip was not just attempt to discredit Obama, but also to stir up enmity against Clinton for supposedly having an aide leak the dirt to begin with.

The Clinton camp struck back hard, but it was hardly necessary. Novak, at the behest of GOP operatives, laid out the bait, and a desparate Obama took a great big chomp.

How nice of him to give Novak the credibility he so richly does not deserve.

The Firefighters Talk About The Real 9/11 Rudy

I know that my last post covered much of the same ground, but this video from the firefighters union is a bit longer and should probably be the first video anyone watches when deciding whether or not to vote for Mr. Giuliani.

The only agenda the firefighters have is getting the truth out there.

Hopefully this video helps.

Making Rudy Giuliani Accountable

GOP front-runner for the presidential nomination, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, is making a bizarro-world run for the White House. I use the term bizarro, because only in a society on the other side of the looking glass could such an inappropriate choice for Commander-in-Chief be coasting along with a double-digit lead.

Let me put it this way. Giuliani is basing his entire persona on this media-created perception that he was somehow the fearless leader and hero of 9/11. But New Yorkers know the truth. This egomaniac, who even uses $9.11 as a fund-raising tactic, was unfit to lead then, and is unfit to lead now.

Rather than tell the story of where Giuliani put the emergency control center and how gross mismanagement and possible corporate favoritism cost many firefighters their lives, I will let the following short film do the talking. It comes from TheRealRudy.com.

Please share the film with others and sign the petition on their website so that an official investigation can finally get underway.

Mukasey's Gonzalez Moment

After initially receiving rave reviews, something curious happened to U.S. Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey upon his return to the confirmation hearings.

The following bizarre exchange occurred at the 2nd confirmation hearing (transcript courtesy of the Blog of Legal Times):

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): Just to finish that thought: So is waterboarding constitutional?
Mukasey: I don't know what's involved in the technique. If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional.
Whitehouse: If water-boarding is constitutional is a massive hedge.
Mukasey: No, I said, if it's torture. I'm sorry. I said, if it's torture.
Whitehouse: If it's torture? That's a massive hedge. I mean, it either is or it isn't. Do you have an opinion on whether waterboarding, which is the practice of putting somebody in a reclining position, strapping them down, putting cloth over their faces and pouring water over the cloth to simulate the feeling of drowning -- is that constitutional?
Mukasey: If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional.
Whitehouse: I'm very disappointed in that answer. I think it is purely semantic.

In an Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times, Jonathan Turley wrote that Mukasey's answers on this specific torture led to the following conclusion:

"There are only two explanations for this answer, either of which should compel the senators to vote against confirmation. The first is that Mukasey is the most ill-informed nominee in the history of this republic. Torture, and water-boarding in particular, is one of the top issues facing the Justice Department, the subject of numerous lawsuits and one of the most obvious, predictable topics at the hearing. It has been discussed literally thousands of times in the media during the last six years. To say he is unfamiliar with the technique is perhaps the single greatest claim of ignorance since Clarence Thomas testified at his confirmation that he really had not thought enough about abortion to have an opinion on the subject.

"The second possibility is, unfortunately, the more likely explanation: Mukasey is lying."

To their credit, the 10 Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent a letter to Mr. Mukasey, seeking clarification on his position regarding waterboarding and torture.

Talking Post Memo posted the letter on their site. After education Mr. Mukasey about the history of waterboarding as torture, the letter directly asks if he feels that "waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including treaty obligations."

I suspect that if Michael Mukasey chooses to once again couch his answers in semantics, he can forget about being confirmed.

We do not need a second Alberto Gonzales.

New York Times Joins The Choir On Lack Of Congressional Leadership

In listening to Progressive talk radio, an ongoing reference is made to the fact that those in Democratic leadership roles choose to not give interviews with those pundits on the Left. It is in clear opposition to the fawning behavior of GOP pols to their mouthpieces on the Right.

To me, it is just another indication that the Dems continue to take their base for granted. It also indicates that they are continuing to allow the GOP to define them, constantly being re-active to GOP threats, and rarely being pro-active on issues of moral leadership. It is why I recently began dubbing them as GOP 'lite.' Corporate influence seems to be a weakness of both parties, obviously.

The problem has been that the Pelosis and Reids have been able to be dismissive of our views as somehow being those of some face-less fringe in the blogosphere. But now, we are finally getting some heavyweights (well, heavyweights with the professional politicians, at any rate) chiming in.

The latest punch to the gut has been delivered by the New York Times.

In an editorial in Saturday's paper, titled "With Democrats Like These...," the Dems get it with both barrels.

In registering their disillusionment over the fact that the Dem leadership does not get the damage being done to our Constitution over illegal wiretapping during the Bush monarchy, the editorial concludes,

"It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues."

When it comes to defusing the White House argument about the importance of circumventing warrants, the overriding message should be that, without court oversight, there is nothing to stop a dictator from spying on their political enemies. It is the reason such protections are in place to begin with. Tamper with that fact and you alter the American way of life, allowing the terrorists to win. End of discussion.

Maybe the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader, not to mention the DNC, will begin to listen.

Pete Stark on the Iraq War and more

Rep. Pete Stark is taking a lot of heat from the Democratic leadership, over his stark...and refreshingly honest...comments about our Commander-in-Chief.

I do not believe Rep. Stark owes anyone an apology. In fact, we should call him to show our support and thank him. Then call Speaker of The House Pelosi and suggest she support Stark herself, instead of tearing him down.

Rep. Stark's home office is 510-494-1388. His D.C. answering machine is full, so I am posting this number instead.

Speaker Pelosi's D.C. # is (202) 225-4965. I already left her a message expressing my displeasure at her efforts to chastise Rep. Stark.

Support Sen. Chris Dodd On FISA Bill

Today, Sen. Chris Dodd announced that he would put a hold on an upcoming FISA Bill that, because of Democratic capitulation once again, would allow telecommunications companies who illegally spied on American citizens to receive retroactive amnesty.

This is not acceptable.

Please click on the above banner and it will take you directly to Sen. Dodd's site to include your name (and comments) in support of his action.

Schultz, SCHIP And The Challenge Of Battling Misinformation

Unfortunately, if a lie gets repeated often enough, it sometimes gets taken for truth. And the right-wing gameplan, as we all know, is not just to lie, but to lie repeatedly.

The most recent example of letting George Bush and the American Taliban get away with a non-truth occurred today on the Ed Schultz Show. I have great respect for Ed's work, but today he played the clip of Bush arguing that SCHIP should not be given to families that make $83,000. What Mr. Schultz did not do was show that the lie had previously been debunked. He merely let people articulate their opinions on the health care program, as if that was the point of demarcation.

I contacted Schultz and hopefully he will clarify the issue on his program. I sent him the following excerpt from a larger piece found at Think Progress and included the link, as well:

"One of most egregious canards being propogated by the White House about the SCHIP expansion is that it will provide health insurance for the wealthy. President Bush claimed at a press conference last week that Congress “made a decision to expand the eligibility up to $80,000. He repeated it in his Saturday radio address:

"BUSH: Their proposal would result in taking a program meant to help poor children and turning it into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. [9/22/07]

"And the White House echoed the false talking point today in its official veto message to Congress:

"[T]he current bill goes too far toward federalizing health care and turns a program meant to help low-income children into one that covers children in some households with incomes of up to $83,000 a year. If H.R. 976 were presented to the President in its current form, he would veto the bill.

"However, no such proposal exists. The $83,000 figure comes from a request from New York to cover children in some slightly higher-income households because of the state’s high cost of living, but the final Congressional agreement put the poorest children “first in line” for benefits.

"Center for American Progress health care analyst Jeanne Lambrew notes that the section 106 of the bill specifically ensures that there will not be any expansion of eligibility. “It overwhelming targets resources to low-income children and it discourages expansion to families with more moderate incomes by lowering the share the federal government will pay for such coverage.”

"Angered by the White House’s false spin, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) fired back:

"“The president’s understanding of our bill is wrong,” Grassley said, his voice rising with anger. “I urge him to reconsider his veto message based on a bill we might pass, not something someone on his staff told him wrongly is in my bill.”

"Bush isn’t concerned about doling out tax cuts to the wealthy, but the mere false pretense of the well-off receiving health care is enough to make him veto benefits for 10 million children."

Obviously, the lower figure will have more relevance and resonance, but my greater point is that we really need to aggressively fact-challenge assertions by Bush and the GOP before repeating their misrepresentations.

I look forward to seeing how Ed Schultz responds.

The Democratic Enablers & The Option

Leave it to Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House Press Corps, to bluntly spell out the truth about the ineffectiveness of the Democratic leadership in Congress.

In her syndicated column on Thursday, Thomas had this to say:

"President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party's leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

"Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war."

Thomas reserved her harshest criticism for the 3 leading Democratic contenders for the nomination, saying that they,

"sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

"When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: 'It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting.'

"Obama dodged, too: 'I think it would be irresponsible' to say what he would do as president.

"Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: 'I cannot make that commitment.'

"They have left the voters little choice with those answers."

Well, not exactly, but as is pretty clear, beyond those three that the media has annointed, clear options for ending this war, like those proposed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, are being dismissed, or ignored. Kucinich just doesn't have the resources needed to play the game on a grand scale. His voice is not being heard.

Ms. Thomas also took to task Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who, she wrote,

"removed a provision from the most recent war-funding bill that would have required Bush to seek the permission of Congress before launching any attack on Iran. Her spokesman gave the lame excuse that she didn't like the wording of the provision. More likely, she bowed to political pressure."

This also is true. Rep. Pelosi has been a colossal disappointment. In my mind, her weakness on Iraq is just further proof that corporate influence has poisoned both political parties. The Dems are not nearly as thoroughly corrupted as the GOP, but they certainly do not represent the desires of the progressive base of the party.

Thomas concluded her piece by writing,

"Is it any wonder the Democrats are faring lower than the president in a Washington Post ABC approval poll? Bush came in at 33 percent and Congress at 29 percent.

"Members of Congress seem to have forgotten their constitutional prerogative to declare war; World War II was the last time Congress formally declared war.

"Presidents have found other ways to make end runs around the law, mainly by obtaining congressional authorization 'to do whatever is necessary' in a crisis involving use of the military. That's the way we got into the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

"So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle?"

I suspect that the only hope, at the moment, is a successful 'draft Al Gore' movement. I think he is the only one in the political landscape with the resources, and hence, the ability, to be a voice for progressives and thwart the potential Hillary/Rudy slimefest that could ultimately become Election '08.

For the full text of Helen Thomas' column, click here.

For more information on a move to draft Gore, click here.

BUSH-SCHIP: A Cartoon Says It All

(click here to view)

John Sherffius Oct 3, 2007 EditorialCartoonists.com

Bush, Blackwater & Occupation Profiteering

Ongoing investigations currently underway by Rep. Harry Waxman, chair of the House oversight committee, very clearly shows how George Bush and his corporatist cronies have been using the conflict in the Middle East to fatten their wallets.

According to reports, Waxman is investigating whether the Inspector General of the State Department, Howard Krongard, the chief auditor on overseas contracts, may have threatened the jobs of whistleblowers in the State Department who have complained that Krongard has prevented any examination of corruption by Blackwater and other private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If true, and I have read enough on this over the past few years to convince me it is, think about the implications.

George Bush thinks it is wasteful to help uninsured children get medical insurance. Yet he sees no reason to make sure that the billions earmarked for his Iraqi incursion are actually accounted for.

Why would you not want accountability for the firms that you are entrusting taxpayer money to? Further, what is the economic sense to have no-bid contracts? Additionally, why would you appoint somebody as Inspector General with no background in the State Department. And why would this person be against accountability, which is the essence of his job description?

If any other event in the news more exposes the truth about BushCo and our involvement in Iraq, I can't think of it. Now let's see how the media handles the truth.

The Los Angeles Times report on the story can be found here. The Washington Post also has a good report on it here.

To follow the story directly from Rep. Waxman's committee, just point your browser here.

Democrats Have Morphed Into 'GOP Lite'

It's official. This week the curtain has been pulled back and the Democrats have revealed themselves to be nothing more than the 'GOP lite.'

The Dems don't have the numbers, nor the political savvy, to challenge George Bush on Iraq. Yet, they are so cowed by the opposition that the only legislation they can pass is an attack on MoveOn.org.

Today, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning MoveOn.org by an absurd vote of 341-79. When Max Cleland and John Kerry had their military records and patriotism attacked, was there a vote of censure? When Bush and his minions said that a vote for the Dems was a victory for the terrorists was there legislation passed calling the GOP out on their vile strategy?

Of course there wasn't.

There is a pretty clear record of Bush using the military to misrepresent reality to the American people, or have we forgotten the lessons of Gen. Colin Powell's selling of the war? I do not believe that Gen. Petraeus is accurately depicting the war as it is. What I do believe is that he is the lead salesman for BushCo. We now learn that the Democrats are in collusion with the Republicans to continue this occupation.

It's The Oil, Stupid!

You see, it's all about oil and corporatism and those corporations not only have the GOP in their hip pocket. They have the Dems as well.

In addition to their shameful vote on MoveOn, the Dems have allowed an anti-Iranian resolution to pass in the Senate which will make things much easier for Bush to invade Iran. I must say, I find the ineffectiveness of the Dems fairly shocking and demoralizing.

Hey, I am not a fan of Iran. I think Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a bit of a moron. In that respect, he is the intellectual equal of George Bush. But why are we simply going after Iran when it is clear that the Saudis are supplying munitions to Iraq? The Saudis get away with everything they do (feel free to include 9/11) because they have been longtime business associates of the Bush family.

Assuming that former Vice President Al Gore chooses not to run, I have already made a personal decision to only support Rep. Dennis Kucinich for President (at least through the primaries) and only contribute to candidates with proven progressive records. For the first time I have made a contribution to MoveOn. I will never give another dime to the DNC. Or any other organization that represents the party.

The bottom line, the Democrats could not have done more to turn me off to the party if they had tried...and I am definitely somebody who has been a core supporter and a progressive activist. I assume I am not alone in feeling betrayed.

Give the Republicans credit. At least they have the courage of their convictions. The Democrats, on the other hand, are spineless panderers.


UPDATE: In a story that crossed at about 10:15PM, the AP reports on tonight's Democratic candidate debate with the following lead line:

"The leading Democratic presidential hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2013, the end of the next president's first term."

Could Clinton, Obama and Edwards have confirmed my assessment of the Dems any more clearly?

Neo-Con Right-Wing Urges Attack On Iran

The fanatical, neo-con right continues to encourage the absurdist foreign policy of a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Check out this alarmist advice by right-wing extremist Dan Friedman on the American Thinker website:

"..Now for the good news. All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours - the time it will take to destroy Iran's fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot.

"Let's look downstream the day after and observe how the world has changed.

"First and foremost, there's this prospective fait accompli -- and it changes everything. The Iranians are no longer a nuclear threat, and won't be again for at least another decade, and even that assumes the strategic and diplomatic situation reverts to the status quo ante and they'll just be able to pick up and rebuild as they would after an earthquake. Not possible.

"Next, the Iranians would do nothing -- bupkes. They don't attack Israel, they don't choke off the world's oil supply, they do not send hit squads to the United States, there is no "war" in the conventional sense of attack counterattack. Iran already has its hands full without inviting more trouble. Its leaders would be reeling from the initial US attack and they would know our forces are in position to strike again if Iran provokes us or our allies. They would stand before mankind with their pants around their ankles, dazed, bleeding, crying, reduced to bloviating from mosques in Teheran and pounding their fists on desks at the UN. The lifelines they throw to the Iraqi insurgents, Hezbollah and Syria would begin to dry up, as would the lifelines the double-dealing Europeans have been throwing to Iran. Maybe the Mullahs would lose control.

"Strong tremors would be felt throughout the Islamic ummah. "Just as we feared, they finally called our bluff. We pushed America to the limit and America pushed us back twice as hard. Looks who's the dhimmi now! Uh, maybe we need to rethink this 7th century Jihad crap -- as well as the Jihadist idiots around here. This is all turning out to be more trouble than it's worth."

"Miracles would be seen here at home. Democratic politicians are dumbstruck, silent for a week. With one swing of his mighty bat, the President has hit a dramatic walk-off homerun. He goes from goat to national hero overnight. The elections in November are a formality. Republicans keep the White House and recapture both houses of Congress. Hillary is elected president - of the Chappaqua PTA.

"Going forward, with Iran's influence blunted and the insurgents cut off, we end the war in Iraq on our terms. In his first hundred days, the new president reads Iraq the riot act and tells its leaders if they don't pull themselves together by a date certain, America will decide they're not worth the candle and we're going to get out."

"From that point on, with our arms free of the quicksand, we can fight the war on terror the way it should have been fought in the first place. Using our enormous edge in weapons, intelligence and technology, and building on it, we launch quick, lethal, ad hoc strikes wherever in the world we determine terrorists are working to harm us, shooting first and asking for permission later."

That sort of assessment is right up there with the fantasy that our invasion of Iraq would lead us to be treated like heroic liberators!

If that sort of advice scares you, consider this....it is exactly the sort of advice Goerge Bush is getting from Dick Cheney.

Knowledge is power and knowing the scary foreign policy that is being dictated from the neo-con right-wing is the first step in insuring that they don't realize their objectives under their usual shroud of secrecy and darkness.

Another Shining Olbermann Moment

Thank heavens for Keith Olbermann. After putting up with the surreal political news of the past several days, I was desperately in need of a respite.

I mean seriously, the Senate can't prevent a filibuster on providing fairer leave for our soldiers overseas....we can't vote on any meaningful solution to the occupation of Iraq....yet we can unite to denounce an ad from moveon.org?!

Thanks to the absurd reaction to that advertisement, I contributed to that organization for the first time. I hope others will do the same.

Olbermann, on his return to MSNBC following the removal of his appendix, was devastatingly brilliant, as usual. Progressives cannot fail to be impressed by his honesty, fierceness and passion. It is so lacking in today's faux news universe that one can't help but be blown away by this great orator's skills.

As for Keith Olbermann's Special Comment, I will let his words speak for themselves. I am providing the text of the first few minutes. For the complete text, click here. You can access the video here.

Keith Olbermann
Special Comment: The President Of Hypocrisy 9-20-07

So the President, behaving a little bit more than usual, like we'd all interrupted him while he was watching his favorite cartoons on the DVR, stepped before the press conference microphone and after side-stepping most of the substantive issues like the Israeli raid on Syria in condescending and infuriating fashion, produced a big-wow political finish that indicates, certainly, that if it wasn't already -- the annual Republican witch-hunting season is underway.

"I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. Military.

"And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad.

"And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like Move-On-Dot-Org -- or **more** afraid of irritating them, than they are of irritating the United States military."

"That was a sorry deal."

First off, it's "Democrat-ic" party, Sir.

You keep pretending you're not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect.

Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleeland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry?

But most importantly... making that the last question?

So that there was no chance at a follow-up?

So nobody could point out -- as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight -- that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place!

Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, **you** shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman -- and now you're complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone?

Eleven months ago the President's own party -- the Republican National Committee -- introduced this very different kind of advertisement, just nineteen days before the mid-term elections.

Bin Laden.

And Zawahiri's rumored quote of six years ago about having bought "suitcase bombs."

All set against a ticking clock, and finally a blinding explosion... and the dire announcement:

"These are the stakes - vote, November 7th."

That one was ok, Mr. Bush?

Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you?

UF Police Taser Student During Kerry Forum

My hiatus from posting is now officially at an end.

The shocking non-reaction of Sen. John Kerry as a protesting student gets tasered by cops should sound the death knell of his political career.

It so happens that I am in the middle of reading the book that student was holding up, Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.

Today, the cowardly Kerry issued a mealy-mouthed denial that he did not know what was going on. Oh really?

All Kerry had to do was insist that the cops let the student alone, but in typical Kerry fashion he did not.

I would like to know the criminal statute that allows uncomfortable questions to be answered with tasers. I hope this kids sues the living daylights out of that police department and that school.

As I e-mailed Kerry's office today, I will actively support whoever runs against this man in any future election.

Welcome to Nazi Germany. It's closer than you think.

The Washington Post's 'Phony' Editorial

Leave it to Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt to distill the real problem with our Iraqi policy...it's Sen. Harry Reid's fault!

Incredulously, in a Saturday editorial, WaPo accuses the Democrats of demagoguery and Sen. Reid, specifically, of "cynical politicking and willful blindness to the stakes in Iraq."

A close inspection of the editorial reads like a summary of RNC talking points.

The piece is headlined, "The Phony Debate." The only thing I found to be phony was the editorial itself.

Typical of this editorial's curious escape from reality is the following "inescapable fact":

"a complete pullout from Iraq would invite genocide, regional war and a catastrophic setback to U.S. national security."

Huh? Isn't that what has already occurred?

The Iraqi government wants us out. Their people want us out. The American people have clearly asked for an exit strategy. And the Democrats have clearly stated that they want to immediately switch from combat operations to a course that seeks a diplomatic resolution of the crisis that involves talking to Iraq's neighbors.

The only people who state the Iraqi problem as incorrectly and inarticulately as this shameless Op-Ed does are GOP operatives. Doesn't Mr. Hiatt read his own paper?

How can any sane person recommend 'staying the course' and letting more American lives be lost in a month when both the Iraqi and American politicians have chosen to take a vacation.

There is a reason this editorial was posted on a Saturday, where it would get the minimal amount of exposure, and not a Sunday, where it would reach the most readers. Hiatt would like his piece to be used in GOP debating points, but would prefer his readership not be exposed to his obvious pandering to Bush and his enablers.

American Ignorance Part Of The Problem

An opinion poll on Scooter Libby that surfaced last week is illustrative of what drives me crazy about American politics. Too many Americans have no desire to learn the truth. They shroud themselves in ignorance.

How else to explain a SurveyUSA news poll on the Scooter Libby case that was done on July 2nd? Despite the fact that the trial over the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity has been in the news for many months, and that Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice, and the subsequent commutation of his sentence by George W. Bush, has received significant press, this survey showed that a whopping 41% of Americans were not familiar with this case.

41% did not know enough about the Scooter Libby conviction to comment??? Even more shocking, the majority of the nation's women, 51%, were not familiar with it.

And it gets more absurd. When identified by ideology, liberals were the group that were the most ignorant, with 44% professing no familiarity with the case.

While most pundits focused on the 60% of those who were familiar with the case disagreeing with the presidential commutation, nobody pointed out the distressing number of uninformed Americans.

No wonder King George gets away with so much. He leads a populace that has no interest in getting at the truth.

The survey results can be found here.

Justice Turned Upside Down in Bush's America

Two recent stories tell you all you need to know about how George W. Bush has transformed America...and not for the better.

Pedro Guzman

Last month, 29-year old Los Angeles resident Pedro Guzman was deported, although he is American.

Despite the fact that this man is developmentally disabled, he was tossed out like garbage into Tijuana, Mexico, where he has now simply disappeared.

As the Los Angeles Times said in an editorial yesterday:

"Arrested for trespassing at an airplane junkyard, Guzman was questioned while in the custody of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and, perhaps because of his disability, mistaken for an illegal immigrant. He was turned over to immigration authorities, who deported him to Tijuana. He then promptly disappeared. Despite their frantic attempts to find him, Guzman's family has not heard from him since May 11. What that means is that Guzman's trespass has earned him a sentence of banishment and disappearance, a fate common in third-rate dictatorships but abhorred in civilized nations. And the federal government's response has been to evade responsibility and to refuse the family's pleas for help."

Making matters worse, on Wednesday, a federal judge chose not to order the government to search for the missing man, though he said that it was "right" and "moral" for the U.S. to do whatever it could to find Mr. Guzman.

What insanity! The government, on its own, does not realize the gravity of what they have done? Having made such a grave error, they do not have the decency to correct it, putting the man and his family through hell? This is America?

Keith Bowles

Speaking of the inhumanity of George Bush's America, look at this recent decision by the Supreme Court.

Last week the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Keith Bowles, a man who was 2 days late filing an appeal on a murder conviction, because a judge gave him wrong information on the filing deadline, was plum out of luck.

The New York Times, in a Sunday editorial wrote:
"The decision was wrong for many reasons. The Supreme Court has made clear in its past rulings that deadlines like this are not make-or-break. Appeals could still be heard, the court recognized in the past, if there were “unique circumstances” that accounted for the delay. Clearly, following an order from a federal judge is such a circumstance.

"Courts also have the authority to create an exception to the rules in the interest of fairness. The Supreme Court has recognized that an 'equitable exception' should be granted when a party has relied on an order from a federal judge. By refusing to do so now, Justice David Souter argued for the dissenters, the court was saying that 'every statement by a federal court is to be tagged with the warning ‘Beware of the judge.’

"The four dissenters distilled this case perfectly when they said, 'it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way.'"

The Washington Post, in their Sunday editorial, agreed, subtitling their piece, "The Supreme Court's doctrine of tough luck."

That brilliant legal mind, Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote the majority opinion. He was joined, predictably by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.(anybody think that was now a good selection?), and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. (ditto), Antonin Scalia, and, most disappointingly, Anthony M. Kennedy, who has been siding with the 4 stooges as of late.

In an America that would be controlled by the GOP, justice and fairness are best viewed through the looking glass. In the real world, it is now all topsy-turvy.

This is something every voter should consider first when going to cast their ballots, come election time.

From 'No Confidence' To Impeachment

So much for Senate Democrats having the opportunity to bring up a 'no confidence' vote on beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Senate, voted 53-38 today in favor of a motion to bring the 'no confidence' resolution to full debate. 60 votes were required. Thus, there will be no vote.

The GOP, following RNC talking points, have banded together to use this as an opportunity to target Democrats as ineffectual and have accused them of merely playing politics.

The L.A. Times describes the strategy as follows:

"The policymaking Senate Republican Conference began circulating a series of talking points Friday urging Republicans to vote against the no-confidence resolution.

"'This is a political stunt, a waste of time that distracts from more important Senate business, and is offensive to basic constitutional principles,' according to a copy of the GOP talking points obtained by the Los Angeles Times."

Since, the Democrats remain incapable of spinning these stories, this strategy of blaming the Democrats appears to be working.

In the aftermath of this story, we have been treated to endless sound bites from George Bush, Tony Snow, Trent Lott and the lockstep GOP robots talking about the meaninglessness of a 'no confidence' vote and how the Democrats are merely playing politics.

To a degree, they are right. What is with the Democrat's timid approach in dealing with the GOP?

It may not pass, but if the Democrats really want to send a message they would have tried to set in motion an impeachment proceeding against Mr. Gonzales. Maybe it would fail, but there is no that way the GOP could say that the Dems were merely introducing legislation that had no teeth.

As the GOP games continue and the Democrats allow themselves to be portrayed as weaklings, it is high time that Dems rolled up their sleeves.

What have they got to lose?