What The Mid-Term Ads Should Say

Observing King George's behavior at the G-8 summit is almost unbearable. Oops, wadda ya know, the mike is on!

Could it be any more embarrassing than having this putz be the face of America?

What's worse is that the insanity is not even close to reaching its zenith. Just wait til our Commander-as-Chimp make his first veto the one that stifles stem-cell research.

This fool will go down in history as the most incompetent leader of a major power EVER.

If the Dems are smart (see, I really do hope for miracles) they will make the following type of message part of the ad campaign in every race.....

(start commercial by showing one of the many embarrassing Bush moments and fiascos....'mission accomplished' will fit in nicely here)

Announcer: Thanks to a GOP stranglehold on Congress, George Bush has been seeking to have unlimited, unchecked power and Congress has not allowed a single investigation into misdeeds or incompetence to go forth.

For example, has Halliburton mis-used billions earmarked for Iraqi and post-Katrina reconstruction? Have the oil companies set up our energy policy to insure record profits? What mistakes were made to have created the current debacle in Iraq?

We'll never know. Republicans will not allow any charges to be looked into. They will not allow important questions to even be asked, so that we avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

President Bush knows he answers to nobody (show a graphic of a rubber stamp).

If you want the checks-and-balances needed in order to let America govern responsibly...in order to make our nation's leaders accountable to the people...elect (insert name here).

Bush: Indian Deaths For Political Capital?

Interesting evolution of Bush the politician today.

According to AP, Bush, while speaking at a shoe factory, couldn't even initially express sorrow over the tragedy, saying "no comments today, thank you very much."

Huh? The leader of the U.S. makes THAT his initial response?

As the day wore on, his advisers must have sensed the opportunity these deaths offered, as he later said "such acts only strengthen the resolve of the international community to stand united against terrorism and to declare unequivocally that there is no justification for the vicious murder of innocent people."

Not to be cynical, but anybody want to lay odds on Bush and the Republiclones using this senseless slaughter as an opportunity to push his 'War on Terror' agenda?

You know, the plan that exploits human tragedy for the purpose of gaining more executive power, at the expense of civil liberty.

How many days before he plays that card? Or has it already arrived?

More Carnage In Baghdad

CNN today is reporting the following:

"Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis."

The report quotes a Sunni politician calling it, "one of the biggest massacres of Sunnis." Women and children are included in the victim count.

So, can we expect the media to challenge, or even question, the repeated assertions by the Bush monarchy that this is not a civil war?

This type of story is not exactly an aberration. Every day, we hear reports about the escalating sectarian violence. When does this, or our involvement as facilitating occupiers, end?

What, exactly, is our role? When will our 'mission' be accomplished? How many more of our troops will lay down their lives before our government honestly answers these questions?

The Neo-Cons that have hijacked this country ignore the political realities that exist in Iraq and the result is that our troops will continue to shed blood to help the ExxonMobils of the world improve upon their record profits.

What's A Fallen GI's Life Worth?

What's a fallen GI's life worth?

The lockstep parrots in the GOP-dominated Congress have decided, not very much.

In fact, last month, 19 GOP Senators cast a 'No' vote on an amendment that would "express the sense of Congress that the Government of Iraq should not grant amnesty to persons known to have attacked, killed, or wounded members of the Armed Forces of the United States."

Remember these names:

Wayne Allard of Colorado
Kit Bond of Missouri
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
Conrad Burns of Montana
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma
Thad Cochran of Mississippi
John Cornyn of Texas
Jim DeMint of South Carolina
Mike Enzi of Wyoming
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma
Jon Kyl of Arizona
Trent Lott of Mississippi
John McCain of Arizona
Jeff Sessions of Alabama
Ted Stevens of Alaska
Craig Thomas of Wyoming
John Warner of Virginia

This July 4th, I was curious how the Middle Eastern press was celebrating America's birthday. Bahrain, the epicenter of Arab-American bipartisan greed had some uncomfortable news.

According to the following AFP wire report in the Bahrain Tribune:

"Iraqi Shia leader Abdel Aziz Al Hakim, the head of parliament’s largest bloc, said yesterday he favours extending an amnesty to insurgents who may have killed US troops.

"He also accused US-led coalition troops of contributing to the worsening security by being “sucked into a quagmire” they were unqualified to handle.

"'Yes, they should be covered regardless of their religious or ethnic affiliations,' Hakim said.

"Hakim’s position would contradict that of his government ally Maliki, who said on Wednesday that there would be no amnesty to those who killed US troops, foreigners or journalists."

Think the story is getting much play in America? Think again.

Add to the that, the continued hatred being stirred up against our troops, and you have a no-win situation for our soldiers.

In the same issue, the Bahrain Tribune had a commentary that was extremely anti-American. The commentary, which takes the U.S. military to task for wartime abuses, begins with the following, "American soldiers have not - absolutely not - understood nor realised how much shame and odium their acts of barbarism have brought on their country, touted as the First Democracy in the world from five-star podiums."

The commentary partially blames the problem on the "western soldier’s lack of respect for non-western cultures based on ignorance and false presumptions."

This comes from a relatively pro-Western Arab source. The level of anger, hatred and vitriol is far greater on the less American-friendly Arab press and the resentment seeps from the blogs of ordinary Iraqis trying to get on with their day-to-day lives amidst the chaos and bloodshed.

It seems that the GOP 'stay-the-course' strategy, is let the troops be sitting ducks, and if some die in the process, we should not hold their killers responsible.

So which is the party that truly supports the troops? Something to consider on our nation's 230th birthday.

Mary Heartless, Mary Heartless

I was doing a bit of web research on the apparent failure of Mary Cheney to successfully parade her status as 'token GOP lesbian daughter' and found the telling observation at PageOneQ:

"Purchasers of Cheney's book, according to Amazon..., also purchased the books by authors recognized by many on the gay community as non-supportive of lesbian and gay equal rights. Other books purchased by buyers of Cheney's book include Godless: Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter and Can She Be stopped: Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States unless... by John Podhoretz.

"In another section of the same page, Amazon offers a discount for buyer's of Cheney's book. For $35.52 customers may purchase Cheney's and Coulter's books as a pair, a discount of almost 40%"

That book, of course, is "Now, It's My Turn," a memoir which reportedly netted Cheney a 1 million dollar advance from Simon & Schuster. By the way, that price for the pair has just dipped down to $32.52.

Cheney and Coulter...strange bedfellows? Not really. Actually, Coulter is far more honest about who she is.

The PageOneQ article notes, "Sales numbers from Neilsen Bookscan, as reported by the Advocate, indicate that during the week of June 3, the books sold 574 nationwide. This number, the Advocate reported, is 77% less sales than the number sold during the book's first week on the shelves, 2,445."

So why didn't the public buy a book from the GOP poster girl for self-interest?

The Mary Cheney who thought it was horrendous to be outted by John Edwards (as if she never served as a gay liaison flak for a beleaguered Coors Brewing Company), doesn't seem to have minded George W. Bush pronouncing her bond with her partner to be a threat to our nation's moral fibre.

The Mary Cheney who now seeks to capitalize on who she chooses to love (thank goodness for big advances from S&S), doesn't seem to mind that her father is campaigning for an outright homophobe, Minnesota's Michele Bachmann.

I really enjoyed Gene Stone's take on the hypocrisy. Stone writes, "the openly gay Ms. Cheney seems to support gay rights only to the extent she can get money from it. Otherwise, she supports those who oppose it."

As Stone also notes, in discussing the relative failure of the book, "When an author's only interest seems to be herself, it doesn't really matter what her background is, conservative, liberal, middle of the road, gay, or straight. No one other than the author cares."

Touché.

No Plan..No End

As I watched the news readers at MSNBC spew out the "cut-and-run" charge in their coverage of the Senate debate on Iraq, it registered that the Democrats need a simple, yet concise way to counter the charge.

My idea, when holding the GOP accountable on Iraq, is this:

NO PLAN..NO END

It spells it out. The GOP has no plan for Iraq (they never had one) and the result is that the occupation will never end. It also puts the GOP on the defensive.

I am in the media and I am fully aware of the short attention span that exists, both by broadcasters and our audience.

Maybe we can lobby our politicians and spokespeople to start using the term, to turn the tables on the GOP.

Rove knows how to strategize to manipulate public opinion. Dems could stand to be a bit more Rovian ourselves.

NO PLAN..NO END

The Stolen '04 Election

I will be the first to admit, I feel that the biggest problem America faces is safeguarding the electoral process. If we cannot guarantee fair and tamper-free elections, our entire way of life will eventually be in shambles.

In the past, I have touted Mark Crispin Miller's excellent book on the stealing of the 2004 election, "Fooled Again." In fact, I have endorsed it enough on other blogs to wonder if folks might think I am a PR man for the book. I am not.

At any rate, I find it rather frustrating that so few have been clamoring about this. When Karl Rove recently mentioned his fear of the Democrats committing election fraud, I felt a chill go up my spine. As Miller writes in his book, this is a tactic that the GOP uses so when they actually go ahead and commit voter fraud, the media will not realistically investigate because it is allegedly being done by both parties. It is a way for Rove to toss out a red herring and confuse the issue.

So, imagine my surprise, and relief, to see other voices emerge. Major voices.

In an article for Rolling Stone, Robert Kennedy Jr., comes right out and says the '04 election was stolen. Thank goodness, this problem is finally getting to see the light of day.

Check out this very important article here.

Howard Kurtz Botches Another One

Sometimes an allegedly objective columnist can miss the mark by such a wide margin, and write something so misleading, that one wonders what the true motivations behind the column were.

Today, Howard Kurtz' Media Notes column in the Washington Post astounded me.

In his column, Kurtz delivered a mind-boggling blast at the protest of Senator John McCain's commencement speech at New York's New School.

After bragging about his commitment to free speech, Kurtz writes, "if someone like John McCain comes to your school--even if you strongly disagree with everything he stands for--why not listen to what he has to say, instead of trying to block him from stepping foot on your campus?

"Sure, the students who do that, or wave signs, or heckle, or otherwise protest such appearances, are expressing their free-speech rights as well. But what message are they sending? We feel so strongly about our views that we simply refuse to listen to anyone else?"

Doesn't Mr. Kurtz read? Because it was made abundantly clear that Sen. McCain was giving the exact same speech that he had given at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, as well as Columbia University. The exact same address!

The fact that everyone knew exactly what was going to be said was what motivated student Jean Sara Rohe to refer to what McCain was about to say!

One would think that a commencement speech would take into account the individual institution where the address was being given. Instead, McCain delivered for consumption the same message he delived at the ultra-right-wing Falwell institution. Verbatim! How fair was it for the students there to be subjected to a stump speech? This wasn't a message prepared specifically for them. It was a means to further McCain's campaign posturing for '08.

After railing about the student's refusing to hear what McCain had to say, I expected at least some acknowledgment that many already knew the content because the prior addresses had been posted on the Internet. But, dishonestly, he left that fact out.

Instead, Mr. Kurtz deceptively makes it appear that the only reason that people protested McCain was his politics.

Student speaker Rohe was very clear on her motivations. In a Huffington Post blog, she writes:

"Had he been speaking at something other than our graduation, or had he spoken about almost anything other than his life and his position on the Iraq War and Darfur it might have been OK. But what did he expect? Campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination at the New School is like trying to catch fish in a swimming pool. It was just totally out of place. Many thanks go to the people in the audience who managed to capture with a few yelled and widely-quoted phrases, just exactly what was going on there."

And, she added:

"More importantly, I feel obligated to respond to one thing that McCain told the New York Times. 'I feel sorry for people living in a dull world where they can't listen to the views of others,' he said. This is just preposterous. Yes, McCain was undoubtedly shouted-out and heckled by people who were not politely absorbing his words so as to consider them fully from every angle. But what did he expect? We could've all printed out his speech and chanted it with him in chorus. Did he think that no one knew exactly what he was about to say? And it was precisely because we listen to the views of others, and because, as I said in my speech, we don't fear them, that we as a school were able to mount such a thorough and intelligent opposition to his presence. Ignorant, closed-minded people would not have been able to do what we did. We chose to be in New York for our years of higher education for the very reason that we would be challenged to listen to opposing viewpoints each and every day and to deal with that challenge in a nonviolent manner. We've gotten very good at listening to the views of others and learning how to also make our views heard, even when we don't have the power of national political office and the media on our side."

What part of that does Howard Kurtz not get and why does he choose to deliberately mislead his readers by not reporting on this aspect at all, making it seem as if the issue is merely one of intolerance?

Could it be an agenda? I suppose we'll find out if we see Mr. Kurtz fawning over Sen. McCain's every word come campaign time. It would not surprise me.

Big Brother Knows No Bounds

Part of the problem with the lack of oversight of the Bush administration's trashing of civil liberties, in the guise of fighting terrorism, is that there really are no limits to the abuse that is being perpetrated.

If we do not say no...when we hear of illegal prisons
If we do not say no...when we hear of torture
If we do not say no...when we hear of illegal wiretaps, allegedly only affecting international communications
If we do not say no...when we hear that all of our phone records are being collected in data mining projects

...then we have nobody to blame but ourselves when we wake up one day to find ourselves in a fascist, police state controlled by 'big brother.'

No oversight means that those in power can use the information they collect against their political enemies.

This all seems to tie in with today's revelation...the records of ABC news reporters are being examined to find out who in government they are speaking with.

Whatever sources have revealed the illegal goings-on that this government is involved in are the true patriots.

The levels that this administration will go to in violating our constitutional rights is chilling.

Hopefully, this message is starting to resonate loud and clear.

Those Hope-less FEMA Trailers

Since we are just a few weeks away from the start of the official hurricane season and we are hearing how the Bush Administration is now totally prepared to deal with a crisis, I got to wondering....whatever became of those more than 10,000 trailers?

You know, the ones that are being stored in Hope, Arkansas, but never got used.

This is how CNN covered the story back on February 19th, after the story had been languishing for just under a week:

"(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

"MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: There are about 10,000 mobile homes in this field in Hope.

"WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: At a cost of, what, $300 million?

"CHERTOFF: Well, that's the purchase price. Now they will eventually be used. Some of them will be used with respect to areas of the Gulf that are not in a flood plain. Some of them have been used with respect to wildfires, people who lost their homes to wildfires in Oklahoma and Texas. Some will be used in hurricanes season this year. For example, in we have hurricanes in Florida or other places where there's wind damage but not flood damage. So this is not going to go to waste.

"(END VIDEO CLIP)

"LIN: FEMA managers acknowledge that some of the trailer homes parked in Arkansas are sagging under their own weight but they insist that all of the mobile homes will be used in the future."

Of course, by then, it wasn't even a top story on CNN. As they put it, they were all "abuzz" about a Powerball lottery winner. And preparing us for the upcoming dangers of bird flu.

The news life of this story was shorter than Ryan Seacrest's relationship with Terri Hatcher. And that is saying something.

However, the unused trailer story remains in the news. It's just that nobody is covering it.

Among the latest developments, Ralph Nader made an appeal to President Clinton. In a letter dated March 15th, Nader appealed to the 'man from Hope' to get those trailers out of Hope and off to where they could provide some good.

On April 5th, Nader got the following response from the Clinton, "I have worked to right this wrong since I first heard reports of the trailers' existence. Many communities have been unwilling to host the trailers because they don't want them in their neighborhoods, lack the capacity to house them, or face utility problems."

So I guess this is now a NIMBY issue. NIMBY, as in 'not in my backyard.'

"From the horse's mouth, here is a FEMA factsheet, dated April 20th:

"More than 10,000 (10,112 as of April 20) of these fully-maintained and ready-for-use mobile homes are staged in Hope, Ark.—easily accessible to housing operations in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. In addition, the units are also available for other disasters in which there are needs for direct housing, such as the areas ravaged by tornadoes this spring.

"FEMA mobile homes staged in Arkansas are fully habitable, available and properly maintained. These mobile homes represent one component of FEMA’s comprehensive housing strategy which has already helped more than 825,000 hurricane victims from Katrina and Rita with temporary housing assistance."

However, there is a caveat. Early reports suggested that the mobile home foundations were not especially stable and were becoming more unstable as the homes settled. And then of course, was this early nugget from CNN on February 13th, from CNN correspondent Susan Roesgen:

"FEMA says these mobile homes aren't allowed in a flood plain, which pretty much rules out most of southeast Louisiana. Why did FEMA order them in the first place if they can't be used in areas where people need them? That's what I asked, but nobody seems to know. So the mobile homes sit there, immobile, 450 miles away from the Gulf Coast."

Well, if we ever get another hurricane, that does not affect an area in a flood plain, these trailers will really come in handy.

Oh, by the way, was anybody held accountable for this exceptional misuse of taxpayer money? Nobody? How surprising.

At any rate, I am sure everybody is happy that our Commander-in-Chief is boldly prepared to step up to the plate in the upcoming 2006 hurricane season. According to the AP, on his visit to New Orleans a little over a week ago, Bush said, "Pray there is no hurricane this coming year, but we are working together to make sure if there is one, the response will be as efficient as possible."

Sure it will, George. Sure it will.

(Photo courtesy of AP)

Why Can't News Outlets Just Tell The Truth?

Today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was strongly challenged at a speech in Atlanta. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, accused Rumsfeld of lying. When Rumsfeld denied the charge he was met with his own quotes.

Anyone watching "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" got to see the supportive evidence that Rumsfeld was indeed lying. So why does coverage often not reflect this?

This is how CNN covered it online, using a thoroughly incomplete AP story:

"Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.

"'Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?' asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst.

"'I did not lie,' shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies."

Mr. McGovern used verbatim quotes by Sec. Rumsfeld that the Secretary denied making. But those quotes were, in fact, correct, and part of the public record. Why would AP not report about that?

Meanwhile CNN's Paula Zahn, interviewing McGovern, asks him if he has an axe to grind, instead of discussing the implications of Rumsfeld being caught in a lie.

If an official is shown to lie isn't that at least peripherally newsworthy?

Instead, the entire story is about the fact that critics are able to challenge this insular White House at all.

As we continue to note these news institutions as MIA, it makes it easier to understand the role they played in helping lead us into war.

The Neutered Press

I finally finished watching George Clooney's excellent flick, "Good Night, And Good Luck," and it left me depressed, to say the least.

Clooney's movie, which focused on legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow's decision to take on Joe McCarthy, serves as a testament to the power and responsibility that the press has, in confronting the abuse of governmental power.

What makes it depressing is that it reminds us that there are no Edward R. Murrow's around today to set the record straight.

That movie takes on especial irony as I read today that the Clooney appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner was one of the main attractions. This, as the clueless press ignores the implications of Valerie Wilson's attendance, all the while slavishly praising the dueling dubya's and simultaneously trashing Stephen Colbert's brilliant skewering of our fearless leader.

I did appreciate Josh Orton's blogging of the event on the Huffington Post.

One comment Mr. Orton makes is especially telling:

"The program began, and the Correspondents Association President began by noting yet another challenging year for the press corps...and how catching heat from both political parties proved that once again, the press got it right."

In other words, unlike when Clinton was president, moral equivalency rules the day.

It's the reason that watching "Meet The Press" or "Hardball" is the entertainment equivalent of getting one's dog spayed.

No matter what Dubya and his GOP lapdogs inflict on America, the press will bend over as much as possible to neuter the implications of the GOP's ruinous policies.

Unfortunately, it's America that winds up getting screwed.

The Clooney portrait of Murrow was not entirely shot behind rose-colored lenses. The movie makes clear the influence that Murrow's on-camera smoking and his program's Kent sponsorship, had on the health of Americans.

However, there is nobody of that stature operating today. Katie Couric's ascendancy to CBS anchor tells you all you really need to know.

It's the entertainment, stupid.

What Dubya Learned About Energy

Don't you just love the George W. Bush manner? When he speaks to America about something really, really important, he puts on his intimate voice and teaches us what he is the last to know.

Today, for example, he passed along what he learned from his scriptwriters about energy.

In his speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, Bush let us in on a truth, "To reduce gas prices, our oil companies have got a role to play."

Gee, no kidding. Maybe you can tell us the role that the oil companies played in helping formulate our energy policy, or do those records remain secret George?

But wait, there's more:

"Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures or the use of taxpayers' monies to subsidize energy companies' research into deep water drilling."

Congress needs to understand? What, Dubya already knows this? Than why has this Texan been so kind to his oil brethen lo these many years. When has he ever held them accountable for anything? Why does he still refuse to enact a windfall profits tax to make a dent in the money these conglomerates have been pumping out of our wallets?

Better still, who knew he could pronounce geophysical?

I could go on and on about his blather about promoting fuel efficiency or how it's really important to disrupt the air quality to lower prices. Or how ethanol is God's little side effect of growing corn.

But what speaks volumes is what this man does not do. He refuses to enact meaningful policies that will force these companies that are financially raping us to return any of that money back into the system. Bush has neglected to seek out any realistic alternative energy policy but informs us we are "addicted to oil." So what does that make Bush, the world's most arrogant pusher?

To entirely obfuscate matters, Bush has agreed to stop depositing into the strategic petroleum reserve. Wow, that will free up about a third of 1% of a days supply. Imagine the savings. Then, of course, to get around the alleged disruption caused by those annoying "boutique fuels," you know, the ones that force our air to be cleaner, he'll just deregulate some more.

What I am wondering though is what happened to those promises that accompanied the invasion into Iraq? The promises that referred to how Iraq's much-coveted oil supplies would foot the bill for the excursion. Hell, it's not even putting a down payment on the mother of all embassies we are building there.

All we have to show for the power grab at oil is a deficit in the trillions, a war which has eaten up all our financial and military resources with no end in sight, less oil and much higher prices.

But Bush, Cheney and their friends are far richer than they were 6 years ago and I suppose, that's all that really matters anyway.

I guess we have all learned a valuable lesson about Globalization and Energy, Bush-style.

The Billion Dollar Embassy

Any illusion about our true intentions in Iraq are being erased by the mother of all embassies being erected.

According to a report in the administration-friendly Washington Times, the new embassy compound dwarfs other such embassies around the world and will be quite pricey. The Times reports, "Original cost estimates were more than $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwaiti builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project's "classified" portion -- the embassy offices.

One would assume that future money will be funneled into this center, which is described as follows, "The embassy complex -- 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report -- is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified Green Zone just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial."

Additionally, it's got, "its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewaster-treatment facility, 'systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities,' said the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.

"Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building."

As for safety, consider this, the complex is,"within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days."

So, still think we're not gearing up to establish a permanent presence and base in that country?

Let's put it in perspective. This is how the article begins, "The fortresslike compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the world's largest of its kind, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future."

Just the sort of message we want to send to the Iraqis....we're not going away. And, if your infrastructure seems to be chaotic, ours will be independent and function without a hitch.

Yeah, that should encourage Iraqis to get their act together.

Don't Run John, Don't Run

Senator John Kerry is considering a repeat of his campaign for president. For the good of the party and this nation John, please don't run.

George Dubya Bush was ripe for defeat in the '04 election. His defeat by you in the debates should have meant a slam dunk at the polls.

My belief in GOP dirty tricks at the polls notwithstanding, Sen. Kerry, you were an abyssmal campaigner.

When you were sucker-punched by the swift boaters, your appalling initial reaction was to merely ignore it. Then when you fought back, it was to defensively parry.

How can a decorated war hero lose the issue of managing national security to a man who never really served? Additionally, because of the cleverly Rovian baiting of Dan Rather, the press never again attempted to bring up the fact that nobody seems to be able to remember serving alongside Bush Jr. One would think that you, Sen. Kerry, would respond by going on the offensive. What, did you think Dubya wasn't behind the 'anti-patriot' attacks?

I am so tired of the apologist and elitist politics of the Democratic party. We campaign as if we feel inferior for being left-of-center. Liberalism is honorable. There is no shame in true moral values; compassion for the poor, inclusion of minorities, taking care of those who cannot care fend for themselves, seeking peaceful, diplomatic resolutions of global conflicts.

We need to be pro-active and tough. Senator Kerry pro-active? I don't think so.

Worst of all was Kerry's refusal to pursue the many serious complaints of GOP Election Day shenanigans. These are no hollow complaints. There are scores of documentation to be found. "Fooled Again" by Mark Crispin Miller is essential reading. He lists numerous illustrations of misconduct and reveals some dangerous practices that threaten our entire system of free elections. As Mr. Miller writes, if we don't speak out they will steal the next election as well.

What have you done, Senator Kerry, in the wake of these charges? Anything?

Sorry sir, you have forfeited your right to represent me.

Kerry is the epitome of the re-active candidate, who only operates from the defensive. Karl Rove and crew would once again eat him alive. We need a candidate who is willing to take the challenge to the president and the GOP.

Somebody with real courage like, say, Senator Russell Feingold.

So Much For Washington Post Credibility

I suppose I should have seen this coming, but today's editorial confirmed to me that the Washington Post no longer has credibility as an impartial newspaper.

Today's mind-boggling peek through the looking glass of the Washington Post editorial board reveals that it is, indeed, a mouthpiece for Bush administration talking points.

Here is what today's editorial had to say about a "good leak" by President Bush:

"President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling."

So, the fact that only selective elements from that intelligence document were leaked to a reporter, thus misrepresenting the entire report to make political points, is allegedly correct foreign policy. Not only that, but those who do not see it that way are engaging in "hyperbolic charges."

But WaPo doesn't stop there. Ambassador Joseph Wilson is now Darth Vader:

"The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.' The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing."

Ambassador Wilson was "the one guilty of twisting the truth?" Oh, I guess that Iraq really was purchasing uranium? How could I have missed that one?

Considering the reports we have out of Great Britain that the administration seemed bent on fixing intelligence to support their march to war, it is not hard to connect the dots and see Judith Miller being played in the same manner here. After all, weren't her initial WMD reports based upon selective intelligence being fed to her as well?

The Washington Post seems to have no problem with the contradictions between a president who says that leaks for political reasons are bad, with his own decision to selectively release portions of classified intelligence that, standing alone, would tend to support his own political stance. If that wasn't the case, why not release the entire report at that time, so Ms. Miller could have seen ALL the doubts that were being raised over the uranium claim.

We have a president that says "we don't leak," "we don't wiretap without a warrant," and, the biggest whopper of them all, "no president wants war."

It's nice to know that the Bush team has such good friends at the Washington Post.

It explains a lot....like the Ben Domenech fiasco, for instance. Interestingly, even in that case, the Post couldn't admit that they were wrong in bringing in an extremist right-wing blogger for alleged 'balance.' No, it was the fact that he was a plagiarizing extremist.

This is the looking glass, after all.

UPDATE: In Monday's Huffington Post (4/10/06), Jane Hamsher does a meticulous dissection of the WaPo editorial. It is a terrific read and can be found here.

Howard Kurtz Owes Jill Carroll An Apology

Eric J. Weiner made 2 entries in the Huffington Post today, here and here.

The gripe was with columnist for The Washington Post, Howard Kurtz, seeming to take a position regarding statements that Jill Carroll made after her release, while she was still on Iraqi soil. Without knowing the details, many on the right, and blowhards such as Don Imus, attacked Carroll's patriotism. The problem was, and is, that Kurtz has yet to issue an apology for his comments.

This is what Kurtz wrote in his Friday "Media Notes" column in WaPo, in a piece titled, "Questions About Carroll's Captivity" (emphasis is mine):

"This is a courageous young woman.

"I must say, though, that I found her first interview yesterday rather odd. Carroll seemed bent on giving her captors a positive review, going on about how well they treated her, how they gave her food and let her go to the bathroom. And they never threatened to hit her. Of course, as we all saw in those chilling videos, they did threaten to kill her. And they shot her Iraqi translator to death.

"Why make a terrorist group who put her family and friends through a terrible three-month ordeal sound like they were running a low-budget motel chain?

"Now perhaps this is unfair, for there is much we do not know. We don't know why Carroll was kidnapped and why she was abruptly released. She says she doesn't either, but surely she must have gotten some clues about her abductors' outlook and tactics during her 82-day captivity. Maybe she was just shell-shocked right after being let go. Maybe she won't feel comfortable speaking out until she's back on American soil.

"As my colleagues in Baghdad point out, when that interview was taped, Carroll was still in the custody of a Sunni political party with ties to the insurgency. It may have just made sense for her to be especially cautious. And they tell me that Carroll did cry -- off camera -- when the subject of her murdered translator came up. Still, people are buzzing because her taped remarks have been played over and over again on television. I hope she'll be able to share a fuller account of her ordeal soon."

Forget couching the comments to hedge his bets. Those allegations should not have been made until Carroll was on American soil and given a chance to explain her actions.

Today, Kurtz did not apologize in either his daily column, or 1-hour online chat.

Kurtz knows the power of the written word, he needs to take responsibility.

Separated at Birth: Sessions & Beverly

Not only do these 2 sound alike, they look alike. I am referring to Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and character actor Leslie Jordan, who plays the diminutive, and closeted, Beverly Leslie on "Will & Grace."

I know that I have never seen these 2 in the same room together. Have you?

Attributions:
Jordan photo from http://www.hollywoodfyi.com/lesliejordan.html
Sessions photo from http://www.bamagop.org/images/elected_officials/jeff_sessions.jpg

GOP As 'God's Own Party'

I think the entanglement of religious fundamentalism with the governing of America has ascended to levels where the propogators of such policy can no longer hide it.

Starting with confining their fights to topics such as abortion rights and gay marriage, the religious right has been emboldened enough to expand their agenda.

The current climate allows the questioning of evolution, the dismissal of global warming concerns, a holy war against stem cell research, and so on. These folks even seek to use the government to force brain-dead people to remain on life support.

So, it was interesting to read a column in today's Washington Post by Kevin Phillips. The story, "How the GOP Became God's Own Party," was written by a man who predicted the upcoming attempt at the theocratic hijacking of American politics.

Mr. Phillips, a former member of the Nixon Administration, had once published a seminal work on the changing political landscape that was referred to as the "political bible of the Nixon Era." So I suppose Phillips, as much as anybody, can assess the transformation that so few in the mainstream media are willing to admit is occurring.

Among many interesting assessments, Phillips writes, "No leading world power in modern memory has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science. The last parallel was in the early 17th century, when the papacy, with the agreement of inquisitional Spain, disciplined the astronomer Galileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our solar system."

But his most most compelling assertion is how the current GOP has merged this fundamentalism into what is essentially, a 3-headed monster:

"In addition to its concerns with oil and terrorism, the White House is courting end-times theologians and electorates for whom the Holy Lands are a battleground of Christian destiny. Both pursuits -- oil and biblical expectations -- require a dissimulation in Washington that undercuts the U.S. tradition of commitment to the role of an informed electorate.

"The political corollary -- fascinating but appalling -- is the recent transformation of the Republican presidential coalition. Since the election of 2000 and especially that of 2004, three pillars have become central: the oil-national security complex, with its pervasive interests; the religious right, with its doctrinal imperatives and massive electorate; and the debt-driven financial sector, which extends far beyond the old symbolism of Wall Street.

"President Bush has promoted these alignments, interest groups and their underpinning values. His family, over multiple generations, has been linked to a politics that conjoined finance, national security and oil. In recent decades, the Bushes have added close ties to evangelical and fundamentalist power brokers of many persuasions.

"Over a quarter-century of Bush presidencies and vice presidencies, the Republican Party has slowly become the vehicle of all three interests -- a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex. The three are increasingly allied in commitment to Republican politics. On the most important front, I am beginning to think that the Southern-dominated, biblically driven Washington GOP represents a rogue coalition, like the Southern, proslavery politics that controlled Washington until Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860."

While many progressives are keenly aware of the dangers presented by the religious right, it is comforting to hear it spelled out so keenly by a man who has more credibility on the subject than most.

Bush Thought Police Alive & Well In Georgia

Every day we are treated to new and scary ways that the powers-that-be try and make the America our founders died for unrecognizable.

According to the following AP story, a Georgia woman faces a fine for an allegedly lewd bumper sticker:

"Denise Grier, 47, of Athens was recently pulled over in suburban Atlanta's DeKalb County where she works as a nurse when a police officer spotted her bumper sticker that reads: 'I'm Tired Of All The BUSHIT.'

"The officer who stopped her thought it was lewd, and she was cited for violating a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles."

There is no such word as 'bushit,' so how would this ever even pass the most minimal of court tests for alleged lewdness? Still, the ACLU is stepping in on the woman's behalf.

Apparently, the 4th Amendment isn't enough, Bushies want to take away our 1st Amendment rights as well.

AFA Attacks Fox

The AFA is apparently shameless. In the pursuit of money, they will even attack their bedmates.

Knowing full well that emotions might be running high after the recent death of a NASCAR driver (both the driver's death and the 'offending' conversation took place on Sunday....not sure of the exact timeline), the AFA is mounting an FCC attack on Fox over allowing the word "shit" to be aired. The word was uttered by a driver who had just been in a car crash.

In the same e-mail, AFA seeks donations to keep up this "worthy" effort.

Anybody who contributes to these insensitive louts needs to have their head examined. Here is the full text of the letter (sans the linkage). I have removed the e-mail address where I get their alerts for obvious reasons.

Here is the ridiculous AFA alert:


March 27, 2006

Fox allows 's' word. Take a stand for our children!

Dear xxxx (deleted),

Tired of all the profanity on TV? Want to do something about it? Here is your opportunity.

File a complaint with the FCC against Fox Network for using the "s" word.

This past Sunday afternoon, Fox network broadcast the NASCAR "Food City 500" race. During the course of the race, driver Martin Truex, Jr. crashed his car after being bumped by another driver.

Fox network aired a conversation between Truex and his crew chief, Kevin Manion. During the course of the conversation, Manion told his driver, "We missed the set-up today. It (the car) was a piece of s**t.

Fox had been warned about allowing the "s" word on the air. The network could have used a delay and bleeped the profanity. But they chose not to. The network chose to air the segment live. Millions of viewers, including children, were offended by the crude profanity.

Also, please forward this to your family and friends. Together, we can make a difference!

Take Action
Here is your opportunity to make the networks more sensitive to your concern. The FCC is willing to fine the stations, but viewers must complain! Please file a complaint with the FCC against Fox stations for the broadcast of indecent language.


Click Here to File Your Formal Complaint to the FCC Now!

If you think our efforts are worthy, would you please support us with a small gift? Thank you for caring enough to get involved.

Sincerely,



Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this e-mail message to your family and friends!

What A Representative Iraqi Blog Is Saying

Rather than add anything, read this recent post from the blog "Baghdad Burning," as is.

It is eerily reminiscent of the ethnic cleansing that went on in Rwanda. Neighbor turning on neighbor, all because of the Islamic sect they belong to.

This is why we should always make it a habit to read the blogs coming out of Iraq. Compare the current entries with the entries from the same blog that were written at the start of our involvement there. See how those entries evolved over the past 3 years. In many cases you will see how attitudes towards us have undergone a profound change. Unfortunately, not for the better.

Baghdad Burning

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Three Years...

It has been three years since the beginning of the war that marked the end of Iraq’s independence. Three years of occupation and bloodshed.

Spring should be about renewal and rebirth. For Iraqis, spring has been about reliving painful memories and preparing for future disasters. In many ways, this year is like 2003 prior to the war when we were stocking up on fuel, water, food and first aid supplies and medications. We're doing it again this year but now we don't discuss what we're stocking up for. Bombs and B-52's are so much easier to face than other possibilities.

I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m so tired of it all- we’re all tired.

Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos being led by religious militias and zealots.

School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at home waiting for the situation to improve. Right now college and school are on hold because the “arba3eeniya” or the “40th Day” is coming up- more black and green flags, mobs of men in black and latmiyas. We were told the children should try going back to school next Wednesday. I say “try” because prior to the much-awaited parliamentary meeting a couple of days ago, schools were out. After the Samarra mosque bombing, schools were out. The children have been at home this year more than they’ve been in school.

I’m especially worried about the Arba3eeniya this year. I’m worried we’ll see more of what happened to the Askari mosque in Samarra. Most Iraqis seem to agree that the whole thing was set up by those who had most to gain by driving Iraqis apart.

I’m sitting here trying to think what makes this year, 2006, so much worse than 2005 or 2004. It’s not the outward differences- things such as electricity, water, dilapidated buildings, broken streets and ugly concrete security walls. Those things are disturbing, but they are fixable. Iraqis have proved again and again that countries can be rebuilt. No- it’s not the obvious that fills us with foreboding.

The real fear is the mentality of so many people lately- the rift that seems to have worked it’s way through the very heart of the country, dividing people. It’s disheartening to talk to acquaintances- sophisticated, civilized people- and hear how Sunnis are like this, and Shia are like that… To watch people pick up their things to move to “Sunni neighborhoods” or “Shia neighborhoods”. How did this happen?

I read constantly analyses mostly written by foreigners or Iraqis who’ve been abroad for decades talking about how there was always a divide between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq (which, ironically, only becomes apparent when you're not actually living amongst Iraqis they claim)… but how under a dictator, nobody saw it or nobody wanted to see it. That is simply not true- if there was a divide, it was between the fanatics on both ends. The extreme Shia and extreme Sunnis. Most people simply didn’t go around making friends or socializing with neighbors based on their sect. People didn't care- you could ask that question, but everyone would look at you like you were silly and rude.

I remember as a child, during a visit, I was playing outside with one of the neighbors children. Amal was exactly my age- we were even born in the same month, only three days apart. We were laughing at a silly joke and suddenly she turned and asked coyly, “Are you Sanafir or Shanakil?” I stood there, puzzled. ‘Sanafir’ is the Arabic word for “Smurfs” and ‘Shanakil” is the Arabic word for “Snorks”. I didn’t understand why she was asking me if I was a Smurf or a Snork. Apparently, it was an indirect way to ask whether I was Sunni (Sanafir) or Shia (Shanakil).

“What???” I asked, half smiling. She laughed and asked me whether I prayed with my hands to my sides or folded against my stomach. I shrugged, not very interested and a little bit ashamed to admit that I still didn’t really know how to pray properly, at the tender age of 10.

Later that evening, I sat at my aunt’s house and remember to ask my mother whether we were Smurfs or Snorks. She gave me the same blank look I had given Amal. “Mama- do we pray like THIS or like THIS?!” I got up and did both prayer positions. My mother’s eyes cleared and she shook her head and rolled her eyes at my aunt, “Why are you asking? Who wants to know?” I explained how Amal, our Shanakil neighbor, had asked me earlier that day. “Well tell Amal we’re not Shanakil and we’re not Sanafir- we’re Muslims- there’s no difference.”

It was years later before I learned that half the family were Sanafir, and the other half were Shanakil, but nobody cared. We didn’t sit around during family reunions or family dinners and argue Sunni Islam or Shia Islam. The family didn’t care about how this cousin prayed with his hands at his side and that one prayed with her hands folded across her stomach. Many Iraqis of my generation have that attitude. We were brought up to believe that people who discriminated in any way- positively or negatively- based on sect or ethnicity were backward, uneducated and uncivilized.

The thing most worrisome about the situation now, is that discrimination based on sect has become so commonplace. For the average educated Iraqi in Baghdad, there is still scorn for all the Sunni/Shia talk. Sadly though, people are being pushed into claiming to be this or that because political parties are promoting it with every speech and every newspaper- the whole ‘us’ / ‘them’. We read constantly about how ‘We Sunnis should unite with our Shia brothers…’ or how ‘We Shia should forgive our Sunni brothers…’ (note how us Sunni and Shia sisters don’t really fit into either equation at this point). Politicians and religious figures seem to forget at the end of the day that we’re all simply Iraqis.

And what role are the occupiers playing in all of this? It’s very convenient for them, I believe. It’s all very good if Iraqis are abducting and killing each other- then they can be the neutral foreign party trying to promote peace and understanding between people who, up until the occupation, were very peaceful and understanding.

Three years after the war, and we’ve managed to move backwards in a visible way, and in a not so visible way.

In the last weeks alone, thousands have died in senseless violence and the American and Iraqi army bomb Samarra as I write this. The sad thing isn’t the air raid, which is one of hundreds of air raids we’ve seen in three years- it’s the resignation in the people. They sit in their homes in Samarra because there’s no where to go. Before, we’d get refugees in Baghdad and surrounding areas… Now, Baghdadis themselves are looking for ways out of the city… out of the country. The typical Iraqi dream has become to find some safe haven abroad.

Three years later and the nightmares of bombings and of shock and awe have evolved into another sort of nightmare. The difference between now and then was that three years ago, we were still worrying about material things- possessions, houses, cars, electricity, water, fuel… It’s difficult to define what worries us most now. Even the most cynical war critics couldn't imagine the country being this bad three years after the war... Allah yistur min il rab3a (God protect us from the fourth year).

What Proof Does The NY Times Need To Call This A Civil War?

In today's NY Times there is a stunning story on the level of sectarian torture and murder currently going on in Iraq. The story, by Jeffrey Gettleman, "Bound, Blindfolded and Dead: The Face of Revenge in Baghdad," offers the following bleak picture:

"Mohannad al-Azawi had just finished sprinkling food in his bird cages at his pet shop in south Baghdad, when three carloads of gunmen pulled up. In front of a crowd, he was grabbed by his shirt and driven off.

"Mr. Azawi was among the few Sunni Arabs on the block, and, according to witnesses, when a Shiite friend tried to intervene, a gunman stuck a pistol to his head and said, 'You want us to blow your brains out, too?'

"Mr. Azawi's body was found the next morning at a sewage treatment plant. A slight man who raised nightingales, he had been hogtied, drilled with power tools and shot.

"In the last month, hundreds of men have been kidnapped, tortured and executed in Baghdad."

That gets followed, revealingly, by this line:

"As Iraqi and American leaders struggle to avert a civil war, the bodies keep piling up."

Say what? "Struggle to avert a civil war?"

Pardon me for asking, but if this isn't civil war, what is? Hundreds of kidnappings, tortures and executions isn't enough? What is the litmus test here? Thousands? Tens of thousands?

Later in the Times piece. Gettleman refers to 30 kidnapped and murdered Iraqis who had their fingers and toes sawed off. Not a civil war? Everything this correspondent writes about screams 'civil war.'

These are not isolated incidents. They are readily verified by any number of blogs coming out of Iraq, one of which I will get to in a separate post shortly. So why can't this paper, or most American media for that matter, tell it like it is? Afraid of crossing swords with White House bullies? Afraid of being branded the evil liberal media?

I can't think of any other explanation.

What Dems Must Do To Take Back Congress

Despite, encouraging poll numbers that suggest that Democrats hold a huge edge over the GOP in upcoming local races, there are several things that are imperative for the Dems to get back the House and Senate:

1) More than anything else, we have to be alert to the GOP dirty tricks at the polls. Among these problems are a way to guarantee that the vote that is cast is the one that is registered. Why is this not more of a front-and-center concern of Dem politicians? For a full airing of the most recent election fraud, please read Mark Crispin Miller's excellent book "Fooled Again."

2) Make this election about oversight, over everything else. It is relatively easy to argue that keeping GOP incumbents in power will allow George Bush to never have to answer for anything. Make this race about Bush, because, thanks to lack of accountability by his GOP cohorts, it is. Remind voters that the GOP has stalled investigation of important issues at every opportunity.

3) Ignore the comments of lame Dem consultants that argue against taking a position on anything, preferring to let the GOP shoot themselves in the foot. We must dispense with this sort of 'loser' mentality that has cost us the last 2 elections. We should not always be re-active to GOP attacks. We must be pro-active and put the GOP on the defensive. That was what Senator Russell Feingold was attempting to do with his censure proposal. My God, what are we afraid of?

If we start with the above 3 important items, we have a chance to get our country back. If we don't, do not be too surprised. Democratic leadership has constantly shown it isn't ready for prime time. If they do not wake up, if they do not win in '06, if the election results again conveniently do not match exit polls, than we must demand an entire shake-up of the Democratic party, and the whole election mindset, from top-to-bottom.

The Dixie Chicks Powerful New Song

Having seen firsthand, and being morally appalled by, the blackballing of the Dixie Chicks after their criticism of George Bush, I am pleased to report that they are not just gonna "shut up and sing."

On their website you can catch their new song, "Not Ready To Make Nice," (click the hyperlink to hear it) with the following potent lyrics:

Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting

I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

I know you said
Can’t you just get over it
It turned my whole world around
And I kind of like it

I made my bed and I sleep like a baby
With no regrets and I don’t mind sayin’
It’s a sad sad story when a mother will teach her
Daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger
And how in the world can the words that I said
Send somebody so over the edge
That they’d write me a letter
Sayin’ that I better shut up and sing
Or my life will be over

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go round and round and round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

Forgive, sounds good
Forget, I’m not sure I could
They say time heals everything
But I’m still waiting

Lieberman Proposes "Short Ride" For Rape Victims

Do we need any more of a reason to support Ned Lamont against Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary? Because this self-righteous tool of the Bush Administration has just handed over another.

According to The New Haven Register:

"Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for 'principled reasons' shouldn’t be forced to do so. 'In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital,' he said."

Principled reasons?

How principled is it to, in effect, tell a rape victim that she should carry the rapist's baby to term. Essentially, that is what some hospitals are doing when they refuse contraception. Why would you make a rape victim travel to a different hospital for treatment? These are 'family values?' This is 'morality?'

If it were his own daughter, I wonder if Lieberman would be so cavalier in insisting she take that "short ride" to a more friendly hospital.

What a disgusting remark to make. Maybe it is a blessing in disguise that he did not get to serve as VP.

I'll Have What Rummy Is Smoking

Considering the administration-friendly nature of the media, the fact that the majority of Americans understand the debacle of Iraq is rather encouraging. After all, it is hard to totally dismiss accounts of the daily carnage that does filter through. In fact, by virtually all accounts, the situation in Iraq borders on civil war, with the most optimistic assessments referring to a long, uphill climb to even somewhat stabilize the region.

Unfortunately, on the other side of the looking glass, we have the fantasyland known as the Bush Administration.

And what a grim fairy tale they spin.

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asserts that we are doing a helluva job.

The piece is titled "What We've Gained In 3 Years In Iraq."

Right off the top, in my mind it conjures up the following; more than 2,000 of our troops killed, countless more injured and maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties, record U.S. debt, collapse of American stature abroad, and so on.

But Rumsfeld has different ideas.

For example, he states "The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case."

Rummy has his stats, which would be relevant if this administration had ever presented honest facts. He writes:

"Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 control their own battle space. About 75 percent of all military operations in the country include Iraqi security forces, and nearly half of those are independently Iraqi-planned, Iraqi-conducted and Iraqi-led. Iraqi security forces have a greater ability than coalition troops to detect a foreign terrorist's accent, identify local suspects and use force without increasing a feeling of occupation. It was these Iraqi forces -- not U.S. or coalition troops -- that enforced curfews and contained the violence after the attack on the Golden Dome Shrine in Samarra. To be sure, violence of various stripes continues to slow Iraq's progress. But the coalition is doing everything possible to see this effort succeed and is making adjustments as appropriate."

That is all fine and good if this sunny assessment were supported by any independent source. But it isn't. Anybody can cite some stat to support virtually any position. In this case, do we even know what these statistics and assertions honestly mean? Can we consider any alleged facts by an administration with zero credibility as truthful?

Polls have shown that the Iraqis do not want us there and that our presence could more likely lead to continued violence. Almost all accounts out of Iraq indicate that the situation is dire.

In light of this, one would think that the Bushies would focus on making adjustments to their failed policy and do what they can to mitigate further casualties.

Instead, it is the lockstep 'feel good' campaign, as if Dubya was back under a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Whatever these guys are smoking, it must be rather potent.

Democrats Shoot Themselves In Foot Again

Who needs Dick Cheney, when once again Senate Democrats have demonstrated a great capacity for inflicting injury upon their friends?

One would think that with the President's approval ratings in the tank, and his crusade to destroy civil liberties in high gear thanks to Dem capitulation, a vote to censure Bush would give Democrats a chance to make clear their displeasure.

Not this bunch.

Just like these cowards did to Rep Murtha, Dems are scurrying to have to avoid taking a principled stand on the war being waged on our civil rights.

After Senator Russ Feingold introduced a resolution calling for the censure of Bush, Senator Bill Frist, knowing the breed of coward he has been bullying, pushed to get a censure vote on the record. Predictably, the Dems freaked out and have managed to forestall such a vote. They made it very clear that they were doing so because they did not want to alienate allegedly 'swing' voters.

All these tweedle-dees did was to show just how similar they are to tweedle-dum.

It's one thing for Senator Lieberman to say he would have voted against censure. After all, Lieberman is a Republican in Democrat's clothing. But the whining and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects in the Senate plus Pelosi's mealy-mouthed response is too much to bear. Rep. Pelosi, you are no leader.

Do Democrats have any clue about the mood of the country, or their own party for God's sake?

We need to write our senators and congresspeople now and send a message.

Grow a spine, or lose our support in the primaries.

Molly Ivins Voices The Challenge

Holy mini-tremors Batman, Molly Ivins has officially done it. She lays down the guantlet and challenges progressive activists in the blogosphere to show DC insiders that, essentially, we can do the job better and more efficiently. In other words, we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore.

Ivins asks those on the Net to unite together behind a progressive candidate. As a Senator Feingold supporter myself, I was rather excited to see him be the one Democratic senator singled out for praise.

However, I am a believer in what Ivins proposes here...rising to a challenge to become an organized and very potent force in the blogosphere. Like Ivins, I think we can raise a lot of money and find common ground. I also believe that with the level of super-achievers in cyberspace, a little bit will go a long, long way.

It's a topic I will be blogging about more in coming days.

Senator Feingold Takes Charge...Again

Once again, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold is taking a leadership role on issues of national importance. Take, for example, his upcoming resolution to 'censure' President Bush.

According to a story from AP, "The five-page resolution to be introduced on Monday contends that Bush violated the law when, on his own, he set up the eavesdropping program within the National Security Agency in the months following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has essentially accused Feingold of aiding and abetting the enemy. How else does one translate the charge that the censure resolution would, according to the AP summation of his remarks, "weaken the U.S. during wartime." Your point being?

It will be interesting to see if this resolution is even allowed to be brought to the floor for debate and vote. If it is, how many Democrats will join Senator Feingold in calling for censure?

If the House Democratic response to Rep. Murtha is any indication, I would just like to say to the good Senator, 'watch your back.'

As per usual, Senator Feingold is demonstrating how to truly represent the opposition party in a way that reflects the growing outrage in this country. The alternative is to follow Clinton, Reid, Biden, Dean and gang in the charade known as GOP-lite.

Why Brokeback Crashed

The loss of "Brokeback Mountain" as Best Picture at the Oscars, just like heavily favored, and openly gay actor, Sir Ian McKellen's loss for "Gods And Monsters," revealed how homophobic Hollywood is.

Don't believe me? Just rewatch the tape of Heath and Jake as presenters at the SAG Awards. A total embarrassment. As if they were ashamed they were cast as gay lovers. Maybe that is why Ang Lee chose not to mention them in his acceptance speech.

Forget the plethora of filmdom closet cases and GLAAD cocktail parties. Hollywood proved that they are as backwards as the rest of puritanical America in the face of global progression of glbt civil rights in other western nations.

You see, an image of 2 men being intimate and the reality of men being murdered solely for who they choose to love is too uncomfortable for these people to even watch. You can't vote for a film that you choose not to even see. Critics saw both and they knew which the better picture was.

So now our allegedly 'progressive' Academy voters can pat themselves on the back for honoring rap, albeit misogynist rap, and a faux 'racism' flick.

"Crash" is about as realistic as the bubble these voters house themselves in.

So is the homophobic result.

Not All Leaks Are Created Equal...And Sealing The Deal

While the White House continues to stonewall on the investigation of who compromised national security and released the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to reporters, they do seem to have their knickers in a knot over other leaks.

According to a story in the Washington Post, "in recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program."

Hmmm, they aren't also investigating Plamegate? What a surprise.

In a signal of the upcoming wave of intimidation tactics, it was reported that "in a little-noticed case in California, FBI agents from Los Angeles have already contacted reporters at the Sacramento Bee about stories published in July that were based on sealed court documents related to a terrorism case in Lodi, according to the newspaper."

Additionally, "Bush administration officials -- who complain that reports about detainee abuse, clandestine surveillance and other topics have endangered the nation during a time of war -- have arguably taken a more aggressive approach than other recent administrations, including a clear willingness to take on journalists more directly if necessary."

We are watching a government so clothed and shrouded in secrecy that public documents that have been reclassified have been removed from the public archives.

That secrecy extends to the courts.

On the Federal Courts level, the AP reports on the unprecedented sealing of cases.

This apparently extends to locals courts as well. Today's Seattle Times refers to the plethora of inappropriately sealed court documents in the state of Washington.

The Bush Administration's legacy is not one that they will be able to look back on proudly in years to come. Unless, of course, they find a way to continue to shield the story from public view.

It's The Election Machines, Stupid

I had already been suspicious of the '00 and '04 election results before reading "Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too" by Mark Crispin Miller. However, reading that book, which was rather comprehensively researched, reminded me that the machines are not the only problem. What makes everything so much worse is that very few people in leadership positions are challenging the concept of voting machines pushed by partisan companies that leave no paper trail and are readily available for tampering. When somebody like me discusses it, we are dismissed as wacky conspiracy theorists. which is why there has been so little incentive to enact meaningful reform.

At this point I have no confidence that the elections in our nation are fair. I also have no confidence in the Democratic Party to make enough noise about this to make a difference. It is a given that the msm will be silent.

However, every now and again, I am capable of being surprised. Today was such a day. The Washington Post, in an editorial, addressed these touch-pad voting machines with no paper trail produced by Diebold. In specifically dealing with the situation in Maryland, the following was stated:

"...the touch-screen machines that have been in use are seriously flawed. Voters cannot know for sure whether their choices are correctly recorded and tallied because the machines do not produce any paper trails showing each vote cast; that makes an audit impossible. Computer experts note, too, that results can be rigged without risk of detection."

Interestingly, the Post makes it a bi-partisan issue, as if the GOP is as eager to correct the problem as are Democrats. Uh huh? Additionally, they refer to Dems who are allegedly trying to impede reform in the interests of attacking the Republican Governor. I don't know the local politics of the state that well, but it would not be the first time that Democrats were clueless. In fact the party ineptitude has been reaching new heights of late, so I don't take issue with the conclusion.

I do know this. If we allow machines with no paper trail, we can say goodbye to our democracy. Because the right-wing will continue to steal elections that they never won. At this point, they know the Democrats will do nothing but crawl back into the corner with their tail between their legs.

That is the saddest part of the story.

A Radioactive Pat Robertson?

Considering that the religious right rarely, if ever, criticizes one of their own, it is refreshing to see them publicly backing away from Pat Robertson.

(sorry, it would be impossible for me to refer to this charlatan as 'reverend.)

An AP story today quotes fundamentalist leaders questioning whether or not Robertson is damaging the movement. In the interest of helping them out, the answer is yes, he is.

Still, not everybody is getting the message:

"Robertson started out as a Southern Baptist, but today he is a charismatic evangelical and believes that God is involved in guiding world events, said Barry Hankins, professor of history and church-state studies at Baylor University. He tries to interpret contemporary events as "being part of the drama of God's activity in the world."

"'He puts the most fantastic spin on things to have a gripping quality about them to keep the ground troops alert,' Hankins said.

"On the other hand, Brian Britt, director of the Religious Studies Program at Virginia Tech, said Robertson's remarks aren't just "off-the-wall, crazy uncle stuff" but part of a strategy that earns him headlines.

"When people attack Robertson, he wins sympathy for appearing to be an underdog, Britt said.

"'It reinforces an image of Christianity as a persecuted religion, a religion that is being hounded by the secularists out of the public square, rather than a dominant and hegemonic force,' Britt said."

Yeah, Robertson sure knows how to spin, but the fact that he cancelled an appearance at the NRB Convention, allegedly because he knew that they didn't really want him to speak there, is encouraging. It means that even with the control freaks that run the evangelical movement there are some limits.

Finally, It Takes Carter To Say It

I have been truly amazed at the lack of understanding from the Democratic party about what message will truly resonate with the American people.

The fact that President Bush has been allowed to get away with his illegal wiretapping in public opinion polls shows how utterly dismal the minority party is at communicating.

I keep hearing Dems refer to the overriding issue being the fact that terrorists may go free because Bushco did not follow the rule of law. All that this line of defense will do is cause Middle America to bemoan allegedly liberal judges and courts.

The main message that should be delivered is the fact that if court approval is circumvented, than Bush can eavesdrop on anybody, including his political enemies, and nobody would ever know. After all, Nixonian dirty tricks are what led to some of this legislation regarding checks-and-balances for surveillance.

Since Bush apparently could have gotten anything he wanted through the courts, than this is a very believable scenario. Look at Plamegate for proof of what this administration will stoop to. Why bypass the courts unless you have something to hide? Or if the scope of the program is so vast that it goes way beyond suspected terrorists?

Today, finally, somebody brought home this point loud and clear. It was Jimmy Carter, speaking today at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. Carter noted that the Kings were "victims of secret government wiretapping."

There. Point made. Touche.

Thank you Jimmy Carter. And for the one or 2 news organizations that chose to mention his remarks.

The Public Needs To Get The True Message On Domestic Spying

(note: Just back from vacation....sorry for the gap between posts)

It is a bit surreal that George W. Bush has been able to parlay his domestic spying program into a perceived political plus. However, given the total disorganization by the Democratic party and the apathy of the media, maybe this should not be all that surprising.

The plan is to show that Democrats are "soft on terrorism." It has worked in the past primarily because the Dems always seem to be taking a 're-active' rather than a 'pro-active' position.

However, the real issue here is why, given that even retroactive court warrants would have been easy to obtain, did Bush circumvent the process?

Well, for one, maybe such a broad, far-reaching program might have had problems getting a green light, but for me, ths issue is much simpler.

In my opinion, the domestic surveillance program is not merely set in motion to go after Al Qaeda operatives, it is to keep watch on political enemies. And, because there is no accountability, what is to stop Bush from doing just that?

One would think that that would be the central issue, one that would resonate with most Americans.

Now can somebody please tell me why the Democrats are not bringing this up?

Diana DeGar-'doh'

I just had to pass this on....

In one of the most bizarre, self-serving PR gestures ever, former "American Idol" runner-up Diana DeGarmo managed to get free press on AP today. As the article seems to single out "her manager and mother, Brenda DeGarmo," who is also mentioned at the start of the article, it was easy to spot the source of the publicity.

The story was ostensibly to pat DeGarmo on the back for performing for the troops overseas. So why were we treated to the following DeGarmo cluelessness, where she states that she "learned that there's more to this war than sending troops overseas. They're missing so much and risking their lives."

More to this war than sending troops overseas? Isn't that deep?

But it gets topped by this tidbit mom made sure the reporter tossed in:

"She said one of the strangest moments on the trip was performing for dozens of shivering troops at Camp Victory in Baghdad, with helicopters flying overhead and people shouting. She also spent the night in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces."

DeGarmo is bragging that she slept in one of Hussein's former palaces? That remark was for the edification of who, exactly? The troops? The Iraqis? Mom?

I suppose anybody who was subjected to the torture of seeing DeGarmo make it past the more talented LaToya London and Jennifer Hudson in AI Season 3 should catch the irony of this performer being a representative for the torture administration, but please Diana and mom....do your best not to open your mouths, when at all possible.

I think I know why the people were shouting!

A Father Speaks Out

It would seem that the voices that are most entitled to speak out on our involvement in Iraq are those that belong to the troops who serve, as well as the families of those troops. When a family has lost a loved one, it is all the more reason to listen when they have something to say.

While Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier, should be credited with jump-starting the anti-war movement with her protests, she sadly has become too shrill to be effective. I am not sure if this is always what happens when people suddenly find themselves in positions of influence or power, but in Cindy's case, her messaqe became so combative that she essentially was preaching only to the converted.

I am as disgusted with the man in the White House as anybody, but did Sheehan really think that calling him a murderer would get her an audience with him? On what planet?

What has been sorely needed is a voice from other family members of deceased soldiers to speak out. Today, one voice rose up and delivered a powerful blow to the administration.

The man is Paul E. Schroeder, who lost his son Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder.

In a feature Op-Ed in the Washington Post, this is part of what Schroeder had to say:

"I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to 'clear, hold and build' Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.

"In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was 'less and less worth it,' because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha."

If any message speaks to the pointlessness and mismanagement of the Iraqi war effort by the Bush Administration this one does. Mr. Schroeder sums up his arguments very well, speaking of how he views the loss of his son:

"Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

"But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

"This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush."

Will Mr. Bush be bothered by this? Will he "live with it?" I highly doubt it. Bush never had to fight on a battlefield, or to answer where he was when he was allegedly on duty with the National Guard. He is removed from what it could possibly mean to lose one's life in combat. He is way removed from the pain of a father who has lost a son in the morass that is Iraq.

As for George the parent, something tells me that Jenna and Barbara will not be signing up to enlist anytime soon.

Ted Koppel's Lie

Today, there was a re-broadcast of the "Meet The Press" broadcast from Christmas Day, 2005. Tim Russert's guests were Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel.

At one point, Koppel made the following assertion that blew me away.

From the transcript:

"MR. KOPPEL: I mean, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was 9/11.

"MR. BROKAW: Right.

"MR. KOPPEL: If 9/11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch, he would have gone into Iraq.

"MR. BROKAW: Yeah. Yeah."

How on earth did that assertion go unchallenged??? It is one thing to suggest that we would have gone into Afghanistan, but to say Clinton would have invaded Iraq, with all we now know about the Bush Administration's motivations for doing so, is indefensible. Where is the supportive proof on that blatant lie?

Koppel also said this:

"MR. KOPPEL: What's intriguing to me, Tim, is we're still talking about the war as though it were in a vacuum, and we're still talking about victory and what is to be achieved as though it were in a vacuum. And the one thing that we are not talking about, because it somehow seems indelicate or unpolitic or even inappropriate, is the simple fact of the matter that, while we did not go to war because of Iraq's oil, we did, in fact, go to war because it is absolutely essential to the national interest, not only of this country but also of the Europeans and of the Japanese, that the Persian Gulf remains stable. We have--when I say "we" I mean U.S. administrations going back to the Eisenhower administration--have been intervening in the Persian Gulf in one form or another--we overthrew the Iranian prime minister, Mossadeq--that is, the CIA did--precisely because we felt he was too close to the Communist Party at that time and we were afraid what that would mean if Iran became a Communist state. "

Invading Iraq was "absolutely essential to the national interest???" According to who? The White House Iraq group?

Why not invade Iran? North Korea?

Where are these people coming from? Since when do we invade a country who has not overtly threatened America. Hussein, as bad as he is, was de-fanged. We now have the door open for an Islamic republic and a new breeding ground for terrorists. Why do we allow these media pundits to control the debate unquestioned?

At least we now know why Koppel's coverage of important issues like Plamegate was MIA. He is a lackey for the administration.

No wonder nobody trusts the mainstream media. They are complicit in the conspiracy to mis-inform America.

A New Year & Wiretaps

With the dawn of 2006, I will do my best to use this blog to more comprehensively spotlight the important issues. More importantly, I want to look at the issues that are being under-reported, or deliberately ignored, by the American media. It is why there will be more links to international sites, which seem to cover American stories better than we do at home.

As we ring in the new year, the Bush wiretapping story seems to be the most important issue we face as a country. Using the excuse of war, Bush seems intent to toss away the sort of civil liberties we are allegedly fighting and dying in Iraq for. Considering the War on Terror will never be completely won (how does one gauge when we have eradicated every terrorist on the planet), what the GOP is seeking to do is compromise our civil liberties permanently. Are media outlets actively conveying this message?

2 stories today were rather interesting and revealing.

First, the public editor of the New York Times, Byron Calame, has a fascinating rebuke of the paper's executive editor and publisher. Calame reveals in print that both William Keller and Arthur Sulzberger Jr. have refused to respond to inquiries on the Times' decision to withhold the wiretap story for a year.

It is rare to see this type of open challenge of one's bosses in print, let alone a story this damaging in nature.

I am encouraged that we are able to see the internal dissent face the light of day so that we can formulate our own conclusions on the matter.

Second, John W. Dean, a man who observed Nixon's failings from the inside, writes a valuable essay at FindLaw.com that compares Bush to Nixon. The similarities are rather scary and the read is worthwhile.

One of the more interesting theories put forth by Dean was that the entire wiretap episode was a conscious decision by Cheney to re-assert executive authority.

Dean writes:

"The USA Patriot Act passed with overwhelming support. So why didn't the President simply ask Congress for the authority he thought he needed?

"The answer seems to be, quite simply, that Vice President Dick Cheney has never recovered from being President Ford's chief of staff when Congress placed checks on the presidency. And Cheney wanted to make the point that he thought it was within a president's power to ignore Congress' laws relating to the exercise of executive power. Bush has gone along with all such Cheney plans."

The result of this is a presidency that has no checks-and-balances. If this assault on civil liberties is allowed, how much longer before monitoring of terrorists is joined by monitoring of one's political enemies? And, who's to say that this has not already begun?

Dean concludes:

"In acting here without Congressional approval, Bush has underlined that his Presidency is unchecked - in his and his attorneys' view, utterly beyond the law. Now that he has turned the truly awesome powers of the NSA on Americans, what asserted powers will Bush use next? And when - if ever - will we - and Congress -- discover that he is using them? "

That, my friends, is the point. Is that the democracy this nation was founded upon?

I think we all know the answer to that one.