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.

GOP To New Orleans: Drop Dead

In today's Washington Post, in a story on the future of New Orleans, the GOP's decision to let the city die was on display, though you had to look for it.

It came in the form of the following:

"'I think the country has moved beyond Katrina at this point,' said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), former House GOP campaign head and now chairman of the House investigation of the response."

And that is really all you need to know.

The article indicated that while polls show a clear majority of Democrats and Independents think it more important to rebuild New Orleans before rebuilding Iraq, self-identified Republicans want Iraq to come first by a 46 to 37 percent majority.

These are the people that allegedly have the nation's moral values? You have to be joking.

Elsewhere in the article comes this:

"Republicans look at New Orleans and see Galveston, Tex., which in 1900 was the state's largest city and the Gulf's largest port before 8,000 residents were killed by a hurricane, Brinkley said . That city was supplanted by Houston, and Brinkley believes Republicans consider it less costly to remake New Orleans as a smaller city based on tourism and its port. It could be surpassed by Baton Rouge, which is nearer Houston's petrochemical industry, set on the Mississippi River and easier to protect from future storms, Brinkley said.

"Democrats see such a move as no less than a GOP takeover, one that would effectively gut Democrat-dominated New Orleans and undermine the party's hold on a governorship and Senate seat south of the Mason-Dixon line."

That is exactly what is at play here. now let's see if the Democrats are going to have the balls to make this an issue in '06.

I am not denying that the Governor and Mayor of New Orleans don't have roles to play. But when one hears how the poor are not being given money to rebuild their homes, while the affluent are, as the New York Times recently reported, what is happening is pretty clear. The Federal Government is essentially telling the city of New Orleans to drop dead.

The Bush Comment That Will End His Presidency

It is so unbelievably fitting that George Bush will be done in by his own words.

If one heads over to the official White House website, one will be treated to the following Bush remarks:

"So the first thing I want you to think about is, when you hear Patriot Act, is that we changed the law and the bureaucratic mind-set to allow for the sharing of information. It's vital. And others will describe what that means.

"Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

George Bush made those comments in April of 2004, more than 2 years after he had authorized wiretapping without a court order.

This now becomes more than a debate over the limits of presidential power. These remarks from Bush are now proven to be lies.

If a lie over a blowjob can result in an attempt at impeachment, than this should be a slam dunk.

Let's see how GOP hypocrites handle this one. I suspect that, no matter the outcome, his presidency will be hindered by this for the remainder of whatever term he serves.

Why Dan Froomkin Should Be Required Reading

Dan Froomkin writes a column at WashingtonPost.com called "White House Briefing."

Recently, an article published by the Post ombudsman, Deborah Howell stated, "Political reporters at The Post don't like WPNI columnist Dan Froomkin's "White House Briefing," which is highly opinionated and liberal. They're afraid that some readers think that Froomkin is a Post White House reporter."

In her piece, Howell made clear that WashPo national politics editor John Harris had a major issue with Froomkin. Harris apparently did not want anybody to think that Froomkin was one of the White House reporters and wanted the name of his media-watching column changed from "White House Briefing." According to Harris, a website blogger such as Chris Cillizza, is someone Harris is "happy to have."

Well, if one checks out the daily blog by Cillizza, I think there is pretty clearly a right-wing bias and, when one reads the comments to his political bloggings that complaint has often been uttered.

In Dan Froomkin's column yesterday, he astutely pointed out that no president had ever chosen not to attend the White House Conference on Aging. Froomkin also pointed out the most important piece of information, which was that no major media outlets were covering it either, or referring to Bush not showing up. Instead, Froomkin singled out NPR and regional papers which did cover the story.

What I am wondering is how the hell can outlets such as the Washington Post justify not referring to Bush skipping this conference, in fact not even report on the conference, but devote all their space on the subject to a staged Bush press conference?

How can one not conclude that all this paper, and other news outlets, are looking for is access to the administration? Access which they can only get by promoting the Bush agenda.

The lack of coverage in this particular case is demonstrable proof of the lack of responsibility and accountability by the White House press corps.

And THAT is why we need media-watchers like Dan Froomkin.

Who else are we gonna call on to tell us the truth?

Bob Woodward? John Harris? Chris Cillizza?

Yeah, right.

The Pity Of New Orleans

An essential editorial today from The New York Times concerns the willful destruction of the city of New Orleans by the Bush administration.

In their lead editorial, the Times begins:

"We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum."

Further on:

"There are many unanswered questions that will take years to work out, but one is make-or-break and needs to be dealt with immediately. It all boils down to the levee system. People will clear garbage, live in tents, work their fingers to the bone to reclaim homes and lives, but not if they don't believe they will be protected by more than patches to the same old system that failed during the deadly storm. Homeowners, businesses and insurance companies all need a commitment before they will stake their futures on the city.

"At this moment the reconstruction is a rudderless ship. There is no effective leadership that we can identify. How many people could even name the president's liaison for the reconstruction effort, Donald Powell? Lawmakers need to understand that for New Orleans the words "pending in Congress" are a death warrant requiring no signature.

"The rumbling from Washington that the proposed cost of better levees is too much has grown louder. Pretending we are going to do the necessary work eventually, while stalling until the next hurricane season is upon us, is dishonest and cowardly. Unless some clear, quick commitments are made, the displaced will have no choice but to sink roots in the alien communities where they landed."

And the Times writes this, keeping in context the President's promises to rebuild the city and noticing the complete lack of follow-up efforts.

To be fair, state and city officials are being skewered for not coming up with an acceptable plan for rebuilding, but this is a momumental effort. It is hard to imagine any city, including New York, being able to rebuild their entire infrastructure (not just a neighborhood) without massive outside help. This is not Sim City 2005.

The importance of the editorial is that the state of American media is so pitiful that once bodies stop being found, the press loses interest. It is probably why George Bush made the promises he made. He knows better than anybody how short a memory can be found in the institutions that are supposed to be informing us.

If anything, the Democrats need to highlight the Bush response to the rebuilding of New Orleans. If the GOP-led Congress and White House continue to stall, America needs to know. And we need to be reminded of how many billions are being spent to "allegedly" rebuild Iraq.

Our priorities at this time are so skewed it feels like we have already gone through the looking glass.

The Murtha News Conference: Where Is The Coverage?

What if somebody held a News Conference detailing specific reasons why we need to pull out of Iraq and nobody came?

Well, today it seemes that some people were covering U.S. Representative John Murtha's response to the latest blather from George Bush. CNN and MSNBC went live, but Fox seemed a bit too busy covering some Geraldo Rivera fluff to notice.

And yet, here it is late afternoon of the same day and you can't find the story anywhere in the mainstream media, except maybe the Washington Post. Oh, you might find a brief sentence in the multitude of stories on the latest Bush stump speech, but nothing else. Don't believe me, try a Google news search of Murtha and "news conference" and see the silence for yourself. One only hopes coverage eventually happens. Where is the AP wire story on this? Were they too busy watching Fox to attend?

My question, how the hell can we expect a dialogue on this war that doesn't resort to dumbed-down RNC talking points when the media will not allow those who practice reasoned dissent any voice or outlet?

The movie "Network" is becoming reality in 2005. it's time we all started saying that 'we are mad as Hell and are not gonna take it anymore.'

Limbaugh Louisiana Lies

It's not a big news flash that Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric isn't exactly grounded in truth. However, it is nice when he gets called on it.

After suggesting on his show that recovery in New Orleans is proceeding well and impugning the character of state and city officials while defending George Bush, the General Manager of the New Orleans radio station that carries his program has invited him down to broadcast from the devastated city.

The incident was triggered by a caller, referred to as "Ray from New Orleans," who was obviously put on the show to mark Limbaugh's return to the New Orleans affiliate after 3 months of local, emergency programming.

According to the article:

"Ray set the tone by criticizing President Bush's fabulously framed Jackson Square TV speech to the nation.

"'All lies,' the caller said. 'None of the things that he promised are happening.'

"Countering Ray's contention that New Orleans isn't progressing toward normalcy, Limbaugh then mentioned that he has friends here.

"'And I'm not hearing this from them,' he said. 'I know it's bad but . . . I'm under the impression that the main problem that the local officials have is that they don't have enough Democrats coming back who fled or who were evacuated and they're worried about the next elections.'

"Limbaugh added that he'd heard about lots of good-paying recovery jobs going unfilled.

"'There's no place for people to live,' Ray said.

"'The whole city?' Limbaugh countered. 'There's nowhere to live? The French Quarter?'

"You know, the town sector filled with reasonably priced efficiency accommodations. The kind that a laborer's wage, here in the post-Katrina worker's paradise, could easily afford.

"'They're going to do Mardi Gras for crying out loud,' Limbaugh said.

"Eventually, Limbaugh blamed the failure of the federally designed levees on New Orleanians.

"You know, the ones who waded out of their neighborhoods in neck-deep swill."

The article later reports that "Diane Newman, the WWL operations manager and program director who bumped local talk hosts to return Limbaugh to the New Orleans airwaves, listened to the Wednesday segment twice and concluded that 'there was a disconnect,' she said. 'He did sound uninformed. But he's not here.'

"And so Newman vows to formally invite Limbaugh for a visit.

"'I will do my damnedest to get Rush Limbaugh to broadcast from here, to drive through Lakeview, through Gentilly, drive through Mid-City, drive through New Orleans East, drive through St. Bernard, drive through the 9th Ward,' she said."

But the point is that, in his effort to be the George Bush pit bull on all issues, Limbaugh reveals his utter lack of humanity and compassion. And, once again, Limbaugh demonstrates that the facts do not matter in Rushbo's politics of slam and slander.

And someone is finally taking him to task for it.

The Missing Iraqi Billions

As Republicans respond to their over-zealous pork barrel spending by seeking to cut spending on social programs that impact the least fortunate of us, one question remains missing from the radar screen; how many billions are being wasted in the war effort and what ever happened to the billions appropriated for Iraqi reconstruction?

This is not a new question. In a column published on AlterNet in the Summer of 2004,Pratap Chatterjee wrote:

"A team of auditors was dispatched to Iraq in late January this year after a string of internal reports showed that the military was wasting billions of dollars of taxpayer money. They have issued eleven reports since June 25, almost all of which have pointed to the misuse of the money allocated for reconstruction, be it Iraqi or Congress-appropriated funds.

"According to two of these reports issued in late July by Stuart Bowen, the auditor-inspector general of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), not only have a full one-third of the items purchased by the Pentagon gone MIA (including the pricey generator), but a whopping. $1.9 billion or more of Iraqi oil revenue has also mysteriously disappeared.

"Embarrassed military authorities did eventually track down the missing generator and much of the money, both of which seemed to have ended up with none other than Halliburton. As it turns out they weren't missing after all; it's just that Dick Cheney's former employer had misplaced or conveniently forgotten to turn in the receipts to the correct people."

Sadly, this is one story that never seems to get into the news, or gets addressed by the talking spinners, when the budget gets discussed.

The problem is ongoing today, only with a bigger piece of change now unaccounted for.

As was recently written by Joel E. Bousely, in the American Chronicle, much of the abuse has to do with a deliberate lack of oversight from the GOP-led Congress:

"Under the leadership of the current incarnation of Republicans, corporations and defense contractors, like Halliburton, have been granted unbridled privilege. Some 8.8 billion dollars of tax-payer money has gone missing in Iraq. The defense contracting company Halliburton was one of the main benefactors of this money having received an estimated one billion dollars. Rather than taking up this issue, Republicans in Congress have largely ignored it over the protests of three key Democratic senators – Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Tom Harkin of Iowa. The military-industrial complex clearly has far too much influence in politics in Washington."

Hmmm....maybe the Democrats should hold a press conference and ask why there is non-existent oversight on some of these companies that received no-bid contracts? And why companies such as Halliburton, have not been held accountable for the billions that have been appropriated?

While the MSM generally keeps mum on Halliburton, they are all too happy to let the world know that Halliburton catered this year's Thanksgiving feast in Iraq. Factoid-driven tabloids were only too happy to report that the troops feasted on:

"* 300,000 pounds of turkey

"* 150,000 pounds of boneless ham

"* 50,000 pounds of stuffing

"* 10,000 pounds of mashed potatoes

"* 15,000 pounds of cranberry sauce

"* 10,000 gallons of eggnog

"* 30,000 pies

"Other menu items will vary from site to site and may include a medley of fresh fruits, salads, vegetable dishes and homemade baked goods."

I guess if we decide to investigate how much Halliburton budgeted for this feast, we might uncover 1 billion dollars right there alone.

I can see it now, Halliburton's spokesperson explaining how the company first had to create their own poultry farm to alleviate the logistics of bringing the turkeys into Iraq.

Is anyone ever going to cry fowl?

Kurtz Goes 0 For 2

Though I often do not share his points-of-view, I usually enjoy the daily Howard Kurtz column at the Washington Post online. Not today.

What Kurtz wrote today was precisely the type of wrongheaded posturing that I find so maddening in some of these columnists at our allegedly liberal bastions of journalism.

Today's column was apparently written in response to a new book, just out by Mary Mapes. Mapes was the fired CBS Producer who was responsible for the brouhaha over the supposedly forged documents concerning the military record of George W. Bush.

In writing about Mapes, Kurtz notes:

"In challenging those who have questioned her work -- including The Washington Post and this reporter, who is cited in the book for a triple-bylined news story recounting the mess -- Mapes displays the relentless qualities that all good diggers share. But she also opens herself up to the charge that her obsession has clouded her judgment.

"Mapes is right that the purported 30-year-old memos by Bush's long-dead squadron commander have not been proven to be forgeries, but is that the standard for broadcasting a serious charge? The documents have not been proven real, either, and endless debates about superscript and proportional spacing are not likely to change that."

What has always troubled me about the Mapes saga, the true tragedy, is that it caused everyone to stop investigating the real issue....nobody can be found to support Bush's contention that he did indeed fulfill his requirements to the National Guard.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I am of the school that a Rovian dirty trick resulted in the planting of this document. How else to explain the almost immediate pouncing upon this by a cadre of right-wing bloggers? It was instantaneous, as if they knew what to look for.

And, lo and behold, as soon as this fiasco broke, the Bush record was brought off the table. What a brilliant way to call a halt to the charges that Bush evaded service. Those who had the right to challenge the service record were suddenly put on the defensive, despite the fact that there is still nobody who can say they served alongside Bush during the dates in question. It totally fits the Rovian gameplan.

Apparently, it was fine to dispute the service of a hero candidate, John Kerry, but off limits to find out if the President actually showed up for duty.

The fact that reporters no longer thought it acceptable to challenge the many holes in the Bush service record justifies Mapes' fears. Because of this, Mr. Kurtz just becomes another administration mouthpiece by assuming Mapes is only raising her voice out of greed, for her book's sake. Those questions that CBS raised have still not been answered. These questions were being raised long before the Rather piece aired. But nobody was able to broach the subject again after the GOP attack. Why does that not seem to bother anyone? It would be one thing if the question of Dubya's service had been first brought up by Rather, but it wasn't. It had been news fodder way before that telecast.

Later in the column, Kurtz even tops himself.

Judith Miller, the reporter who went to jail and eventually lost her job to defend a smear campaign, is referred to this way:

"Miller deserves credit for her willingness to go to jail rather than testify about her conversations with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Yet she continues to defend her decision to leave jail 85 days later and testify, despite criticism that this undercut her original stance."

Huh?

Miller "deserves credit" for helping to facilitate a smear campaign? Since when is being a willing participant in the cover-up of political dirty tricks akin to protecting the source of say, a whistleblower? To me, not being able to differentiate between the 2 is the real travesty.

Exactly what journalistic ethics was Miller honoring when she became so cozy with the administration that she transformed herself into an extension of their agenda?

Incidentally, the title of today's Kurtz column was "Journalists Who Won't Give Up."

How interesting that Kurtz doesn't see how that applies to him as well.

Dems Let Murtha Twist In The Wind

If anything demonstrates the dilemma that rank-and-file Democrats have with the wax figures that pass for party leaders, one need only look to the treatment of Rep. John Murtha.

Rep. Murtha, who has generally been described as "a hawkish Democrat" and a highly-decorated military hero held a press conference yesterday.

At that event, Rep. Murtha spoke out very passionately about the fact that America needs to pull our forces out of Iraq. In calling for the pull-out, Murtha said the following:

"The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."

So, how did the Democrats respond? By running for cover. Talk about the folks who really cut-and-run.

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, in a column entitled "An Unlikely Lonesome Dove," described the cowardly reaction:

"It was a lonely day for once-mighty Murtha, who has long served as Democrats' conscience on military matters because of his moral authority on the subject. But Democrats were cutting and running yesterday -- not from Iraq, but from Murtha.

"'I don't support immediate withdrawal,' came the statement from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

"Aides to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hinted that she would back Murtha, but when she finally spoke, it came out as 'Mr. Murtha speaks for himself.'"

There were other, even harsher reactions. All of them from a party that evidently plans to spring an actual plan on Iraq just in time for the 2006 mid-term elections. How transparent.

The GOP has noticed the unfortunate reaction by Democrats and are now calling for a vote in the House because they know the Dems are too chicken to go on record opposing the occupation.

The truly pathetic component of all this are that polls show that the majority of Americans want us out of Iraq. And yet, because they have a unified message, Republicans will be able to win the PR war that a vote to pull out of Iraq is a cowardly "cut-and-run." Has anybody heard anything resembling a unified Democratic response to the fallacious cut-and-run charge? Has anybody been vociferously delivering the PROPER message that to question the patriotism of those that dissent is truly the unpatriotic position? Of course not, they smugly believe things will take care of themselves.

You don't get much more spineless than the Democrats have behaved over Murtha. We need to address our politicians and let them know we are taking note.

Are The 'Times' A-Changin'?

Just as I had written the old grey lady off she surprises me.

In the aftermath of the Judy Miller fiasco at the New York Times, I had pretty much divorced myself from the paper. The holier-than-thou editorials on Miller while she remained incarcerated were too sanctimonious to bear. The only articles I checked out were the op-ed pieces from Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, which were no longer available for free online. Fortunately, the Truth Out blog is permitted to reprint the pieces, so that was as far as my dosage of the Times went.

Today, however, the Times takes a major step forward. Not only do they shatter the RNC talking points that perpetuate George W. Bush's continued lies on pre-war intelligence and the way it was handled, but they offer a cliff notes version of why they are lies, and what the truth is. It is a very useful editorial to refer to when contacting papers to rebut the fallacious charges the GOP is putting forth.

The name of the game for Democrats needs to be constantly preparing co-ordinated, fact-based responses that not only are reactive and effectively answer past attacks, but are also pro-active as well. With every volley we need to make the GOP respond to counter-charges of our own.

In recent years, Democrats have been pitiful when under attack. Maybe we are starting to get our groove back. Better late than never.

Frist 'Doesn't Care' About Secret Prisons

The behavior of the GOP leadership continues to look increasingly out of touch with mainstream America. How else to explain the latest rant of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Today, the AP reported that Frist is more concerned about the leak of the secret prisons than the existence of these illegal prisons themselves.

Consider that the CNN Headline to the story was "Frist Concerned More About Leaks Than Secret Prisons."

Quite frankly, that will resonate about as badly as the news that Dick Cheney has become a lobbyist for torture.

It would be one thing if he both wanted to get to the bottom of the leak, and also wanted to find out why we in America have secret prisons that apparently operate outside the boundaries of oversight and law. But he doesn't want to know about these prisons, where it is presumed that anything goes.

In response to just such a question, Frist said that he is "not concerned about what goes on."

Does he think that Americans also don't care?

The only answer for this bizarre rush to investigate is that this is the GOP strategy to take heat off the administration over the Plame outing. One would have to assume that they feel it was a Democrat who leaked the information to the Washington Post and this gives them something to sink their teeth into.

The problem though is that this will keep the issue of those secret prisons in the news and I suspect that most Americans will no doubt feel that secret prisons are something that this country should not tolerate. I could be wrong, but I would think that there would be more outrage that the prisons exist, than that they were exposed. This is a no-win for the GOP. To equate this type of leak, with the outing of an agent, is laughable.

My God, who is advising these fools?

Why Is The Press Protecting Cheney?

There are few columns I see as indispensible, but at the top of my list is Dan Froomkin's weekday "White House Briefing," that appears in the Washington Post.

Froomkin was one of the very few to initiate a discussion on Col. Lawrence Wilkerson's comments on a Dick Cheney 'cabal' last month.

I previously devoted an entire entry to the lackadaisical media response to this revelation by Colin Powell's former chief-of-staff.

Today, Froomkin remains optimistic and suggests that the media, which he says eventually caught on to Col. Wilkerson's initial remarks, will eventually latch on to the most recent revelation.

I disagree, but more on that in a second.

Froomkin wrote the following about the newest comments from Wilkerson:

"On NPR yesterday, the former chief of staff to the secretary of state said that he had uncovered a 'visible audit trail' tracing the practice of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers directly back to Vice President Cheney's office."

Upon linking to the Froomkin column, there is supportive audio evidence of the comments, though no official transcript is yet available.

At the time the column was posted, on early Friday afternoon, Froomkin wrote that the only news service to cover the story thus far, was Agence France Presse. By the way, you've got to love the accompanying Cheney photo that Yahoo! has on their site, to go with the AFP story.

Unlike Froomkin, I don't think the media responded well at all to Col. Wilkerson's major revelations. What Wilkerson was alleging had earth-shaking implications; that Dick Cheney and a group of power-mongers hijacked this administration and essentially were doing un-precedented misdeeds that went, and still have gone, unchecked.

If a stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress can be front page material, why not this??

At the time of this post, I checked Google News for all stories matching 'Wilkerson' and 'Cheney,' and I have 417 hits. At the same time, a search of Madonna wielded over 4,000 hits.

The latest story may catch on, but the point was, this should be headline 'in-your-face' news. And it is not.

Since Froomkin posted, the most recent Wilkerson story has spread a bit...to the CBC and Editor & Publisher, but it has not spread nearly fast enough. Why is this not on every front page?

As for Cheney, I think that the Washington Post was on to something, when, in an October 26th editorial, they labelled him as the "Vice-President for Torture."