I think he was one of the worst Presidents in history. But he has shown an extraordinary amount of class since the 2008 elections. Unlike some of his supporters.

CALGARY, Alberta - Former President George W. Bush said he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and said he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush declined to critique the Obama administration Tuesday in his first speech since leaving office. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that Obama's decisions are threatening America's safety.

"I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena," Bush said. "He deserves my silence."

Bush said he wants Obama to succeed and said it's important that he has that support. Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has said he hoped Obama would fail.

"I love my country a lot more than I love politics," Bush said. "I think it is essential that he be helped in office."

And what's interesting is that I believe he is 100% sincere.

"Stuff happens..." Well, I would change one word... S$?T Happens... But yeah that about sums it up. Eight years of S$?T happening... I am not going to bother quoting what was a very bitter interview. Cheney knows that he and the administration he served will go down in history as possibly the most inept EVER. The potshots he took at Obama today came off as hollow, resentful and angry. Get over it DICK!

The selective memory brigade is at it again.

When word got around that the Barack Obama campaign had decided to make room on the official plane for some new journalists, from Ebony and Jet, by booting off the reporters from three newspapers who -- by an astonishing coincidence -- had recently endorsed McCain, a thought that had been bouncing around the back of my mind finally jelled: now we're finally seeing the true face of the Obama campaign -- and administration.

The message being sent: you're either with us or you're against us.

Ever since he first announced his candidacy, Obama has enjoyed tremendous support from the press. They've touted him, glorified him, praised him, and covered for him. They've also fought his battles for him, taking on such presumptuous upstarts like "Joe the Plumber" and Stanley Kurtz and anyone else who dares risk embarrassing Obama so he won't have to sully his saintly hands.

And in return, how has this slavish devotion worked out for them?

Ask any woman in a relationship with an abusive man.

Yeah, that sounds harsh. But I think it's not entirely inappropriate.

Barack Obama, both directly and through his surrogates, has been presumptuous, contemptuous, deceptive, demanding, and downright abusive to the press throughout their long relationship.

Now this was written by Jay Tea, someone whom I once considered to be a voice of reason in the conservative blogsphere.... I have since gone off my meds and see him for what he is...

Jay buddy, when you got to foaming at the mouth this morning, trying to turn this incident into something foul, evil and even SEXIST, though I dont know how that one got in there.... Did you think about THIS? Or did you just figure that the DIGITAL DITTOHEADS, who follow Wizbang would not know about it, or care.... Eh, thats called hypocrisy.

You guys are grasping at straws.... And in the process, losing any last illusions of credibility that you may have had. I, and a lot of other people, on BOTH sides apparently, are laughing at you. How's that workin' for ya?

This man has come a long way since Sports Machine...

I often wonder after listening to Keith why some people are so STUPID as to continue to see Bush as anything other than what he is, an idiot.

I knew this all along... And I have a feeling that a lot of the people who voted for Bush, did too, and they just didn't care. It FELT too damned good to be Large and in Charge! These are the same people who called many of us traitors, and yet they are the ones who gleefully welcomed a Forrest Gump Presidency, a war based on Lie and Lie, and a ruined economy, congrats guys, you must feel real proud of yourself.

The Clintons “have introduced the politics of personal destruction” to the presidential race and they “bear responsibility for cheapening the tone of the contest.” Um hmmmm... And we are just now figuring this out. Truth be known, the Clintons, mainly Bill, have poisoned the well so badly at this point that neither the Clinton's nor Obama will have a chance of winning...

Good riddance... Rudy is so....

2001!

I had hoped that this would not happen, and that Obama would not get dragged into this kind of conversation. The big news now is about old school politics and how the Clintons especially will use surrogates, especially BLACK ones, to try and plant the seeds of doubt about Obama.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have become embroiled in racially tinged disputes as large numbers of black voters prepare to get their first say in the Democratic presidential campaign.

The candidates and their surrogates are heating up their rhetoric, and it could prove to be combustible beyond South Carolina's Jan. 26 primary.

Clinton, on defense over comments that she and her husband made regarding Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy and Obama's fitness for the White House, tried to turn the tables on her top primary rival. She accused his campaign of looking to score political points by distorting their words.

Hillary Clinton had said King's dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Bill Clinton said Illinois Sen. Obama was telling a "fairy tale" about his opposition to the Iraq war. Black leaders have criticized their comments, and Obama said Sunday her comment about King was "ill-advised."

"I think it offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King's role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act," he told reporters on a conference call. "She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

As evidence the Obama campaign had pushed the story, Clinton advisers pointed to a memo written by an Obama staffer compiling examples of comments by Clinton and her surrogates that could be construed as racially insensitive. The memo later surfaced on some political Web sites.

"This is an unfortunate story line the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully," the former first lady said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I don't think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it's not about race."

Clinton taped the show before appearances in South Carolina, where at least half the primary voters are expected to be black. On Monday, she planned to attend a union event honoring King's legacy in New York City.

But no sooner had Clinton said she hoped the campaign would not be about race than it got even more heated. A prominent black Clinton supporter, Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson, criticized Obama and seemed to refer to his acknowledged teenage drug use while introducing Clinton at her next event.

"To me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues — when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book — when they have been involved," Johnson said.

I for one have lost all respect for the Clintons.

Jay Tea of Wizbang is in an uproar over a post by Oliver on Mormonism. The post is under Jay's "Asshat," category. Well add me to the Hat Brigade. Unlike Jay though, I have lived in Salt Lake City, and have many Mormon friends. What this gentleman says about the CULT of Joseph Smith,

Is absolutely true. Most of the Mormons I have known are far more likely to ask you about Joseph Smith than Jesus Christ. The Guy in the above video destroys the two "missionaries." I respect Mormons as good, decent people, who really believe the nonsense they have been taught. I dont care what religion Mitt Romney adheres to, but I do wonder about a guy who believes that a huge civilization of Israelites existed in North and South America thousands of years ago, and that Upstate New York was the site of battles involving millions of warriors...Or that there are Magic undies that protect Mormons...

Although on that point it could be a good thing, think of how much money we would save from the secret service budget. Hell, I think Mormons should share their magic drawers with all of us... Just think we would never have to worry about terrorism again!

The fact is that Joseph Smith stole a bunch of the Masonic rituals and converted them for use by his church.
Any Master Mason will recognize quite a bit from the following video.

Not to mention the fact that Joseph Smith died hoping that a Mason would save his ass...

Smith was a disgrace to the Masonic Brotherhood of which I belong, and his church is nothing more than a cheap copy of freemasonry, and of my religion...

From John Cole:

Poor Jeff is upset with me. You see- I fail to recognize the UTMOST SIGNIFICANCE in the fact that last week, a media report (according to the comments, several reports) was found that didn’t include a “D” next to Rep. Filner’s name after he allegedly shoved (or something) a flight attendant (or someone). Therefore, this is proof that the media is biased and that I am not a “TRUE CONSERVATIVE.”

I think, Jeff, what we all need to really get the lesson is a 22,000 word essay from you on the issue. Something fascinating. With lots of cockslapping and your normally dense and unreadable prose. And hopefully, if we are really lucky, you will get a comment from someone who disagrees with you, which you can add to the post in a 10,000 word update of additional impenetrable gibberish. Maybe you can throw in some thoughts on masculinity, too. Riveting stuff.

But let us know, first. I will need to have a few drinks first to catch up with you.

Dayum I always wanted to say that. Is it just me, or do the Bush Hacks just appear more and more ridiculous, as some of their former, but obviously more reality based, colleagues point out the obvious....

It's over DUDES, your glorious reign lasted a little over five years. The days of smug superiority are over. What rocks my boat is that there are people who were smart enough to see it, and sincere enough to admit that they were wrong.... Tsk, tsk... Cant wait for those 10,000 words...

Alberto Gonzalez, you are without a doubt, the worst Attorney General in the History of the United States. You are the first Attorney General to advocate and excuse torture, and your legacy will be one of incompetence, stupidity and lies... Goodbye!

Adios Disgraciado!

Turd Blossom, AKA Karl Rove, you were the architect of what will one day be recognized as one of the most incompetent, corrupt and arrogant administrations in history. Your divisive, corrosive and manipulative approach to politics help destroy the credibility of our nation and our political system. How appropriate that you will be remembered in the end as the man who got his ass whupped in 2007, when the nation finaly woke up from six years of hypnosis. Goodbye!

Auf Wiedersehen dummkopf

May your boss be not far behind!

is staggering...

And I could not be happier:\

His best debate performance so far. Stood up to sustained questioning on his alleged inexperience, which led the first seven minutes of the event, without losing his cool or backing down. He even made a well-received joke about preparing for the debate by riding the bumper cars at the Iowa State Fair. Tripled down on standing up for his recent controversial foreign policy statements on nuclear weapons, meeting with foreign leaders, and hunting al Qaeda, with firmness and good humor. Drew audience applause for again playing the I-opposed-the-Iraq-War card to tout his judgment. Sounded almost (Bill) Clintonesque in talking about trade and merit pay for teachers. Displayed the confidence of a leader.

I did not get a chance to see this debate, but have heard all day that he clearly won it... Good for him.

And he is trying hard to extract his foot from mouth...

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he misspoke when he said he spent as much time, if not more, at ground zero exposed to the same health risks as workers combing the site after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I think I could have said it better," he told nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher. "You know, what I was saying was, 'I'm there with you.'"

The former New York mayor upset some firefighters and police officers when he said Thursday in Cincinnati that he was at ground zero "as often, if not more, than most of the workers."

"I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them," he told reporters at a Los Angeles Dodgers-Cincinnati Reds baseball game.

Fire and police officials responded angrily, saying Giuliani did not do the same work as those involved in the rescue, recovery and cleanup from the 2001 terrorist attacks, which left many workers sick and injured.

On Friday, Giuliani said he was trying to show his concern for the workers' health.

"What I was trying to say yesterday is that I empathize with them, because I feel like I have that same risk," he said.

"There were people there less than me, people on my staff, who already have had serious health consequences, and they weren't there as often as I was," Giuliani said, "but I wasn't trying to suggest a competition of any kind, which is the way it come across."

Giuliani's explanation further angered his ground zero critics, prompting several to issue a statement demanding an apology.

"He is such a liar, because the only time he was down there was for photo ops with celebrities, with politicians, with diplomats," said deputy fire chief Jimmy Riches, who spent months digging for his firefighter son.

"On 9/11 all he did was run. He got that soot on him, and I don't think he's taken a shower since."

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, a union that fiercely opposes Giuliani, said he doubted Giuliani misspoke.

"I think he was simply showing what his true character is - a self-absorbed, self-deluded promoter who got caught and is now just simply trying to backtrack," Schaitberger said.

Emphasis mine... Maybe we will be spared another Republican Convention draped in American flags and served up with the blood of true heroes, while people like Guilliani, and Bush utilize heroism as their very own personal campaign tools...

This is an AMAZING Video.... (X Rated)

See the whole series here.

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez called a cardinal from Honduras an "imperialist clown" after the Roman Catholic prelate warned of increasing authoritarianism under the Venezuelan leader.

"Another parrot of imperialism appeared, this time dressed as a cardinal. That's to say, another imperialist clown," Chavez was quoted as saying in a bulletin posted Tuesday on the state-run news agency's Web site.

Chavez -- a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro -- was responding to criticism from Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, who said in a recent interview cited by Venezuela's Bolivarian News Agency that Chavez "thinks he's God and can trample upon other people."

You got to forgive Chavez, he has been snorting too much Bolivian Flake! He actually believes he is God.

Posted by David A at 02:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | 125 Words

Damn I love this guy.

Since I somehow made the mistake of starting to read Hugh Hewitt again and commented twice about his nonsense, I might as well continue on with another post. Today, I am mentioned by name:

I am not surprised that the Bush haters like Sullivan and Cole are outraged that General Petraeus would be interviewed by an admirer of the president, or that the anti-war extremists like Greenwald, Yglesias and the others cannot disguise their contempt for the military (though they think their attack on General Petraeus' integrity won't identify them as anti-military.)

I'm not surprised that new media journalists producing interviews of a sort far superior to what MSM serves up in one minute sound bytes excites the anger of folks who prefer their defeatist agendas advanced by a dominant MSM. They don't want the Beltway-Manhattan media elites to lose their monopoly on "important" interviews as that means instead of Democratic journalists like Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews asking defeat-slanted questions, new media outlets will step in and allow serious people to make extended arguments about the stakes in Iraq and the state of the various battles in the broader war on terror.

Dear Hugh- I don't hate Bush. I voted for him twice (votes I now deeply, deeply regret), and I hate what he has done to this country, I hate his incompetence, I hate that he has let propagandists such as yourself take the lead in designing and pushing policy, I hate that he has lost or is losing not one, but two wars, I hate that he has politicized (more accurately, allowed his lackeys to politicize) everything from NASA to the FDA to the Pentagon to a level that would have made Hugh scream out in rage were the President's last name Clinton. I hate all of those things.

But for all that, I still don't hate Bush. I think he is a small, shallow, feeble-minded man, whose "resolve" you cherish is merely the result of a man incapable of thinking on the spot and changing course. While he is ultimately responsible for anything that has been done during his tenure, I am of the opinion that he is little more than a puppet.

So, Hugh, I don't hate him. In fact, I almost feel sorry for him. This will go down as the most incompetent and morally compromised administration in history, and when those history books look back, they will not refer to this sorry period as the "Cole administration," nor will they refer to it as the "Hewitt administration," despite the fact that so very many of your bad ideas have, in fact, been instituted (and usually not because they reflect or represent your 'deep' principles, but because you felt there was some sort of immediate political/electoral gain to be seized). History will dub this sorry era as the Bush Administration.

There was a time, during the last two presidential elections, where I seriously considered the sanity of the people on the Right. I started reading John Cole early last year, and he is one of the few BIG Conservative Bloggers that just makes sense! The guy does not march lockstep with anyone or anything except his own conscience.

This guy used to be one of my heroes, and was in fact one of the first major Conservative Blogs to see the light. It seems, that he has become so dissapointed that he does not even write about politics any, well at least not directly...

I miss the old days when we could have honest, good spirited debates. But it seems more and more common, that even the most die hard supporters of Bush and his policies are either taking a hard look at what they have wrought, and finally speaking out... Or simply choosing to change the subject or pretend that certain things did not, are not or will not.... happen... Or that if they did, are will.... they are not responsible for it. Others will stay with the ship, LONG after it has sunk into history as one of the worst disasters in American History. (Sigh).

My own work life has prevented me from posting much lately or participating in the debate. I have a comeback plan and intend to get back into the blog, but I would rather take the time to do it right, rather than posting simply for posting sake.

By the way, I dont hate Bush either. I'm a...

My Conservative Identity:

You are a Flag-Waving Everyman, also known as a patriot. You believe in freedom, apple pie, rooting for America at all times, and that God gave us a two-day weekend so we could enjoy football and NASCAR.

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Heh.... I don't think so. But the test was funny anyway!

The Real Me:

My Liberal Identity:

You are a Social Justice Crusader, also known as a rights activist. You believe in equality, fairness, and preventing neo-Confederate conservative troglodytes from rolling back fifty years of civil rights gains.

Take the quiz at www.FightConservatives.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Millions of White House e-mails may be missing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino acknowledged Friday.

"I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million e-mails lost," Perino told reporters.

The administration was already facing sharp questions about whether top presidential advisers including Karl Rove improperly used Republican National Committee e-mail that the White House said later disappeared.

The latest comments were a response to a new report from a liberal watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), alleging that over a two-year period official White House e-mail traffic for hundreds of days has vanished -- in possible violation of the federal Presidential Records Act.

I just logged on this morning, I cant wait to see how my Bush Lover buddies spin this one...

Oh yeah... They will just ignore it

Now being in the IT world myself, I can tell you that NO organization can lose 500 emails, much less 5 million... without knowing about it. That the WHITE HOUSE, the most secure facility in the world, would lose 5 MILLION emails, or anywhere near that number is frankly.... inconceivable. Just another example of the arrogance of an administration that really does not respect the intelligence of Americans....

Hehe....

Amanda Marcotte has resigned as John Edwards’ blogger. As James points out, it is all over the blogsphere... My thoughts on the issue? Honestly?

It's why I dont blog much anymore... The blogsphere is full of hatred, pettiness and juvenile bullshit. The worst think that happened with the blogsphere, is that some people got famous, and that fame straight went to their heads (That is ghetto slang). Hehe.. And therein lies the difference... I never set out to be a blog celebrity. I started my blog originaly for my children, as they were in the United States while Dad toiled away founding a company in Costa RIca.
For a while, I got really hung up in the political battle. I made some friends, and made some enemies, but I had fun. My blogs popularity grew, I helped found a big bloggers alliance, and blog daddied a few progressive blogs. All in a Years work. But I never quite fell in with the Netroots crowd. Mostly a matter of choice, but also I suspect.... because a few of them were not quite ready to make room for another African American blogger to their little club.... Whatever...

Or maybe because I just wasnt LEFT enough. Dont know, don't care. There are few bloggers I TRULY respect, some of them are even on the Right. There is some discussing going on in a group I belong to related to my fraternity. The discussion was a positive one, directed at some major reforms in the fraternity. A few days ago, a brother appeared and posted a resolution to ban Gays from the fraternity. Suddenly, all the discussion about reforms went out the window and the entire focus is now on Gays in the Frat. Much of what passes for discourse in the blogsphere these days is just like that thread... A bunch of people making hay about nothing. Was Marcotte out of line in her comments about the Catholic Church? I will leave that to catholics to decide, an organization of which I am not a member, though my wife and kids are. But I will say this, her comments were no better or worse than a lot of the drivel I hear from the Right on a daily basis. The funny thing is that they seem to feel free to attack anyone, and any religion, as it suits them, but have little tolerance for anyone who does not march in lockstep. They also have a tendency to put "Thoughts in people's heads." I already made my Obama post for today, so I will leave it to Maestro John Cole to speak for me....

Pretty much. If you think, as I do, that this administration has bungled Iraq in every way possible, and that we are now in a chaotic situation in which the options range from awful to terrible, to state that we have wasted the lives of thousands of Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis, and billions of billions of dollars should not only not be construed as a grievous assault on the sacrifice of our troops, but it should be self-evident.

So maybe that is Obama’s real sin- he stated the obvious, and the obvious is a threat to the political ambitions of the GOP and their blogosphere hacks/supporters. We have wasted a lot of lives and lot of money, and Barack is on the hot seat for stating that publicly.

Now I am going to get back to what is really important to me... Making money.

Seems the conservative types are really starting to show their true colors when it comes to Barak Obama. How many lives have been lost in Baghdad in the last week, month, six months? Does the electricity run 24/7? Is Iraq safer than when we entered the war? How do YOU define wasted. I am sorry, but I take nothing away from the sacrifice of our troops when I say, "This war has been a disaster unparalleled in the history of our country, and if return for sacrifice is any measure of whether our soldiers lives were, "wasted," or not, I would say they were wasted, and all the spin and Conservative Bullshitista rhetoric in the world, will not change that fact...

The Dixie Chicks, were finally vindicated last night. Right on for them. I can hear the Conservatives crying right now.

"I haven't checked, but I imagine that most of the conservative blogs are making hay today about Wolf Blitzer asking about Cheney's pregnant Lesbian daughter... Oh the outrage!"

Cheney makes ridiculous comments about how, "well," things are going in Iraq and WHOOSH! It goes right over the head of the right wingers... And just as I predicted... They could not help themselves.

Just what does it take for these people to recognize REALITY?

"It seems that being black is not an issue of skin color; it's an issue of mind set. You are black if you are liberal, say the right things, and have the right experiences. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Justice Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, are conservatives and don't parrot the liberal line, so they are dismissed. Even though Hillary has never experienced anything of what Morrison outlined, she is married (sort of) to Bill Clinton, which gives her a pass."

From a Wizbang post on the news that the majority of African Americans recently polled identify more with Hillary than Obama.

A couple of notes... Blacks will vote for the candidate whom they see as:

1. More in step with their values and political priorities.
2. The candidate they see as more likely to win.

As for Secretary Rice and Justice Thomas, both are black obviously. The fact that they are not embraced by the Black Community is simply a reflection of most blacks opinion that neither represents their values or political priorities. Add to that Thomas's shady past, and I doubt if either would be widely embraced by any group in the Black Community. It is also important to note that neither has reached out in any significant way to the black community. Clinton was not "The black president," but he did identify with African Americans, and made efforts to reach out to them.

While it is true that Black people tend to vote democrat, and support progressive candidates. it is grossly condescending to lump all black people into a category, just because they are black. I happen to be proud of the accomplishments of both Rice and Thomas in reaching the pinnacle of their careers, this does not mean I agree with them, or respect their political positions... It also doesn't mean I see them as any less black...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday dismissed as "hogwash" the suggestion that blunders may have hurt the administration's credibility on Iraq.

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, conducted a day after Bush delivered his State of the Union address, Cheney was asked to respond to some Republicans in Congress who "are now seriously questioning your credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."

To that, Cheney answered, "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

What kind of drugs is Cheney taking... Or what kind does he think WE are taking. This guy is so arrogant, and so out of touch, that NO credible news operation should be polluting the airwaves with this man's drivel. But the fact that he is indifferent to the impact of the war is understandable, he had "more important things," to do during the Vietnam conflict, his opportunity to serve.... The only "Hogwash," here Mr. Vice President, is your own arrogant, self serving state of denial. But then again, who want to admit how stupid they have been? I havent checked, but I imagine that most of the conservative blogs are making hay today about Wolf Blitzer asking about Cheney's pregnant Lesbian daughter... Oh the outrage!

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Overall, President Bush's State of the Union was received favorably by a sample of speech watchers interviewed by CNN and Opinion Research Corporation immediately after his 50-minute address to a joint session of Congress.

But the poll showed that Bush registered his lowest "very positive" post-State of the Union reaction of his presidency. Bush reached a high water mark of a 60% "very positive" response immediately following his 2005 speech. In 2006, 48% of speech watchers described his address as "very positive."

As for Tuesday night's speech, only 20% of those polled had a "negative" reaction to Bush's speech, while 41% walked away with a "very positive" feeling about the speech and 37% had a "somewhat positive" reaction.

A bare majority of Americans who watched the speech said they were confident that the U.S. would achieve its goals in Iraq; 46% were not confident. Compare that to the 2004 State of the Union, less than a year after the start of the Iraq war, when 71% of people who watched that speech expressed confidence about Iraq.

He asked for a chance to see if the new strategy for Iraq will work. We have to give him that chance, there are NO other options. I liked Webb's response... I frankly am sick of Conservatives touting the economy message... Maybe it is good for Rich Republicans, but not for many other Americans...

When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy ­that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

I also liked his very poignant comments on the war...

I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.

Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues, those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death, we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm's way.

We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us ­ sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

The president took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable ­and predicted ­disarray that has followed.

The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.

The truth is that we are asking too much from our men and women in Uniform, some of them have been sent on a third tour of Iraq. And while few will say it, I will... How many of those soldiers, or their families are beginning to wonder... "How long will my luck last? When is my number going to come up?"

As has often been discussed here, the Chickenhawk argument becomes more and more compelling, the longer this war of choice lasts... How can we continue to ask the FEW to continue to make these sacrifices, while the Presidents own children party in Cabo San Lucas, and some young, obviously fit Conservative Pundits, continue to cheer from the sidelines...

No, we cant leave Iraq in a state of civil war, especially one that we enabled... So I am all for giving this latest effort a chance. But it is fair and just to hold Bush accountable for the disaster, even if some are still living in the fantasy world that says, "It is not that bad in Iraq."

And whats up with the "Democrat Majority," thing... Dude you lost. Your party had it's ass handed to it in November. You are the most unpopular President in history. Your administration is winding down to one just slightly less disgraceful than Richard Nixon's. Wipe the smirk off your face and get some maturity... The comments to Speaker Pelosi were nice, but the silly little snipe at the Democratic Party was just another example of the arrogance that led to your current position... Get over it!

As far as the rest of the speech... I don't take much stock in SOTU Addresses. They are usually just laundry list of shit that never happens. I have no reason to expect that any Bush's list will pass either. And the proof is in the fact that most of his previous ones have not...

The Bush administration is one of the most corrupt and morally bankrupt administrations in U.S. history. How some people continue to get up and defend these dirtbags day after day, is beyond revolting.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Top White House officials tried to blame vice presidential aide "Scooter" Libby for the 2003 leak of a CIA operative's identity to protect President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, Libby's defense attorney said Tuesday as his perjury trial began. (emphasis mine)

I. Lewis Libby is accused of lying to FBI agents, who began investigating after syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed that a chief Bush administration critic, Joseph Wilson, was married to CIA operative Valerie Plame.

When the leak investigation was launched, White House officials cleared Rove of wrongdoing but stopped short of doing so for Libby. Libby, who had been asked to counter Wilson's criticisms, felt betrayed and sought out his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, Wells said. (Watch why jurists were asked about Vice President Cheney Video)

"They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," attorney Theodore Wells said, recalling Libby's end of the conversation. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Rove was one of two sources for Novak's story. The other was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Nobody, including Rove and Armitage, has been charged with the leak. Libby is accused of lying to investigators and obstructing the probe into the leak.

Cheney's notes from that meeting underscore Libby's concern, Wells said.

"Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder," the note said, according to Wells.

The description of the White House infighting was a rare glimpse into the secretive workings of Bush's inner circle. It also underscores how hectic and stressful the White House had become when the probe was launched.

By pointing the finger at Rove, whom he referred to as "the lifeblood of the Republican party," Wells sought to cast Libby as a scapegoat.

"He is an innocent man and he has been wrongly and unjustly and unfairly accused," Wells said.

To all my friends on the right who tried to say that Rove was vindicated... Shame on you, and shame on this administration for the web of lies that they have wove, since BEFORE taking office. But it's all coming home to roost. Even the Republicans are abandoning Bush on Iraq. And the Press, so long a tool for this administration, whipped into being so by YOU, are being forced to see the truth.

Let me make a prediction....

Bush will go down in History as the worst President in History, and YOU, all of you, will live with the shame of your shameless cheerleading for an administration that is responsible for heinous crimes... Your obsession with Bill Clinton's blow job seems pathetic in the face of this historical disaster...

His war has driven his ratings into the tank, speculation is rampant as to whether he is, "The Worst President in History," Even a google search finds the official White House Page for G.W.! And now, it looks like he may find a hard time finding a home for his $200 Million Dollar Presidential Library.

DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A group of Methodist ministers from across the nation launched an online petition drive Thursday urging Southern Methodist University to stop trying to land George W. Bush's presidential library.

The petition, on a newly created Web site, http://www.protectsmu.orgexternal link, says that "as United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate."

"Methodists have a long history of social conscience, so questions about the conduct of this president are very concerning," said one of the petition's organizers, the Rev. Andrew J. Weaver of New York, who graduated from SMU's Perkins School of Theology.

I've noticed that a bit of the swagger has gone out of his step... Even the Iraqi Prime Minister is challenging him. I could almost feel sorry for the man, if he had kept his promise to bring civility back to Washington, instead of spending the last 7 years pissing all over our constitution and ruining our reputation around the world, with one arrogant misstep after another...

Is he the worst President in History? Ummmm History will decide that, but at the moment it is not looking too good.

The conservatives all said that the Democrats had no plan for Iraq?

I am still waiting for one from Bush... I guess I could get behind this whole "Troop Surge," thing, if I thought it would work. At this point I dont...

But then again, that seems to be the only plan they have... That and Bashing the Democrats about not wanting to send more troops to Iraq to be killed, without a plan for what to do with them once they get there... I guess it is easy to second guess when you aint a "surger," yourself?

I nearly shat my pants, and blew hot coffee out my nose...

Tom Delay is a total idiot, or at least the moron he has running his site is...

What's wrong with that picture... Which is from here by the way, (See it before they edit it, and claim it never was posted)

Jon Swift is about as conservative as... well.... Jesus General! LMAO!

Great Start to your blogging career Tom! Maybe it will be easier from Jail!

With two years to go before the Presidential Election, they seem to be terrified of Obama.

I have not heard enough of Senator Obama's ideas to have an idea one way or the other, but I find it entertaining that he has people like Rush Limbaugh making even more of an idiot of himself...

The only other African American being mentioned as a candidate, Condi Rice... probably wont run. Laura says because she is not married, but I think Jon Ponder put it much better...

Condi can't be president because she has a record of egregious incompetence and a political tin ear. Her marital status is irrelevant.

I sure hope they take THIS advice in 2008! What a recipe for disaster. Let me spell it out for those still drinking the Kool Aide!

People Like THIS, are NOT the voice of America. They are a lunatic fringe, who's conservatism is not really conservatism, it is more regression. They want to go back to a time in America that does not exist any more. A time when Black Folk, and other "agitators," knew their place.

That time... IS DONE!

Thank God!

Today's piece:

I must admit, Marc, I am extraordinarily disturbed by the growing chorus of apologia for brutal thug Augusto Pinochet. The argument seems to be twofold: 1) A left-wing dictator would have been worse, and 2) at least he helped spark the economy. Both, I feel, are being wielded far too casually to excuse one of the hemisphere's most notorious tyrants.

To the first, yes, Pinochet is likely better than Fidel Castro. Castro, for his part, is likely better than Adolph Hitler. The debate as to whether right-wing or left-wing dictators are "worse" is tiresome and, I feel, puts the desire to score partisan points ahead of what should be a bipartisan and universal norm of condemning all of history's murderous tyrants to the hell they belong. Moreover, I can't be too impressed by Pinochet voluntarily stepping down and "pav[ing] the way for liberal democrac[y]" after over a decade in office, given that he got there by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Salvador Allende. Allende may not have been ideal, but he was the elected leader (unlike Mr. Castro), and I think its an absurd attempt at counterfactual to assert that he, too, would have been a brutal thug. Democracy, at the very least, already existed in Chile. Pinochet replaced democracy with a particularly vicious tyranny.

To the second, I don't feel these sort of extrinsic issues can or should in any way be used to lament the loss of evil. I'm no fan of stagnated economic development, but I dislike thousands of "disappearances" and mass torture a whole lot more. Giving points to Pinochet for improving the economy is like giving props to Castro for increasing the literacy rate, or the British colonial government for making the trains run on time. When weighed against the type of incalculable evil waged by Pinochet against his populace, it is a flyspeck.

David is spot on...

Pinochet was a ruthless dictator who was responsible for the murder, rape and torture of thousands in his country. If you want to know what happened in Chile and elsewhere in Latin America during the battle against the spread of communism, read Empire's Workshop. Pinochet got an express ticket to Hell, where he will be tortured for all eternity by the screams of his victims. You know, the ones who were thrown out of airplanes flying over the Pacific Ocean, or of the women who watched their babies bludgeoned to death, before they were raped and had their throats slit. He might also hear the cries of the mothers of the dissapeared... I have no sympathy for the man. Nor do I celebrate the Shock Therapy that led to the so called economic miracle, that starved his population, and drove many into bankruptcy, before "curing them."

It's amazing to see Pinochet compared with Castro, as if it makes sense to compare two mass murders and to conclude that one was "less evil," than the other. Castro is an evil man, who is responsible for the death of thousands, and a brutally oppressive regime. When his time comes, he will share hell with Pinochet. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy to lessen the crimes of a murderer because he fits one's political ideology, or because he ultimately retired, or that the legally elected President he replaced MIGHT have been worse.... All ridiculous and immoral arguments, literally spitting on the graves of those who died at the hands of Mr. Pinochet, many guilty only of being "suspected," of being a communist, or being a family member of one, or... simply speaking out against the atrocities... Everyone eulogizing this monster should be forced to sit in a room with the survivors of his victims and listen to their stories of horror.

Interesting the hypocrisy of these people... If you are a murderous dictator that thumbs your nose at the US, you are bad. If you are a murderous dictator who works closely with the CIA to murder your own people, and commits acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, you are just slightly flawed.

I live in Central America. I personally know people who suffered under repressive dictatorships during the late 20th Century. Pinochet was one of many ruthless dictatorships or puppet governments sponsored by the U.S., and installed with CIA dirty tricks, and the wounds have not healed. Even today, in a country like Costa Rica, which was spared most of the worst of U.S. intervention, there is resentment. This resentment is most often today expressed in the form of opposition to the CAFTA agreement, which is seen by many intellectuals as an extension of traditional American Imperialism.

Pinochet was a murderer and a thief who stole tens of millions of dollars from his country's treasury during his rule. To remember him as anything less is immoral...

Bush seems to think that in the end his "Iraqi Folly," will be justified and that like Harry Truman, his legacy will be acknowledged with time...

Durbin said he challenged Bush's analogy, reminding him that Truman had the NATO alliance behind him and negotiated with his enemies at the United Nations. Durbin said that's what the Iraq Study Group is recommending that Bush do now - work more with allies and negotiate with adversaries on Iraq.

Bush, Durbin said, "reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response" and emphasized that he is "the commander in chief."

I can just imagine him pouting and stomping his feet!

I understand why so many conservatives, especially bloggers, just keep defending this guy. He is just too much of an embarrassment for them to acknowledge how monumentally wrong they were... This guy has been playing Generalisimo for the last six years, spent hundreds of billions of our dollars, sent thousands of our young people to Iraq to die, while it appears that NO ONE in his family has come close to serving in "Bush's war." A civil war rages in Iraq... The situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating daily. The World hates America. Our President is considered a buffoon at best... And conservative bloggers focus on whether an Iraqi Police Captain is REAL OR NOT? I mean whether some people were set on fire outside a Mosque may or may not be true... But the reality is that dozens die daily in Iraq, including our soldiers. Where is the outrage about that...

I guess for people who have been writing about how much "better" things are in Iraq for the last two years, it's hard to pass up dissecting some bad news, that may not have happened. I mean, they all want the Media to write "smoke rings up your ass stories," about hospitals and schools, and how many Iraqis love the Invasion. Or maybe, with the devastating loss in November, they are longing for the days of Rathergate, Cigars champaign and, "taunting the Liberals." Sorry dude, it will be two years before you can even THINK about taunting a Liberal again. Every day looks worse, and the Frat Boy YOU elected President has done more damage to our international prestige... And our wallet:

And even if we're able to constrain discretionary spending for the next ten years to the rate of inflation, which we haven't for a long time, we still face large and growing structural deficits in the years ahead. Bottom line? The status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. We're on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path. Tough choices are required. We will not be able to grow our way out of this problem. Anybody who says that suffers from two problems. Number one, they have not studied economic history adequately; and number two; they probably wouldn't do real well at math. Because the numbers just don't add up.

Than generations can hope to fix...

Well, at least some people came to their senses, or maybe it's not that at all... Maybe it's just that some people have integrity and don't march in lockstep when the people in front of them are all farting... I don't know. But I am glad there are people out there who put principle before political party.

"Though Bush may be viewed as a laughingstock, he won't have the zero-integrity factors that have kept Nixon and Harding at the bottom in the presidential sweepstakes..."

Douglas Brinkley

I don't need a poll to tell me that.

Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.

Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States.

Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

The war in Iraq is the tip of the iceberg. His Presidency has been a disaster from the final vote count in Florida 2000.... Bush and his cronies have literally raped the constitution of the United States and made a mockery of our international standing.

Bush will be remembered by the international community as the "idiot," who ran America for a while. As a result of his Presidency, America and indeed the world is a less safe place to live. Americans are hated abroad. Our international influence is propped up by nothing more than our over stretched Military, and our country is divided into hateful camps. Those who question the President and his policies are accussed of Bush Hatred Derangement Syndrome, while there appears to be some evidence that the other side are the deranged ones.

Michael at TMV says the jury is still out on Bush's Presidency. I disagree. There is little this Administration can do to redeem itself in the next two years.

O'Reilly is an idiot, who gets paid by the Bush Propaganda machine called Fox news...

Some folks apparently don't have very much for centrist, or moderates.

That's okay, I don't have very much respect for dogmatist.

I tend to agree with Michael...

Anyhow, some advice for Jane: please refrain from giving your opinion about centrists. Just do what you always do: repeat the talking points of the far left and demonize everyone who disagrees with you. After all, it's what you do best.

Thanks to Teresa for sending me the link!

From the NYT Editorial Page:

As President Bush throws himself into the final days of a particularly nasty campaign season, he's settled into a familiar pattern of ugly behavior. Since he can't defend the real world created by his policies and his decisions, Mr. Bush is inventing a fantasy world in which to campaign on phony issues against fake enemies.

In Mr. Bush's world, America is making real progress in Iraq. In the real world, as Michael Gordon reported in yesterday's Times, the index that generals use to track developments shows an inexorable slide toward chaos. In Mr. Bush's world, his administration is marching arm in arm with Iraqi officials committed to democracy and to staving off civil war. In the real world, the prime minister of Iraq orders the removal of American checkpoints in Baghdad and abets the sectarian militias that are slicing and dicing their country.

In Mr. Bush's world, there are only two kinds of Americans: those who are against terrorism, and those who somehow are all right with it. Some Americans want to win in Iraq and some don't. There are Americans who support the troops and Americans who don't support the troops. And at the root of it all is the hideously damaging fantasy that there is a gulf between Americans who love their country and those who question his leadership.

Mr. Bush has been pushing these divisive themes all over the nation, offering up the ludicrous notion the other day that if Democrats manage to control even one house of Congress, America will lose and the terrorists will win. But he hit a particularly creepy low when he decided to distort a lame joke lamely delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry warned college students that the punishment for not learning your lessons was to "get stuck in Iraq." In context, it was obviously an attempt to disparage Mr. Bush's intelligence. That's impolitic and impolite, but it's not as bad as Mr. Bush's response. Knowing full well what Mr. Kerry meant, the president and his team cried out that the senator was disparaging the troops. It was a depressing replay of the way the Bush campaign Swift-boated Americans in 2004 into believing that Mr. Kerry, who went to war, was a coward and Mr. Bush, who stayed home, was a hero.

"FEAR is the Mind Killer..." And in the case of many on the Right, it seems that death happened a long time ago. It would be funny reading some of the desperate post on Right Wing blogs, you know.... the ones with the apocalyptic imagery, and grave warnings about how we are all going to be in danger if the Democrats win... If they were not so scary. No not scary in the sense that they are believable. Scary in the sense that these people are so desperate to stay in power that they will do ANYTHING, and I mean anything... to scare us into voting for this bankrupt administration again.

Well, perhaps I am wrong, but I see signs that the tide has turned. Once, the Republicans effectively used the claim that the Democrats had no platform other than "anything but Bush." Well now it seems that the Republicans find themselves in a position where they have nothing to talk about, so its about demonizing the Democrats, and creating issues where they do not exist, with Democrats that are not running for office. It is not working....

Have you ever "smelled" fear? Ever seen the look on the face of a cornered animal... We are seeing the digital equivalent of this in the last few days before the elections.

It's not just about Iraq. Scandals in the Republican party have consumed the party for over a year, but Republican control of both houses have prevented proper investigation and disclosure. It looks like in these last days before the election, they are having an impact:

Indictments, investigations and allegations of wrongdoing have helped put at least 15 Republican House seats in jeopardy, enough to swing control to the Democrats on Tuesday even before the larger issues of war, economic unease and President Bush are invoked.

With just five days left before Election Day, allegations are springing up like brushfires. Four GOP House seats have been tarred by lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence-peddling scandal. Five have been adversely affected by then-Rep. Mark Foley's unseemly contacts with teenage male House pages. The remaining half a dozen or so could turn on controversies including offshore tax dodging, sexual misconduct and shady land deals.

Not since the House bank check-kiting scandal of the early 1990s have so many seats been affected by scandals, and not since the Abscam bribery cases of the 1970s have the charges been so serious. But this year's combination of breadth and severity may be unprecedented, suggested Julian E. Zelizer, a congressional historian at Boston University.

For more than a year, Democrats have tried to gain political advantage from what they called "a culture of corruption" in Republican-controlled Washington. Republican campaign officials insist the theme has not caught on with the public, but even they concede that many individual races have been hit hard.

So perhaps fear will play a role in this election after all. But it wont be fear of faceless terrorist... It might just be the fear of Conservatives and Republicans who are staring defeat in the face.... The NYT editorial was spot on...

"when candidates for lower office (or conservative bloggers) make their opponents out to be friends of Osama bin Laden, or try to turn a minor gaffe into a near felony, that's just depressing. When the president of the United States gleefully bathes in the muck to divide Americans into those who love their country and those who don't, it is destructive to the fabric of the nation he is supposed to be leading." (insert mine).

Others with thoughts:

The Democratic Daily, The Moderate Voice, DownWithTyranny!, Is That Legal?, Barking Moonbat Early …, Hullabaloo, Rising Hegemon and Brilliant at BreakfastThe Huffington Post, The Next Hurrah, MyDD, DownWithTyranny!, TPMmuckraker, The Corner, Electoral Vote Predictor, Public Campaign Action …, The Caucus and Sunlight Foundation

I think its time for Americans to reject fear... To stand up and loudly say... "I am NOT afraid, and I will not allow fear to dictate my choices on November 7th."

I thank God that there are people like Frank Schaeffer:

I'm a Christian, a writer, a military parent and a registered Republican.

On all those counts, I was disgusted by an e-mail I just received that's being circulated by campaign supporters of Republican George Allen, who's trying to retain his Senate seat in Virginia.

The message goes like this: "First, it was the Catholic priests, then it was Mark Foley, and now Jim Webb, whose sleazy novels discuss sex between very young teenagers. ... Hmmm, sounds like a perverted pedophile to me! Pass the word that we do not need any more pedophiles in office."Democrat James Webb is a war hero and former Marine, wounded in Vietnam and winner of the Navy Cross. He was writing about class and military issues long before me and has articulated the issue of how the elites have dropped the ball on military service in his classic novel Fields of Fire. By the way, that's a book Tom Wolfe calls "the greatest of the Vietnam novels."

Mr. Webb's son is a Marine in Iraq. That's an uncommon fact in this era in which most political leaders' children act as if it is only right and proper that it's someone else's war to fight.

Mr. Webb also happens to be running against a desperate opponent supported by people who circulated the stupid e-mail, something that reminds me of a 2000 smear campaign aimed at another war hero, John McCain.

I never served in the military. It was my son's unexpected volunteering that connects me to the military family and to my country. And I've been voting Republican for years. My late father – Dr. Francis Schaeffer – was an evangelical theologian, friend to Jerry Falwell and White House guest of Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and the first President Bush.

I have nice handwritten letters from various members of the Bush family, including Barbara, thanking me for my books on military service. So I have every reason to stay in the Republicans' good graces. (It's nice to be complimented on television by the First Lady.)

But enough is enough. I've had it with Republican smears.

The Webb e-mail is the embodiment of the cynical Republican strategists, some of whom must know the difference between fiction and nonfiction. Was Agatha Christie a murderer because she wrote about murder?

According to the Allen camp's logic, God would be a pedophile, too. After all, we Christians believe God inspired the Bible. And God-the-author chose to include the "sleazy" story about Lot offering to send out his young virgin daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom.

The Bible has masturbation scenes, rape, pedophilia and God's favorite man – King David – warming himself with a young virgin in his old age. He's the same man God tells us committed murder after he indulged his peeping Tom fantasies.

Lucky for God-the-author that He's not running against George Allen.

Frank and John and Stephen, give me hope... Because they understand that this is not about party, but about the SOUL of America. The politics of fear, the slandering, the lies... Decent people eventually, regardless of political slant, become tired of it. And it is good to see that this is happening...

Discussion in Blogsphere:

Riehl World View, Dean's World, Shakespeare's Sister, Booman Tribune, DownWithTyranny!, Raising Kaine, Alabama Liberation Front and Crunchy Con

First John Cole, who has always had my respect, and always called bullshit when he saw it.

What makes this even more frustrating is that not only do I feel like I have been duped, but I established a lot of friends in the right wing of the blogging community- and now I read their pages and I can't believe what I am reading, even though I know that five years ago I probably would have been saying the same or similar things. I know many of them as people- and not just GOP parrots- having spent time working on collaborative projects with them, serving on the editorial board at Red State, appearing on radio shows with them- you name it. I have, at one point in time, defended many of them from what I perceived to be unfair attacks. So I know that by and large they are not bad people (Dan Riehl is an unmitigated asshole, however). Yet I read their pages now, and through my eyes, it looks like they are so divorced from reality it makes me question what, if anything, I ever believed in.

In short, it really sucks looking around at the wreckage that is my party and realizing that the only decent thing to do is to pull the plug on them (or help). I am not really having any fun attacking my old friends- but I don't know how else to respond when people call decent men like Jim Webb a pervert for no other reason than to win an election. I don't know how to deal with people who think savaging a man with Parkinsons for electoral gain is appropriate election-year discourse. I don't know how to react to people who think that calling anyone who disagrees with them on Iraq a "terrorist-enabler" than to swing back. I don't know how to react to people who think that media reports of party hacks in the administration overruling scientists on issues like global warming, endangered species, intelligent design, prescription drugs, etc., are signs of... liberal media bias.

A post from today

Last word on Kerry...
Goes to John Derbyshire (who must have a book to sell!):

John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do further to degrade his political prospects is worth doing. But really, I saw a clip of him making the much-deplored remark, and it was obvious that the dimwit in Iraq that he referred to was George W. Bush, not the American soldier. It was a dumb joke badly delivered, but his meaning was plain. My pleasure in watching JK squirm is just as great as any other conservative's, but something is owed to honesty. There's a lot of fake outrage going round here.

Cole says: You really don't have to like John Kerry to note that he was not smearing the troops. Hell, if he had been, I would be savaging him with the best of them. I have been known to throw a haymaker or two (often times landing it right on my own cheek), and one of the things that always gets me fired up is people attacking our troops unfairly.

But he wasn't attacking the troops- he was attacking Bush. He just did it in his typical mangled and politically incompetent fashion. I am almost surprised he didn't make the remark while wearing a wetsuit and carrying a surfboard. But that is neither here nor there, as to the best of my knowledge, Kerry is not running for anything in 2006.

That is, however, what this is all about- the election. At last count, Michelle has 10 front page posts with easily several dozen updates and hundreds of links to OUTRAGED! folks (bonus links to Dan Riehl, jackass extraordinaire, included). Red State is now all John Kerry, all the time with fifteen front page posts. Drudge is in the midst of a prolonged and very public Kerrygasm.

The outrage machine is well oiled and in high gear. Don't let Kerry's inability to deliver a joke get in the way of the sins of the GOP.

Next, The Commissar, Stephen....

Andrew Sullivan: Abandoning An American Soldier

While the media is obsessed parsing the ad libs of someone on no ballot this fall, something truly ominous has just happened in Iraq. The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear. In a showdown for control of Baghdad, the Iraqi prime minister took orders from Moqtada al-Sadr, and instructed the U.S. military to withdraw from Sadr City. The American forces were trying both to stabilize the city but also to find a missing American serviceman. He is still missing.

Stephen says: I don't get it. I really don't. I know that I have one or two "let's get tough ... support our troops" readers left.

Can someone tell me why people aren't freaking out about this? Is Kerry's gaffe using up everyone's emotional bandwidth?

I have always respected you Stephen, even back in the days when Bush could do no wrong in your eyes, but you and John have both earned more of my respect. And I can answer your question, if you will permit me. The reason people are not "freaking out," is because they have no spine. They are people without one ounce of conscience or character. They are people who have put ideology and party before their country. They are what you have always despised and what you have always defended against.... Fascist... They are people who could care less about the fate of our country or the values of our country. They are disgusting shills who USE our soldiers to make political points and who rant in fake outrage, when few of them are willing to make the sacrifice of going to war themselves. (And NO Jay, I am not talking about you or any other person who's health makes their service impossible anyway). What I am talking about is the perverse use of others service to somehow justify your own political agenda.

I don't know how most soliders would feel about Kerry's remarks, I am sure most of them, after hearing the whole story, especially the ones who probably begged not to leave their brother behind, and the ones who have been rotated back in Iraq so many times they probably speak better arabic than a native, and the ones who have seen their brothers killed because they did not have proper body armor.... will accept his explanation and apology. While on the homefront... those without shame, those who claim to support the troops, those who in fact rant about that support as if support for our fighting men and women is a partisan issue, ignore the issues that MATTER to the troops. How many combat fatigued troops, people with REAL mental issues, are returned to active duty in Iraq? Where's the outrage about that?

No it's far easier to make boogeymen out of those who report the truth about the war. It's more convenient to make this an us vs. them issue, than to face up to the fact that we have all been betrayed, hoodwinked, deceived. And the loudest cheerleaders for the war, those who do not have the balls to give up their own comforts for what they supposedly believe... Find it far easier to create strawman arguments, than to admit that they were wrong. The daily stock market reports did not work... (I thought Wizbang had been purchased by the Wall Street Journal, for about a week there). The Harry Reid scandal failed to gain traction. So now we have a full page... Thats right folks... A FULL page at Wizbang over the Kerry remarks.

Hell even after he apologized it wasn't enough:

And by the way, Jay at Stop the ACLU writes that a number of people and organizations have rejected Kerry's apology outright.

Anything to keep the faithful from thinking about this...


The war was a mistake, but not one in the traditional sense. The only people who were mistaken about the war in Iraq, were the American people who believed in their President, and who fraught with fear after 9/11, were ready to accept anything to feel safe. From the comfort of the Oval Office, Bush settled an old score, and WE and the Iraqi people, are still paying the bill...

We were betrayed... And we have been betrayed again and again since the invasion. We have sat sheepishly while our constitutional rights have been eroded, and while the stature of the United States has been destroyed around the world. And we have been placed in greater danger in the name of safety.



All this, while enablers like conservative bloggers have stood on the sidelines and cheered it on, enabled and justified. Many are starting to wake up. Some will slide to the middle, hoping that our memories are short, while others agonize over their past support of this administration... And others will use Kerry's remarks to justify outrage...

The outrage is all bullshit. It reminds me of the Inspector from Casablanca who confronted by a German Officer about gambling going on in a backroom expressed, "outrage, outrage..." over this going on under his nose, but does not miss a beat when his winnings are presented to him... Kerry's comments are All over the Conservasphere It's like he spit on the constitution or something.... Opps... Bush and Gonzalez have already done that, haven't they... And yet his remarks are nothing compared to abandoning an American Trooper for political expediency.

The whole act stinks of desperation. People who are so terrified of losing power that they will do anything to hold on to it.

To do the honorable thing at this point would be to admit the unimaginable... To admit that you have been a shill, ne a whore.... for an administration that has been about corruption and power from DAY ONE....

Instead you get story, after story, after story... about the comments made by a guy who is not even running for office, and using them to paint all Democrats and Liberals as weak on terror and defense. What is so pathetic, and disingenuous is that many if not most of the stories have to dig up comments by Liberal NOBODIES, and certainly not running candidates to try and make their point. Fucking pathetic.

and it goes on:
Little Green Footballs, Riehl World View, Wizbang, Captain's Quarters, The Caucus, Bizzyblog, Tammy Bruce, Blue Crab Boulevard, BLACKFIVE and on....

Hugh Hewitt's TownHall Blog, CNN, The Strata-Sphere, RightWinged.com, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Pajamas Media and Gateway Pundit and on...

Opinion Journal, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Think Progress, Hotline On Call, Pajamas Media, JustOneMinute, Boston Herald, The Reaction, The Democratic Daily, Riehl World View, Instapundit.com, Balloon Juice, Scared Monkeys, Squiggler, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, Power Line, Stop The ACLU, Ace of Spades HQ, No More Mister Nice Blog, La Shawn Barber's Corner, On Deadline and Freeman Hunt with a multitude of Left and Right Blogs and media outlets weighing in. Enough already!

There was a time when I respectfully disagreed with some of the Rightwing bloggers. Today, I am disgusted by many of them. They are collaborators in the destruction of our American Values. I am in Costa Rica, I have little personal stake in the outcome of the elections. But I pray that the Republicans are routed, absolutely destroyed in this election.

The only thing that would make me happier is to see all the collaborators exposed as such and to have the digital equivalent of a public square head shaving, because they are all whores, whether to power or to dogma, it is all the same.

I have said many times, and I will close with this. HISTORY will be the judge of our positions.

Win or lose, I am confident that history will judge me a patriot. I stand in defense of our American values, our freedoms and our glorious constitution. To those who have belittled or devalued that constitution in the name of political expediency, I call you what you are, a traitor to what our country is supposed to stand for. There is a well know quote that says "History is written by the victors."

God help us, if we as a nation, lose this fight...

Dear John Kerry:
Apologize and let's move on! The Republicans and their conservative blogger allies have been all over the place looking for some way to change the subject from Foley and the disastrous war. You gave them a way. Do I believe your explanation? Yeah, it sounds logical. But that is the very reason you lost the election, you are a lousy speaker. I don't care how you do it... Just do it. Then go somewhere and take a vacation until after the elections are over...

Thanks...

Oh and if you have any doubts about my advice, read this:

A few Democratic candidates joined Republicans Wednesday in pressing John Kerry to apologize for a comment critics said appeared disrespectful of U.S. troops as several Kerry campaign appearances were canceled.

"Whatever the intent, Senator Kerry was wrong to say what he said," said Democratic Rep. Harold Ford (news, bio, voting record) Jr., running for Senate in Tennessee.

"Sen. Kerry's remarks were poorly worded and just plain stupid," said Montana Senate President Jon Tester, a Democrat trying to unseat GOP Sen. Conrad Burns (news, bio, voting record). "He owes our troops and their families an apology."

"I'm sorry he did what he did. But I think the issue ... we want to make sure it doesn't confuse the subject of the war in Iraq," Democratic Rep. Ben Cardin, running for Senate in Maryland, said on CNN.

The White House didn't back down from its call for a Kerry apology. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Kerry "put gasoline on the fire" of an already sizzling midterm election campaign. And the Republican National Committee released a Web ad, to be e-mailed to GOP activists and state party officials, called "Apologize."

"Sen. Kerry may have botched the line, but what he said was insulting to the troops, and what he ought to say is, 'Look, I botched the line, but I'm sorry for giving offense,' " Snow said on CBS's "The Early Show."

At issue is Kerry's comment, to a group of California students on Monday, that people unable to succeed in the U.S. educational system would likely "get stuck in Iraq." Kerry says he merely botched a speech line written to be critical of Bush, while Republicans seized on it as evidence of troop-bashing by the Democratic party's 2004 presidential nominee.

The backdrop for the fiery exchange evoked memories of Bush and Kerry's bitter 2004 race for the White House, and injected last-minute fireworks into a taut midterm election fight between Republicans trying to cling to control of Congress and Democrats striving to win it back.

With each party looking for any advantage in a race expected to turn in large measure on the unpopular war in Iraq, Kerry campaign appearances in Iowa, Minnesota and Pennsylvania were canceled.

I have to wonder how much of this will make the evening news before the Elections....

At least two dozen federal judges appointed by President Bush since 2001 made political contributions to key Republicans or to the president himself while under consideration for their judgeships, government records show. A four-month investigation of Bush-appointed judges by the Center for Investigative Reporting reveals that six appellate court judges and 18 district court judges contributed a total of more than $44,000 to politicians who were influential in their appointments. Some gave money directly to Bush after he officially nominated them. Other judges contributed to Republican campaign committees while they were under consideration for a judgeship.

Republicans who received money from judges en route to the bench include Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Sens. George Voinovich and Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Gov. George Pataki of New York.

There are no laws or regulations prohibiting political contributions by a candidate for a federal judgeship. But political giving by judicial candidates has been a rarely scrutinized activity amid the process that determines who will receive lifelong jobs on the federal bench. Some ethics experts and Bush-appointed judges say that political giving is inappropriate for those seeking judicial office -- it can appear unethical, they say, and could jeopardize the public's confidence in the impartiality of the nation's courts. Those concerns come as ethics and corruption scandals have roiled Washington, and on the eve of midterm elections whose outcome could influence the makeup of the federal judiciary -- including the Supreme Court -- for decades to come.

The GOP, which from the looks of things should just drop the sham and call themselves the Gay Old Party!

The racist ad that the Republican National Committee put up against Rep. Harold Ford in Tennesssee also has a bit in which a sleazy guy says, with a leer:

So {Ford] took money from porn movie producers — I’m mean, who hasn’t?

I haven’t and would hazard to say hardly anyone has taken money from porn producers — except, as we learn today, the same Republican National Committee that paid for the racist ad in Tennessee:

It turns out that the Republican National Committee is a regular recipient of political contributions from Nicholas T. Boyias, the owner and CEO of Marina Pacific Distributors, one of the largest producers and distributors of gay porn in the United States.

What gets me is that for a party who spends so much time obsessing over people's sex lives and slamming the gay lifestyle, these guys have more skeletons in their closets than Skull and Bones!

It doesnt look good for Santorum....

As U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum makes fighting global terrorism his closing pitch of the campaign, the latest Temple/Inquirer Poll shows that growing doubts about the Iraq war continue to erode support for Republicans.

More voters than a month ago say the war - which remains the defining issue in the November election - has made the country less safe from terrorism, while the percentage saying they feel safer has dropped. At the same time, a majority of voters, 52 percent, want the United States to either decrease troop levels in Iraq or pull out altogether.

In greater numbers than men, women say they feel less safe, disapprove of the Iraq war and President Bush, and prefer Democrats taking over Congress.

All of this has created a drag on Santorum's campaign and those of Republican House candidates, the poll found.

Over the last month, Santorum has increasingly portrayed himself as the candidate who better understands the threats facing America, hoping to frame the debate around national security rather than Iraq. Last week, he staged a "Gathering Storm" tour - a two-day swing through seven counties to warn that Americans are "sleepwalking" through the threats.

The Temple/Inquirer poll shows Santorum has lost ground to his Democratic opponent, Bob Casey Jr. A month ago, Casey led the two-term senator by 11 points. The latest poll has Casey ahead 54 percent to 38 percent with 6 percent undecided.

The poll's results are based on telephone interviews with 698 likely voters statewide. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points. The poll was conducted between Oct. 16 and Oct. 25.

"The war in Iraq is the issue that is playing most heavily in Casey's favor," said pollster Michael G. Hagen, an associate professor of political science at Temple and director of the school's Institute for Public Affairs. "Pennsylvanians, like people all over the country, are becoming more discouraged with the situation, less convinced than they were two years ago that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do, and less certain about what to do next.

"All that is working against Republican incumbents," he added.

I had a conversation the other night with an Aussie buddy about the upcoming elections. I am far from ready to declare the GOP dead in these elections, but signs are pointing to a rough time for them, and the half assed measures to justify the continuing strategy in Iraq, or the scare voters into voting GOP, just dont seem to be working at this point.

David Letterman didn't try to hide the fact last night that he just plain doesn't like Bill O'Reilly. He wasted no time bashing FOX News and doing what few people can do — ridiculing O'Reillys ratings (Letterman's audience is more than 2x as large .) While sparring over Iraq, Letterman interrupted the giant talking head saying he "doesn't care" what Bill has to say. When Bill O, in typical FAUX form, tried to suggest that Dave believes "Bush is an evil liar" and that "America is a bad country" Letterman comes back with the line of the month:

"You're trying to put words in my mouth just the way you put artificial facts in your head."

Go take a look at the video on C&L

These people just amaze me. How did we allow our country to get in the hands of people like those who support O'Reilly?

To me this video is just stupid! Everyone is making hay about the bimbo in the ad, personally I dont think someone like Ford would give her the time of day, but knowing the Republicans, this is one of those "wink to the Southerner," ads. Willie Horton anyone?

Hat Tip: Wizbang

"Violence in Iraq will continue to get worse until the November elections. The terrorists are very media savvy and are determined to influence our elections. They may succeed thanks in part to all the help they get. I don't know whether or not this latest news from Reuters is a part of that plan, but in all likelihood it is related to their overall strategy. I only pray this soldier does not suffer the same fate as those previously kidnapped and used for terrorist propaganda."

Uh Huh.... The violence in Iraq that has been escalating for years, is now all about influencing our election. Where the hell do these people come from? Righ after the election things are going to be peachy keen right?

What the "October Surprise," is.

With top Republican strategists now privately predicting substantial House losses, President Bush and top GOP officials plan to spend the final days of the 2006 campaign attempting to rally partisans and limit conservative defections with dire warnings about the consequences of a Democratic Congress.

Amid predictions that demoralized conservative voters might sit out the election, Bush and other senior Republicans will escalate charges that Democrats will raise taxes, weaken national security and liberalize social policies. Bush struck those themes in campaign appearances yesterday in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and White House senior adviser Karl Rove said he "will consistently refresh that message" between now and Election Day.

And is it really a surprise to anyone but an idiot?

First there was Instapundit warning of a huge Republican loss in the November Elections, and now Goldberg saying the war was a mistake?

I know, I know. But I've never said it before. And I don't enjoy saying it now. I'm sure that to the antiwar crowd this is too little, too late, and that's fine because I'm not joining their ranks anyway.

In the dumbed-down debate we're having, there are only two sides: Pro-war and antiwar. This is silly. First, very few folks who favored the Iraq invasion are abstractly pro-war. Second, the antiwar types aren't really pacifists. They favor military intervention when it comes to stopping genocide in Darfur or starvation in Somalia or doing whatever that was President Clinton did in Haiti. In other words, their objection isn't to war per se. It's to wars that advance U.S. interests (or, allegedly, President Bush's or Israel's or ExxonMobil's interests). I must confess that one of the things that made me reluctant to conclude that the Iraq war was a mistake was my general distaste for the shabbiness of the arguments on the antiwar side.

But that's no excuse. Truth is truth. And the Iraq war was a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003. I do think that Congress (including Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller and John Murtha) was right to vote for the war given what was known — or what was believed to have been known — in 2003. And the claims from Democrats who voted for the war that they were lied to strikes me as nothing more than cowardly buck-passing.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is a side issue. The WMD fiasco was a global intelligence failure, but calling Saddam Hussein's bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do. Washington's more important intelligence failure lay in underestimating what would be required to rebuild and restore post-Hussein Iraq. The White House did not anticipate a low-intensity civil war in Iraq, never planned for it and would not have deemed it in the U.S. interest to pay this high a price in prestige, treasure and, of course, lives.

According to the goofy parameters of the current debate, I'm now supposed to call for withdrawing from Iraq. If it was a mistake to go in, we should get out, some argue. But this is unpersuasive. A doctor will warn that if you see a man stabbed in the chest, you shouldn't rush to pull the knife out. We are in Iraq for good reasons and for reasons that were well-intentioned but wrong. But we are there.

Via C&L:

Our Blue America page is racing up the charts and Jane, Howie and I want to thank everyone for believing in what we're doing. I hope anyone that hasn't donated would consider making at least a $5 donation today. Every little bit counts and you'd be surprised what we are getting done with your help. We need a change in our government and let's face it—we need everyone to help.

By contributing 5 bucks you become part of the solution and can feel really proud that you had a hand in making things happen. I receive many emails saying that people wish they could donate more, but let me tell you—if enough people throw in 5 bucks then we will get a lot done.

Please donate if you can to Blue America's 5 dollar days.

Just do it... Be part of the big win!

From C&L:

Glenn Reynolds lists his reasons why the GOP might lose the '06 election. I'm not sure what will happen in November, but I'm hopeful. While I agree with some of his choices, I find it very odd that he leaves off the single most important reason that the Republicans might lose in November: IRAQ. With the blood of so many Iraqis and American forces littering the battlefield, I find this astonishing.

I guess it's hard to admit when you've had a hand in cheer-leading such a colossal blunder. I would have thought he'd at least mention the handling of the war as an out for himself—or maybe include the bad liberal media, but not a whisper.

But dont expect the standard bearers of Bushism to surender any time soon. Despite what looks like a coming landslide for the democrats, the folks at Wizbang desperately search for anything... and I do mean ANYTHING that sheds a favorable light on the miserable failure that is the Republican Administration.

That the White House was super optimistic about the upcoming elections....

Considering the election stealing that is alleged in the past, that optimism may be based on something we just dont know about. Nevertheless....

WASHINGTON - Just 20 days until Election Day, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds approval of the GOP-held Congress is at its lowest mark in 14 years, the Republican Party's favorability rating is at an all-time low and President George W. Bush's approval rating remains mired in the 30s -- all ominous signs for a party trying to maintain control of Congress.

In fact, according to the poll, Republicans are in worse shape on some key measures than Democrats were in 1994, when they lost their congressional majorities.

"There is not a single number in here that would suggest the Democrats will not have their best showing in a decade -- and maybe two decades," says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican Bill McInturff.

And it is ridiculous. So let me make sure I got the spin right. BLAME EVERYONE, but the Republican politicians who shielded Foley? Is that about right?

Drudge... Kids egging pervert on.

Tony Snow... Just naughty emails!

Hassert.... Eh, I dont remember the specifics, it was probably given to me with some other stuff...

Oh well.... At least one conservative icon got it right.

You know we often ask on the left, "how low will they go," to protect their power. I think that question has been answered... I find Rick's way of doing it, particularly nauseating....

How much of a story will this black bag operation be? Since it was done partly in the cause of ridding the Congress of a pervert, one perhaps cannot condemn it completely. However, it does demonstrate a nauseating cynicism on the part of the left when it comes to electoral politics and makes the hypocritical charges of “cover-up” resonate all the more with those who are disgusted by such tactics.

Eh, what PART is it that you do condemn Rick? The fact that it was one of the family values hypocrits? And you are right, I can't read. It's not that I have a learning dissability, it's just that I have a hard time wading my way through the bullshit to find your point...

I do have to give props though to two ladies who I often dissagree with:

La Shawn and Michelle

Why I am voting Democratic in 2006

I have decided to vote Democratic this fall.

I am a conservative and a Republican party member. I believe in small government, free markets, strong defense, etc., but Bush’s snafu in Iraq is just too much. It overwhelms those issues which for 30 years have made me vote GOP. In addition to screwing up so far, there is zero evidence that he’s changed, or that he “gets it,” or anything. Kevin Drum has a piece today “if Bush gave this kind of speech, that might be different,” not for for Drum, but for some of us. Bush does not get it.

There is another aspect that makes this easier for me. Bush has not followed a conservative agenda (not that the Democrats would); he has increased the spending, size, and reach of government, mostly in the name of fighting terror. Historically, there has been a conservative philosophy. Today, most people & media use “conservative” as shorthand for “loyal Bush supporter.” But, as many have observed, Bush is no conservative. No need to remind me of Bush’s support for Intelligent Design, and other anti-science actions of the administration.

As a voter (twice for Bush) and as a blogger who supported this nonsense, I have a hard time at this point, saying, “Yes, this war has been horribly executed and there is no prospect for improvement, let me pull the lever for more of the same.”

Midterm elections are a referendum on the party in power; they are not just about the local races. I live in NY state, in a very blue district. No contests that I vote in are in doubt, but the sum of our votes do comprise a national referendum, and the news people will add up what happened and count the wins and losses. Who we vote for in ’06, especially for Congress, matters. As for ‘08, that’s two years from now. Who knows what will happen then? The GOP candidate will almost certainly run away from Bush so quickly and completely, so 2008 will be a different situation, most likely not a referendum on Bush.

When a guy like Stephen decides enough is enough... It's time for all intelligent conservatives to stand up and make an accounting of the situation...

What an idiot!

Liberal bloggers have uncovered a staff member to Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH) using government computers to make fake posts on liberal blogs in New Hampshire, today's ROLL CALL reports. Advertisement

Heard on The Hill columnist Mary Ann Akers has authorized RAW STORY to reprint the full registration-restricted item below:
#

Liberal bloggers in New Hampshire busted an aide to Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) who was posing as a liberal blogger on such blogs as Blue Granite, NH-02 Progressive and others. Bass’ office admitted culpability to HOH and said the staffer would be “appropriately disciplined.”

The unnamed aide to Bass — who, like many others in his party, faces a tough re-election fight — was routinely trolling liberal New Hampshire political blogs calling himself “IndyNH” and more commonly IndieNH, pretending to be a progressive.

Finally, after noticing that lots of things he said just didn’t add up, a couple of the bloggers traced IndieNH’s IP address to the House of Representatives.

And they thought, “How many offices in the U.S. House would be interested in one race in New Hampshire?” The answer: Very few. Probably only one.

Laura Clawson, who runs the Blue Granite blog and writes as “Miss Laura,” told HOH that she and another blogger easily traced IndieNH’s IP address to the House server. They could even see the searches Mr. or Ms. IndieNH was doing to gather opposition research on Bass’ challenger, Paul Hodes (D), such as “Hodes and gay marriage” and “Hodes and taxes.”

The poseur had raised suspicions among liberal bloggers after he pooh-poohed a recent poll showing Bass tied with Hodes and suggested that Democrats should not waste any more time or money on the Hodes race and instead should invest their resources in other races.

“I am going to look at the competitive race list to figure out where to send another mydd.com/netroots donation and maybe help out in other ways,” IndieNH posted. “Maybe CT or NY for me — they are at least close by. Anyone interested in pooling NH efforts for some of those races? Maybe we could even go help out for a few days in buses or something in November?”

After Clawson posted a notice on her site informing IndieNH that he (or she — Clawson wasn’t sure) had been rooted out as a GOP aide in Bass’ office, the postings ceased.

The aide’s job could cease, too. John Billings, a spokesman for Bass, acknowledged that “we have questioned the staff and found that a staffer in this office did indeed post to some blogs under the pseudonym ‘IndieNH.’ There was no good reason for this, just a

serious lapse of judgment, and the staffer will be appropriately disciplined.”

And showed them for what they are, a propaganda machine for a failed administration.

Funny how others see it differently...

Sister Toldjah, Ace of Spades HQ, Webloggin, NewsBusters.org, Wizbang, Flopping Aces, TVNewser, The Political Pit Bull, PoliPundit.com and The Strata-Sphere

The failed policy, the failed War....

We are NOT safer today

Not surprisingly, the recent Intelligence estimate which says that the war in Iraq has made global terrorism worse, is viewed differently by the the Right and Left:

Firedoglake, Power Line, Macsmind, Right Wing Nut House, The Glittering Eye, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Thought Theater, Editor and Publisher, The Strata-Sphere, Blue Crab Boulevard, Middle Earth Journal, Redstate, ParaPundit, The Next Hurrah, The Heretik, BTC News, The Democratic Daily, Liberty and Justice, Gun Toting Liberal, Gateway Pundit, AMERICAblog, NewsHog, Liberal Values, Raising Kaine and Booman Tribune

But can the idea really be challenged? I don't have many answers. I can only say that all objective indicators point to failure... There has not been another spectacular attack in the U.S. since 9/11, and it is certain that the administration will point to that as an indicator of success, but there is no doubt that the world has beome a more dangerous place. One needs only to read the headlines to know this...

Funny, but I'll bet his campaign is based on a strong military....

From Think Progress:

A Pentagon report last month found that as many one in five U.S. service members “are being preyed on by loan centers set up near military bases” that can charge interest of 400 percent or more. Increasingly, soldiers have debt levels so high they are barred from serving overseas; others suffer from “bankruptcies, divorces and ruined careers.” (More facts HERE.)

The Pentagon has joined consumer, military, and veterans groups in backing a bipartisan amendment from Sens. Jim Talent (R-MO) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) that places a cap of 36 percent on high interest rates for short-term payday loans to military members.

But one conservative congressman, Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY), is trying to gut the amendment. Davis has proposed his own language — praised by the payday lending industry — that sets no real limits on predatory lenders. One of Davis’s aides admitted last week that he consulted on the legislation with “CNG Financial of Mason, Ohio, one of his top campaign donors and owner of national payday lender Check ‘n Go.”

Another example of Right Wing hypocrisy!

Than the U.S. these days...

The funny thing is... Even in Costa Rica, I am not immune to Deibold... They make most of the ATM's here in Costa Rica. I have been victim to them stealing my money three times, and each time it took me a month to get my money back from the bank. It seems that it takes a month to do an audit and determine if the machine was in error.

From Crooks and Liars

Another dose of TRUTH from Jon...

From Tony Pierce....

Keith is brave because there are very few actual media-types, real media-types who will attack anyone in the administration out of pussyass fear of being grouped with Michael Moore, MoveOn, Cindy Sheehan (pictured) or Dan Rather as "fringe" or "extremist Liberals". As if anyone who says this war is stupid is some traitor.

Jon Stewart and Colbert have to pretend that they're just kidding, and O'Reilly has to pretend that he's not kidding.

Keith on the otherhand has no problem acting like a normal human being and smiling and laughing during his puppet show or scowling and bashing during his commentaries like the ones in the post below.

Olbermann might not be the quasi-network quasi-news anchor of your dreams, but he's a giant leap away from the clearly uneducated partisan hacks at Fox or the emotionless drones everywhere else. And he's a voice in the wilderness for the majority of Americans who disagree with the administration but have been convinced that if they say anything they'll be marginalized for cutting and running, flip flopping, being a moonbat or any of the other childish taunts that sadly work just as well today as they did in the schoolyard.

There can be a middle ground in serious News Analysis as the LAT calls it and it can be entertaining. Although they're not fully there yet, I believe that Countdown is taking us down that path since it uses actual video evidence, real quotes, and omg facts to make its case. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter et al simply say "Kerry's fugly and Moore's fat."

The beauty of Olbermann's peice the other day was it brought back the idea of actually having an educated take that does not suck, using history as an example, and making friends with the English language. BushCo could certainly learn from the former SportsCenter anchor.

Another piece of Great writing.... And Tony... You owe me an interview!

I find this hillarious....

Aug. 23, 2006 — It used to be that you had to be The New York Times to raise the ire of the Republican National Committee, or radio icon Rush Limbaugh to get the Democrats chomping at the bit.

Now add blogs to the list of political actors worthy of official condemnation from the political powers that be.

The Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to supporters and members of the media today criticizing Markos Moulitsas, founder of the popular liberal Web log Daily Kos, for what it calls "hate-filled" rhetoric on the Web site.

It's not the first time they've singled him out, but it does put bloggers — formerly on the fringes of politics — front and center along with the most important traditional political activists.

Political watchers see it as recognition by organizations like the RNC that blogs are here to stay.

"It means that they know who the new power brokers in politics are," said Julie Germany, the deputy director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University.

Blogs as political power brokers? Germany says that bloggers have helped level the playing field by taking power away from the proverbial smoke-filled rooms that used to determine the course of party politics.

"Some of that power has transitioned to everyone else," she said.

And that power, whoever holds it, draws the attention of the opposite party, as Moulitsas has drawn the attention of Republicans. The RNC's "research briefing," as it is called, was titled "Who Is Markos Moulitsas Zuniga?"

So the RNC has finaly discovered KOS? And Kos is spewing hatred... Have they taken a look at Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter lately... Please... Looks like the Tighty Rigties are getting a bit desperate.

From Pensito:

To begin, there was the rally. Harris expected to share the stage at the Orlando Executive Airport with a score of notables, before a teaming crowd of well-wishers. That’s not exactly how it went down.

None of the nine officials listed on her event flier appeared, leaving Harris on her own to address a group of about 40 supporters, reporters and campaign staff members.

Harris spoke in an airplane hangar that seemed to highlight the modest size of the crowd…

Harris spoke for 10 minutes…When she finished, red, white and blue balloons dropped onto an empty stage, rendered unnecessary by the sparse crowd.

Harris expected her fellow Florida Congress-people Mark Foley, Ginny Brown-Waite, Jeff Miller and Cliff Stearns to be at the airport, especially since her campaign web site boasted their support. Instead, right after the disastrous event, each spoke up to say they never endorsed Harris and their names were pulled from her site.

Katherine Harris' campaign continues to implode. She should just quietly bow out, maybe claiming stress... A realistic story.

From WAPO:

For a moment there, I was almost encouraged. George W. Bush, the most resolutely incurious and inflexible of presidents, was reported last week to have been surprised at seeing Iraqi citizens -- who ought to be grateful beneficiaries of the American occupation, I mean "liberation" -- demonstrating in support of Hezbollah and against Israel.

Surprise would be a start, since it would mean the Decider was admitting novel facts to his settled base of knowledge and reacting to them. Alas, it seems the door to the presidential mind is still locked tight. "I don't remember being surprised," he said at his news conference yesterday. "I'm not sure what they mean by that."

I'm guessing "they" might mean that when you try to impose your simplistic, black-and-white template on a kaleidoscopic world, and you end up setting the Middle East on fire, either you're surprised or you're not paying attention. But that's just me.

As for George Bush, what on earth is on his mind?

Even conservatives have begun openly assessing the president's intellect, especially its impermeability to new information. Cable television pundit Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, devoted a segment of his MSNBC show to "George Bush's mental weakness," with a legend at the bottom of the screen that impertinently asked: "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"

It's tempting to go there, but I'm not sure we'd get very far. While we have the president on the couch, I'm more interested in trying to understand his emotional response -- or lack of response -- to the chaos he has spawned.

According to the Iraqi government, 3,438 civilians were killed in July, making it the bloodiest month since the invasion. The president was asked yesterday whether the failure of the U.S.-backed "unity" government to stem the orgy of sectarian carnage disappoints him, and he said that no, it didn't. How, I wonder, is that possible? Does he believe it would be a sign of weakness to admit that the flowering of democracy in Iraq isn't going exactly as planned? Does he believe saying everything's just fine will make it so? Is he in denial? Or do 3,438 deaths really just roll off his back after he's had his workout and a nice bike ride?

I find it hard to be sarcastic in the face of the ongoing carnage in Iraq. But I do find it making me more and more angry. How is it that intelligent people on the Right, in all their "rah rah," support for Bush, did not see this coming. We on the left have been accused of Bush hatred for pointing out what has been obvious long before Bush occupied the White House. The man has very limited mental capacity. This war, and the resulting pandemonium in the Middle East, was foreseen by many. Those who were against the war, even experienced intelligence and military experts, were all painted as "Bush Haters." The fact that chaos is brewing in the Middle East, and that the entire region is less stable than before the war, is conveniently glossed over in the scare mongering over terrorism. We live in a far more dangerous world than before Bush took office. The big question is, is he capable of keeping us safe?

Others Blogging: The Mahablog, David Corn, uggabugga and Blue Crab Boulevard

"Nothing Joe Scarborough, the former Gingrichite GOP congressman and current MSNBC Fox-News-wannabe, could ever say or do would give him credibility at this point. Still, it is interesting to note that he has joined rightwing rats like George Will and William F. Buckley in jumping off the good ship George W. Bush as it capsizes."

Pensito Review

I am surprised it took some of these guys this long... to figure out the obvious...

Jack Cafferty ripped into the Republican leadership today over the recent ruling that the NSA warrantless program is illegal. For all the wingers that say the NSA helped in the UK terror plot, they should turn to their good pal O’Reilly, who said that they got FISA warrants in that case which proves the point. Right wing blogger Ace asks where is the Congress? That's a fair question, but it's a Republican Congress and that's been the problem. I'm not picking on Ace, but he says that

Video-WMP Video-QT

Jack does it again, and Crooks and Liars covers it, DELIGHTFUL!

Good thing the Constitution and Bill of Rights are under glass, with all the pissing on them that this administration has done, they would have dissolved by now from the uric acid.

Brij has it about right...

While the jury is out on whether Israel or Hezbollah attained their war objectives, a quick anecdotal poll of Russian, Chinese and Indian analysts suggests that in the eyes of the wider world the real loser is the United States.

Together with the bloody mess in Iraq, the mess in Lebanon is a set back for American prestige and influence. In India, where President George Bush is more liked than in almost any other Asian country, there is concern that Hezbollah has outwitted him on all counts.

President Bush says Hezbollah has been defeated as it will no longer be a state within a state because south Lebanon will be occupied by non-Hezbollah troops.

In contrast, although Chinese, Russian and Indian analysts hail from very dissimilar countries they are reaching similar conclusions that Hezbollah’s position has been strengthened.

Within Lebanese politics, Hezbollah’s prestige will be so unassailable that its Christian, Sunni and Amal Shiite rivals will not be able to criticize it openly for some time to come. Nor will any Arab government be able to castigate it for fear of angering the street.

Therefore, the most likely prospect is that Hezbollah’s fighters will be integrated into the Lebanese army instead of being asked to disarm. That will make them very influential because of their experience in fighting Israel. Their addition might also make Shiites the overall majority in the army. As such, a mere militia will have access to all the modern panoply, including command and control skills, of a national army.

Like I said... What alternate Universe does Bush live in?
Bottom line... Hezbollah did not blink...

President Bush asserted yesterday that Hezbollah was defeated in its month-long conflict with Israel, casting the fighting that killed hundreds of Lebanese and Israeli civilians as part of a wider struggle "between freedom and terrorism."

No really?

Now they tell us: It takes a lot of chutzpah for Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair and vice chairman of the commission appointed to study events around the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, to write a book now that says the commission’s findings were wrong. When the commission issued its report, it was considered to be the final statement on the government’s response to the attacks. Now we learn:

The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel’s chairmen say in a new book.

Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in “Without Precedent” that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani - and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush’s use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.

Why does this not come as a surprise to me? This administration has been a cesspool of lies from day one, and the real truth will likely not appear until they have vacated the halls of power...

From Think Progress:
Today at joint press conference with Russian president Vladimir Putin, President Bush said he hoped that Russia would model its government on the kind of democracy the United States is helping build in Iraq. Putin replied, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq. I will tell it quite honestly," drawing laughter from the assembled press. Bush interjected, "just wait."

Shouldn't be long now, right GW? I mean, the insurgency in Iraq is in it's Last Throes... Right?

From Crooks and Liars:

This isn't the only issue, but what did Joe Lieberman say about Iraq?

Campos: "The situation in Iraq is a lot better that it was a year ago," Lieberman observed. The Iraqis "are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That's progress. And the question is, are we going to abandon them when they are making that progress?"

From the Cafferty file:

Video -WMP Video -QT

Cafferty: Wolf, it was another horrible day in Iraq. Attacks near the Green Zone in Baghdad killed between 5- 16 people, 10 others died carrying a body to Najaf for burial. An Iraqi diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad. The U.S. military is condemning a video posted on Islamic websites that claims to show the bodies of two U.S. soldiers kidnapped, killed and mutilated last month in Iraq. And this all comes as the House holds a hearing to evaluate the Bush administration's national strategy for victory in Iraq. Meanwhile a recent Gallup poll found that about two out of three Americans want a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and 31 percent want it to start immediately.

What the hell is Lieberman smoking? Must be some of that "Last Throes," stuff that the Republicans are smokin'. Cause things are a LONG way from getting better in Iraq.
But if you want to know what Lieberman's real problems are, read this great WAPO piece. Lieberman IS a Bush enabler.

Lot of folks talkin' about that piece: Bull Moose, New York Observer, Gateway Pundit, MaxSpeak, The Next Hurrah, LamontBlog, MyDD, This Modern World, spazeboy, Blue Crab Boulevard, Middle Earth Journal, Eschaton, TPMCafe, Democrat Taylor Marsh …, DownWithTyranny!, My Left Nutmeg, The Horse's Mouth and Daily Kos

The truth is, whatever happens in the election, Lieberman has already seen his finest hour, in 2000, and he has been on a slide every since. His effectiveness in the Democratic Party has been diminished, probably fatally. While regional politics don't really appeal to me. It will be interesting to see how this one sorts out.

I wasn't aware of this until today:

Since the New York Post article featuring John Barrie, a plagiarism expert, and his work on looking into online allegations of plagiarism by Ann Coulter, the scandal is now off and rolling.
Justin Rood of TPMmuckraker wrote that Barrie says he has been contacted by several news outlets, including the New York Times. (You know they'd love to take her down, as I would just out of principle, given her comments about Timothy McVeigh and the New York Times building.)
Currently, TPMmuckraker has an ongoing list of Coulter's alleged plagiarized works and the originals that she is accused of stealing material from. The Rude Pundit, who finally got his due in a recent Associated Press article, has a list reminding the deniers that there is a lot more to the charges than the New York Post was reporting.
All this from a woman who attacked Jayson Blair for plagiarism

Anyone who actually believed that Ms. Coulter ever had an original thought in the first place, needs to have their head examined!

A Secret the Terrorists Already Knew

Privacy rights advocates, with whom we generally agree, have lumped this bank-monitoring program with the alleged National Security Agency wiretapping of calls in which at least one party is within the United States as examples of our government violating civil liberties in the name of counterterrorism. The two programs are actually very different.

Any domestic electronic surveillance without a court order, no matter how useful, is clearly illegal. Monitoring international bank transfers, especially with the knowledge of the bank consortium that owns the network, is legal and unobjectionable.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, passed in 1977, provides the president with enormous authority over financial transactions by America's enemies. International initiatives against money laundering have been under way for a decade, and have been aimed not only at terrorists but also at drug cartels, corrupt foreign officials and a host of criminal organizations.

These initiatives, combined with treaties and international agreements, should leave no one with any presumption of privacy when moving money electronically between countries. Indeed, since 2001, banks have been obliged to report even transactions entirely within the United States if there is reason to believe illegal activity is involved. Thus we find the privacy and illegality arguments wildly overblown.

So, too, however, are the Bush administration's protests that the press revelations about the financial monitoring program may tip off the terrorists. Administration officials made the same kinds of complaints about news media accounts of electronic surveillance. They want the public to believe that it had not already occurred to every terrorist on the planet that his telephone was probably monitored and his international bank transfers subject to scrutiny. How gullible does the administration take the American citizenry to be?

Terrorists have for many years employed nontraditional communications and money transfers — including the ancient Middle Eastern hawala system, involving couriers and a loosely linked network of money brokers — precisely because they assume that international calls, e-mail and banking are monitored not only by the United States but by Britain, France, Israel, Russia and even many third-world countries.

While this was not news to terrorists, it may, it appears, have been news to some Americans, including some in Congress. But should the press really be called unpatriotic by the administration, and even threatened with prosecution by politicians, for disclosing things the terrorists already assumed?

In the end, all the administration denunciations do is give the press accounts an even higher profile. If administration officials were truly concerned that terrorists might learn something from these reports, they would be wise not to give them further attention by repeatedly fulminating about them.

There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year. Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive. The attacks on the press are part of a political effort by administration officials to use terrorism to divide America, and to scare their supporters to the polls again this year.

The administration and its Congressional backers want to give the impression that they are fighting a courageous battle against those who would wittingly or unknowingly help the terrorists. And with four months left before Election Day, we can expect to hear many more outrageous claims about terrorism — from partisans on both sides. By now, sadly, Americans have come to expect it.

That is really what it all comes down to... An administration that believes it is above the law and completely unaccountable. The Supreme Court smackdown, demonstrates this very clearly. All the hell raising over the NYT revealations is more about raising the fear factor of Americans before the next election. Eh... I don't think it will work this time.

Others discussing:

Liberty Street, Democrat Taylor Marsh …, AMERICAblog and WTF Is It Now??

WASHINGTON, June 26 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has hired Peter Daou, one of the most prominent political bloggers in the nation, to help disseminate her message in a forum that has not always been that hospitable to her.

The move underscores the degree to which bloggers - the authors of Web logs, or blogs — have begun to transform American politics. In many cases, candidates have even set up their own blogs, with staffers answering questions, presenting policy proposals and posting campaign literature and videos.

Mrs. Clinton, who is up for re-election this year and is a possible presidential candidate for 2008, has been a frequent target of bloggers, particularly liberals who are angry over her refusal to disavow her vote in 2002 to authorize President Bush to use force in Iraq.

The Clinton camp is clearly counting on Mr. Daou, who directed blog outreach and online rapid response for Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004, to help improve Mrs. Clinton's image among liberal bloggers, who are fast becoming a constituency in their own right and may thus play a significant role in selecting the Democratic Party's nominee for president.

I am not a big fan of Hillary. I don't think she has a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming the next POTUS, but this is a good move on her part. She has been one of the most important Dems to ignore the Blogsphere. This move at least demonstrates her acknowledgement of the importance of Blogs in driving the grassroots in the next series of elections.

Others Blogging this issue: The Fix — Chris …, The Sideshow, Dick Polman's American Debate, The Sundries Shack, Riehl World View, PrairiePundit, The Moderate Voice, Brainster's Blog and Blue Crab Boulevard

The fundraiser thrown for Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele on Thursday night, while ordinary in most ways, struck some African American leaders as notable because of the host.

Unlike the dozens of high-dollar events across the country in his U.S. Senate bid, this event was thrown by the producer of the famous "Willie Horton" ad, the 1988 commercial that came to symbolize the cynical use of skin color as a political wedge.

It seemed a most unusual choice for Steele, the first African American elected to statewide office in Maryland and a Republican whose strategy for winning a Senate seat in a state dominated by Democrats has involved the aggressive courtship of black voters.

"Why would he go for money to those who have done us harm?" asked Elbridge James, a former leader of the NAACP's Montgomery County branch.

Steele said he sees nothing unusual about getting help from Floyd Brown's Citizens United Political Victory Fund. Brown produced the Willie Horton ad, which helped torpedo Michael Dukakis's presidential campaign by drawing attention to a weekend furlough program that released a black convicted murderer serving a life sentence.

Nor, Steele said, was there anything incongruous about donations he took from others who have offended black audiences in the past, including Republican Sens. Trent Lott (Miss.) and Conrad Burns (Mont.) as well as Alex Castellanos, the man behind the racially charged "White Hands" ad that then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) used to attack his black challenger.

It featured a close-up shot of a pair of white hands crumpling a letter as the narrator says, "You needed that job . . . but they had to give it to a minority."

In an interview, Steele said, "I appreciate all the support I get from members of my party."

Looks like it was not far off the mark...

While I condemned the racially charged attacks on Steele last year, it's obvious the man is more interested in winning, than in having any principles or standards of morality. How much is your dignity worth Mr. Steele?

I'm with Tas on this one.

You know what I'm sick of? Being dismissed as a "Bush hater," or more recently as being part of "the kos hating left." Anyone who uses such rhetoric isn't arguing or even debating an issue, they are simply stating a cop out. They have nothing constructive to bring to the conversation so they claim that the person they oppose is a "hater" and, because of this, the implication is that we're so biased that nothing we say is supposed to be given any credence.

Well you know what assholes? When I "hate" something, I'll tell you.

I have had my share of battles with the Right and the "Popular Left." I have always believed, and I believe Tas shares my belief on this one, that the Progressive Blog movement would be a lot more powerful if the Larger and More Powerful blogs gave more support to unaffiliated smaller blogs. I have seen this work in the Conservasphere, where small, frankly shitty blogs get play from the big boys and eventually grow. I have seen some smaller blogs, a few of them members of the Progressive Blog Alliance, which I co-founded, get patronage from the big boys and go on to establish prominent blogs themselves. Many times, I have noted, they have had to tow the Party line to do so. More power to them.

There was a time when ISOU was a top 50 TTLB Blog. Having my blog go down for two months last year, and then getting so involved in business, that I neglected it, definitely hurt my ratings and pushed ISOU into the 200's in the TTLB. There was a time when that would have bothered me. It doesn't anymore. I am comfortable these days doing what I want with my blog. Sharing music, writing about compelling technology, sharing what is going on in my life, and occasionally dipping my feet into the cesspool of politics.

There was a time when I took pride in being on the front lines of political battles. Today I find pride in helping someone avoid losing their lifesavings to African 419 Scammers! I don't have time to hate anyone, or for that matter envy them. The one blogger I envy is my Bro... Tony Pierce, who if 1/10th of the shit he prints is true, gets more swag, more sex and more FUN out of blogging than anyone I know. And he is just freakin' cool.

There are a lot of bloggers out there I admire, some I Love and quite a few who I would love to spend a weekend chillin' with, but FEW I envy. Hell I am not sure I even envy Tony, but I dig his style. I miss the old days just before the '04 Election, when all of us were just goin' nuts talking about things. There was a sense of community then.

Today, it is all about HATE, and that is too bad. It is also why I don't spend too much time talking politics any more. I have enough negativity in my life. The funny thing is... since I cut back on my political blogging, my business has really taken off.

The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, has sent to readers who have written him about The Times's publication of information about the government's examination of international banking records:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combating the threat of terror.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

Make sure to read the whole thing. I have to wonder sometimes if the Wingnuts who jump up and down every time a new case of urinating on The Constitution is revealed, actually believe the crap they print themselves? Anyone who questions the action of the government is a Bush Hater, and that is their sole motivation for doing so... OH PLEASE! Or worse, a card carrying supporter of Al Qaeda.

I haven't even commented on the whole banking thing, and I wont. Anyone who thinks that the people who carried out 9/11 don't know that we are tapping their phones, reading their emails and checking into their financing, is an idiot.

"A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash."

No, the NYT and other papers who reported this little end run on our civil liberties did not perform a traitorous act. They actually did what they are supposed to do, which is INFORM the PEOPLE! Whether this program is legal or not is not my call to make. I am not a constitutional scholar. I have to Wonder sometimes... If Conservative Bloggers had been around at the time, would Nixon have been forced to resign?

I find the whole KOS obsession to be hillarious.

July 3-10, 2006 issue - Markos Moulitsas Zuniga is sitting on his back porch in Berkeley, Calif., listening to the hummingbirds and explaining his plans to seize control of the Democratic Party. It is one week after YearlyKos, the Las Vegas conference of progressives that Moulitsas sponsored and promoted heavily on his popular liberal blog, DailyKos.com. Every major media outlet in the country had attended the conference, detailing the spectacle of Democratic bigwigs (including the party's Senate minority leader and four of its leading 2008 presidential aspirants) embracing Moulitsas as the guru of an activist movement they were eager to exploit. With the conference, Moulitsas says, his movement had finally proved its relevance to the party. "We're not sitting around waiting for the so-called professionals to give us power in the party," he tells NEWSWEEK. "We're taking it for ourselves."

It seems as though the rock-thrower is growing up. Inside, a handyman is remodeling the Moulitsases' suburban living room, where soon the futon will be replaced by a daybed, and the big, boxy television by a sleek new flat-panel. If YearlyKos—where he was quizzed by the likes of Maureen Dowd and Tim Russert on what the Democrats ought to do to win—proved anything, it was that Moulitsas had forced his way into the upper echelons of party strategists. Moulitsas sees his new status as the start of a natural progression: "We said we wanted to crash the gates. We never said we weren't going to come in."

But a place in the inner sanctum comes with its challenges—and Kos picked a rough time to join. Last week the GOP rallied around Karl Rove's "cut and run" battle cry and went on the offensive against a Democratic Party that was all over the place on the war. Sen. John Kerry was constantly on cable TV, touting an amendment requiring the redeployment of troops out of Iraq by July 2007; most members of his own party voted against it. The party had better discipline on a more gradual pullout measure backed by Sens. Carl Levin and Jack Reed, voting together, coordinating talking points—and still going down to a sound defeat. The GOP was clearly on the rebound. "They're buoyed by Zarqawi's death and other steps in Iraq, but they're also strengthened by the disarray of the Democrats," says one senior Bush aide, who asked not to be identified speaking about political strategy.

Democrats tried to downplay the significance of the GOP's momentum. "What this indicates is the White House is much better at sloganeering than they are at actually governing and conducting this war," former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards told NEWSWEEK.

Still, the Democrats lost the week in the war over the war, and Moulitsas—who chats with Senate leadership aides several times a week and has brainstormed with Democratic operatives about the fall campaign—could no longer just criticize from the outside. Indeed, the Democrats' failed Iraq strategy—stand together, talk tough and make plans to leave—lined up exactly with the prescriptions found on Daily Kos.

Moulitsas is also learning another downside of membership in the elite: the bigger the liberal sniper gets, the more incoming fire he faces. The talk of the blogosphere last week was "Kosola"—allegations that Moulitsas wrote favorably about candidates with whom he or his close friend and coauthor Jerome Armstrong had financial relationships. Moulitsas swore the charges were baseless (Armstrong, too, has denied impropriety), but they clearly got under his skin. When The New Republic's Web site published an e-mail from Moulitsas to a group of friendly activists urging them not to talk about Kosola and thus "starve it of oxygen," Moulitsas went berserk in a blog posting, accusing the venerable liberal journal of treason. By the weekend, Moulitsas's allies were sending each other e-mails infected with the paranoia of revolutionaries who've gained power too fast: How should they deal with traitors? How much openness could they handle? Which fellow travelers could they really trust?

I mean... First of all, these people are just discovering the KOS phenomenon? Markos is a visionary. He "got it," before most of us did. He understood the power of New Media, and of forming alliances and collective action. Bravo for him! But this incredible obsession with Daily KOS and the idea that it controls the Leftsphere is ridiculous. I rarely even read KOS, much less take my marching orders from Marcos. I decided a long time ago that ISOU would be about my voice, my opinion, and that I would not be influenced by being part of a collective. I might make more blogad money and even have more readership, if I towed the party line, but honestly, it's just not worth it to me.

KOS represents a very enthusiastic, but I still believe minority wing, of the party and Progressive Political Thought. Their fund raising and PR capabilities are a powerful influence, but I dont believe KOS represents mainstream Progressive thought any more than Malkin represents Conservative thought. I wish Markos well because I think he has successfully pushed Progressive blogging into the limelight, but if he sent any orders my way, they must not have made it past my spam filters. Hehe...

From today's WAPO:

EAST ORANGE, N.J. -- Barack Obama was standing before a packed high school auditorium when he noticed a familiar face in the crowd -- none other than singer Dionne Warwick. He paused, flashed a mischievous smile, then let loose with a perfectly on-key performance of the opening line of her hit song "Walk On By."

The audience of 300 students and adults roared with approval.

Obama, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, seems to be hitting the right notes these days. During Senate recesses, he has been touring the country at breakneck pace, basking in the sudden fame of a politician turned pop star. Along the way, he has been drawing crowds and campaign cash from Democrats starved for a fresh face and ready to cheer what Obama touts as "a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear."

His office fields more than 300 requests a week for appearances. One Senate Democrat, curious about Obama's charisma, took notes when watching him perform at a recent political event. State parties report breaking fundraising records when Obama is the speaker.

The money he is bringing in for fellow Democrats is shaping up as an important influence on 2006. And the potential Obama is demonstrating as a political performer -- less than two years after his elevation from the Illinois state legislature -- is prompting some colleagues to urge him to turn his attention to 2008 and a race for the presidency. Obama has made plain he is at least listening.

"I think he is unique," said Illinois's senior senator, Richard J. Durbin (D). "I don't believe there is another candidate I've seen, or an elected official, who really has the appeal that he does." As for the 2008 presidential race, "I said to him, 'Why don't you just kind of move around Iowa and watch what happens?' I know what's going to happen. And I think it's going to rewrite the game plans in a lot of presidential candidates if he makes that decision."

***
Will he run? I don't know. Can he win? I don't think so, but I think he would definitely shake things up. I think Obama has tremendous potential. His oratory skills are probably the best in National Politics. He is polished, a self made man, and a very smart one. There is no doubt in my mind that he could eventually make a great president. I don't think he yet has the kind of experience or seasoning to make a great president.

I will be the first one in line to vote for Obama when the time is right. The idea of having a first African American President is something that excites me as a fulfillment of the promise of America, but it needs to be the right African American. I have no doubt Collin Powell could have handled the job, and I would have voted for him. I don't want to see Obama run before he is ready, because all those wishing to run after him will unfortunately be prejudged by his performance.

Don't get me wrong... I don't doubt that Obama's intelligence, background and experience in the Senate will help him to adapt to the White House, I simply feel that the learning curve is best navigated outside of it.

Two great commentaries on Eric Boehlerts', Lapdogs, on C&L and FDL. I got this book a couple of weeks ago for review and just finished it. It's a MUST Read, and pretty much trashes the bullshit about a Liberal Media bias. I am reading Helen Thomas', Watchdogs of Democracy, as well, and it is shaping up to be an equally strong expose on the failings of the press in the age of "Roveism."

Both of these books are going to be passed on as soon as I have read them... The highest compliment I can pay to a book.

President Bush has been flying all over the place raising money for Republican political campaigns and is just too busy to meet with the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition. The coalition consists of all 26 border sheriffs from California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico. They wanted to discuss the issue of national security and immigration on the border.

This is not the first time Bush has dodged facing up to the reality of the situation along the border. Republican house members in Texas flew to DC to meet with Bush on the border issue in May and he snubbed them sending his spokesmonkey Scott McClellan to try and talk them down.

It seems Bush doesn't have a problem selling out America unless he has to actually face the people that he is directly affecting by not doing his primary job of defending our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.


Digger

Eh.... Yep...

Of course Oliver Willis spreads more smears about Michelle Malkin because he's too lazy to actually check things out for himself and just links to whatever those other big hitters throw out there. That’s what he does. It’s his job to smear.


Marty

That kind of Bullshit...

Michelle Malkin is just this side of Ann Coulter when it comes to spewing hatred. I read Olivers piece and the one from Crooks and Liars, and what they said is RIGHT. The only way some on the Right "win," is to paint all Left Wingers as Troop haters, weaklings and terrorist supporters. And all of that... Is simply bullshit.

Whethere SOMEONE booed at Clinton's speech is irrelevant. People on the left do not hate our troops any more than people on the right HATE GAYS. Such generalizations are why I find politics so tiresome these days. Marty is a nice guy, whom I happen to like on a lot of levels, even respect. But his politics are the same UGLY, hateful politics that Malkin and Coulter preach, with a dash of "reason," to make them more palatable.

I cant wait for the last day of the Bush Administration, because I believe that only cleaning the American political scene of divisive Rove style politics, will bring the American people back to the table of reasonable discourse.

I was wrong, and Jay Tea was right. I am not going to whine about this, or make grand proclamations about justice not being served. I was wrong about Rove being charged and to maintain credibility, I need to acknowledge it. Touche.

From Raw Story:

New documents obtained by a conservative watchdog group suggest that the US Army Corp of Engineers may have publicly lied regarding the involvement of the Vice President's office in awarding a 2003 multi-billion dollar, no-bid contract to Kellogg Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, RAW STORY has learned.

RAW STORY has obtained a copy of the emails, which were acquired by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.

The newly released emails show the Army Corps attempting to deflect attention from Cheney's office by distributing talking points that would mask Cheney's purported role. The Corps could not immediately be reached for comment.

Among the 100 pages of newly-obtained documents is an 2003 email in which Army Corps official Carol Sanders writes, "Mr. Robert Andersen, Chief Counsel, USACE, participated in a 60 Minutes interview today in New York regarding the sole source award of the oil response contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root... [Andersen] was able to make many of the points we had planned."

Sanders subsequently provided sound bites from the interview, including, "There was no contact whatsoever (with the VP office)."

I am sure this comes as news to no one...

Do these people stay in power?

We can only hope that November brings change. Much needed change, and that people like Coulter find their rantings marginalized.

The hypocrisy and the bullshit are staggering...

Abortion - Against it on principle except in cases where the mothers life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest. But feel it is a personal and moral issue and one women should decide for themselves.

Affirmative Action - For it until we can figure out how to provide opportunity on an equal basis for all our youth.

Social Security - Fix it, but dont take benefits away from those of us who have invested in it all our working lives.

Gay Marriage - If people want to get married, more power to them.

Creationism - I believe in Evolution. I also believe in God, for me THERE IS NO CONFLICT. For others, I respect thier point of view as long as they respect my right to mine.

The War in Iraq - I was, am and will be against it. But I think we have fucked up that country beyond reccognition, we have an obligation to fix it, and not cut and run.

Tax Cuts - Tax cuts in a time of war are idiotic.

Illegal Immigration - There are no shades of breaking the law. People who come to the U.S. illegally should not be entitled to the same protections or benefits under the law as thos who immigrated legally.

The Patriot Act and The War on Terror - Draconian, often abused and often robs us of the very freedoms it is suppossed to protect.

Global Warming - Anyone who looks at the crazy weather patterns we are facing and still does not believe there is a problem is either a.) an idiot or b.) has their head in the sand

Dirty Politics - Anyone who does not believe that our political system is broken, is deluding themselves, probably for political reasons.

Bush - Worst president in history... Nuff Said.

Welfare - Society should be compassionate enough to provide a safety net. That net should not become a safety blanket.

Islam - The religion HAS been hijacked. I know many decent, cool Muslims. They are not the one's leading the religion.

Racism - It's alive and well and global. Anyone who thinks differently is wearing blinders.

UPDATE: Marty, one of my conservative readers writes (For some reason he could not enter a comment, so he sent me an email),

While our opinions in most cases don't differ nearly as much as our ideas for solutions, and since I'm only allowed one comment every six weeks, let's stick to the most laughable on the list.- using Robert Kennedy's weak article as an example of a broken political system.

When Mother Jones, NPR, and Salon all debunk Kennedy's little article in Rolling Stone, you know that it must be wrong. (By the way- I thought Tucker Carlson was more than fair with Robert Kennedy in that interview- though I think the minions over at Tony's place were loaded for bear no matter what Tucker would have said.

Yeah- there are SOME problems with the political system- including real documented voter fraud and intimidation, including indictments and convictions in East St. Louis and Milwaukee (Hmmm- which party was that? But Kennedy's article is even a joke to those who would normally jump right on that bandwagon.

I went to Salon to see what Marty was talking about....

I found this and this, neither of which DEBUNKS anything. If anything they simply add to the debate. I believe Ohio was stolen in 2004, and Florida in 2000. But before you measure me for a tin foil hat, let me say this. My perception is based on what I see as significant circumstantial evidence, including the Ohio Secretary of State's promise to, "deliver Ohio for Bush in '04." I have neither the time nor the inclination to defend Kennedy's piece. What I will do is condemn the so called media for failing to report aggressively on this issue. Faced with facts by an independent media investigation, the WRONG side would simply have to shut up.

But our media has been cowed by this administration to a ridiculous level. Gone are the days when we could depend on the Media to keep politicians honest. Instead we have Faux News and Conservative Blogs and Radio commentators calling anyone who questions this administration traitors or worse. I can not say I KNOW Ohio was stolen, because I dont have the resources to validate my perceptions or for that matter, to change them. I can only say I believe it. I have watched the man who was to, "return honor to the White House," take our nation down a very scary path. And I have seen people like Marty, whom I respect and like, buy into it. History will perhaps prove which of us is right. It may surprise Marty, but I hope he is... Because if he is not, and I am.... Our country has suffered a perhaps irreparable blow, as has democracy.

I did not find anything on Mother Jones or NPR's site "debunking" Kennedy's article. Perhaps Marty will be kind enough to provide a link. Perhaps a REAL debunking rather than the hair splitting he points to on Salon. Because while Salon may have had some problems with many of Kennedy's assesments, they also agreed that Republicans have been up to dirty tricks since 2000, when it comes to elections.

By now you have heard about the Rolling Stone Article, read it... It makes some interesting reading. What amazes me is that so many Republicans just dismiss this as nothing more than Bush hatred. Even if it is, as Americans, we have an obligation to give these arguments a fair hearing...

Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry, had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day, lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while the national media, with few exceptions, did little to question the validity of the election. The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

But despite the media blackout, indications continued to emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in 2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.(10)

The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)

Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''

But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.

Tony Pierce has a video of Tucker Carlson interviewing Kennedy. It's must watch stuff...

This would be funny as a Saturday Night Live skit...

HOST: You talk about a lot of issues that affect people's lives. And yet you're going to bring two constitutional amendments to the Senate floor in the next few weeks, one to ban same-sex marriage, another to ban flag-burning, both reportedly in the papers to mobilize your conservative base. I have to tell you, I talked to a Republican senator this week who said he may vote for both of them but said they're both pandering. Are gay marriage and flag burning the most important issues the Senate can be addressing in June of 2006?

FRIST: Let me tell you what the agenda is real quick. Secure America's safety here at home. I mentioned supporting our troops overseas, making sure we pass that supplemental bill, making sure we tighten down our borders. securing America, a healthier America, so we’ll continiue to –

HOST: All right. But ...

FRIST: Let me tell you, right now there's no prioritization there. Securing America’' values. I hope tomorrow and today as people see that American flag, and I’m going to Arlington cemetery tomorrow and I'm going to see that flag waving on every grave over there. When you look at that flag and you tell me that right now people in this country are saying it’' okay to desecrate that flag and to burn it and to not pay respect to it, is that important to our values as a people when we’ve got 130,000 people fighting for our freedom and liberty today? That is important. It may not be important here in Washington where people say, well, it’s political posturing and all, but it’s important to the heart and soul of the American people.

Marriage — marriage, you asked about. Right now. Why marriage today? Marriage is for our society that union between a man and a woman, is the cornerstone of our society. It is under attack today. Right now there are 13 states who passed constitutional amendments in the last year and a half to protect marriage. Why? Because in nine states today, activist judges, unelected activist judges are tearing down state laws in nine states today. That’s why I will take it to the floor of the Senate, simply define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Unfortunately, it is not a comedy routine. It is our Republican U.S. Senate at work, and it's called, "shoring up your base." What a crock. Be kind... There aren't any vegetative state women being taken off of life support this week.

Imagine, if you will, that evidence surfaces that the President of the United States, or the Secretary of State, or even some minor member of the White House staff, was committing crimes. Imagine if the Congress declared that they wanted to investigate those allegations, and the White House responded by saying that it would be a violation of the "separation of powers" for the Congress to investigate anything that happens in the White House.

Dean Esmay

I actually happen to agree with Dean, but I have seen enough cases of stonewalling and "executive priveledge," from this White House and others, to know they knife cuts both ways.

Our system seems to me, to be fundamentally broken. Never in our history, it seems, has our constitution been so under attack. Never has there been more debate about the powers of the three branches of government. I have come to the conclussion that one Party having control of two of the three branches, and the philosophy of the Court, is NOT a good thing. There is no balance of power.

Wont you just be glad when this nightmare is over...

From the Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON -- The office of Vice President Dick Cheney routinely reviews pieces of legislation before they reach the president's desk, searching for provisions that Cheney believes would infringe on presidential power, according to former White House and Justice Department officials.

The officials said Cheney's legal adviser and chief of staff, David Addington , is the Bush a dministration's leading architect of the "signing statements" the president has appended to more than 750 laws. The statements assert the president's right to ignore the laws because they conflict with his interpretation of the Constitution.

The Bush-Cheney administration has used such statements to claim for itself the option of bypassing a ban on torture, oversight provisions in the USA Patriot Act, and numerous requirements that they provide certain information to Congress, among other laws.

Previous vice presidents have had neither the authority nor the interest in reviewing legislation. But Cheney has used his power over the administration's legal team to promote an expansive theory of presidential authority. Using signing statements, the administration has challenged more laws than all previous administrations combined.
(Emphasis Mine)

I was never all that enthusiastic about John Kerry's Presidential Campaign. I felt that he allowed the Swift Boat Liars to tarnish his image, and by not responding, hurt himself. A new effort to set the record straight is refreshing, but something that would not have been necessary if he would have simply fought back during the campaign. Nevertheless, I will be happy if he can prove the Swiftboat Vets to be liars, if for nothing else but to set the record straight. It seems work is underway...

John Kerry starts by showing the entry in a log he kept from 1969: "Feb 12: 0800 run to Cambodia."

He moves on to the photographs: his boat leaving the base at Ha Tien, Vietnam; the harbor; the mountains fading frame by frame as the boat heads north; the special operations team the boat was ferrying across the border; the men reading maps and setting off flares.

"They gave me a hat," Mr. Kerry says. "I have the hat to this day," he declares, rising to pull it from his briefcase. "I have the hat."

Three decades after the Vietnam War and nearly two years after Mr. Kerry's failed presidential bid, most Americans have probably forgotten why it ever mattered whether he went to Cambodia or that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused him of making it all up, saying he was dishonest and lacked patriotism.

But among those who were on the front lines of the 2004 campaign, the battle over Mr. Kerry's wartime service continues, out of the limelight but in some ways more heatedly — because unlike then, Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight. Only those on Mr. Kerry's side, however, have gathered new evidence to support their case.

The Swift boat group continues to spend money on Washington consultants, according to public records, and last fall it gave $100,000 to a group that promptly sued Mr. Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, for allegedly interfering with the release of a film that was critical of him.

Some of the principals behind the Swift boat group continue to press their claims. John O'Neill, the co-author of the group's best-selling manifesto, "Unfit for Command," criticizes Mr. Kerry on television talk shows and solicits money for conservative causes and candidates. In a South Carolina newspaper, William Schachte recently reprised his allegation that he was aboard the small skimmer where Mr. Kerry received the injury that led to his first Purple Heart, and that Mr. Kerry actually wounded himself.

Swift boat message boards and anti-Kerry Web sites still boil with accusations that Mr. Kerry fabricated the military reports that led to his military decorations.

Mr. Kerry, accused even by Democrats of failing to respond to the charges during the campaign, is now fighting back hard.

"They lied and lied and lied about everything," Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?"

His supporters are compiling a dossier that they say will expose every one of the Swift boat group's charges as a lie and put to rest any question about Mr. Kerry's valor in combat. While it would be easy to see this as part of Mr. Kerry's exploration of another presidential run, his friends say the Swift boat charges struck at an experience so central to his identity that he would want to correct the record even if he were retiring from public life.

Mr. Kerry portrays himself as a wary participant in his own defense, insisting in the two-hour interview that he does not want to dwell on the accusations or the mistakes of his 2004 campaign. "I'm moving on," he says several times.

But he can also barely resist prosecuting a case against the group that his friends now refer to as "the bad guys." "Bill Schachte was not on that skimmer," Mr. Kerry says firmly. "He was not on that skimmer. It is a lie to suggest that he was out there on that skimmer."

He shows a photograph of the skimmer being towed behind his Swift boat, insisting that it could barely fit three people, himself and two others.

"The three guys who in fact were in the boat all say he wasn't there and will tell you he wasn't there. We know he wasn't there, and we have all kinds of ways of proving it."

Mr. Kerry has signed forms authorizing the Navy to release his record — something he resisted during the campaign - and hired a researcher to comb the naval archives in Washington for records that could pinpoint his whereabouts during dates of the incidents in dispute. Another former crew member has spent days at a time interviewing veterans to reconstruct every incident in question.

In February 2005, Mr. Kerry's supporters formed their own group, the Patriot Project, to defend veterans who take unpopular positions, particularly against the Iraq war. One of their first tasks was to visit newspaper editorial boards in defense of John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat and veteran whose military record has been attacked by Republicans and conservative blogs since he called for pulling the troops out of Iraq.

The group has sent a letter to Mr. Schachte calling for a meeting with him, Mr. Kerry and two former veterans who maintain - as they did publicly during the campaign - that they were the only other people on the skimmer with Mr. Kerry and that he was wounded in a hail of enemy fire.

Members of the Swift boat group have not seen Mr. Kerry's newly gathered evidence. But they seem unwilling to cede much.

Mr. O'Neill said he "would be thrilled to look at anything he wants to send." Still, he added, "I'm sorry he never apologized for his 1971 speech," referring to Mr. Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he told other soldiers' accounts of ravaging Vietnamese villages and citizens. "I think it would have been a very positive thing to do in terms of the many thousands of people who survived Vietnam and felt that was very hurtful."

Mr. Schachte said that he held "no animus," but that "if they crank this thing up again, I'm not going to be quiet." One of the two men who say they were on the boat - he does not recall which — might have been there, Mr. Schachte said, "but I was in that boat with Kerry."

The veterans group, led by Mr. O'Neill, a former Swift boat commander who was recruited by the Nixon administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show" in 1971, began its campaign in early 2004 by criticizing Mr. Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War. But backed by Republican donors and consultants, they soon shifted to attack his greatest strength - his record as a military hero in a campaign against a president who never went to war.

Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry's heroism contradicted themselves.

Still, the charges stuck. At a triumphant gathering of veterans in Fort Worth after the election, Mr. O'Neill was introduced as the man who "torpedoed" Mr. Kerry's campaign; the Swift boat group spent more than $130,000 for a "Mission Accomplished" celebration at Disney World. The president's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, sent a letter thanking the "Swifties" for "their willingness to stand up to John Kerry." Even people within the Kerry campaign believed that the attacks had cost their candidate the presidency.

Some of Mr. Kerry's friends and former Swift boat crew members made advertisements during the race to try to shoot down the group's charges. But the campaign declined to air them widely because some strategists said that directly challenging the charges would legitimize them.

They approached Mr. Kerry after the election with the idea of setting the record straight.

So they have returned, for instance, to the question of Cambodia and whether Mr. Kerry was ever ordered to transport Navy Seals across the border, an experience that he said made him view government officials, who had declared that the country was not part of the war, as deceptive.

The Swift boat group insisted that no boats had gone to Cambodia. But Mr. Kerry's researcher, using Vietnam-era military maps and spot reports from the naval archives showing coordinates for his boat, traced his path from Ha Tien toward Cambodia on a mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals.

Mr. Kerry's supporters have also frozen frames from his amateur films of his time in Vietnam and have retrieved letters and military citations for other sailors to support his version of how he won the Silver Star - rebutting the Swift boat group's most explosive charge, that he shot an unarmed teenager who was fleeing his fire.

Another photograph provides evidence for Mr. Kerry's version of how he won the Bronze Star. And original reports pulled from the naval archives contradict the charge that he drafted his own accounts of various incidents - which left room, the Swift boat group had argued, to embellish them.

Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record.

Should add to the list, Republican Bloggers!

Is one of the strongest supporters of the Bush regime in the blogsphere, starting to get skeptical?

This and this... would seem to say yes?

Nah... Just a couple of moments of temporary logic... Things are back to normal...

This whole issue is getting a lot of traction in the Left Blogsphere.

A couple of points:

1. I am not a Dean fan, don't even like the man.
2. I have no idea why he fired his gay outreach coordinator. If he did as payback for something the guys lover said, shame on him.

But this:

"Howard Dean owes all an explanation, unless he wants to see all hell break loose between now and the election."

is a bit of a stretch...

As documented on this blog, I support gay rights. As a Christian, I don't agree with the lifestyle, but believe that what two (or more) adults do in private is their business. I also believe that two people who care enough to make a lifetime commitment, should be able to, as long as they dont impose on someone else's right to believe what they want. (ie. I dont think any church should be compelled to marry a gay couple). I believe that two people in a long term commited and LEGAL relationship should have access to spousal benefits. Having said all that, Gay rights are not at the top of my political agenda. And while I am sure that most progressives support gay rights, A pro-gay rights position is not one that wins elections. So I dont know what John is talking about. And other than being an embarrassment to Dean if proven true, I dont see a Gay Backlash against him, "breaking hell lose." The Log Cabin Republicans have been repeatedly humiliated by their GOP Masters, and the GOP seems to win elections without them, or worse, with them...

So Dean may have shown his ass, and probably deserves a rash of emails and letters from Gay Dems, and others who support gay rights, but damaging the partyies' chances to win in November over this, would be about as stupid as joining the Log Cabin Republicans..

Looks like the GOP is heading for a BAD, BAD Fall!

Behind in the polls and losing popularity.

For Schwarzenneger, the most ominous news in the poll is the fact that 61 percent believe California is seriously on the wrong track. This was precisely the percentage who believed the same thing in 2003 when Gov. Gray Davis was ousted by Schwarzenegger in the recall election.

Funny... I lost respect for the Terminator a couple of years ago, when a good friend of mine, "Owner of one of Costa Rica's largest strip clubs," told me about Arnold coming to Costa Rica a few years ago and "renting," half the girls in the strip club to go on a weekend sailing orgy with him and his entourage. REAL Republican family values... Well I guess President Ah-nold is out of the question huh?

And Stephen Colbert gave Bush and the Washington Press establishment a massive dose of it last night. This is hillarious, you have to watch it.

As E&P noted,

As Colbert walked from the podium, when it was over, the president and First Lady gave him quick nods, unsmiling. The president shook his hand and tapped his elbow, and left immediately.

Those seated near Bush told E&P's Joe Strupp, who was elsewhere in the room, that Bush had quickly turned from an amused guest to an obviously offended target as Colbert’s comments brought up his low approval ratings and problems in Iraq.

Several veterans of past dinners, who requested anonymity, said the presentation was more directed at attacking the president than in the past. Several said previous hosts, like Jay Leno, equally slammed both the White House and the press corps.

"This was anti-Bush," said one attendee. "Usually they go back and forth between us and him." Another noted that Bush quickly turned unhappy, and left the dais shortly after while most seated near him, including Colbert and Snow, glad-handed the crowd. "You could see he stopped smiling about halfway through Colbert," he reported.

it may have been hard for the Washinton insiders to watch it, but one thing is certain, this kind of presentation of the issues is a lot more comfortable for the average American to watch, and with this video and reports rushing around the blogsphere and web today, more and more Americans are, "taking the medicine."

Other info, via Crooks and Liars:
Colbert's show on Comedy Central, is "Must See TV" at this point already and these types of performances are the toughest in the business to pull off when he's tackling issues that obviously made most of the crowd nervous.

C-Span is running it again in its entirety.

Atrios has a picture posted about Gannon.

TMV, The Sister, Blondesense, Democratic D, News Hounds weigh in.

Uh... and I think MSNBC missed the whole point... or did they?

From Pensito:

Larry Wilkerson, who was State Dept. Chief of Staff under former Sec. of State Colin Powell — and a lifelong Republican — has been critical of President Bush since Powell resigned, but now he has gone ballistic:

Go read the whole thing... Another nail is driven, and God knows there are a bunch of carpenters working this puppy.

I noticed a couple of weeks ago when some yahoo did a song called "Bush was Right," how all the REPUB-Bots jumped all over it. Well, I would say this is a pretty good answer to that song. I never knew Pink was this damned talented...

I'm not a big Kerry fan, especially since I think he wimped out in the Presidential campaign. But this is right on point:

In a speech at Boston's Faneuil Hall marketplace (a wonderful part of the city that I frequented regularly during my years at Tufts), John Kerry said that dissent during wartime is patriotic, "a response to Republican critics who insist that questioning the conduct of the war in Iraq emboldens America's enemies," according to a report in The Washington Post.

Said Kerry: "I believed then [in 1971, when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee], just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin."

The same folks on the Right who bristle with rightous outrage over NAZI references to their politics, are only too eager to label anyone who does not agree with them, "traitors."

The Real Traitors are those who have sold out America for political gain. And history will identify them...

This is an incredible piece on why the Bush Administration has become such a dissaster...

Excerpt:

Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until "nothing [is] left but the shell of the office." Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.

Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.

The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.

Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.

George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.

Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.

And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.

Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.

One of the things that is interesting about this analysis is something I have believed all along. Bush has surrounded himself with enablers, isolated himself from public opinion and perception (case in point, his bogus personal appearances, where audiences are cherry picked). He has been further enabled by Appologist official and unofficial (Bloggers), who have bent over backwards to spin, deny and even lie on his behalf. Bush is the personification of the spoiled brat, who's behavior is excused by coddling parents and siblings...

Some folks smell blood in the water. The administration is reeling under the pressure of failed policy and a public that has just grown tired of rhetoric. I don't believe there will be many more changes before his term ends. I don't see him being impeached, nor do I see Cheney going anywhere. There is an outside chance that Rove will go down, as Libby seems reluctant to take the fall alone.

I see a crushing defeat for Republicans in November. Even if, as suspected, Bush orchestrates an attack on Iran before then. It will be interesting to see what happens with Democrats in Control. There is no doubt, that if the Democratic Majority is big enough... Some light will be shed on dark places... All very interesting stuff indeed.

Can the numbers get any worse for Bush, especially when they are so bad that FOX NEWS reports on them... Only the hard liners are sticking with this rancid floating garbage scow, and I have no doubt some will go down with the ship. Some because they are TRUE believers, others because they just cant accept how WRONG they were.

Hat tip TMV

I wont mention any names for fear of hurting the feelings of some of my conservative blogger friends, but some of the more rational ones have slowly began to change their tone. They still aren't ready to go "cold turkey," yet, but they are starting to question a bit more... Others are just abandoning political blogging all together, choosing to not say anything at all, rather than let history judge them as cheeleaders for the worst administration in American History. I don't remember much about Nixon's fall, and there were no blogs around back then to chronicle the crumbling of his administration, but I wonder how the Republican faithful back then, reacted to that one...

God grant me another two years to watch and see just how long the faithful stick with Bush. Last one out, turn off the light.

Is he?

Yeah...

Hat tip, Pensito

How the President goes on about how HE makes the decisions in the White House... Then the news comes out weeks ago about Republican Leaders demanding change in the White House, and the chips start fallin'.

I guess Karl got demoted due to the plunging numbers of the boss... Seems that old "black magic," has lost its powers. McClellan? He looked like a freaking dear in the headlights every time he came out for a press conference. The guys is probably more shell shocked than some of the returning vets. I can see his resignation being totally sincere, as in... "Please dont make me go out there again GW!" I nominate Michelle Malkin for Press Secretary. Hold on, let me whip out my check list:

Testosterone - CHECK
Good Looking (May distract some in the press pool) - CHECK
Mean Spirited - CHECK
Gullible - CHECK
Stable of Slavering Right Wing Blog Slaves - CHECK
Minority - Passes for one as long as she keeps her mouth shut. (Wait she is a minority), an Asian who hates other Asians - (See Internment Camp Justification)

Yep, she would make a good Press Secretary.

Looks like the Leader of the Bush Coup in 2000 is about to have her ass handed to her in the upcoming Florida Senate Election.

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) continues to struggle in her bid to unseat Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll.

Good riddance to funky rubbish... Based on the recent video I have seen of her, she missed her calling anyway. She should be the featured act in a low class gentlemans club, or perhaps some bad amatuer porn. At least she might learn how to apply makeup.

"I always wondered what Al Gore was thinking in 2000. It was bad enough to be stuck running against Bush. But to be running with Lieberman? Why?"
Pensito

Amen...

Did he expect to be greeted with "flowers and candy?"

"Crashing the Gate" seems to be getting some fairly good play out there. All I can say is Right on Markos. One part of this review, really caught my eye:

Indeed, Crashing the Gate is all about winning. That's what animates the on-line activists—that's why the number of hits on the Web sites rises as elections approach. The issues aren't secondary, exactly, but there's a clear consensus that worrying about the fine points of policy is an empty exercise without real power, and that power comes from party unity.

It's threats to that party unity that really anger the Web activists. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, for instance, faces a primary challenge that was first given real prominence on Daily Kos and allied Web sites. Not because he isn't liberal on issues such as Social Security; but because he doesn't behave like a Democrat, he seems happy to go on the Sunday talk shows and praise the President for starting the Iraq war or criticize Democrats for being weak on national security. In a photo widely circulated on the Web, he was the first on his feet applauding the President's Iraq policy during this year's State of the Union address. Lieberman may well survive the primary challenge he faces from Ned Lamont, a high-tech entrepreneur and former newspaper editor who opposes the Iraq war, but it seems possible that if he is strongly challenged, this will affect his positions in the years to come.

Funny... I have less respect for Lieberman than I do for Bush. At least Bush knows who the hell he is... well on most days anyway, at least those days that he gets to see Karl early in the day. I want to see Lieberman have his ASS handed to him in the election. Personally I think the whinny bastard is one of the reasons that Gore lost.

No Tom, there is something worse, its a scum bag politician who thinks he is invulnerable. Welcome to a dose of humility scumbag!

Oh and Chris... "how was that assburger?"

Hat tip, Pensito

Don't you just love it when people get what they deserve?

Congresswoman Katherine Harris' U.S. Senate bid suffered a surprising setback Saturday with the resignation of her campaign manager, press secretary, media consultant and outreach director. "I didn't know I was going to get the knives in my back from my own party, and I'll be honest, it's infiltrated my campaign staff." – Harris

"I was told if I didn’t get out of the race, I would have an April surprise," Harris said at a meeting at the First Baptist Church of Cocoa Beach, where she met with about 50 Brevard County Republican stalwarts Saturday morning. She said she could not verify who warned her.

"I didn't know I was going to get the knives in my back from my own party, and I'll be honest, it's infiltrated my campaign staff . . . For too long, we have been undermined by people in our own party and staffers in our own campaign."

"I Live for this shit"
Xander Cage
XXX

Oh, and I dont want to see her out of the race, I want to see her have her ass handed to her by Nelson...

Looks like Domenech is gone, and at least for now, WAPO's experiment in bringing a rabbid dog into the house is over. I never posted on the whole Domenech thing because:

a.) I rarely read the WAPO anymore.
b.) Who cares about a Conservative Blogger on the WAPO. The conservative spin machine already dominates when it comes to blogging.

But the guy was a charlatan... And the big Rightie blogs defended him until the situation was indefensible. The whole racist argument? I haven't a clue, and frankly could care less. Finding a conservative racist is about as surprising as finding a Black Man in the Klan. I tend to listen more to reasonable types like Cole, than the ranters on either side.

What happened with Domenech is just another example of people who want give up their die hard beliefs until the truth is shoved down their throats. And even then... it does not matter to some.

So as far as Domenech getting shit canned, good riddance. Anybody can cut and paste...

Oh, and I guess you don't "represent the majority of Americans," Mr. Domenech.

Buh Bye...

We could get this many people interested in protesting the Administration... 500,000 people marched in Los Angeles to protest immigration reform. And Digger, who is usually quite vocal about these events, is missing in action.

Could it be that he is actually surprised at the huge turnout for the event? The immigration wars are over folks. When Vincente Fox can basically say people should have a right to illegally immigrate, and Bush does not respond forcefully... When Half a Million people take to the streets to protest immigration law... When Illegal immigration reaches the point it has in sheer numbers... It's over. Our borders are not secure, and the existing laws are just a sham. Despite being progressive, I am NOT pro-illegal immigration. I believe that laws must be obeyed, or changed. People can not just enter our country illegally and expect to have the same rights as legal immigrants. But one thing is for sure, with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets, the politicians will take notice.

First Chris Matthews gets a case of the "fed ups," and now it appears the American People have too...

The Bush Approval Map
"The Net Approval Rating (Job Approval minus Job Disapproval) for President George W. Bush, state-by-state."

Courtesy Radical Writ

Go check out the video of Chris Matthews on Imus.

Matthews: "Well I am just going to stick to this point that the president led us in there with the background music of American culture. Everybody was led to believe that we were getting payback, we were avenging what happened on 9/11 and that we are going to get them. Vice President Cheney said we are going to attack terrorism at its base. Over and over the language was, this is where it came from, in fact most recently the President suggested that it was always the hot pursuit, like a new York police chase, we chased them back into their country. We pursued the terrorists back to Iraq and it's all nonsense. The reason there are terrorists in Iraq today like Zarqawi is we created the opening by blowing the country apart.

From the beginning it's been not true. Now you can't prove motive and you can't prove somebody lies, but from the beginning everything about how they've got WMD's, they are a threat to us, they are going to bomb us with a nuclear weapon, this country is going to be an easy liberate, it's going to be a cake walk. As Cheney said as recently as ten months ago the insurgents are in their last throws. Everything that is said is not true. And right to the end here, here we are now and it's not a civil war and when Allawi the prime Minster is saying it is a civil war and here is the president quoting his own people that it's not a civil war. I mean the denial has been continuous. So you really can't count on the administration to tell you what is going on. That is just the fact. You've got to check it out.

By the way, the president said this week that he wants the whole truth about what is going on in Iraq, the whole truth and that the media isn't telling the whole story. I'll tell you what we are not telling. We are not showing pictures of the twenty five hundred bodies coming back because they won't let us show the pictures. They don't want the whole truth out and that's the fact."

Now if we can just get some consistency out of these people. This after all is the same guy who just a while back was questioning why Bush is so unpopular... A phenomenon that appears to be growing, at least with everyone who is not a.) on the payroll, b.) so wrapped up in Bush worship that they just don't get it, or c.) just cant bring themselves to admit how WRONG they were.

Read this...

The Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee submitted detailed questions to the Bush Administration regarding the NSA program, and the DoJ's responses to both the Democrats' questions and its responses to the Republicans' are now available.

There are numerous noteworthy items, but the most significant, by far, is that the DoJ made clear to Congress that even if Congress passes some sort of newly amended FISA of the type which Sen. DeWine introduced, and even if the President "agrees" to it and signs it into law, the President still has the power to violate that law if he wants to. Put another way, the Administration is telling the Congress -- again -- that they can go and pass all the laws they want which purport to liberalize or restrict the President's powers, and it does not matter, because the President has and intends to preserve the power to do whatever he wants regardless of what those laws provide.

Seems to me that this President is BEYOND "thinking," he is above the law, with accomplices in Congress, he IS.

I believe this is the kind of politician that our country needs... One that puts personal integrity, and the country before partisan loyalty. Give him some love, and some money if you can...

Thanks to Leola for the tip!

My name is Clint Curtis. I am considering running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida's 24th Congressional District. I will need your help.

I can promise you that:

- My vote will not be for sale
- I will not accept "questionable donations"
- I will not take trips on lobbyist money
- I will not accept money from foreign governments
- I will return honesty and integrity to the 24th congressional office.
Please visit my Blog

I am a former Republican who became a whistleblower that came forward and testified to Congress under oath, regarding the request from a sitting congressman to build a computer program that could, without detection, flip your vote in an election. This manipulation would allow a person or political party to take control of voting machine and decide who wins the election, regardless of the true vote count. In March of 2005, I passed a polygraph test as to the accuracy of my statements.

I believe our district is currently represented by one of the most corrupt politicians in history. I have attended closed-door meetings where Congressman Tom Feeney spoke candidly about altering election results.

And what happened to the investigation into Feeney?

That they are still falling for these PR stunts? I don't think so.

Conservative Bloggers:
"We are kicking some ass in Iraq this week, and the Iraqis are leading the way!" And Bush had nothin' to do with it! Yada Yada!

Reality...

But contrary to what many many television
networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use
of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military
term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact,
there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation
that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo
op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met
no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders. How
Operation Swarmer Fizzled

I don't blame 'em though. I mean with Bush getting his ass handed to him on the issue of Iraq, and the fact that after three years we still don't have a plan... Not to mention the hundreds of Iraqis that have died in the last couple of weeks... They had to do something. Why not spend a couple million bucks and put our troops out there on a meaningless mission again, to show that... "Hey, we are taking it to the terrorist."

That and a questionable memo tying Iraq to UBL, and you might gain a point or two.... NOT!

1960-Something...

"The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our female party guests... We did! But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you... Isn't this an indictment of our entire American Society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we are not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"

Eric "Otter" Stratton

Delta House

2006

"The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties with our with the law and the constitution... We did! But you can't hold a whole political party responsible for the behavior of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole government system? And if the whole government system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our country in general? I put it to you... Isn't this an indictment of our entire American Society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but we are not going to sit here and listen to you bad-mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"

Doug Neidermeyer

Past President - Omegas

Retired Chairman of the GOP

Bush Cheney Pioneer

Board Member Diebold Voting Systems

Conservative Blogger

As long as you do it the way Ben Stein wants you to do it... What a loser and idiot!

Ben Stein says the people who truly were snubbed on Oscar night weren't those who didn't win, but were the American military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking Thursday at a Kent County Republican Party fundraising dinner, the conservative humorist, writer and political pundit said movie stars and film industry professionals failed to highlight the sacrifices of soldiers during the Academy Awards on March 5.

"Not one prayer or moment of silence for those who have given their lives," said Stein, who also has acted ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") and hosted a game show ("Win Ben Stein's Money"). "And they complain about (falling box office numbers). Stop spitting in the face of Americans and maybe we will go to the movies."

Hey Ben, here's a bit of advice for ya... The Oscars are an entertainment show, based on honoring ENTERTAINERS, some of whom support the war, some of whom don't. Get the fuck over yourself, or go apply for a speechwriting job on Pennsylvania Avenue.

After writing this post today, I found this one, on Crooks and Liars:

To an objective observer, it would seem that this last week was a very bad one for Bush followers.

Iraq is on the verge of total sectarian war and collapse. Multiple conservatives have declared that Bush lost the war. A slew of new polls show that Bush's presidency is dying, with all but the most blindly loyal followers having abandoned him and decided that he's untrustworthy. Even a huge majority of the U.S. military now believe that it's time to leave Iraq. And the Senate Intelligence Committee looks prepared -- with the support of at least two Republican Senators -- to hold investigative hearings into the Administration's warrantless, lawless eavesdropping on Americans.

But the notion that this was a very bad week for Bush is only true for those who live in the world of facts. Bush followers are lucky. They have an outstanding capacity to create their own fantasy world where any facts which reflect negatively on the Leader are simply discarded and ignored. Just this last week alone provided numerous, glaring examples of how this disturbing fact-denial process works.

Go read the whole thing...

I am sure someone will accuse me of being in fantasy land myself. After all, facts... At least those facts that don't jibe with carefully scripted realities for the Right, are always fantasy or conspiracy... in the eyes of these people. Like I said earlier today, it has GOT to be hard realizing what a monumental CHUMP you have been. It's the reason these people get so angry and bent out of shape when you point out the obvious to them. It's why it's allways a conspiracy by CBS or some other MSM outlet, who are OUT TO GET the President. There is NO possibility that they could be right.

Death and mayhem in Iraq - minimal... to be expected, better than death under Saddam. (Which in and of itself is ridiculous. Death is Death, and it does not matter who kills me, I am still dead!

Katrina - ALL the local bozos fault. And the Levees were breached, they did not overflow... Tell that to the guy who drowned, I dont think he cares much about that technicality.

Domestic Spying - Trust us. We are only looking out for your interest. Yeah I have lots of trust for an administration that has repeatedly lied.

Plamegate - Well you know, we can't be sure she was an undercover operative, can we. Well, her bosses say she was, and that's good enough for me.

Torture - Aw comeone, the so called torture was no worse than Fraternity Hazing. Eh, I was in two fraternities, and I was hazed pretty bad, but I dont remember dying... Nor do I remember having broomsticks shoved up my ass, or being beaten senseless. Must have missed that.

Gittmo - They are a bunch of terrorist, why worry about them. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I heard of some cases of a couple folks being held for years and then released when it was found that they were mistakenly imprisoned.

Terry Shiavo - Poor woman, it was obvious with a little love an care she could have been saved. Uh huh, if you live in a town created by Steven King and you took her to the Pet Sematary.

And the insurgency is in it's last throes, Dick Cheney said so! Uh... Yeah...

No, the Bush LEGACY aint looking too good....

But on the other side... Hey, it's all sunshine and apple pie. If only us pesky Leftist Moonbats with have a cup of shut the fuck up!

"You know, the reality is, they've lost their touch... Every week it's something that just reinforces the message that these guys don't know what they're doing. They're incompetent. I mean, we're almost to the point, where we're going to look fondly back on Jimmy Carter's administration. And I say that with great sadness as a Republican. But it's week after week after week that they just can't seem to find their way. Normally a foreign trip gives you something. You go there, but if we're walking back with mangoes, and they're getting nuclear rods, that's not a very good swap."

Ed Rollins

Reagan Campaign Manager

You know it has to be hard for Republicans knowing they voted for this guys. The fact that they are incompetent is a foregone conclussion. Republicans can not point to a single success of this administration, and week after week, the man embarrasses himself on the world stage. And then you have people like this guy, talking about the American Public getting fed up with the Left? Oh please... The American Public is fed up with incompetence and stupidity, something this administration has demonstrated for the last 6 years...

I have always said it, and I will say it again... The ultimate judge of this administration will be history. When it is all said and done, will Americans judge that we are better off after eight years of Bush, than we were before? Hell that question could be asked RIGHT NOW, and I cant see any logical person saying yes... But I am content to wait and see.

It's funny how Republicans and Conservatives get all foamy at the mouth when you even mention this subject.

I don't know about the rest of the "progressive Democrat" world, but I for one am sick and tired of losing these "fixed" elections to the Rethuglicans. I believe it is a given that wherever electronic voting machines (Diebold especially) are used that the votes are being manipulated to insure Rethuglican victories. It is furthermore clear that these machines ARE going to be used in many states despite their proven flaws - witness California's move to reinstate the machine before their proper testing was concluded. I have made a similar post on Bradblog with the hopes of inspiring affirmative action by the electorate to make SURE every vote is counted.

There is only one way to defeat this tactic: absentee ballots!

Think about it; speak about it with others. By voting by absentee ballot you guarantee that the election cannot be fixed as there will be a "hard paper" trail of ballots that are easily counted, recounted, and counted again to assure an honest accounting and a fair election.

Anyone who even mentions it, is a raving moonbat. Yeah right... One of these days... The thing about conspiracies is that they can never be concealed forever.

One of the benefits of living in Costa Rica is that I always vote absentee. Maybe that idea about a wholesale exodus to Canada is not such a bad idea after all!

"Same old pattern: a stupid and counterproductive national security decision is made in secret, blowing off checks and balances, and the president's out of the loop."
Maureen Dowd, on the Dubai ports deal

Well said...

But from a different angle. Read it ALL here.

An excerpt:

I remain unconvinced that the fate of the free world rests on who manages a percentage of our ports, but I think that Bush's handling of the issue reveals something at least as important.

About the controversy, last night on Savage's show a veteran of port operations seemed the opposite of concerned, largely because 1) the unions control practically everything that happens at our ports, regardless of who does the managing, and 2) port security protocols are already a matter of public knowledge so there's not much to steal. I didn't hear the end so I can't say whether Savage ended up changing his position. Kevin Drum has joined the non-outraged coalition of him and, as far as I can tell, Glenn Greenwald. [Update: UAE co-owned BCCI? Jeebus. That'll bump my concern up a few notches.]

What strikes me more than the mortal danger to our republic is the stark way that this highlights the president's deficiencies as a leader. Josh Marshall touches on this, and I would only add that if this deal is as ordinary as some claim then the president should be able to sell it to his country. A majority in both houses would be perfectly happy to get his back politically, as long as he gave them some time for coordination. Instead he basically blindsided them. Savage unsurprisingly took credit for getting this story out about a week and a half ago, but wherever it came from it seems like most Republican politicians heard about it for the first time when livid constituents began clogging their phone lines. Putting your allies in a position of panicked damage-control isn't a great way to build support. Rumsfeld's story is even stranger - he hadn't heard about the deal until this weekend, even though he sat on the board that unanimously approved the decision. Seriously? There's another reason why some have argued that the few who survived the 2005 cabinet axe should have been the first to go.

If this thing really isnt such a big deal, as Drum and Savage's caller allege, then it's possible that the administration simply didn't pay much attention to it themselves until it blew up in their faces. If so the leadership test becomes a question of reassuring freaked-out allies rather than laying the groundwork for a potentially-controversial policy. It seems like that's the case here, considering that damage control didn't set in at the White House until most of Congress already had hordes of seething constituents to deal with. Coburn or Frist might love to get the president's back in normal circumstances, but if they don't make some gesture here home-state editorials, local talk radio and water-cooler chat will paint them as chumps.

Like a shell-shocked quarterback Bush called the same play that got him an easy touchdown on the first possession, a few first downs on the second possession and a series of embarrassing sacks ever since. He dug in his heels, rejected compromise and painted the 'opposition' as morally compromised. At an earlier time the policy was Iraq and the opposition was unpatriotic. Later the policy was Harriet Miers and the opposition hated women. Now it's port security and the opposition isn't serious about protecting America. If this is your first time on the pointed end of the Bush slime machine, welcome to the party. Stretching the football analogy, let me point out that in supervising the Executive branch Congress basically acts as the head coach, and the head coach has spent most of this game drinking at Applebees. There are remedies to a quarterback making a series of retarded calls but they only work when the coach is in the stadium.

And we all know the coach has been absent without leave for sometime now.

Perhaps a bigger issue at hand here, are the polls which show the Republicans having their hat handed to them in the next election. Riding Bush's coat tails has been a bigger sport than "quail hunting," for the last couple of years. With Bush's poll numbers in the basement, scandal after scandal rocking the administration and the Republican controlled Congress, it would be a fair bet that there will be some backlash come election time, and this presents just the kind of, "safe," issue, for the Republicans to "demonstrate," that they are not puppets for the Administration. On the other hand, Bush may blink... At any rate, it will be interesting to see how this all washes out...

SWEEEEET!
Way to go boys!

Finaly an intelligent Democrat that does not come off looking like a loon when raising the issues I care about!

This piece started out as yet another analysis of the Administration's handling of the Hunting Accident. It turned into much, much more!

I would be inclined to leave Cheney to the mercy of Jon Stewart and Jay Leno if it weren't for other signs that this administration has jumped the tracks. What worries me most is the administration's misuse of intelligence information to advance its political agenda. For a country at war, this is truly dangerous.

The most recent example of politicized intelligence was President Bush's statement on Feb. 9 that the United States had "derailed" a 2002 plot to fly a plane into the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles. Bush spoke about four al Qaeda plotters who had planned to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door. But a foreign official with detailed knowledge of the intelligence scoffed at Bush's account, saying that the information obtained from Khalid Sheik Mohammed and an Indonesian operative known as Hambali was not an operational plan so much as an aspiration to destroy the tallest building on the West Coast. When I asked a former high-level U.S. intelligence official about Bush's comment, he agreed that Bush had overstated the intelligence.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of misusing intelligence has been the administration's attempt to undercut Paul Pillar and other former CIA officials who tried to warn about the dangers ahead in Iraq. I'm not talking about the agency's botched job on weapons of mass destruction but about its warnings that postwar Iraq would be chaotic and dangerous. Pillar said so privately before the war, and he helped draft an August 2004 national intelligence estimate warning, correctly, that the situation in Iraq was deteriorating and heading for "tenuous stability" at best.

Bush was unhappy at this naysaying, just as he has grumbled about pessimistic reports from the CIA station in Baghdad. When Pillar made similar warnings about Iraq at a private dinner in September 2004, the White House went ballistic -- seeing Pillar as part of a CIA conspiracy to undermine the president's policies. Soon after, Bush installed a former Republican congressman, Porter Goss, who began a purge at the agency that has driven out a generation of senior managers. Pillar and many, many others have retired, leaving the nation without some of its best intelligence officers when we need them most.

Bush and Cheney are in the bunker. That's the only way I can make sense of their actions. They are steaming in a broth of daily intelligence reports that highlight the grim terrorist threats facing America. They have sworn blood oaths that they will defend the United States from its adversaries -- no matter what . They have blown past the usual rules and restraints into territory where few presidents have ventured -- a region where the president conducts warrantless wiretaps against Americans in violation of a federal statute, where he authorizes harsh interrogation methods that amount to torture.

When critics question the legality of the administration's actions, Bush and Cheney assert the commander in chief's power under Article II of the Constitution. When Congress passes a law forbidding torture, the White House appends a signing statement insisting that Article II -- the power of the commander in chief -- trumps everything else. When the administration's Republican friends suggest amending the wiretapping law to make its program legal, the administration refuses. Let's say it plainly: This is the arrogance of power, and it has gone too far in the Bush White House.

What is perhaps the most frustrating about criticizing this administration, is the overwhelming amount of things to criticize... So much so that it becomes mind numbing. It is no surprise that the American Public just can't get their mind arround the malfeasance and corruption of the Administration. There is just so much that it must appear to most, impossible for an Administration to be so innept/corrupt/morally bankrupt.... fill in the blanks... The fact that a President who was elected to protect us, is so effective at taking apart the apparatus designed to do so, would be ironic if not so scary...

This is a great Conservative Response to Ann Coulter's recent CPAC speech. Read the whole thing.

On Friday, controversial conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter -- on her way to a well-attended book signing on the show floor -- addressed the assembled attendees at CPAC 2006 with a speech that blogger Sean Hackbarth called bad stand-up comedy with a conservative schtick. Sean was being too generous. In fact, Coulter sailed right past the bounds of good taste, past her usual tactlessness, past the furthest extent of what could be considered socially acceptable discourse.

During her prepared remarks, on the subject of Iran, Coulter said, "Maybe they do [have nuclear weapons], maybe they don't, but they're certainly acting like they do. ... If you don't want to get shot by the police, don't point a gun at them. Or as I think our motto should be, post 9/11," Coulter said, "'Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

Six words. That's all it took. That's all it took to derail the entire conference. That's all it took to confirm every negative stereotype about conservatives. We're no longer smart, driven, sincere people who are trying to raise the level of public debate and shape the future of our country for the better. Now we're all just a bunch of bigots. Now that's the story.

Thanks a lot, Ann.

A prominent conservative blogger who's covering the conference with me describes Ann Coulter as a "gateway conservative." Because she's so controversial, Ann Coulter attracts the attention of people who wouldn't ordinarily find themselves drawn to conservative political thought. They start out reading her, then they get exposed to columnists like Charles Krauthammer and Michael Barone and George Will, and they "mature a little in their political philosophy."

I think that's a valid point. I think that there's something to be said for appealing to people who respond to vitriol and bile and righteous anger in order to get them thinking about more nuanced issues. But there are two major problems with that approach, and because of them I think figures like Ann Coulter end up doing more harm than good.

Every time Ann Coulter gets up and calls Iranians -- or Iraqis, or Jordanians, or Saudis or Pakistanis or Yemenis or Afghans or Sudanese or whomever because really, aren't they all pretty much the same anyway? -- "ragheads," she gets the attention of people who think she's right on. She gets thunderous applause from the members of her audience who share her anger at and disgust with the Muslim fundamentalists who are presently waging their diffuse little war against civilization.

But she also attracts the attention of people from both the left and the right who think that there are better ways of expressing anger than flinging outrageous and condescending ethnic slurs around. And at that moment, she's not just Ann Coulter. She's an icon of the entire conservative movement. She is the conservative movement. When she says "raghead" live on C-SPAN in front of a sign that says "Conservative Political Action Conference," she's speaking for all of us.

I don't even pay any attention to the woman any more. I mean it is obvious that she is an idiot, a racist and perhaps a few other things as well. But I am glad to see Conservatives dissassociating themselves from her.

And the plot thickens...

I've mentioned the New Hampshire phone-jamming scandal a few times before -- in 2002, state GOP officials hired a telemarketing company to jam the Democrats' phones on election day. Several folks have been sent to prison over this, and one final figure is still fighting his way through the courts.

Last December, James Tobin was convicted for his role. He's appealing his conviction, but it's expensive.

The Republican National Committee has already acknowledged paying almost three-quarters of a million dollars towards Tobin's defense, to the dismay of some (and, sadly, the apathy of many others).

Well, apparently the RNC is following the lead of Republicans in Congress and the White House, and continuing to pour more good money after bad. A New Hampshire newspaper columnist has been following the case, and he noted that the RNC paid Tobin's lawyers a whopping $1,771,360.21 on the very day he was convicted.

No wonder the American public wants to throw the Majority Party out about now.

I didn't see it.

I have read some short excerpts.

Love the "addicted to Oil," thing... Especially coming from a former "pusher," and enabler of current "pushers." Hehe...

I take it that the speech was par for Bush, in that it had it's moments no matter which side of the issues you may be on.

I read this "gleeful," report last night about Sheehan being arrested and that she was aressted for "wearing," a tshirt with an anti-war message. My response... "WTF, I thought Bush is always talking about the Capital as belonging to the PEOPLE. Perhaps that should be, "THE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME." Whatever, I have two thoughts, Sheehan needs to be told that her 15 minutes are up, Bush needs to be told that in America there is still one constitutional right that is inviolate, Freedom of Speech. And it looks like the Capital Police Agree... Not to mention some other folks, who say it much better than I can... (Please give that link a read, it is awesome). Hat Tip Balloon Juice.

As for the other highlights of the speech... I have to laugh at the "in your face," the Dems gave Bush on Social Security. I think it was a bit juvenile, but hey after getting our ass kicked so much over the last 6 years, I guess you, "smoke em if you got em'"

Bush's big round SCREW YOU on the eavesdropping thing did not surprise me... I mean, one of the best ways to convince everyone you are right is to NEVER admit wrong... And the President excels at that...

Well that's about it... What did you think?

Jay Challenges.... I respond.... BAM!

Alito is confirmed... And the sun did not fall from the sky. If his Senate Confirmation Hearing Testimony turns out to be true, then we on the Left have little to fear. If he turns out to be the swing vote on the Imperial Presidency, then damn to hell everyone who voted for Bush and every Democrat who crossed the line. But to hell with the Whining!

Get the FUG over it!

I am so damned tired of being a part of the whinny Left. Anyone who didn't Absolutely KNOW that the man was going to be confirmed is certifiable.... The problem with the Left blogsphere is we spend too damned much time whinning and not enough working together.

The RIGHT kicks our ass DAILY, and all we can do is WHINE, WHINE, WHINE! Bush has ridiculously low approval ratings... Translation... The American Public does not approve of the crap coming from this administration. Do we utilize this as a combat strategy... Do we inform the dissenchanted masses... Hell NO<, we WHINE! I am sick of it!

My thoughts exactly!

From The Moderate Voice:

Apparently anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez have become "buds." This just caused me to yell at my computer, calling Cindy Sheehan a "Stupid Idiot." I am liberal, center-left, and the Left embarrasses me when it pulls stunts like this. The far left is just as stupid and dangerous as the far right.

Could not have said it better myself. A while back I engaged in a little bit of a debate with my fellow PBAer Dru, over Cindy's place in History.

My feeling all along was that Cindy was more focussed on being a media star, than being a legitimate alternative anti-war voice. Now she has stepped over the bounds of good taste, and taken camera mugging to a whole new level.

Her embracing of Chavez is embarrassing, and only adds fuel to the fire of those on the Right who seek to discredit the legitimate anti war movement. Chavez is respected and even admired by many in this part of the world. I dont share the admiration, but I do respect a man who has balls big enough to play soccer with. The truth of the matter is that the man is a thug, who's leftist credentials pale in the face of his messianic ego. Chavez is a throwback to the Latin American Strongman, when intellect was a lot less important than testosterone and Machismo. That American Left Activist like Sheehan and Bellafonte are rallying to his banner, say more about their own desperate need for relevance, than any understanding of his "revolution."

I said it back then and I will say it again... Cindy Sheehan is NO Rosa Parks. She never will be, and this relationship with Chavez more than likely signals the begining of the end of her much extended "15 minutes of fame."

Brown should be prosecuted... Nuff Said...

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Federal emergency officials failed to accept offers of possibly life-saving aid from the Department of Interior immediately after Hurricane Katrina, according to documents obtained by CNN.

The Interior Department offered the Federal Emergency Management Agency the use of personnel who were experienced in water rescues and also offered boats, helicopters, heavy equipment and rooms, the documents say.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of a Senate committee with jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, said the additional resources may have saved lives. (Watch how FEMA brushed off offers of help -- 2:14)

"It is indeed possible that there was additional suffering and maybe even loss of life that might not have occurred if these assets had been deployed," Collins said.

Her panel, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is set to hold hearings Monday looking into the search-and-rescue response to Katrina.

A spokesman for Homeland Security, which includes FEMA, says the Bush administration is examining how to better utilize federal and other resources in catastrophes.

But, he observed, "Were there federal assets that were not used in Katrina? Of course."

The Interior Department offered FEMA 500 rooms, 119 pieces of heavy equipment, 300 dump trucks and other vehicles, 300 boats, 11 aircraft and 400 law enforcement officers, according to a questionnaire answered by a department official.

Interior law enforcement officers included special agents and refuge officers from the department's Fish and Wildlife Service.

"Although we attempted to provide these assets, we were unable to efficiently integrate and deploy these resources," an Interior Department official wrote the Senate committee investigating the government's response to Katrina.

Collins said she is particularly concerned by the fact that the offer of help was from the federal government.

"Now, you might be able to understand if it came from outside government," she said. "But this is another federal agency, an agency that was offering trained personnel and exactly the assets that the federal government needed to assist in the search-and-rescue operations."

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the committee's senior Democrat, says in a draft statement for Monday's hearing that "the greatest honor we can pay those who risked their lives in the aftermath of Katrina would be to make sure that the heroes of the next catastrophe are given the proper equipment and the clear plan they need to succeed"

According to government officials, 1,322 people died from Katrina, all but 15 of the deaths occurring in Louisiana and Mississippi.

The Senate committee released e-mails that document FEMA's decision to ground its search-and-rescue teams three days after Katrina because of security concerns.

Before then, the Interior Department had offered FEMA hundreds of law enforcement officers trained in search-and-rescue, emergency medical services and evacuation, according to the documents.

LONDON, Jan. 29 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that the United States had failed to understand the depth of hostility among Palestinians toward their longtime leaders. The hostility led to an election victory by the militant group Hamas that has reduced to tatters crucial assumptions underlying American policies and hopes in the Middle East.

"I've asked why nobody saw it coming," Ms. Rice said, speaking of her own staff. "It does say something about us not having a good enough pulse."

Immediately after the election, Bush administration officials said the results reflected a Palestinian desire for change and not necessarily an embrace of Hamas, which the United States, Israel and the European Union consider a terrorist organization sworn to Israel's destruction. But Ms. Rice's comments seemed to reflect a certain second-guessing over how the administration had failed to foresee, or factor into its thinking, the possibility of a Hamas victory.

Indeed, Hamas's victory has set off a debate whether the administration was so wedded to its belief in democracy that it could not see the dangers of holding elections in regions where Islamist groups were strong and democratic institutions weak.

"There is a lot of blame to go around," said Martin Indyk, a top Middle East negotiator in the Clinton administration, referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his Fatah party. "But on the American side, the conceptual failure that contributed to disaster was the president's belief that democracy and elections solve everything."

Ms. Rice pointed out that the election results surprised just about everyone. "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas's strong showing," she said on her way to London for meetings on the Middle East, Iran and other matters. "Some say that Hamas itself was caught off guard by its strong showing."

1. You can't on the one hand promote democracy, and then when elections dont go the way you want them to, decide you dont want to engage. Hamas has bloody hands, and are still ranting the same nonsense about destroying Israel. But they won the election. We can either engage and negotiate with them, or write off the peace process.

2. We can spend millions spying on Americans, and yet we dont have the intelligence assets to predict an election result? I mean WTF?

The term is often bandied about by those on the Right who want to smear anyone who dissagrees with the current administrations policies in the so called war on terror. But to me, TREASON is to willfully abandon the principles that made our country great, in favor of partisanship. We should always first be loyal Americans and not PARTY MEMBERS. I have for the last several years, watched this administration defecate on our constitution.

I have watched mean spirited partisanship rip our country apart and create a divide which in fact may never be healed. And I have watched arrogance triumph over right, time and time again. It has been well documented here and in other places, and yet the vast numbers of the American public have remained silent or oblivious to the real damage being done to our country.

There are many conservatives who I respect, a few who I truly like. I sit astounded at times that they can not see, or refuse to see, what I see... which is a slow erosion of our fundamental rights as Americans and a gross violation of what we are supposed to stand for as a nation. I try to believe that they are innocent... that they are simply blinded by their own faith in a man and an adminstration that long ago lost the right to that faith, but as days go by, and outrage follows outrage, I begin to wonder. This article is a must read. The subjects of the article will be called traitors by some, but to me they stand for the finest examples of American Patriotism. They, Conservatives all, chose to be Americans first. Isn't it time that some of those out there who have been the biggest apologist for this administration chose the same path? Or in the end, in a diminished America, will those of us who chose to fight the lonely fight, be called traitors... while those who betrayed the principles of our country re-write history, while destroying 230 years of the greatest democracy on earth?

Welcome Newsweek Readers...

Things that make ya go hmmmmm....

It is obvious that Mr. Abramoff was no stranger to the Bush White House from the very beginning. Well before the President took office, Mr. Abramoff was named to the Bush transition team for the Department of the Interior. He may not have had any discernible qualifications to oversee that department’s appointments, but he had clients on tribal reservations and in the Marianas Islands whose businesses were regulated by Interior officials.

He has been a friend of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff and Presidential political advisor, for more than a quarter-century. His personal assistant soon showed up as the personal assistant to Mr. Rove. His associate David Safavian, since indicted, became the administration’s chief procurement officer. He told his friends and clients that he could get into the Bush White House — and get whatever he wanted there.

He proved that boast on May 9, 2001, only four months into the first Bush term, when the President met with two Native American tribal leaders represented by Mr. Abramoff. According to a report published in the Texas Observer last June, that meeting was arranged in cooperation with conservative strategist Grover Norquist, another longtime comrade of Mr. Rove. The Texas magazine uncovered documents showing that Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Norquist used their White House access to squeeze money from clients. There are probably photographs of that May 2001 event, and they must be among the photos that the White House is refusing to release.

And for a bit more....

Sortta like me saying I dont know, and never knew, the indicted ex President of Costa Rica.

Seems like some in Bush's own party want him to come clean too.

How the Log Cabin Republicans feel about this?

to say about this....

So because doing what is in the interest of the American People's right to know, will hurt Bush, he should not do it... Interesting rationale...

From my Bro T-Steel:

I received an e-mail on Saturday (01/21) asking if I would comment on Mayor Ray Nagin's "chocolate city" comment. The e-mailer considers me a moderate voice on matters. Well, I may or may not disappoint with my answer but my answer is relatively short...

I could care less what Mayor Ray Nagin said. I'm not part of a partisan hit squad looking to score as many cool points as possible in order to pimp slap the other side. First and foremost, it will be impossible to make New Orleans into a "chocolate city" since it never was in the first place. And if he tried, he would kiss his mayor job goodbye. Secondly, there was nothing racist or hateful in his remarks. So in the end, I sum up his comments as a insignificant blip on America's social radar. Now if your a "partisan lifer" this is your big chance to cause more ruckus. Whip out some talking points and score points with your fellow lifers. AIn't it grand?

But Mayor Nagin's comments are already out of the media loopy light. His comments had no staying power. His comments were just more background noise in the soundscape of America "gotcha" politics. Bah humbug to all that politicking. Have a 7 UP Plus ™ and smile instead.

I ignored the whole Nagin comment thing when it happened. Like TS, I didn't give a rats ass about it. Go read his piece, the second to last paragraph hits the nail on the head.

He is right:

Sometimes I sympathize with the Dems. It must be so frustrating for them. Every time they get some issue that they are absolutely convinced is an unequivocal and total indictment of the Bush administration, it just fizzles. From "No WMDs" to "PlameGate" to the Downing Street Memos, every time they think they have a winner, not much happens.

Take "warrentless wiretaps." The Dems arouse themselves into (another) self-righteous fury. "These warrantless wiretaps were illegal .. illegal .. illegal. Bush will run roughshod over the Constition. Don't you see? They were illegal! This is an outrage! Bush must be stopped."

The problem is, only one third of the voters feel this way. Another third are conservatives. And the last third are voters in the middle, who might be persuaded on these matters. Unfortunately, every single time, Rove & BushCo manage to persuade a majority of the swing voters that their policy was correct (or that the issue was not as the Dems framed it).

And what does this say about America?

Perhaps one day in the near or distant future, us Democrats may be seen as the voice of sanity in an insane time.... On the other hand, Bush's policies, as much as we may despise them, may be vindicated as necessary for the times we live in. I am no sage, and I simply dont know all the answers.

I am not going to give up my fight, or my beliefs. Nor will I give up hope that even hard core conservatives will one day see what I see. Perhaps I am delusional, then again, perhaps I am a patriot. History will judge my philosophy, just as it will judge the Administrations actions...

But waiting for that judgement is a "painful excercise."

Nuff said.

Once again I find myself agreeing completely with Jay Tea:

1. Illegal Aliens should not be entitled to medical treatment (Except life threatening emergencies), on the taxpayers dime.

2. The police should not be able to sieze my LEGAL firearm, unless I am doing something ILLEGAL with it.

3. I should be able to defend myself and my property with deadly force if faced with the same...

I am with Jay, these don't seem like Conservative or Liberal issues to me, they are just common sense, and I should add... hehe... All are the law here in Costa Rica.

From Yahoo News:

Although President Bush says he doesn't recall meeting convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the two have reportedly turned up in photos together.

Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together.

Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports.

The White House has acknowledged that Abramoff attended some events at the Executive Mansion, and spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday it's not surprising that the two would have met.

"The president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events," Perino said.

Hmmmm, not exactly news since from the moment Bush denied knowing Abramoff, there have been reports of a mad scramble in the White House to do damage control, including identifying photos and, "reasons," for his numerous appearances at the White House.

Response from one of my Favorite Bush Die Hards, Rob....

This is going to get a ton of attention from the media and the left. The contributions made by Abramoff to Bush have already been the subject of much scrutiny and criticism. But before Howard Dean and his ilk begin talking about perp-walking the President out of the White House I'd like to remind everybody, once again, that it is not Abramoff's personal donations to politicians that has him in trouble. Rather, it is the contributions he directed his clients to make to politicians in return for special favors.

This is how it worked: Abramoff would approach a politician to find out if they would be willing to "play ball" for his clients. If yes, Abramoff would direct his clients to contribute the appropriate amount to the politician in question. He did not, as far as we know, route any of this money through his personal accounts or contributions to politicians. And he would be stupid to have done that. Abramoff, as a private individual, faced the same contribution limits under campaign finance law as everybody else. Once he reached those limits he could donate no more in his name. Indian tribes, however, are exempted from that law and can contribute unlimited amounts of money.

Of course, if it comes out that Bush did engaged in some quid pro quo with Abramoff for these contributions the President should have to face the music like everybody else. But that's highly unlikely. Given what we know about Abramoff's other dealings he did not arrange for political favors based on his personal contributions.

Can I call Bullshit now?

First off, no lobbyist, especially Abramoff, makes donations without some expectation. This is not to say that Bush is on par with DeLay, but it is also not to say that it was perfectly okay for Bush or any other representative to dirty their hands with this man.

Rob goes on to make the spurious claim that Abramoff directed his clients to make "hundreds of thousands of dollars," in donations to Democrats... Nice talking point, mostly bullshit.

I am not saying Bush is guilty of corruption because he had now pretty conclussively been tied to the Abramoff scandal. I am also NOT saying that there were ZERO Democrats who accepted money as part of this scandal. Whitewashing Bush involvemen, while implying broader Democratic involvement is just plain BS, and should be called as such.

I am very happy to see this issue getting some traction on both sides of the political spectrum. I am also glad to see that Dean and Joe did not chose to just point fingers at the other side, but give some real thought to the issue.

Political Venom is one of the FEW bi-partisan issues left these days, both sides have their bomb throwers and it is getting sickening. Read Joe and Dean's posts... And then think about it a bit...

Dean has a good post, on a subject I touched on yesterday:

Charlie Cook has a good piece on Real Clear Politics about Political Venom--and before one of you lefties barks that Real Clear Politics is a right-wing site (it is) please note that Cook has a long and respected record as a non-partisan political analyst, and he's taking swipes at everyone here:

I am deeply troubled by the tenor of current political discourse in this country. More and more Republicans don't just disagree with Democrats, they despise them—and vice versa. People don't just challenge someone's views, they challenge the other person's integrity. Enjoyable, informative, and civil discussions between people with different points of view are becoming rare.

The rest is good. Read the whole thing, then come back here.

I'm not sure it's quite as bad as it seems, although there are certain people who I certainly get intemperate with, certain subjects where I get very, very intemperate. These subjects include communists, fascists, holocaust denialists, and totalitarians of all stripes. Just test me on any of those subjects, and I'll admit it: the foam comes right out of me. What's more, I don't care if people don't like it.

Read the whole post. I have had my run-ins with Dean, but I have found that I have come to respect and like him. In fact, we have even found some things in common. But he hits on some good points. There are few people I truly dislike in the Blogsphere (I refuse to say hate). I wont mention names or blogs, it is clear to my readers who I refer too.

At one time I was known as a person who could carry on conversations with both sides of the debate. And that is still true in some cases, but I have found that many on the Right want to "dictate," the terms of the debate. I often use questions, as a form of generating discussion on my Blog. Many of them are simply ignored. On the "Bush lied," point Dean brings up, I believe he lied, has lied on a number of issues, not just the reasons for entering a war in Iraq. The problem I have is that those on the Right dont even want to consider that he may have lied. I said "I BELIEVE", not "I KNOW". The difference is that Right Wingers KNOW he didn't. How can you have that kind of discussion?

I understand exactly where Jack is coming from with this post:

The rage and despair I feel now is a mixture of the emotions prompted by a loss so deep that it is almost impossible to comprehend, much less to describe, along with what I see as the willful ignorance of others who stake out their partisan positions, repeating the talking points instead of thinking for themselves, choosing to reject the ideals and concepts they claim to believe in, regardless of if they are self-labeled as on the "left" or the "right" because they are all so frightened they are sacrificing freedoms on the altar of expediency.

I have refrained from posting my writings that I know are arising from the rage and the despair I have felt, and I am trying very hard now not to express in the most vulgar, vile terms the disgust I feel when reading what passes for "commentary" in blogworld, whether in posts or in the "hallelujah" comments I read from the worshiping acolytes that accumulate around the most damaged personality types that write weblogs, hate brigades that spew vile vituperation upon anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the object of worship, the damaged personality that does the thinking for the self-selected minions since they have chosen to not think for themselves.

This tendency to prefer others to think instead of doing the hard work themselves existed long before the Internet, note that President Lyndon Johnson once said, "If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking." Unfortunately for us all, the Internet has allowed many thoughts not worth even the glucose molecules to power them to flourish and take hold among the many who are too lazy to think and prefer to have others think FOR them.

Because I often feel the same way. And I too have had the legions of worshipers at the alter of, (Insert Conservative Blogger Here), come over to ISOU to defend their hero and their position. Their defense is usually something like this:

1. You are stupid and fat
2. You are a traitor and commie
3. Your children are a.) ugly b.) Niggers.
4. How dare you argue with (Fill in the blank), he is so much smarter than you.
5. Quote some obscure Republican or Conservative source to show me how "wrong" I am.

Whatever. I am not filled with rage any more. More like pity.

And Jack, God Bless... Having lost both my parents, I know how you feel. They were my heroes too. Hang in there, one day, and I cant say when... You will look back and celebrate the time you had, and realize that our sense of loss can be overcome by a sense of joy for they who no longer suffer...

Looks like Angel and I are not the only ones, who think Hillary will eat Condi Rice's lunch in a Presidential bid:

President Bush's advisers are resigned to the Democratic capture of the White House in 2008, according to senior Republican sources close to the White House.

GOP sources said White House strategists have attempted to persuade Mr. Bush that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat and her party's current front-runner to be the next presidential nominee, cannot be defeated in 2008. Bush strategists said the president should instead focus on seeking to retain the Republican majority in both houses of Congress in 2006 and 2008.

Must keep Clinton haters up at night just thinking about it...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans moved to seize the initiative for ethics reform Tuesday with a comprehensive package of changes, including the banning of privately sponsored travel like that arranged by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The package also includes a virtual ban on gifts, except for inconsequential items like baseball caps, and a provision that will affect few people: elimination of congressional pensions for anyone convicted of a felony related to official duties.

After months of inaction by the Republican leadership, and with an ethics committee stalled by partisan disagreements, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-California, pledged to pass the reforms by the end of February.

"I know that fact-finding trips are important, but private travel has been abused by some," Hastert, R-Illinois, told a news conference.

Uh.... Yeah Hastert.... Sure has been abused.... Just as the American people have been abused... I wont say anymore, since this issues and the incredible hypocrisy of you people just get under my damned skin!

Laura Bush has revealed for the first time whom she would like to see replacing her husband in the White House: Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State.

"I'd love to see her run. She's terrific," Mrs Bush said during an interview in which she predicted that for the first time a woman would soon be elected president of the US.

Laura Bush and Condoleezza Rice

The First Lady, a powerful behind-the-scenes figure in American politics, is the most influential voice to speak in favour of a presidential bid in 2008 by Ms Rice.

I'd love to see her run too, Hillary would eat her for lunch.

Blah, Blah, Blah,Blah...

Like I said last night:

And for that matter so Freakin' what? The woman cried. Did she go to Senate Confirmation hearings expecting them to be an honors banquet?

And please, like the Democrats are suppossed to just lay down and give Bush Appointments a Pass. This shit is getting pyschotic. And I know I an inviting an attack by Wizbang's resident Bad Boy (Yawn), who gives a shit. Bring it on Bad Boy. I know you will just take a couple of smug swipes over in your playground.

John Cole and I agree of few things, but his rationality is obviously something that gets under the skirt of the Brown Shirt wing of the Conservative Blogsphere.

And finaly, get over the hypocrisy, dudes. Its not good for your soul. Not that I am endorsing the idea that some of you HAVE a soul.

And oh yeah.... RIGHT ON Reid!

Post...

But the thing is, any reasonable news consumer that's been following this administration and the Democratic opposition to it over the past five years is going to take anything the Democratic leadership conjures up against this president with a hefty dose of salt - I ain't talking about grains, here, but buckets. The howls of outrage about anything and everything having to do with Iraq and the war on Terror have hardened my perception of a select group of Democrats (you know, the ones we see on TV and in newsprint every day) to the point where I don't think I owe them any presumptive characteristics at all - I'm going to take a good, hard look at every accusation they make before I make up my mind that it's substantive, or hogwash.

And people, that ain't my fault - it's the Democrats fault. Just as it's the fault of the Bush administration that I don't take their word about a damned thing anymore either.

So no, I don't think I owe the Democrats, or the Republicans any presumption of patriotism, or legitimacy. And neither do you. The two parties have shown themselves to be so clearly more interested in incumbency, rather than governing, that they've stripped themselves of that mantle all on their own.

That have made me a fan of Cadillac Tight and Don. I find myself more comfortable with people like Don and John Cole for pieces like this one.... Than I do for most Progressive Blogs, who just jump from "Bushwhack," to "Bushwhack," without ever really taking the time to focus on anything. That is a movement of desperation, not consideration.

Oh dont get me wrong... I think this Administration is full of it... This post, reflects a lot of my personal feelings about the Bush Presidency. But the fact of the matter is, the Bush Presidency has been a road littered with failed opportunites for Democrats. Opportunities to present a REAL alternative instead of jingoism and attacks. Republicans have all but dared us to present an alternative, instead of rising to that challenge, our leadership has stumbled from "scandal to scandal," trying to find something that would stick. And at each stage, we have been outplayed about as badly as my beloved Trojans were outplayed in the Rose Bowl. Despite his knee being on the ground (reference to Vince Young in the Rose Bowl), Karl Rove keeps lobbing touchdowns into the End Zone of Public Opinion. This President may or may not be a liar, fraud, evil, Intelligent Stupid... fill in the blanks.... But he is fortunate enough to be liked by a narrow majority in this country, one that is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I have NO DOUBT that many conservatives are embarrassed by Bush. I have little doubt that many feel betrayed by him, and even less doubt that many have serious doubts about the honesty of the Administration. Like Don, most of them are not going to join Cindy Sheehan in her next protest march, unless there is definitive proof of that dishonesty, even then there will be some who will insist that any such evidence has to be fabricated. It is the nature of the game. So the BLAME BUSH movement is a failed one. Does this mean that we should stop caring or pointing out activity that we percieve is unconstitutional? No it doesnt. But until the Democratic Leadership starts focusing on an alternative vision for America, we have little chance of reaching the vast middle, who care less about the political scandals, that the impact government has on their everyday lives.

This story has been floating around for awhile now. It finaly gets the treatment it deserves from a SUPPORTER of the War.

Tomorrow morning, in a court in London, two men will appear to face charges under Britain's Official Secrets Act. The first man, David Keogh, a former employee of the Cabinet Office, is accused of unlawfully handing a confidential memorandum to the second man, Leo O'Connor, a researcher for a former Labor member of Parliament, Tony Clarke.

The memorandum is actually a five-page transcript stamped "Top Secret." It describes a meeting at the White House on April 16, 2004, between President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. At that meeting, which took place while desperately hard fighting was in progress in the Iraqi town of Fallujah, Bush mooted the idea of taking out the headquarters of Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. The network's correspondents inside the city had been transmitting lurid footage of extreme violence. The exchange apparently puts Blair in a good light, in that he dissuaded the president from any such course of action and was assisted in this by Colin Powell, who was then secretary of state.

For me, this story points out two things...

The absolute ineffectiveness of the American Press, and the insanity of the current administration.

The bombshells related to the Iraq War have almost all come from the British Press, The Downing Street Memo, one of the most significant pieces of reporting in recent times, was effectively pooh poohed by the Administration and by the Conservative Blogsphere, and now this...

If Bush seriously proposed bombing the headquarters of a foreign press organization, no matter how odious their reporting has been at times, it is scandalous and even criminal. The fact that the American Press allows these stories to die without proper investigation is shameful. The fact that the Left Wing Blogsphere is left to carry the ball on these issues, ensures that they are more effectively dismissed as pure partisan politics. That Bush has managed to survive scandal after scandal, without proper vetting by the mainstream press, renders claims by the Right of a Liberal Media Bias, ridiculous and hollow.

The fact is that this administration has mastered the art of intimidation, with the aid of the Right Blogsphere, paid hacks and pseudo journalist like Armstrong Williams and Advocate Man of the Year Jeff Guckert. Rathergate acted as a Hammer which beat legitimate journalist into submission. I will NEVER forgive CBS for allowing that to happen. The dampening effect of that event and the RISE of the Conservative Blogsphere to successfully intimidate and shut off discourse, has done massive damage to our Republic and to the idea of a Free Press. ANY of the current scandals of the Bush Administration, are 10 times more damaging to our nation than Clinton's infidelities, and yet this White House manages to spin its way out of scandal after scandal.

If the British Press manages to expose a plot as insidious as this one, and proves it true, it will be a lasting embarrassment for our National Press Corp, and a stain on our honor world wide, not to mention further proof to the Islamic World that America simply does not care about Muslims.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat."
- John Lehman

Sounds like something Bush would say...

Looks like a bunch of folks on Capital Hill may be "going down man!"

Washington's power players have always bragged about being well wired, but for disgraced former congressman Duke Cunningham, "wired" wasn't just a figure of speech. In a week when legislators are focused on the question of who else might be brought down by ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's cooperation with prosecutors as he seeks lenient sentencing over his two federal guilty pleas this week, sources tell TIME that ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.

Sources familiar with the situation say Cunningham, a California Republican who pleaded guilty Nov. 28 to taking $2.4 million in bribes, including a yacht, a Rolls Royce and a 19th Century Louis-Philippe commode, from a defense contractor, wore a wire at some point during the short interval between the moment he began cooperating with the feds and the announcement of his guilty plea on Nov. 28.

The identity of those with whom the San Diego congressman met while wearing the wire remains unclear, and is the source of furious, and nervous speculation by congressional Republicans.

How long before some people starting eating bullets? Oh yeah, I forgot, this set is too cowardly to eat a bullet. They will just cut a check for the March of Dimes or something, and hope it all goes away...

Speaking of the Mine dissaster:

I fully understand that there will be those on a certain side of the political divide who are going to continue to do everything they can to paint this disaster as avoidable or the result of inadequate government regulation and enforcement. Fine. Let them make their best case for it, and if their accusations are born out in the form of facts, then there should be some changes. The trick will be getting them to acknowledge that they were wrong, should that turn out to be the case.

Several of you have written to me linking to one story or another, saying to the effect "I know this pisses you off to be pointing fingers in the face of tragedy." No. Not at all. What pisses me off is what Scott Shields did the other day- pointing fingers and chucking bodies at people without any facts, and, worse still, while the miners were still in harms way. These poor men weren't even dead yet, and these hacks were using their deaths as ammunition for their little political crusade against Bush.

I have not joined the chorus of voices calling the tragedy a "Republican Dissaster," because I simply don't know. I am not an expert in mining, and it is too early to tell what really happened. But as I said yesterday, I do want to undertand better why the mine was still open after so many safety violations. Someone who understands the nature of enforcement in these issues has probably already answered this question. But I think a lot of us just want to know, could this have been avoided with stricter enforcement?

So Bush invites 13 Wisemen/women to the White House for a consultation on foreign policy. Get's punked by Madeline Albright, and then issues a pretty lame answer...

Colin Powell said nothing - a silence that spoke volumes to many in the White House today. His predecessor, Madeleine Albright, was a bit riled after hearing an exceedingly upbeat 40-minute briefing to 13 living former secretaries of state and defense about how well things are going in Iraq. Saying the war in Iraq was "taking up all the energy" of President Bush's foreign policy team, she asked Mr. t Bush whether he had let nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea spin out of control, and Latin America and China policy suffer by benign neglect.

Go read the post at Crooks and Liars for Bush's answer...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff will plead guilty Tuesday to corruption, fraud and tax evasion charges in a deal with federal prosecutors, a source close to the negotiations told CNN.

Abramoff has reached an agreement that would spare him the maximum 10-year sentence if he cooperates in an ongoing Washington corruption probe, the source said.

Abramoff is a longtime associate of several top GOP leaders, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Americans for Tax Reform director Grover Norquist, and former Christian Coalition chief Ralph Reed. (Watch details of the deal -- 4:11)

Abramoff's cooperation deal could have a wide-reaching effect in Washington.
Ripple effect

Sources told CNN's Ed Henry that the former lobbyist may have thousands of e-mails in which he describes influence-peddling and explains what lawmakers were doing in exchange for the money he was putting into their campaign coffers.

Kevin thinks Dems will get caught up in the scandal as well. (For the record, I dont doubt it, but the Republicans are in power and have been for a while, so I have no doubt that the impact on the Republicans will be much greater. There has to be a lot of people sweating in Washington right now, and most of them are wearing Elephant Lapel pins.

Tim at Balloon Juice, also has some interesting notes on the story, including this interesting little tid bit:

Josh Marshall prints a caveat sent in by a lawyeristic friend warning that the judicial branch should shy away from prosecuting cases that could fundamentally upset the balance of power in Washington. I understand that I’m interpreting the email in a slightly slanted way, but that seems to propose a novel way to get off of committing a crime. If everybody in one party robs a bank then the DOJ has to let em go because prosecuting them will put the other party ahead. Brilliant.

Lets add that to excuses of why criminals should not be persecuted.

1. Because it may impact National Security.
and now....

2. Lets not mess up the balance of Power. Put all the Republicans in Jail and you give the Democrats the power that they did not win at the ballot box... Eh... Yeah right....

Like I said, I have no doubt some Dems are going to take a fall as well. But if this all plays out as expected, DeLay is DONE.

Voted for this guy for President... Hell I would have walked the precincts for him.

This about says it all for me...

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

Found at Bark Bark, Woof Woof, who has some dynamite commentary on the Op/Ed, please check it out.

The Gonzales Press Conference:

Q You have stretched this resolution for war into giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, one might make that same argument in connection with detention of American citizens, which is far more intrusive than listening into a conversation. There may be some members of Congress who might say, we never --

Q That's your interpretation. That isn't Congress' interpretation.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, I'm just giving you the analysis --

[...]

Q If FISA didn't work, why didn't you seek a new statute that allowed something like this legally?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: That question was asked earlier. We've had discussions with members of Congress, certain members of Congress, about whether or not we could get an amendment to FISA, and we were advised that that was not likely to be -- that was not something we could likely get, certainly not without jeopardizing the existence of the program, and therefore, killing the program. And that -- and so a decision was made that because we felt that the authorities were there, that we should continue moving forward with this program.

"Did you get this? Gonzales says it was okay to spy on Americans without authorization because the war resolution gave them that power. But when asked why they didn't ask for specific congressional authorization, he says, well, Congress wouldn't have given them that power.

Wow."
KOS

Is it okay to be outraged about now? I mean I wouldn't want to be accussed of being hysterical or anything. Or God forbid PRO-Terrorist because I think the constitution and congressional authority should mean something...

Is it just me, or are these DARK Days in the history of the Republic. Is there no shame when our Congress has become a rubber stamp for this kind of authoritorian bullshit. What has happened to our country. How have we reached this point where decisions of this gravity are simply ignored or excused by those on the Right. This is a nightmare scenario for our country. It is an Administration run ammok and the very people who I expect to scream the loudest about such abuses are complicit in them... Maybe some of you on the Right, need to look at the broader implications of this...

This about says it all...

The Bush regime's management techniques should be familiar to middle management types. The salesman lands a new account by making promises without checking with the operations staff to see if the mechanisms necessary for delivery are in place. A "procedure" is put into place which reds, "Get this done, get that done, get the other thing done," and day to day you just do what must be done.

It's called "firefighting," where you just leap from disaster to disaster.

This is appealing enough. But it goes against the styles of many managers. Their style is reactivity or as it is more commonly known, firefighting. The idea of firefighting is to let a problem fester until it becomes a crisis, and then swoop in and fix it. Firefighting is popular because it is exciting. Furthermore, it is a win-win situation for the firefighter. If the fix works out, the firefighter is a hero. If it doesn't, the firefighter can't be blamed, because the situation was virtually hopeless to begin with. Notice that it is to the firefighter's advantage to actually let the problem become worse, because then there will be less blame if they fail or more praise if they succeed.

Most of us deplore the firefighting style, yet we tacitly perpetuate it by rewarding firefighters for the miraculous things they do. The methodical work of prevention done by others goes unnoticed. Consequently, the firefighting style can be difficult to eliminate, especially in cultures that thrive on action and excitement. In contrast, in Japan, a crisis is evidence of failure: Japanese culture favors a more proactive approach to problem solving.

Bush was a failed corporate manager. And his war management techniques, being exactly the same, has failed as well.

I read about this article on Armies of Liberation and Balloon Juice.

I tend to agree with Jane and John, that this in principal is a good idea. Few would argue that encouraging democratic ideas in Islamic states is a bad idea. My concern about our approach to the Middle East and to Islam has always been about culture. Our approach in Iraq and our Middle East Strategy in General has not been one to inspire much confidence in the last few years.

I wonder at times do we really understand the historical and cultural background of the region at a level sufficient to make the kind of impact we want to make. In all honesty, I dont really question the need for the effort, I simply wonder how effective the money being spent is towards solving the problems it is meant to address.

I don't claim to have the answers to the questions, but I think they need asking.

They did not dissapoint:

At first I thought this business of surveillance of phone conversations between people in the U.S. and suspected terrorists overseas was no big deal. Then I realized it is a big deal. We've been doing things like this for decades, yes, and that's not a secret and it's not illegal. But it was a secret that we were now doing it specifically to go after Al Qaeda, that the rules had changed. Now Al Qaeda's been put on notice that we're doing it, and on how we're doing it, and how they can work around it.

Mike Hendrix says this is much ado about nothing. Tom McMahon says the New York Times must be asked some tough questions. Gateway Pundit says the leakers should be frog-marched to the hoosegow. Goldstein is sympathetic to that view. Instapundit says this initially looked bad for the President, but by next week everyone will realize it looks way worse for the leakers.

I think they are all being rather timid. These leakers have exposed a perfectly legal, perfectly sensible government operation that has undoubtedly helped round up hundreds of members of Al Qaeda and saved the lives of countless Americans. Exposing such a secret program is not whistle-blowing--it is high treason.

Is it true that this wiretapping has stopped some terrorism? Yep! Could the same thing have been accomplished using court orders to aurthorize the wiretapping? Yep! Is this another attack on our constitution. Yep! Are Rightwingers spinning for damage control in the face of American Fatigue at this administration stomping all over the constitution in the name of fighting terror? Yep....

I cant wait to see some poll numbers on this issue...

Jay Tea thinks I am on a mission to get him fired from Wizbang, but I cant help agreeing when he writes pieces like this one.

One of the standard defenses for illegal immigration is that the aliens are performing the work Americans don't want to do, that our economy needs the cheap, unskilled labor they provide to keep going. They warn that if every single illegal alien were to disappear tomorrow, our entire way of life would be severely affected -- especially in areas like agriculture, construction, and cleaning services.

That argument always bothered me, and for the longest time I didn't understand why. But the instant my friend asked me about it, it became crystal clear:

The economic argument is nothing new. In fact, it's very, very old. So old, that we've alreadye debated and settled it almost 150 years ago -- and the pro-cheap-labor side lost.

You might recall reading about it, It was called the Civil War.

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch. For one, there were other issues besides slavery involved in the war. For another, indentured servitude might be a better comparison to illegal alien labor than actual slavery. But the essence remains the same -- the notion is that a cheap source of labor is being exploited and used through fear of the power of law. It was wrong then, and it's wrong today.

In my dream world, I'd like to see the restrictions and red tape on immigration reduced to a more manageable system. But that would have to be coupled with an assault on illegal immigration. Streamlined deportation processes. Severe penalties for those who exploit illegal aliens. And, perhaps, even a change to the rules of citizenship, so children born here of illegal aliens have the citizenship of their parent's homeland, not the United States, ending the exploitation of children as "anchor babies."

The Lefty in me tends to agree most with the sentiments about exploitation. I once had a Salvadoran girlfriend who worked in the house of some rich Angelenos. She lived as a practical slave, working 24 hours a day, and having only Saturday night through Sunday Night off. She was a legal resident, I can't even imagine how illegals are treated. Nevertheless, I also agree with the other sentiments in Jay's post. The law is the law, and unless it changes, those who violate our immigration laws should be treated just like anyone who violates other laws of the land. I realize that many come to our country out of desperation. They come seeking a better life than they had in their own country. Many of them find it (marginally), but others find themselves virtual slaves and victims of a variety of types of exploitation. The only way this will ever change is to, as Jay suggested, punish both the illegal and those who employ them, and work to streamline the process of immigration, making it more attractive for people to obey the law, than to violate it.

Does this remind you of the English Parliment, or our own House? You be the judge.

NY TImes: Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts. Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Once again, Bush has ignored the Constitution. And once again, Congress has been all too willing to let it happen.

The big surprise in this story is that the Times held it for a full year before publishing, cowed by the administration's insistence that it should not be published. Okay, then, the paper should now tell us what exactly has changed.

Dan Gillmor

I want to know why Conservatives are NOT in an uproar over this one. Did 9/11 change our National Psyche so much that we are willing to accept the destruction of our constitution as the price for "safety."

Chris Short of Conservative Thinking, and I had a long discussion the other night about the whole Christmas vs. Holidays thing. Chris was surprised to hear that I didnt care one way or the other. As I explained to Chris, I am a Christian and I celebrate Christmas, not by going on gift buying orgies, but by spending the time reflecting on the values of Christianity.

I also recognize that there are other faiths and believe that we should not have a "state religion," in the U.S.. That is about the extent of my thinking on the issue. Chris warned me that the whole issue was going to be very big this Holliday Season, and he is putting his money where his mouth is... Good for him! Like I said, I personally cant get too fired up over the whole thing, but I respect someone standing up for what they believe in.

WASHINGTON - A top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Monday that wrongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees arose from White House and Pentagon officials who argued that "the president of the United States is all-powerful" and the Geneva Conventions irrelevant.

In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush's detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said.

Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

I would have to go with option number two...

This article on Iraq war veterans running for office as Democrats, has got to make the chickenhawks in the Republican Party a bit nervous, I found the following particularly interesting:

Duckworth is part of a new breed of macho Democrats, joining eight Iraq veterans who have already announced themselves as candidates in next year's congressional elections. (The party is also reaching out to veterans of wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Vietnam, as well as former CIA officers and FBI agents.) These Democrats don't offer a unified strategy on how to leave Iraq. But they represent the most visible sign of the sea change in politics over the past year. The GOP has long held an advantage on questions of national security, but that lead has steadily eroded, offering Democrats a rare opening since 9/11. Recent polls show Democrats running neck and neck with Republicans on terrorism and comfortably ahead on Iraq. For all the lack of alternatives, Democrats have gained ground as public opinion has turned against the war. With relatively few competitive seats across the country, as well as a bigger campaign war chest, the GOP is still favored to retain control of the House. But Democrats believe they have found candidates who personify what voters want: real Americans (not politicians) who represent community, service and, of course, security. The vets also represent the Democrats' best hope of burying their GOP-crafted caricature as the Mommy party of John Kerry—unable to defend the country from terrorists or themselves from political attack. "A macho Democrat is someone who isn't afraid to stand up for what they believe in, to tell their story, to fight back when they're unfairly attacked," says John Lapp, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Their opponents aren't waiting for them to suit up. The White House says it doesn't matter who the candidate is: the Democrats cannot argue from a position of strength on the war given the depth of antiwar sentiment inside their base. One senior Bush aide, who declined to be named while discussing political strategy, pointed to the Democrats' dilemma when confronted with Rep. John Murtha's calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. "It took Hillary Clinton five days to respond to the Murtha statement," the aide said, suggesting that Clinton was struggling to reconcile her hawkish position on the war with the demands of the party base. "That shows the dynamic of the Democratic Party. They are always pulled to the left, the same thing John Kerry found out during the primary process." Other Republicans say the war isn't going to affect the '06 elections either way. "Local dynamics will trump everything," says Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Reynolds dismisses the Democratic veterans' strategy as "just a bunch of hoopla," saying his goal is simply to recruit the best candidates. With just one Iraq veteran on the ballot (Van Taylor, a 33-year-old former Marine who is running in the Texas district where Bush owns his ranch), the GOP has a far more modest strategy: to persuade incumbents to delay their retirement. Reynolds says they shouldn't abandon the Republican majority right now. "I tell them: stay and enjoy it," he says.

I have no doubt that the Republican smear machine will gear up to fight this new challenge. It is also likely that the Republican's will field their own, "heroes." But it is clear that rising anger over the war, and Republican floundering over how to deal with it, will impact next year's elections. And who better to voice this resentment than those who actually made the sacrifice to fight.

SAN DIEGO, California (AP) - Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques.

Cunningham, 63, entered pleas in U.S. District Court to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud, and tax evasion for underreporting his income in 2004.

Cunningham answered "yes, Your Honor" when asked by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns if he had accepted bribes from someone in exchange for his performance of official duties.

Cunningham, an eight-term Republican congressman, announced in July that he wouldn't seek re-election next year. But it was not immediately clear whether he hoped to keep his seat for the remainder of the current term. He planned to address reporters at a news conference later in the morning.

House Ethics rules say that any lawmaker convicted of a felony no longer should vote or participate in committee work. Under Republican caucus rules, Cunningham also would lose his chairmanship of the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism and human intelligence.

The former Vietnam War flying ace is known on Capitol Hill for his interest in defense issues and his occasional temperamental outbursts.

After the hearing, Cunningham was taken away for fingerprinting. He will be released on his own recognizance until a February 27 sentencing hearing. He could receive a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

Still waiting for DeLay to get his...

And as usual, he knocks home some pretty damned good nails!

About a week ago, TCF passed the handyman's van parked in the back of the homestead and spied what I thought was another one of those spurious, yellow 'Support The Troops' ribbon decals. Yet, on closer inspection, the decal actually read 'Bring Our Troops Home Now'. That stunned moment of validation was replicated this past Thursday, as TCF took in the passionate eloquence of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha in what will no doubt count as a watershed moment when such history of the Iraq War is finally written.

Leading Conservative William Kristol and his sniveling sidekick Smithers (aka Weekly Standard Managing Editor Fred Barnes) recently implored George Bush from their magazine's editorial page to fight back against his critics, concluding that his plummeting approvals were merely the result of an embolden, flip flopping Democratic opposition capably aided by their conspirators in the Liberal News Media. The historically (and accurately) chronicled precedent of recent occupiers of the White House who faced serious crisis in their second term already reads like a ----- Gate For Dummies. Yet, although Bush #43 began his first term determined to avoid the mistakes of Bush #41, he has no such second term reverse playbook with which to guide him.

A recent CBS Poll ranks the Plame Scandal more severe than that of Clinton's Monica Lewinsky, Reagan's Iran-Contra, and even Nixon's Watergate. Yet, history tells us that the most effective and eventually successful response to these crisis were achieved by those who recognized that they needed to clearly demonstrate to the American public that proper and sweeping changes would be made, as a result. Of those three examples, it is clear which President made the wrong choice.

If the Bush White House were to heed Kristol & Barnes' call to fight back, the boys at RoveVision would have but one option, and that is to revise the successful '04 campaign strategy they used against John Kerry. Unfortunately, the Swift Boat Vets are not yet up to speed to take on Murtha, so it's left to the five Vietnam War deferments Vice-President with a 24% percent approval rating to take up the smear shovel. And, is TCF the only one wondering how Scott McClellan could have left out MoveOn.org as one of the Congressman's new radical pals on the far Left?

A new ABC News Poll shows that only 1 out of 10 Americans support an immediate withdrawal, although an overwhelming 67% percent believe the war was not worth it, and 55% percent now believe the administration deceived us into war. Bush Apologists prefer to focus solely on the close to 2100 American lives lost so far, which is precisely why those on the Left must not let the sacrifices of those 17,000+ troops wounded in this unnecessary war go unnoticed.

Honestly I knew the day was coming that the American people would wake up to the deception, bullshit and dirt (yeah dirt, not just dirty), politics of the Republicans. Almost 20,000 Americans are dead or wounded as a result of the war in Iraq, and the Iraqi's themselves have just about had it... I guess they ran out of Candy and Flowers huh? War can be a mutha! Seems like it's all coming apart at times. With revelations coming daily about how this administration has ignored the law and every concept of international diplomacy and decency.

One thing that the politicians never seem to learn, is that it WILL all come out in the end. Secrets are hard to hide, and BIG secrets are even harder...

The Dems retained the governorships of VA and NJ, and Arnold's initiatives got creamed. Things are starting to get interesting, at last.

I mentioned over at Cadillac Tight last night that I'm pretty sure the hardline GOP blogs will blame the election results on anything *but* President Bush, and that certainly seems to be the case this morning, doesn't it?

Well, that's to be expected, really. GOP partisans are going to do their best to quash any theories that the President's coattails are shrinking fast, because, well...if that's true, you see, it doesn't bode well for the GOP next year. Part of the GOP's problem, though, is the mere perception of Bush having very short coattails. As possession is 9/10ths of the law, perception is, oh, at least 75% of reality, especially in politics.

What makes these off-year election results interesting (for me, at least), is that now we'll get a chance to see how the Bush White House will react to this obvious wake up call. I'm a frank admirer of the way the President has shrugged off criticism (often bitter, vitriolic criticism) in regards to his War on Terror policies, mainly because I think those policies are better than anything the Democrats have to offer at this point. I'm very dissapointed, though, in his lack of agility where his domestic policies are concerned, and I don't think he'll become any more nimble as a result of last night's smack in the electoral face.

Which, of course, opens a major breach in the GOP's electoral gates next year - especially if we don't suffer any Terror attacks or major setbacks in Iraq or Afghanistan. The War on Terror doesn't have the ooomph it had last year even today, and by next year (oh, and big-time by 2008), it will have even less. That's not necessarily a good thing, to my mind...the war is going to be a long, drawn out effort, and it's important to maintain vigilance and a forward thinking approach. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the voting public is going to be more interested in domestic issues than foreign policy issues if things continue to remain stable, and that ALWAYS hurts the GOP at the polls.

And that's a good thing, I think. The Republican party needed a slap in the face pretty badly, and the one they got last night was comparatively mild. Let's see if it wakes them up.

Update: Forgot to mention - how will these results affect the "GOP Election Fraud" meme? You know, this one? It's not as if these elections weren't important enough to steal, if the GOP was really into doing that sort of thing. Can we put it to bed now, or are some people just too attached to their tinfoil headgear?

If he is planning on attending?

From the Washington Post:

President Bush has ordered White House staff to attend mandatory briefings beginning next week on ethical behavior and the handling of classified material after the indictment last week of a senior administration official in the CIA leak probe.

According to a memo sent to aides Friday, Bush expects all White House staff to adhere to the "spirit as well as the letter" of all ethics laws and rules. As a result, "the White House counsel's office will conduct a series of presentations next week that will provide refresher lectures on general ethics rules, including the rules of governing the protection of classified information," according to the memo, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a senior White House aide.

The mandatory ethics primer is the first step Bush plans to take in coming weeks in response to the CIA leak probe that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, and which still threatens Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff. Libby was indicted last week in connection with the two-year investigation. He resigned when the indictment was announced and on Thursday pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to federal investigators and a grand jury about his conversations with reporters.

Yahoo News - The Republican majority in the House of Representatives rejected a resolution calling for a "substantive" investigation into abuses before and during the Iraq war.

The resolution was proposed by Democrats who have used increasingly aggressive tactics in Congress to draw attention to President George W. Bush's record on the war.

Republicans in the House defeated the measure by 220 votes to 191.

The Democratic resolution had called for an investigation into "the manipulation of pre-war intelligence", the role of Vice President Dick Cheney into Iraq's reconstruction, the leaking of the name of a CIA agent and abuses against prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

Democrats accused the Republican leadership in Congress of failing in their oversight of the Republican administration.

The resolution came on the day that Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, appeared in court in Washington to deny charges linked to an investigation into the naming of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! I mean we all know that the Republicans want the truth as much as the Democrats right?

I guess there won't be any more talk of a Mandate, will there?

Bush's low job approval is far below that of some of his two-term predecessors at this point in their second terms. In November 1985, President Reagan had a 65 percent approval rating, and Bill Clinton's job approval in November 1997 was 57 percent. Bush's rating is higher than Richard Nixon's was at the same point in his administration.

Read the whole thing...

When this debate is even necessary?

WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 - The Bush administration is embroiled in a sharp internal debate over whether a new set of Defense Department standards for handling terror suspects should adopt language from the Geneva Conventions prohibiting "cruel," "humiliating" and "degrading" treatment, administration officials say.

Simple question... WHY? Why is this debate even going on?

Now I am going to make a bet that none of the usual suspects will address the questions posed in this post.

Just as they ignored this one, despite commenting quite "liberally," this week.

The truth is that the Right Wing simply ignore ANYTHING that can not be easily spun, especially when they look hypocritical in doing so.

Anyone up to answer this one?

The Real, "Bring it on," pose!

It's about freakin' time! Finaly the Rethuglicans are outgamed, and who would have guessed that bookish little Harry would so brilliantly pulled it off. It's understandable how angry Frist was today, considering how badly they were outmaneuvered.

And speaking of Harry, all I can say is right on Senator. Today was the first day (I hope) of the fight back.

We have been living with a cesspool of a Federal Government for over five years now, and the Republican Senate has done little to address the issue, other than perhaps wink, or more commonly howl in outrage at anyone who has the audacity to question it. Right Wing Bloggers have been faithful to the talking points, and shouted down most dissent in the blogsphere, or attempted to pooh pooh allegations of wrongdoing, expressing outrage that anyone would dare question the voracity of an administration that is appearing more and more to be rotten to the core.

I am not going to celebrate todays act of resistance as some milestone, at least not until I see that it is not a temporary phenomenon. If it's not, then perhaps all of us will have cause to celebrate one day. Celebrate this as the day when real American Leaders said, "Enough is enough!"

Hat tip TMV.

More coverage at Shakespear's Sister.

And this post, and John's comments, are the reason that Balloon Juice has become one of my favorite blogs, even if the guy does not have the sense to link to ISOU! (wink).

Picture swiped from OW!

IF.... you are a Bush Crony it seems, otherwise you may be outta luck!

Looks like a deliberate smear campaign to me.... And the clearest evidence is the weakness of the spin coming from the Right.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term
Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
) Criminal No.
) GRAND JURY ORIGINAL
v.
) Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
)
) Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2))
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
)
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"
) Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1623)
INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE
(Obstruction of Justice)
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
1.
At times material to this indictment:
Defendant's Employment and Responsibilities
a.
Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of
this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed
as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United
States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work,
LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S.
intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security
matters.
b.
In connection with his role as a senior government official with
responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access
2
to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable
laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order
12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not
authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified
information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a
written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and
accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be
placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized
disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause
damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."
The Central Intelligence Agency
c.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States
whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence
information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President,
the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
d.
The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association
with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was
classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential
to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those
individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and
endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
3
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
e.
Joseph Wilson ("Wilson") was a former career State Department official who
had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA
by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative
to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire
uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the
CIA upon his return.
f.
Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the
CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation
with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Events Leading up to July 2003
2.
On or about January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his State of the
Union address which included sixteen words asserting that "The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
3.
On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which
disputed the accuracy of the "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. The column reported
that, following a request from the Vice President's office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq
sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in
2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the
CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based
on forged documents.
4
4.
On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary
of State ("Under Secretary") for information concerning the unnamed ambassador's travel to Niger
to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary
thereafter directed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report
concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral
reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador
who took the trip.
5.
On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed
to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the
Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed,
among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After
receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President
handwrote the names "Wilson" and "Joe Wilson" on the documents.
6.
On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY
in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and that State
Department personnel were saying that Wilson's wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7.
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask
about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
8.
Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office
of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson's trip. LIBBY
participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.
5
9.
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United
States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation
Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

10.
On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus
about Wilson's trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and
reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about
purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus's article questioned the accuracy of the "sixteen
words," and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase
story was false.
11.
On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their
conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical
of the Vice President's office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, "Joe Wilson" and
his wife "Valerie Wilson," in the context of Wilson's trip to Niger.
12.
On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online
entitled "The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War." Among other things, the article
questioned the "sixteen words" and stated that following a request for information from the Vice
President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations
that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed
ambassador alleging that administration officials "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie." The
article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President,
portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and
accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.
6
13.
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by
telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY
whether information about Wilson's trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that
the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA
in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure
telephone line.
14.
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective
leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's
trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
The July 6 "Op Ed" Article by Wilson
15.
On July 6, 2003, the New York Times published an Op-Ed article by Wilson entitled
"What I Didn't Find in Africa." Also on July 6, 2003, the Washington Post published an article
about Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, which article was based in part upon an interview of Wilson.
Also on July 6, Wilson appeared as a guest on the television interview show "Meet the Press." In
his Op-Ed article and interviews in print and on television, Wilson asserted, among other things, that
he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that
Iraq had sought or obtained uranium yellowcake from Niger, and that he doubted Iraq had obtained
uranium from Niger recently, for a number of reasons. Wilson stated that he believed, based on his
understanding of government procedures, that the Office of the Vice President was advised of the
results of his trip.
7
LIBBY's Actions Following Wilson's July 6 "Op Ed" Column
16.
On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY had lunch with the then White House Press
Secretary and advised the Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and noted that such
information was not widely known.
17.
On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter
Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the
information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a "former Hill staffer" rather
than to a "senior administration official," as had been the understanding with respect to other
information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with
Miller Wilson's trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson's trip. During this
discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
18.
Also on or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with the Counsel to the Vice President
in an anteroom outside the Vice President's Office. During their brief conversation, LIBBY asked
the Counsel to the Vice President, in sum and substance, what paperwork there would be at the CIA
if an employee's spouse undertook an overseas trip.
19.
Not earlier than June 2003, but on or before July 8, 2003, the Assistant to the Vice
President for Public Affairs learned from another government official that Wilson's wife worked at
the CIA, and advised LIBBY of this information.
20.
On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim
Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss
Wilson's wife with Russert.
8
21.
On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White
House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with
columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in
Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about
Wilson's wife.
22.
On or about July 12, 2003, LIBBY flew with the Vice President and others to and
from Norfolk, Virginia, on Air Force Two. On his return trip, LIBBY discussed with other officials
aboard the plane what LIBBY should say in response to certain pending media inquiries, including
questions from Time reporter Matthew Cooper.
23.
On or about July 12, 2003, in the afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone to Cooper,
who asked whether LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife was involved in sending Wilson on the trip
to Niger. LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without elaboration or qualification, that he had heard this
information too.
24.
On or about July 12, 2003, in the late afternoon, LIBBY spoke by telephone with
Judith Miller of the New York Times and discussed Wilson's wife, and that she worked at the CIA.
The Criminal Investigation
25.
On or about September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal
Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized
disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the
CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.
9
26.
As part of the criminal investigation, LIBBY was interviewed by Special Agents of
the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel.
During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
a.
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11,
2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked
for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and
Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this
statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that
he previously had learned about Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice
President.
b.
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about
July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the
administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but that LIBBY did
not know if this was true; and
c.
LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with New York Times reporter Judith
Miller during a meeting with Miller on or about July 8, 2003.
27.
Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment,
Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation ("the Grand Jury
Investigation") into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States
Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false
statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).
10
28.
A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government
officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of
Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well
as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie
Wilson by the CIA was classified information.
29.
During the course of the Grand Jury Investigation, the following matters, among
others, were material to the Grand Jury Investigation:
i.
When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned
that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;
ii.
Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that
Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;
iii.
The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to
the media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information
he may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information;
iv.
LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was
classified at the time he disclosed it; and
v.
Whether LIBBY was candid with Special Agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation in describing his conversations with the other government officials and the
media relating to Valerie Wilson.
11
LIBBY's Grand Jury Testimony
30.
On or about March 5 and March 24, 2004, LIBBY testified before Grand Jury 03-3.
On each occasion of LIBBY's testimony, the foreperson of the Grand Jury administered the oath to
LIBBY and LIBBY swore to tell the truth in the testimony he was about to give.
31.
In or about March 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due
administration of justice, namely proceedings before Grand Jury 03-3, by misleading and deceiving
the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, LIBBY acquired and subsequently
disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.
32.
It was part of the corrupt endeavor that during his grand jury testimony, defendant
LIBBY made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations, in substance, under oath:
a.
When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10,
2003:
i.
Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, and told LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
ii.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was surprised to hear that
Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
12
b.
LIBBY advised Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on or about July 12, 2003,
that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and further
advised him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; and
c.
LIBBY advised Judith Miller of the New York Times on or about July 12,
2003 that he had heard that other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but
LIBBY did not know whether that assertion was true.
33.
It was further part of the corrupt endeavor that at the time defendant LIBBY made
each of the above-described materially false and intentionally misleading statements and
representations to the grand jury, LIBBY was aware that they were false, in that:
a.
When LIBBY spoke with Tim Russert of NBC News on or about July 10,
2003:
i.
Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew
it; and
ii.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; in fact, LIBBY had participated in
multiple prior conversations concerning this topic, including on the
following occasions:
·
In or about early June 2003, LIBBY learned from the Vice
President that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in the
Counterproliferation Division;
·
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY was informed by a senior
CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and
that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her;
13
·
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was informed by the
Under Secretary of State that Wilson's wife worked for the
CIA;
·
On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY discussed "Joe Wilson"
and "Valerie Wilson" with his CIA briefer, in the context of
Wilson's trip to Niger;
·
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY informed reporter Judith
Miller that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA;
·
On or about July 7, 2003, LIBBY advised the White House
Press Secretary that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA;
·
In or about June or July 2003, and in no case later than on or
about July 8, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Assistant to
the Vice President for Public Affairs that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA;
·
On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY advised reporter Judith
Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA; and
·
On or about July 8, 2003, LIBBY had a discussion with the
Counsel to the Office of the Vice President concerning the
paperwork that would exist if a person who was sent on an
overseas trip by the CIA had a spouse who worked at the
CIA;
b.
LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper, on or about July 12, 2003, that
LIBBY had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did
LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true; rather, LIBBY
confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the
CIA; and
14
c.
LIBBY did not advise Judith Miller, on or about July 12, 2003, that LIBBY
had heard other reporters were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise
her that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503.
15
COUNT TWO
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-26 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
During the course of the criminal investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Justice, the following matters, among others, were material to
that investigation:
a.
When, and the manner and means by which, defendant LIBBY learned that
Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA;
b.
Whether and when LIBBY disclosed to members of the media that Wilson's
wife was employed by the CIA;
c.
The language used by LIBBY in disclosing any such information to the
media, including whether LIBBY expressed uncertainty about the accuracy of any information he
may have disclosed, or described where he obtained the information; and
d.
LIBBY's knowledge as to whether any information he disclosed was
classified at the time he disclosed it.
3.
On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent
statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
16
Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in
response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003,
Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all
the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while
speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about
Wilson's wife's employment from the Vice President.
4.
As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that
when LIBBY spoke with Russert on or about July 10 or 11, 2003:
a.
Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
17
COUNT THREE
(False Statement)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count Two as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
On or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, did knowingly and willfully make a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent
statement and representation in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, an agency within the executive branch of the United States, in that the defendant, in
response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003,
LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson's wife
worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.
3.
As defendant LIBBY well knew when he made it, this statement was false in that:
LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the
administration that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did
not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that
LIBBY had heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
18
COUNT FOUR
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
On or about March 5, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the
United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony
regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July
10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this ­ excuse me, did you know
that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by
that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said ­ he may have said a little more
but that was ­ he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't
know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in
any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that
I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was
first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful
not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.
Now, I had said earlier in the conversation, which I omitted to tell you, that
this ­ you know, as always, Tim, our discussion is off-the-record if that's okay with
you, and he said, that's fine.
So then he said ­ I said ­ he said, sorry ­ he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you
know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no,
I don't know that. And then he said, yeah ­ yes, all the reporters know it. And I said,
again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything
for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he
thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I
19
didn't want to be digging in on him, and he then moved on and finished the
conversation, something like that.
3.
In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in
that:
a.
Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson's wife worked for
the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b.
At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson's wife
worked at the CIA;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
20
COUNT FIVE
(Perjury)
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES:
1.
The Grand Jury realleges Paragraphs 1-30 of Count One as though fully set forth
herein.
2.
On or about March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004, in the District of Columbia,
I. LEWIS LIBBY,
also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY,"
defendant herein, having taken an oath to testify truthfully in a proceeding before a grand jury of the
United States, knowingly made a false material declaration, in that he gave the following testimony
regarding his conversations with reporters concerning the employment of Joseph Wilson's wife by
the CIA (underlined portions alleged as false):
a.
Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation
With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:
Q.
And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about
Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what
reporters ­
A.
Yes.
Q.
­ plural, were saying. Correct?
A.
I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind
I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was ­ all I had was this
information that was coming in from the reporters.
. . . .
Q.
And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him,
you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what
reporters are saying?
21
A.
Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't
know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things,
I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know ­ I think
I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.
b.
Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations
With Reporters:
Q.
And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the
law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could
turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account
for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters
Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather
than the Vice-President?
A.
No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q.
And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you
told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to
other reporters?
A.
Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because
it was ­ that's what ­ that's how I did it.
. . . .
Q.
The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are ­ concern this fact.
If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have
been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr.
Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you
told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as
something you knew?
A.
I want ­ I didn't want to ­ I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want
people ­ I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said
it. I ­ all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I
wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it
might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes,
or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they
didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted
them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them
know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr.
Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.
22
Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out
in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife.
That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's
married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I
didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought
at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
. . . .
Well, talking to the other reporters about it, I don't see as a crime. What I
said to the other reporters is what, you know ­ I told a couple reporters what
other reporters had told us, and I don't see that as a crime.
3.
In truth and fact, as LIBBY well knew when he gave this testimony, it was false in
that LIBBY did not advise Matthew Cooper or other reporters that LIBBY had heard other reporters
were saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise Cooper or other reporters
that LIBBY did not know whether this assertion was true;
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.
A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
Special Counsel
Document Outline

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted Friday by a federal grand jury investigating the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative.

Charges included making false statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury, court documents show.

Indictments in the case were the first in a nearly two-year investigation into the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has scheduled a 2 p.m. ET news conference.

Quote of the Day:

David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that indictments in the case could have an enormous impact on the Iraq war.

"Because if there are indictments, it will not only be people close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war."

Some people have been raising those same questions for a VERY long time. We are either on a course to see some indictments for lying on the part of some major players in this administration, or the beginnings of a conspiracy that could rival Watergate in it's implications. Whatever happens, even the most hardcore Bush supporters are going to find this one difficult to successfully spin.

Rove is not out of the water yet.

Rove's attorney Robert Luskin issued a statement Friday that Fitzgerald "has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges."

And this case along with the DeLay Case and other investigations into prominent Republicans, does not bode well for the Republican Party at this point. At a moment when the Republican Party needs him the most, Spinmiester Karl Rove may be too busy trying to save his own hide, to spin his party out of trouble...

There will likely be a lot of commentary on the issue from both sides. I found this interesting:

Perjury by the President of the United States: No big deal. Everyone lies. Perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: A serious challenge to our democracy and he should be executed.

Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by the President of the United States: A partisan tool, out of control prosecutor , hell-bent on destroying our country.
Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: An absolute requirement for the sake of our country. Democracy would crumble without it.

So let me see... Perjury to cover up personal misconduct vs. Perjury to cover up the outting of a CIA agent...

Choice seems simple to me.... What about you....

And I must have missed something here:

Where in any of these documents does it say Plame was a CIA agent?

With Ed and Steven on their points.

I have a lot of respect for Steve, but this was over the Top.

I admit I have to scratch my head sometimes with some Black Conservatives and how they seem to go out of their way to appeal to conservative friends and "fit in," but you know, it takes all kinds, and if nothing else, there are some Black Conservatives whom I have come to respect and even admire. I may disagree with them on damned near everything, and I may wonder in my heart of hearts how they can feel as they do, but I respect them nonetheless, even in disagreement.

I see no need to call people uncle Toms regardless of what I may think of their politics and I have come to a place in my life where I believe that the better approach is to reach out to Blacks on the other side of the political spectrum, rather than drive them further out of the "family."

The Commissar makes a good point here, racism is racism, no matter who spouts it.

UPDATE: Baldilocks has a very good piece on this subject. I want to say from the perspective of a Black Conservative, but that would lessen the impact of what she has to say. J is speaking as a human being and that is what is so compelling about what she has to say.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Tom DeLay failed to comply with House requirements that he disclose all contributions to a defense fund that pays his legal bills, the Texas Republican acknowledged to House officials.

He wrote officials that $20,850 contributed in 2000 and 2001 was not reported anywhere. Another $17,300 was included in the defense fund's quarterly report but not in DeLay's 2000 annual financial disclosure report -- a separate requirement.

Other donations were understated as totaling $2,800, when the figure should have been $4,450.

It was during that period that DeLay was the subject of several House ethics investigations.

DeLay, R-Texas, stepped aside as House majority leader -- at least temporarily -- after he was indicted on a felony charge September 28 in a Texas campaign fund-raising investigation.

He has since been charged a second time in the same case.

On October 13 DeLay wrote the clerk of the House, Jeff Trandahl, that his first inkling of inconsistencies in his disclosures came last February.

Can him, without "delay."

Newsflash, new Presidential Candidate! Hat Tip John Cole.

Vote for Your Ruler

When I first came to your planet and demanded your homes, property and very lives, I didn't know you were already doing so, willingly, with your own government.

I can win no tribute from a bankrupted nation populated by feeble flag-waving plebians. In 2008 I shall restore your dignity and make you servants worthy of my rule.

This new government shall become a tool of my oppression. Instead of hidden agendas and waffling policies, I offer you direct candor and brutal certainty.

I only ask for your tribute, your lives, and your vote.

-- General Zod
Your Future President and Eternal Ruler

It does not look good for Republicans in the next elections...

On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).

Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.

In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better.

The only issue on which Republicans came out on top was in fighting terrorism: 49 percent said the GOP is better at it, while 38 percent said the Democrats are.

And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.

This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month.

I just read this post by Tas, and honestly I am not sure how to respond. I will only say this. I have been extremely busy lately with Business. And honestly focusing on business and making sure that my business vision advances is my number one priority. Political Blogging has been something I have enjoyed the last two years. Recently I will admit it has become less of a pleasant experience. Regardless of one's political leanings or whether one is Pro Bush or Anti Bush, it can not be disputed that this administration will go down in History as one of America's most divisive. It is sad because even those of us who did not vote for Bush the first time hoped that his promises of being a "Uniter," would be true. Sadly, it has not been.

Boyd is my Brother, in more ways than one. We share a bond of Fraternal love that few will ever experience or understand, and we also share respect, even in disagreement. While we disagree on almost everything political, I love him as a friend and a Brother. Tas too is my Brother, and I love and admire him as well. While we mostly agree on the key issues that matter, we too disagree at times. Jay, well Jay is a person who I don't recall ever agreeing with, but for the most part he has been a friend and a supporter of this blog.

Tas's response to today's fight is not unexpected. In fact I have seen it coming for a while. Even when I was in Guatemala on business, he wrote me saying he was hanging it up from posting here. I asked him to continue and he did. I am grateful for that.

As for his decision to hang it up, I can't say much about it, as it gets tiring fighting the same battles day in and day out. One thing I have discovered political blogging the last two years.... Few minds are changed. People just dig in on their positions, and don't budge, and is on both sides.

For people like me who see little to value in our current administration, it can get frustrating trying to make a point, but I am sure it is no less frustrating attempting to defend what often seems ridiculous to defend.

At any rate I have not missed the scraps Tas just encountered today. I have found myself much better equipped to focus on success. As a result, I have a very happy client and an offer to manage their new company for a year as Chief Operating Officer. I am even considering opening another office in Guatemala for Grupo Utopia.

I enjoy discussing politics, and I am blessed by the friendships I have made here, including some very prominent bloggers on the Left and Right, but it does not put food on the table folks, hell I could not even get you guys to buy me a stinking iPod! He he... I am not giving up blogging, and have never run from a fight. But I am going to measure my political blogging for a while. It's good for my blood pressure, and also apparently good for the wallet.

Sorry to see you go Tas. I think you are an extremely talented writer and researcher, and a passionate man, but I also think you are right, you let it get to you too much. I know, because I saw the same thing happening to me, and like you, I had to take a step back.

I actually heard about this yesterday from Bennett's alleged former Dominatrix, who has become a pen pal of mine. She is currently running for Governor of Nevada.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats blasted former Education Secretary William Bennett on Thursday for saying that aborting "every black baby in this country" would reduce the crime rate, and demanded their Republican counterparts do the same.

"This is precisely the kind of insensitive, hurtful and ignorant rhetoric that Americans have grown tired of," said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois.

Bennett, who held prominent posts in the administrations of former presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, told a caller to his syndicated radio talk show Wednesday: "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.

"That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, called on President Bush to condemn the comments by Bennett, who was anti-drug chief in Bush's father's administration.

Now I dont know if Bennett likes to be led arround on a Dog Collar or not, but I do know the man has some serious issues, and I guess we can add racism to them.

This comment is so over the top and odius that I cant really even come up with a response. I will be surprised if there is much condemnation from the Right, at least not until and unless there is much traction on the story from the Left. But Jesus, it is this kind of attitude that makes me scratch my head wondering why any black person could support the conservative movement.

The New Republic, has a fascinating article about the College Republicans,

Everyone who watched this summer's race for College Republican National Committee (crnc) chair with any detachment has a favorite moment of chutzpah they admire in spite of themselves. Leading the count are the following: speaking sotto voce of your opponent's "homosexuality"; rigging the delegate count so that states that support your candidate have twice as many votes as those that don't; and using a sitting congressman to threaten the careers of undecided voters. I can understand the perverse appeal of each of these incidents. But I cast my vote for the forged letter.

and how they learn the dirty tricks of their elders by practicing on their own. It's a must read.

A TIME inquiry finds that at top positions in some vital government agencies, the Bush Administration is putting connections before experience.

Time Magazine

Doesn't that just make you feel all safe and secure?

COLORADO SPRINGS, Sept. 23 -- President Bush flew here ahead of Hurricane Rita on Friday to show command of a federal disaster response effort that even supporters acknowledge he fumbled three weeks ago.

The president said he wanted to see the emergency response system from the ground floor at U.S. Northern Command headquarters. "I need to understand how it works better," he told reporters before leaving Washington. But Bush was also embarking on a broader, and possibly more important, mission: restoring strength and confidence in his presidency.

A president who roamed across the national and world stages with an unshakable self-assurance that comforted Republicans and confounded critics since 2001 suddenly finds himself struggling to reclaim his swagger. Bush's standing with the public -- and within the Republican Party -- has been battered by a failed Social Security campaign, violence in Iraq, and most recently Hurricane Katrina. His approval ratings, 42 percent in the most recent Washington Post-ABC poll, have never been lower.

A president who normally thrives on tough talk and self-assurance finds himself at what aides privately describe as a low point in office, one that is changing the psychic and political aura of the White House, as well as its distinctive political approach.

In small, sometimes subtle but unmistakable ways, the president and top aides sound less certain, more conciliatory and willing to do something they avoided in the first term: admit mistakes. After bulling through crisis after crisis with a "bring 'em on" brashness, a more solemn Bush now has twice taken responsibility for the much-criticized response to Hurricane Katrina.

Aides who never betrayed self-doubt now talk in private of failures selling the American people on the Iraq war, the president's Social Security plan and his response to Hurricane Katrina. The president who once told the United Nations it would drift into irrelevancy if it did not back the invasion of Iraq last week praised the world body and said the world works better "when we act together." A White House team that operated on its terms since 2000 is reaching to outside experts for answers like never before.

It's called a REALITY CHECK. And I think it is a good thing. The fact that the press is finaly waking up and covering Administration failures with a new found aggression, is probably also contributing to the President's sense of insecurity.

Whatever the reasons, it is good to see the President finaly realizing that he does not have a mandate to "screw the nation."

Clinton finaly opens up:

Former US president Bill Clinton sharply criticised George W. Bush for the Iraq War and the handling of Hurricane Katrina, and voiced alarm at the swelling US budget deficit.

Breaking with tradition under which US presidents mute criticisms of their successors, Clinton said the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq "virtually alone and before UN inspections were completed, with no real urgency, no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction."

The Iraq war diverted US attention from the war on terrorism "and undermined the support that we might have had," Bush said in an interview with an ABC's "This Week" programme.

Clinton said there had been a "heroic but so far unsuccessful" effort to put together an constitution that would be universally supported in Iraq.

The US strategy of trying to develop the Iraqi military and police so that they can cope without US support "I think is the best strategy. The problem is we may not have, in the short run, enough troops to do that," said Clinton.

On Hurricane Katrina, Clinton faulted the authorities' failure to evacuate New Orleans ahead of the storm's strike on August 29.

People with cars were able to heed the evacuation order, but many of those who were poor, disabled or elderly were left behind.

"If we really wanted to do it right, we would have had lots of buses lined up to take them out," Clinton.

He agreed that some responsibility for this lay with the local and state authorities, but pointed the finger, without naming him, at the former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

And if you have ANY doubts about how poorly the war in Iraq has been executed, you need look no further than this week's Time Magazine.

Yeah it's a worse disaster than than we knew. And is beginning to look like the... shall we say it... Quagmire, that supporters are so afraid of.

In the meantime, hundreds continue to die weekly, British soldiers are torched in their tank, and it appears that the, "Last Throes," are going to last a long, long time.

As for the Hurricane Katrina thing.... I am a Gang Banger.

Update: John Kerry joins in and hammers the administration. If he had shown this kind of spirit on the campaign trail, he might be President.

One who leans to the right, drinks Roveco Kool Aide, and believes that the Federal Response to Katrina was Great at best, and the jury is still out at worst. At least that is what Jeff, "Damn I am so smart," Goldstein believes. But, "It's because of the Hypocrisy," you see!

Joe Gandelman writes a reasoned analysis of the Katrina aftermath, sharing the differing points of view. Jeff as he is often want to do, decides that he, "knows where Joe's heart is," and proceeds to blast him for no apparent reason other than he doesn't excuse the Bush Administration completely of blame. Something Jeff did weeks ago, despite claiming to want to "wait until all the facts are in."

Of course the Jeff G fanclub weighs in with their typical inflammatory nonsense, including calling Joe Gay... Which I fail to see what Joe's sexuality has to do with the subject, but then again, most of the trolls I get from Jeff's site seem to be obsessed with my weight. So in a pinch I guess any insult or perceived insult will suffice.

When Mike Reynolds of The Mighty Middle, weighs in on the cheap shot, Jeff Responds.... With an ego like his, would you expect less? Of course Jeff does not own up to the errors and mal attributions in his post! Say it after me kiddies, "It's the Hypocrisy!" Instead he goes into a righteous defense of his attack.

Let me point out a couple of things before Jeff's minions arrive to defend his lordship. Joe Gandelman is one of the most fair minded people in the Blogsphere. If anything, I find myself in disagreement with Joe as much as agreement.

Jeff delights in making fun of my "Conservatives as Hypocrites" meme. At the same time his attack of Joe for balance, while he has been anything but, is the hight of hypocrisy. This guy is supposed to be one of the humorist of the Right. The only thing I find funny about him is that others find him funny.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans on Wednesday scuttled an attempt by Sen. Hillary Clinton to establish an independent, bipartisan panel patterned after the 9/11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina.

I'm not surprised, are you surprised?

The way THESE people choose to argue. It's all personal attacks, one person (via comments) even takes offense at the Egyptian theme of my blog, claiming it makes me anti semitic. You want to know why I have not blogged much lately? Eh, it's because I have a life away from these pages. Some obviously do not... Whatever... Their stupidity, prejudice and irrational anger is something I don't even care to deal with.

This was an interesting exercise yesterday. I have to admit, even after two years of political blogging, I am still surprised by the venom from some folks, including my own when driven to anger.

The only thing I can say is that I am honest in my outrage. I may be proven wrong at times, but I am willing to acknowledge and accept that fact... I cant necessarily say the same for some on the other side of the debate. Oh well...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's job approval has dipped below 40 percent for the first time in the AP-Ipsos poll, reflecting widespread doubts about his handling of gasoline prices and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Nearly four years after Bush's job approval soared into the 80s after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush was at 39 percent job approval in an AP-Ipsos poll taken this week. That's the lowest since the the poll was started in December 2003.

The public's view of the nation's direction has grown increasingly negative as well, with nearly two-thirds now saying the country is heading down the wrong track.

Meanwhile rumors spread of Massive Kool Aide stores being horded by Paul at Wizbang, who slams the poor people of New Orleans and boast of his own independence, just a week or so after his compatriots at Wizbang were passing the hat for him. Of course, Paul knows that "85%" of the people who were housed at the Superdome were living in public housing and on welfare. WHY, because most of the images were of black people of course! Remember, Paul feels that Blacks are only good to pick his cotton.

UPDATE: And Paul Strikes BACK! The crowd roars! Seems like Paul is twisting my words again, taking a comment I made below and trying to make it look like I am okay with the thousands who have died as a result of politicians incompetence, as "Long as Bush's poll numbers go down." Eh... I don't think so Pablo. And only the Kool Aide chugging morons who hang on your every word are going to buy that, just like they bought your "in jest," comment last year that I was stealing donations to the Costa Rican Red Cross. You are about one of the most ignorant, arrogant and worthless excuses for a human being I have ever seen. It must be nice writing for a blog with traffic like Wizbang's because I cant tell you how many CONSERVATIVES have told me that they stopped reading the blog because of your ignorant tripe. Go on dude, sit in your hotel room and jerk your weenie on the fantasy of putting me in my place. Your aren't up to it cave man, not even close...

UPDATE: Mike Brown resigns, and it's pretty clear that this is an acknowledgment of the failures of FEMA. It wont help the perception of the Federal response, that is for sure.

But for some reason, I don't think he will be taking it.

"There are still a lot of things I want to say about Hurricane Katrina and the savage, apocalyptic vision of America that she revealed, floating face down in the water. But last night I came across an account of the search for real bodies -- not metaphorical ones -- in the stinking ruins of New Orleans. It's like something out of the charnel houses of World War II:

Volunteer rescuer Gregg Silverman, part of a 14-boat contingent from Columbus, Ohio, said he expected to find many more survivors in his excursion through the city's flooded streets. Instead, he found mostly bodies.

"They had me climb up on a roof, and I did bring an ax up to where a guy had tried to stick a pipe up through a vent,'' Silverman said. "Unfortunately, he had probably just recently perished. His dog was still there, barking. The dog wouldn't come. We had to leave the dog just up there in the attic.''

As for other bodies his group encountered: "Obviously we are not recovering them. We are just tying them up to banisters, leaving them on the roof.''

It is reported that the state of Louisiana has placed an order for 25,000 body bags.

For some reason, it wasn't until I read that story that the full horror of what happened in New Orleans finally hit home for me. Maybe it's because I was on the road part of last week, and missed most of the live broadcasts during the days when the city was in complete chaos. Maybe it's because I don't watch TV much even when I am home. But until now I've thought about the catastrophe more in terms of the loss of a great American city -- and less in terms of the individual human lives that were destroyed.

No longer. The image -- of a man frantically trying to breath through a pipe stuck in a ventilator grate as the waters rise over his head -- is too searing to hold at an emotional distance. How long did he survive, submerged in total darkness? And how many others died in the same bizarre trap -- too weak or terrified to break through the layers of plywood and asphalt that had suddenly become the lids on their underwater coffins?

Thinking about those deaths is like looking at pictures of people jumping, hand in hand, from the windows of the World Trade Center on 9/11 -- forced in a moment of howling panic to choose between the flames and the long fall to the pavement below. Such images are unendurable. The mind recoils from them as if we ourselves were caught in the same trap.

p>And suddenly all the backbiting over who failed first -- or most often, or most spectacularly -- seems too vile to worry about, much less write about." Billmon

He's right, and I can't take it anymore either... I have so much I want to say, so much anger. I want to rage against the injustice of what happened in New Orleans and elsewhere. I want someone to blame. I NEED someone to be angry with, even to HATE. I need it in a visceral way that surprises me at times with it's force. I just finished reading several posts by one of my Blog Daddies, Billmon, and I feel anger rising up in my like acidic bile, that no amount of Alka Seltzer will suppress.

I am an American, and yet I am ashamed of being an American right now... My driver asked me yesterday how a country as Rich as America could let so many die. I had no answer. Tomorrow is 9/11 and there will be solemn ceremonies and the trotting out of stories of heroism and personal reflection. I once took part in all of that. I wont tomorrow, because honestly, I don't have the stomach to look back any more. I will instead be thinking about a Disaster that did not have to happen. I will be thinking of a man desperately drowning while trying to breath through a pipe. I will be thinking about Racist cops denying people escape. I will be thinking about a Horse Breeder put in charge of saving lives. And I will be thinking about other heroes. The ones who tried desperately to help their fellows, even as their government city, state and federal failed them miserably.

The accountability argument has been made on both sides, usually drawn down party lines, and Billmon is right, it all seems pretty shallow now. There is a part of me so filled with anger that I want to stand on my roof and scream for justice, scream for retribution, but I see little changing, in spite of the outrage. When this is all over, I have no doubt that Karina will make 9/11 look insignificant in its human toll. Louisiana has ordered 25,000 body bags. Wrap your mind around that one for a minute. And yet, shamefully, I doubt that any politician or leader will drape themselves in the flag of this disaster. Instead we will likely see a whitewashing of the entire event.

So I am done. This will likely be my last post on Katrina and it's aftermath. Leave history and God to be the judge of the failures of men, because I have no doubt my country and those who support those who failed, have not the stomach for that judgement....

Some Other Posts you might want to Read:

Digby Expresses the Outrage that I feel right now.

The New York Times chronicles what went wrong. Hat Tip: Talk Left.

Brother Cobb answers his Conservative Brethren's criticism of Ray Nagin, and does a helluva job of it!

And Newsweek demonstrates just how disconnected from Reality Bush really is.

And this... Cop... Should be lined up against one of the levees and shot.

No... I don't want to talk about it any more, but I am sure as hell glad someone does...

Wizbang points out this morning that the DNC was using a petition to fire the FEMA Director, to raise funds, you know, to do political stuff. Of course the Republicans never do such things. President Bush would never use a National Tragedy for political gain.... Would he?

While I agree that Katrina should not be used as a fundraiser for anyone other than the victims, I am a bit startled by the sheer hypocrisy.

UPDATE: Welcome Daou Report Readers

UPDATE II: Welcome Readers of The National Review Online.

Update at bottom of page.

From Frumious Blues:

Through the day, I saw sporadic reports on various blogs that the military in New Orleans are trying to keep journalists out of the city. Via Atrios (via Josh Marshall) comes this confirming report from NBC anchorman Brian Williams:

National Guard soldiers are ubiquitous. At one fire scene, I counted law enforcement personnel (who I presume were on hand to guarantee the safety of the firefighters) from four separate jurisdictions, as far away as Connecticut and Illinois. And tempers are getting hot. While we were attempting to take pictures of the National Guard (a unit from Oklahoma) taking up positions outside a Brooks Brothers on the edge of the Quarter, the sergeant ordered us to the other side of the boulevard. The short version is: there won’t be any pictures of this particular group of guard soldiers on our newscast tonight. Rules (or I suspect in this case an order on a whim) like those do not HELP the palpable feeling that this area is somehow separate from the United States.

At that same fire scene, a police officer from out of town raised the muzzle of her weapon and aimed it at members of the media

obvious members of the media armed only with notepads. Her actions
(apparently because she thought reporters were encroaching on the
scene) were over the top and she was told. There are automatic weapons and shotguns everywhere you look. It's a stance that perhaps would have been appropriate during the open lawlessness that has long since ended on most of these streets. Someone else points out on television as I post this: the fact that the National Guard now bars entry (by journalists) to the very places where people last week were barred from LEAVING (The Convention Center and Superdome) is a kind of perverse and perfectly backward postscript to this awful chapter in American history.

What are they trying
to hide? Their dicks have been hanging out on national TV for a week
now. The only possible rationale for prohibiting press access is to
keep us from knowing exactly how badly they fucked over the country.

You know what I find most offensive in all this.... It is that the media has been complicit in their own defanging. Where has the outrage been for five years as this administration has operated time and time again in secret. The no bid contracts, Abu Gharib, Camp Delta, Downing Street, Gannongate, 9/11... Time and time again this administration has played it's Rovian games unquestioned by the Press. The Majority of the American public have went about their business oblivious to the putrid stench of a political system rotten to the core.

The Press, long champions of "the truth," have served as miserable lap dogs to an unacknowledged "Ministry of Propaganda," run by Karl Rove. The Republican Spin Machine, supported by Conservative Blogs have fed the American public a constant steam of "truthspeak," creating an impression of Leadership when it never existed beyond the photo op and sound bite. A couple of two bit lawyers and a call center manager from the Midwest become celebrities while shamelessly calling dissenters, "traitors." While the real treason lies among those who fail to question. We have lost our way as a Democracy because some people have feel in love with the idea of power, power at the cost of freedom.

What happened in the Gulf remains a National Embarrassment. No amount of censorship will rid the American mind of the sense of powerlessness we all now feel. Nor will it change the fact that the sense of Safety Americans have had, the promise of Security was a sham, and God help us if another disaster or terrorist strike happens in the U.S. anytime soon. The utter ineptitude of the people running our country, long ago exposed to those us who immune to the snake charmer tactics of Rove and Company, has now been exposed to the entire world. Unfortunately thousands of Americans may have died to finaly demonstrate that indeed... The Emperor has no clothes.

Unfortunately there are still those who refuse to believe what their own eyes and ears tell them. I had a long discussion with a conservative friend tonight who absolutely refused to believe that Bush said that no one anticipated the levies not holding. Even confronted with video of Bush saying those very words, he still insisted that video can be edited and he wanted to see a transcript. How does one fight that kind of partisan lunacy. I have come to the conclussion that you dont... If New Orleans in all of it's horror did not serve as a wake up call for these people, then nothing less than a catastrophic terrorist attack will. I am affraid that even with that, they will find a way to spin Bush out of responsibility for it. My conclussion is that they all suffer from a sense of guilt, that will not allow them to acknowledge their own culpability in a disaster that far exceeds the carnage of Katrina.

And the Spin Continues... (I discovered this piece from Wizbang as part of the same Daou Report.) I applaud Paul for acknowledging the obvious,

"Of course FEMA, and the idiot who runs it, are a different matter."

But the premise of the post, that Lefties are being unfair to Bush for being on vacation, is way off the mark. The Photo of Bush being briefed before the storm means nothing, if it took five days for his team to adequately address it. FEMA, Homeland Security... They were missing in action for days as people died, and this falls directly on Bush's doorstep. There is NO excuse for it. As for the contention that others shared the blame for what went wrong. I agree. Every politician from the local, state and Federal governments share blame in what was a failure of unimaginable proportions. What has happened since has been even more disgraceful. The lying and spin in particular. So Paul may feel comfortable excusing the failures of the Administration, after all, he survived... His brethren who didn't, or who lost people in the aftermath, may not be so generous.

And while the press is effectively shut out of reporting the real tragedy... There is THIS.

You angry yet???

What I truly DON'T understand, is how some Republican Appologist are trying to make Bush a victim in all this.... HELLO! The victims are the potentially thousands who have died.

This kind of says it all, doesnt it:

We have a man-child as President of the United States. That may seem an unfair characterization, but consider the President's performance last Friday when he ventured to the storm ravaged Gulf Coast. In a revealing moment, he referred to the FEMA Director as "Brownie" and joked about his past good times in New Orleans.

It was inappropriate behavior that one would expect from an adolescent and not the adult leader of the free world. It largely went unnoticed.

But perhaps the clearest demonstration of the President's arrested development is his inability to accept responsibility or accountability. Another revelatory moment was when the President pronounced that the response to Katrina was " not acceptable." Of course, he was the one in charge. It was as if a child passively proclaimed that "the milk was spilt".

In the age of video, it is "hard work," lying...

Yeah... Real Hard Work...

Anyone who can watch this video and still claim that this is all about Bush Hatred is... well... delusional at best.

It has been a week since Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, leveled New Orleans and left hundreds of thousands of Americans homeless. We saw the best of America during that time—millions of people stepped forward to offer help. Meanwhile, the Bush administration failed at their most important job: keeping America safe. The federal effort was too little, too late and it is now becoming obvious that hundreds or even thousands of people died as a result.

Then, starting Friday, in a Karl Rove-led campaign, the White House started to blame state and local officials and even the victims who were stranded without transportation when the Hurricane arrived. Sign our petition demanding that the Bush administration stop blaming victims, including state and local officials, and focus on helping them.

Timeline

Friday, Aug. 26: Gov. Kathleen Blanco declares a state of emergency in Louisiana and requests troop assistance.

Saturday, Aug. 27: Gov. Blanco asks for federal state of emergency. A federal emergency is declared giving federal officials the authority to get involved.

Sunday, Aug. 28: Mayor Ray Nagin orders mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. President Bush warned of Levee failure by National Hurricane Center. National Weather Service predicts area will be "uninhabitable" after Hurricane arrives. First reports of water toppling over the levee appear in local paper.

Monday, Aug. 29: Levee breaches and New Orleans begins to fill with water, Bush travels to Arizona and California to discuss Medicare. FEMA chief finally responds to federal emergency, dispatching employees but giving them two days to arrive on site.

Tuesday, Aug. 30: Mass looting reported, security shortage cited in New Orleans. Pentagon says that local authorities have adequate National Guard units to handle hurricane needs despite governor's earlier request. Bush returns to Crawford for final day of vacation. TV coverage is around-the-clock Hurricane news.

Wednesday, Aug. 31: Tens of thousands trapped in New Orleans including at Convention Center and Superdome in "medieval" conditions. President Bush finally returns to Washington to establish a task force to coordinate federal response. Local authorities run out of food and water supplies.

Thursday, Sept. 1: New Orleans descends into anarchy. New Orleans Mayor issues a "Desperate SOS" to federal government. Bush claims nobody predicted the breach of the levees despite multiple warnings and his earlier briefing.

Friday, Sept. 2: Karl Rove begins Bush administration campaign to blame state and local officials—despite their repeated requests for help. Bush stages a photo-op—diverting Coast Guard helicopters and crew to act as backdrop for cameras. Levee repair work orchestrated for president's visit and White House press corps.

Saturday, Sept. 3: Bush blames state and local officials. Senior administration official (possibly Rove) caught in a lie claiming Gov. Blanco had not declared a state of emergency or asked for help.

Monday, Sept. 5: New Orleans officials begin to collect their dead.

(Adapted from: Katrina Timeline.

Those are the facts. State and local officials BEGGED for help as people in their city suffered. The Bush administration didn't get the job done and when their failure became an embarrassment they attacked those asking for help.

The New York Times reported on Friday that Karl Rove and White House communications director Dan Bartlett "rolled out a plan...to contain the political damage from the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina." The core of the strategy is "to shift the blame away from the White House and toward officials of New Orleans and Louisiana."

This is the same pattern of smearing that the Bush political machine has used for a decade. John McCain and John Kerry had their war records smeared. The CIA cover of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was blown after he criticized the Bush Iraq policy. Now, Hurricane victims are attacked when the Bush administration failed to do their duty to help them.

It isn't just the Bush administration. Republican Senator Rick Santorum blamed victims in a TV interview and House Speaker Dennis Hastert suggested New Orleans should not be rebuilt.

Excerpted from a MoveOn.org mailing. Sign their petition here.

I don't have much to say about this. I mean expressions of outrage just seem to bounce off the walls these days. These people are truly disgusting in their ability to play politics with disaster, and to put it simply... LIE. That there are people out there who still, after all this, refuse to deal with the truth is Frankly MIND BOGGLING!

Okay, I promised myself that I would not play politics today, but this is too difficult to pass up. For the last couple of days, Jay Tea of Wizbang has been OUTRAGED, OUTRAGED I tell ya! That I would the audacity to blame Bush for any of the problems in New Orleans and the surrounding area! So what do I find on Wizbang today???

"Note that the commander-in-chief of the Louisiana National Guard is Governor Kathleen Blanco (D). How she's deflected all blame for the delays in deployment is beyond me (certainly having the "D" behind her name doesn't hurt), especially when (as of Wednesday) only half of the available Louisiana National Guard was deployed for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts..."

Kevin at Wizbang

Still no mention of the disastrous FEMA response, who I believe report to the President... Nor did I note any mention that the bulk of the LA Guard is in Iraq... Oh well. Jay will of course claim that the post was not his so he has no responsibility for it. I just wonder if he gave Kevin the same lecture he gave me....

WASHINGTON - President Bush, facing blistering criticism for his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, said Friday "the results are not acceptable" and pledged to bolster relief efforts with a personal trip to the Gulf Coast.

"We'll get on top of this situation," Bush said, "And we're going to help the people that need help."

He spoke on the White House grounds just before boarding his presidential helicopter, Marine One, with Homeland Security Department secretary Michael Chertoff to tour the region. The department, which oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been accused of responding sluggishly to the deadly hurricane.

So Bush is now in the affected region, and has admitted that the response has been ineffective. This six days and who knows how many unnecessary deaths since the disaster first struck. There are many on the Right who don't want to talk about who's fault it is that this happened. Some want to imply that Left Bloggers are being petty. There is NOTHING petty about the death and destruction in Luisianna, Mississippi and Alabama. And there is NOTHING that would convince me that these same people would not have been all over Clinton, had this happened on his watch. Without even getting into the LA National Guard being in Iraq, or the fact that the Government cut moneys needed to keep New Orlean levy system functioning, there are still plenty of accountability issues in this case. And Bush's statement today is proof of them.

Call me petty all you like, but I do not consider it petty to hold our government accountable in times of crisis, and perhaps those criticizing the critics have not thought of this, but it has been six days since the Hurricane first hit. Look at the first line of the above article... Do you think that WITHOUT the criticism from the Left Spere, that Bush would be there today?

I have distant relatives that live in New Orleans, as well as countless personal friends and Fraternity Brothers. At this point I don't know where any of them are. I am angry and it appears that a LOT of Americans are angry. I am also dissapointed, that the President elected for Strong Leadership has so far shown VERY LITTLE strength or Leadership. Perhaps those of you who voted for him can stomach that, even EXCUSE it, I can't and won't. So dont DARE lecture me or others for "politicizing the disaster," when YOUR SIDE has politicized everything from 9/11 forward. This situation stinks with the smell of water bloated dead bodies. You are right about one thing, this event is being politicized, but not by the people calling for accountability. It is being politicized by the same people who time after time have excused the failures of this administration. There are two disasters taking place today, one is obvious, the other has been going on for five years!

And while you are pointing fingers at the Left, perhaps you should read this article about how one Conservative Magazine wants to blame the victims!

UPDATE: Jeff G weighs in on this post. As usual it's a distortion of what I wrote:

update: Here is "reasonable" lefty David Anderson, doing what he does best: congratulating himself and his ideological brethren
for saving the poor and displaced by heaping scorn and blame on the
President and his administration for a devestation (sic) he pretends to understand.

Because, you see, without the lefties screaming and yelling about how
Bush hates brown people and wants to see them dead or about how he
underfunded a levee that, were it to have prevented this disaster,
would have needed to be 50% taller to stop the Category 4 storm surge
(a plan that was never in the pipeline) they FORCED him to provide the relief he otherwise wasn't going to give.

They got him off vacation and into ACTION, however reluctantly. THEIR CRITICISM IS SAVING LIVES!

This, my friends, is why having a debate with wannabe pundits on the left is a losing proposition: their ignorance of the facts is surpassed only by their preening and utterly unfounded self-righteousness.

Like Gulliver, I fear I'm beginning to despise large swathes of humanity.

Welcome to the club Jeff, better late than never. I despised hypocrites a long time ago. And just to make it clear, I never accused Bush of Racism, I accused him of incompetence. Neither did I say anyone forced him to take action. What I said was that the criticism from across a broad segment of NON-Kool Aide drinking Americans forced him to move more quickly. Five days is a bit much don't ya think? But gee thanks for reading the blog and for the link. Us "wanna be pundits," take all the help we can get, even from an arrogant child who's own press and preening fan base has went to his head. Oh, and just so you know, I do understand disasters, having lived through a few of them myself. What I dont understand is people who just cant acknowledge that they are wrong. That never fails to amaze and annoy me.

Update HERE.

This is one of the most devastatingly brilliant pieces of blogging I have EVER READ! Thanks to the Brad Blog, for the heads up. It is a long piece, and brilliant every word, but I could not excerpt it in it's entirety. Go read the whole thing!

What happens when Chertoff (whose name actually means "of the Devil" in Russian) decides to forgo civil liberties in general and abuses his office, err, industrial department of Homeland Security? What happens when these Homelanders declare Martial Law in order to keep people from looting, but will not supply them with water, food, and other life sustaining supplies?

Apparently not a damn thing.

After all, no blond "good Christian" wealthy Republican children are drowning. Fox News anchors sit laughing at this tragedy but cry and piss on themselves because a blond girl on an island went missing (no offense to the family of the missing girl).

Do you realize that one person - one single person who is white, blond haired, and blue eyed - is more important to the networks than the thousands of black children spiraling to their deaths in a swirl of sewage in a once historic city?

Looting is what the networks are covering, as though such activity is "typical" of what "black people" do. The majority of residents left behind were the poor, who - due to the inexcusable mismanagement of emergency resources, coupled with high oil prices - were unable to leave on their own. The poor in this country happen to be minorities, so the people left behind were minorities.

Take away food, water, and other supplies and what should someone do? Swim over to an ATM and get some soggy money out? Or maybe dive in, holding their breath, and swim through their underwater living room looking for a lost wallet? Not to worry, the Pentagon is on its way, Martial law is declared, journalists are forced out, and those saved are happily dining on cat food.

Bush's cutting of his vacation short by a whole two hours - jetting off to DC, from where he can look Presidential -- is almost as timely as is him finally putting down My Pet Goat.

And where is that treasure of a mother, that national "I love my gay daughter when it works for the campaign" bastion of integrity? Lynn Cheney, the doyenne of Christian values, is probably rehearsing her "I am an indignant mother" routine, somewhere in the bowls of her underground mansion. Because she is not out, carrying buckets or collecting donations or for god's sake doing something to help the people of "her country."

Congress is still on vacation even though we are witnessing a national tragedy that could produce the worst death toll in recent US history.

Condi's father a prominent minister and educator is spinning in his grave as black women and children drown, while Condi stands and shills somewhere who the hell knows where on how we are spreading Democracy. As though such a thing as Democracy could be spread through rape, torture, and murder, like some venereal disease.

Where is the god damn leadership of this country? Dick, Condi, Rummy, anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

You know I finaly figured out why Jay Tea was so angry with my earlier post. Anyone from the Right who has watched what has happened in the Gulf Coast and is NOT having an "Oh Shit," moment, has got to be delusional. This disaster has absolutely stripped the myth away from George W. Bush and demonstrated not only the complete incompetence of his administration, but the callousness of it as well. It has also completely destroyed the MYTH of George W. Bush as a Leader in times of crises. This is a repeat of the Seven Minute Reading Session, as planes crashed into the towers, only this one has lasted five days. And honestly, if I was a Republican right now, I would be embarrassed beyond words.

Changing the subject will not change the facts. Shields are down Scotty, and there isn't enough Kool Aide in the world to bring 'em back up!

I am watching CNN this morning and the video coming from New Orleans and the Hurricane Zone is horrible. People are dying. People are without food and water. People are without hope...

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- Thousands of people forced from their homes by Hurricane Katrina have crammed into the New Orleans convention center, where they've had no food, no water and no word on when help would come.

And people are dying.

CNN's Chris Lawrence described "many, many" bodies, inside and outside the facility on New Orleans' Riverwalk.

"There are multiple people dying at the convention center," he said. "There was an old woman, dead in a wheelchair with a blanket draped over her, pushed up against a wall. Horrible, horrible conditions.

"We saw a man who went into a seizure, literally dying right in front of us."

People were "being forced to lived like animals," Lawrence said -- surrounded by piles of trash and feces.

He said while he has seen police SWAT teams drive by in armored vehicles, no one has stopped to talk with the refugees.

I saw a video of someone's mother or Grandmother, dead in a wheelchair, pushed against a wall at the Superdome, covered with a blanket. Another grandmother complained of not having food for two days.

That people are still dying after FIVE days is a National Disgrace. This was an act of God, one that was expected and anticipated for days before hand. In fact, New Orleans has been a Hurricane Victim waiting to happen for years, so none of this should have come as a surprise to anyone...

The failure of Homeland Security to move quickly and have sufficient resources to aid the people of the Hurricane Stricken Region is yet another example of the ineptitude of the Bush Administration.

Those of you who voted for Bush with the idea that he was the best candidate to protect the Homeland, have now had your wakeup call. It does not matter the type of disaster. Had this been a terrorist attack, it is likely the same thing would have happened. At a time when the people of Luisiana needs them the most, their sons and daughters of the National Guard are far away fighting a useless war in Iraq. While Billions are wasted and even LOST in Iraq, the pumps and Levy's needed to protect one of our most beautiful and historical cities were neglected by our National Government.

Our Homeland Security appears to have learned nothing from 9/11. Police are not equipted to handle the scope of the disaster. Radios dont work. Police are taking gas from abandoned cars to fuel their cruisers. Coordination between FEMA, Homeland Security and local authorities has been a disaster. This disaster has been made 100 times worse by the incompetance of a Government that has bungled every major operation they have undertaken since first taking office five years ago.

This is NOT one Bush is going to be able to avoid responsibility for. Nor will it be one that Conservatives will be able to spin. It is a disaster of unparalleled proportions, and the responsibility for much of what has happened sits squarely at the door of this administration.

UPDATE: Jay Tea of Wizbang fame, has already posted a scathing comment to this post accussing Lefties of insensitivity to the problems on the ground in New Orleans:

"Things in the South are horrible. And while the Right side of the blogosphere is doing everything they can to help the people, the liberals are busting their asses, doing everything they can to make sure the "right" people get the blame. They'd much rather sit around and shriek in outrage, looking for someone to pin the blame on, than get off their self-indulgent asses, pry themselves away from their circle-jerk of political correctness, and actually step up and DO something about the problem themselves.

It's reminiscent of the illegal alien situation. The problem must be solved PERFECTLY, with no one getting their feelings bruised, or absolutely nothing at all can be done.

And in both cases, the liberals don't seem to mind if dozens, or thousands, or millions of people continue to suffer and die, as long as the liberals can make goddamned sure that they have plenty of bodies to lay at the Right's feet. In fact, for some, the more the merrier.

I'm putting my money where my mouth is, David. I'm helping Kevin coordinate our own relief efforts -- and it's not just because one of our own is one of those in trouble, and happens to be positioned to do some good. Where the FUCK is the massive movement from the Left to help those people?

On second thought, maybe it is best if you folks just stay out of the way while we do the real work. I'm trying to recall the last time liberals got involved in something serious and didn't majorly fuck it up. So keep on playing your little masturbatory political games -- we've got REAL work to do."

Perhaps Jay needs to look around the Liberal Side of the blogsphere before he makes such accusations:

In Search of Utopia

Patridiot Watch

The Rogue Angel

Crooks and Liars

Rox Populi

Billmon

Oliver Willis

Comments from Left Field

Dan Gillmor

Loaded Mouth

Ratboy's Anvil

The Progressive Blog Alliance

Ezra Klein

And that took me all of 30 seconds and was less than 1% of my Leftie Blogroll. Jay... Piss off. Because you Right Wingers want to stick your heads up your ass and pretend that this was a simple act of God, that NO ONE is responsible for, does not mean we should do it. It is time someone called this administration to accounts for the ridiculous policy and budgetary decisions that have led to so many deaths in the South.

You and your ilk would prefer to ignore the issue of responsibility, not just because the responsibility falls at the door of the President you voted for, but because YOU are partially responsible. You voted for this man, knowing well his record. YOU pushed his credentials for protecting the country. YOU supported a WAR that has drained the country of just the resources needed to address this kind of disaster. Yes Jay, you and everyone else who supported Bush, share responsibility. So YES, you should be working hard to help the people affected. It is the decent thing to do, the right thing to do. When it is over, six months or a year from now, you can stop working. We will join you in the effort to help those in need. But we will condemn the people who are responsible, AND we will hold them accountable, whether you chose to or not. And you are part of those who we will hold responsible.

If that hurts your feelings or embarrasses you, perhaps it should. Perhaps the time has come for ALL of you to step back, get off your own high horses and realize that you made a HORRIBLE mistake. One that today is affecting tens of thousands of Americans, including one of your own. One who pooh poohed Global Warming, which may have contributed to this disaster, and who supported the very war that took the Louisiana National Guard away from home at a time when they are desperately needed. With thousands missing, and an unknown number dead, I wonder how many of those troopers can concentrate on fighting your war right now, while the status of their own families are in doubt.

That is being an American.

Oh and Jay, while you are ranting about Liberals taking political advantage of the dissaster, perhaps you should read this Op/Ed from your own hometown and VERY CONSERVATIVE newspaper:

"Katrina already is measured as one of the worst storms in American history. And yet, President Bush decided that his plans to commemorate the 60th anniversary of VJ Day with a speech were more pressing than responding to the carnage.

A better leader would have flown straight to the disaster zone and announced the immediate mobilization of every available resource to rescue the stranded, find and bury the dead, and keep the survivors fed, clothed, sheltered and free of disease."

Bush is well known for his soaring rhetoric, especially when it comes to Iraq. It is a conflict born out or rhetoric, and indeed sustained by it. But the rhetoric has begun to ring hollow with a majority of the American public, and statements comparing Bush's War on Terror with the greatest conflict of the last century is well.... Ridiculous!

From Slate:

Accept for a moment the argument that Iraq is but one theater in a global war on terrorism. Overlook that, to the degree this is true, it's because Bush's invasion of Iraq and his many miscalculations afterward helped make it so. Even so, it would be an enormous leap to claim that the war in Iraq or the broader war on terror is the political, strategic, or moral equivalent of World War II.

Al-Qaida or its sundry offshoots could crash many more airplanes, wreck many more buildings, and bomb many more subways and the magnitude of their power, and the urgency of their threat, would still fall far short of that posed by Nazi Germany. The panzers of the Wehrmacht rolled across the plains of Europe, toppling governments with ease, imposing totalitarian regimes, and killing millions in their wake. This was a war of civilization on a level that today's war however you might define it doesn't begin to approach.

But let's say that the two wars World War II and Iraq (or the broader war on terrorism) are comparable, that their stakes are even remotely as high. Then why is President Bush fighting this war so tentatively?

From December 1941 to August 1945 the attack on Pearl Harbor until the declaration of Allied victory the United States manufactured 88,430 tanks and 274,941 combat aircraft. Yet in the two years after the invasion of Iraq, much less the four years since the attack on the World Trade Center, the Bush administration has not built enough armor platings to protect our soldiers' jeeps from roadside bombs.

To fund World War II, the United States drastically expanded and raised taxes. (At the start of the war, just 4 million Americans had to pay income tax; by its end, 43 million did.) Beyond that, 85 million Americans—half the population at the time—answered the call to buy War Bonds, $185 billion worth. Food was rationed, scrap metal was donated, the entire country was on a war footing. By contrast, President Bush has asked the citizenry for no sacrifice, no campaigns of national purpose, to fight or fund the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, he has proudly cut taxes, heaving the hundreds of billions of dollars in war costs on top of the already swelling national debt.

If this war's stakes are comparable to World War II's, the entire nation should be enlisted in its cause not necessarily to fight in it, but at least to pay for it. And if President Bush is not willing to call for some sort of national sacrifice, he cannot expect anyone to believe the stakes are really high.

Bush has not asked the American public to sacrifice for the war in Iraq. If he had, I doubt it would have taken this long for the American Public to become fed up with it. This disorganized, disjointed conflict, in which our young men and women are sent to die in a meatgrinder of RPG's and Roadside Bombs, has been a disaster from it's inception.

And despite claims to the contrary, the shortage in available Guard Units due to the war, has no doubt had an impact on the ability to rapidly respond the victims of Katrina. Would anyone argue that we are one disaster away from a tragedy of ungodly proportions. This administration is an undeclared National Disaster. We put a drunken Frat Boy in the highest office in the land, fronted and propped up by an old boy network and a political hack in Karl Rove, and NOW... NOW with thousands dead in Iraq, New Orleans wiped off the map,fiscal problems that would make The Lemon Drop Kid blush, political scandals ranging from Gay Hookers in the Press Room to Outing CIA agents for revenge, only NOW do we start looking at the five year train wreck and international embarrassment that this administration is...

It is beyond belief to me, that an entire Nation, a nation with the backbone of heroes, could be so cowed by 9/11, that we allowed this man to waltz back into the White House on an Agenda of "Fear All the Time." That Bush is President for three more years, means that the opportunities to continue to squander this nations assets, destroy our international esteem, and generally continue to FUBAR everything in sight, is a reality that we all must face, and all must take responsibility for. My ONLY hope is that in the Mid Term elections, The American people wake up and realize that the only way to apply some sanity to an America on the brink, is to throw those out, Republican and Democrat, who have collaborated with this government. Then there is a long path to getting our house back in order, and I am afraid it will be a few more years yet, before we can start the real cleaning...

In the mean time, The President continues his "vacation," while 10's of thousands of Americans in Louisiana and Alabama wonder how they are going to live now that they have no job or place to live....

First from Rogue Angel:

Bush hits a new low ...

Rising gas prices and ongoing bloodshed in Iraq continue to take their toll on President Bush, whose standing with the public has sunk to an all-time low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The people aren't very happy with Republican leadership ...

The poll numbers paint a portrait of national frustration with the direction and leadership of the country, which, if not reversed in coming months, is likely to color the environment for next year's midterm elections, putting incumbents in both parties on the defensive.

Dissatisfaction is not limited to the president. Fewer than four in 10 Americans -- 37 percent -- approve of the way the Republican-controlled Congress is doing its job, the lowest rating for lawmakers in nearly eight years.

While on the Right, Conservatives debate impeaching Bush.... The issue? Illegal immigration, but let's face it, that is one of the least of this Administration's problems.

I get the feeling that the Kool Aide rations are getting a bit low and that many Republicans and Conservatives are waking up to the fact that they elected an incompetent administration for a second time. Rather than acknowledge that mistake, they seek an issue, any issue, to create an out... As long as it is something that they can all agree on. The truth is that this administration has been an utter failure in almost everything it has attempted.

* We were attacked and thousands died on 9/11 because this administration failed to pay attention to warning signs.

* They failed to capture the man responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan.

* Our Energy policy has resulted in American's being gouged at the Gas Pump, while Oil Companies and the Saudis make record profits on oil revenue.

*Cronyism has led to companies like Haliburton war profiteering to obscene new levels.

*The American public was led into an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq that has led to tens of thousands of deaths, many more wounded and a country now ravaged by virtual civil war.

*The country is more divided than ever, and the President who promised to be a "uniter instead of a divider," has instead pushed a Right Wing Agenda and Nominees to important post that have led to further division. (Think anti Gay).

*The administration has practiced bully tactics unprecedented since the Nixon Years, with CIA agents being outed and dissenters being smeared on a regular basis.

All in all, this administration stinks to high heaven. That even Republicans are getting sick of it is no surprise. The Surprise is that it took this long!

When Jessie Jackson is suddenly getting close to Chavez:

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- The Rev. Jesse Jackson offered support for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, saying a recent call for his assassination was a criminal act and the United States and Venezuela should work out their differences through diplomacy.

The U.S. civil rights leader condemned last week's suggestion by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson that American agents should kill leftist Chavez, calling the conservative commentator's statements "immoral" and "illegal."

Jackson urged U.S. authorities to take action, and said the U.S. government must choose "diplomacy over any threats of sabotage or isolation or assassination."

"We must choose a civilized policy of rational conversation," he said at a news conference.

Chavez, a self-styled "revolutionary," has repeatedly accused U.S. President George W. Bush's government of planning to overthrow him. He warned on Friday that some American leaders have considered killing him.

Eh Jessie, aren't there enough problems here in the United States to be addressing, rather than once again inserting yourself onto the world state.

While I agree with your comments and sentiments, you have nothing to do with this story, and certainly no business addressing the National Assembly of another country...

Great Op/Ed piece on Boston.com:

SOME WHITE House sympathizers have attempted to portray Karl Rove's role in the Valerie Plame scandal as that of a statesman, seeking to provide President Bush with the best information possible on Saddam Hussein's nuclear ambitions so that Bush could set policy based on facts. This has been met with deserved skepticism. Rove's career, even before he became Bush's deputy chief of staff, is rich with reasons to think his motives in helping to identify Plame as a CIA agent were far darker.

After all, Plame's identity was revealed in a Robert Novak column on July 14, 2003, just eight days after her husband, Joseph Wilson, had embarrassed Bush over his Iraq war rationale. And Rove had talked with Novak on July 9.

As John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee and federal appeals court judge, wrote last month in another context, the fact that ''sometimes dogs do eat homework" is no reason to ignore more-logical explanations.

Rove's record has been consistent. Over 35 years, he has been a master of dirty tricks, divisiveness, innuendo, manipulation, character assassination, and roiling partisanship.

He started early. In 1970, when he was 19 and active as a college Republican -- though he didn't graduate from college -- Rove pretended to volunteer for a Democratic candidate in Illinois, stole some campaign stationery, and used it to disrupt a campaign event. Later, in Texas, he gave testimony in court that was embarrassing to an opponent of one of Rove's clients, even though it was not true, according to the book ''Bush's Brain," by two veteran Texas newsmen, James Moore and Wayne Slater.

Negative attacks have often been the center of Rove's strategies. In a race between Texas Governor Mark White and his Republican opponent, Bill Clements, Rove wrote in a memo: ''Anti-White messages are more important than positive Clements messages."

Often Rove has skated on the edge of being identified with certainty as the author of dirty tricks. In 1986, the discovery of a planted listening device in Rove's own office was widely publicized, damaging the Democrats. Many suspect that the source was Rove himself. This was never proven, but Moore and Slater say, ''Karl Rove remains a prime suspect." In 1989, Texas populist Jim Hightower was damaged by grand jury leaks for which, Moore and Slater say, ''Rove remains the most likely source."

Again, most of the personal slurs against candidates who had the temerity to run against Rove's clients have not been pinned on Rove personally, but they follow a pattern. George W. Bush ousted Ann Richards from the Texas governor's office in 1994 after a whisper campaign focused on a small number of Richards appointees who were lesbians and even suggested that Richards was gay. Bush himself stoked the fire, saying some Richards appointees "had agendas that may have been personal in nature."

The Rove issue has been pushed off the front page by recent news and by Cindy Sheehan, but this commentary may be evidence that the issue may be out of sight, but not, "out of mind," for the mainstream media.

With nearly 60% of Americans seeing Iraq as a mistake, and 56% of Americans expressing disapproval of the President's job performance, it does not come as a surprise that Bush is doing the rah rah routine over Iraq.

Likewise it is no surprise that the Conservaphere continues to try and spin positives out of what obviously has become a disaster. The war has become a boat anchor around the President's neck, and it is only getting worse. Rather than face reality and admit that the policy is a failure, the Right Wingers are so upset that they are attacking each other... And these are people who are always talking about "hate."

It has become obvious over the last week that Cindy is having an impact. The Spin, and spin of the spin continues on the Right, trying to discredit her. Roughnecks show up in Crawford in an attempt to intimidate her, and yet her message only grows more compelling as day after day, the "Last Throes," in Iraq seem to grow longer.

Time to do a reality check guys. Cindy is not going away. Iraq is not going to suddenly get better, and the truth about what led to the war is finding resonance with more and more Americans. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Reality: This country is being run by Wackos! Thanks to my reader who left that link in a comment to one of my posts.

I am not real big on conspiracy theories, and my BS meter is about as fine tuned as they come. But the stuff in the above report, and this one, are enough to scare the bejeezus out of me.

We have some very interesting people running our country right now, and I have suspected for some time that Bush isn't really the one doing the running... What they are doing is not exactly new. I have pointed out in recent posts that the resentment for US foreign policy and meddling is high in some parts of Latin America, and with just cause. What is going on right now is nothing but a return to and re-emphasis on American Imperialism. What is different is that these guys are arrogant about it, while in the past we always went about it on the QT.

Islamic terrorist have walked into the cave of a sleeping bear, woke him up and pissed him off, and given him an excuse to slap the living shit out of them, while at the same time taking their honey and anyone else's honey that they covet. In the interim, these people have made living in our country infinitely more dangerous. Everyone wants to take down the bear. In the process they have also made it a more uncomfortable place for every American who steps off the shores of the U.S.. Those who have come to and will come to hate America will not distinguish between it's leaders and it's citizens, when it comes to exacting revenge.

It has been said before but merits saying again. After 9/11, America had the sympathy and support of most of the world. That we sought justice in Afghanistan was seen as an indisputable right. On that day and for sometime afterward, Almost everyone was an American. But the people behind the Neocon Agenda sought to capitalize on that tragedy to push their agenda. The war in Iraq was a turning point for us as a state and an empire. It was the moment when we went from benevolent to BULLY, and it persists...

That these plans existed previous to 9/11 are not up for debate. Some on the conservative side would argue on the relative merits or degrees of "wrong," in these plans. Most of us, at least those among us NOT drinking the Kool Aid would argue that whatever the merits, we were lied to, and that in and of itself makes them suspicious.

Kathy Gill of About.com, has a great roundup of some of the coverage in the blogsphere on the Pat Robertson issue. ISOU is included in the roundup.

Blogosphere on Robertson
It seems Robertson has struck a cord across the blogosphere, especially in the religious realm. Blogging for Liberty reflects my opinion: "Any minister who condones the murder of a person is not reading the same bible I am." He then calls for a boycott of the 700 club.

serotoninrain writes: "You're giving those of us who actually love Jesus a bad headache." And Alex says: "The world needs Pat Robertson's Christianity as much as it needs Osama bin Laden's Islam."

The Purple Pew also looks at Robertson's comments from a religious perspective:

... Pat's latest statement testifies even further that he is no Christian. It's not because he has sinned. We all sin. But when confronted with his sin instead of repent, he lied, committing another sin against God.

There are some great nuggets in this post, from a wide diversity of Bloggers, check it out.

Great Question at the end of the post:

"Question? Define "becoming a dictator" when you've been elected, 71 percent of the population supports you (far more than Bush) and new elections are scheduled for December."

The truth is, that Chavez has strong support in Latin America. The same Latin America that has been victimized by American Politics for decades. Too often, "Dictator," is defined as any leader not catering to U.S. interest. "Pinochet," one of the most murderous Dictators in Latin American History, was all but installed by the Nixon Administration, and the region has a history of exploitation by American interest.

I don't know enough about Chavez one way or the other to judge what kind of President he is, but living in Latin America, I can assure you of one thing, he is a helluva lot more popular than George W. Bush!

Now Pat Robertson is saying he was misquoted. Eh, you need to watch the tapes dude.

What Robertson and people like him dont realize, is that Chavez is popular as hell in Latin America. Making idiotic comments like that will only increase his popularity. Che has been dead for how many years? And yet they are still making movies about him...

TAH RAVERS TREATED LIKE TERRORISTS! EVOL INTENT'S ACCOUNT OF THE INCIDENT! Originally Posted by knick evl ntnt

Last night, I was booked to play an event about an hour outside of Salt Lake City, Utah. The hype behind this show was huge, they presold 700 tickets and they expected up to 3,000 people total. The promoters did an amazing job with the show.. they even made slipmats with the flyers on them to promote in local shops.

So, we got to the show around 11:15 or so and it was really cool. It was all outdoors, in a valley surrounded by huge mountains. They had an amazing light show flashing on to a mountain behind the site, the sound was booming, the crowd was about 1500 people thick and everything just seemed too good to be true really. Well...

At about 11:30 or so, I was standing behind the stage talking with someone when I noticed a helicopter pulling over one of the mountain tops. I jokingly said "Oh look, here comes big brother" to the person I was with. I wasn't far off.

* Apollo's diary :: ::
*

The helicopter dipped lower and lower and started shining its lights on the crowd. I was kind of in awe and just sat and watched this thing circle us for a minute. As I looked back towards the crowd I saw a guy dressed in camoflauge walking by, toting an assault rifle. At this point, everyone was fully aware of what was going on . A few "troops" rushed the stage and cut the sound off and started yelling that everyone "get the fuck out of here or go to jail". This is where it got really sticky.

No one resisted. That's for sure. They had police dogs raiding the crowd of people and I saw a dog signal out a guy who obviously had some drugs on him. The soldiers attacked the guy (4 of them on 1), and kicked him a few times in the ribs and had their knees in his back and sides. As they were cuffing him, there was about 1000 kids trying to leave in the backdrop, peacefully. Next thing I know, A can of fucking TEAR GAS is launched into the crowd. People are running and screaming at this point. Girls are crying, guys are cussing... bad scene.

Now, this is all I saw with my own eyes, but I heard plenty of other accounts of the night. Now this isnt gossip I heard from some candy raver, these are instances cited straight out of the promoters mouth..

* One of the promoters friends (a very small female) was attacked by one of the police dogs. As she struggled to get away from it, the police tackled her. 3 grown men proceeded to KICK HER IN THE STOMACH.

* The police confiscated 3 video tapes in total. People were trying to document what was happening out there. The police saw one guy filming and ran after him, tackled him and his camera fell, and luckily.. his friend grabbed it and ran and got away. priceless footage. That's not all though. Out of 1,500 people, there's sure to be more footage.

Aint that just special... Doesnt news like that just make you proud of the country we live in. While we are off fighting to "preserve liberty, and our way of life," it is being slowly stolen from us by jackbooted thugs... Things that make you go hmmmmm...

Update: See the Rodney King style video here on Crooks and Liars.

From Frank Rich's NY Times Column:

Hat Tip Dan Gillmor.

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

The most prominent smear victims have been Bush political opponents with heroic Vietnam resumes: John McCain, Max Cleland, John Kerry. But the list of past targets stretches from the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke to Specialist Thomas Wilson, the grunt who publicly challenged Donald Rumsfeld about inadequately armored vehicles last December. The assault on the whistle-blower Joseph Wilson - the diplomat described by the first President Bush as "courageous" and "a true American hero" for confronting Saddam to save American hostages in 1991 - was so toxic it may yet send its perpetrators to jail.

True to form, the attack on Cindy Sheehan surfaced early on Fox News, where she was immediately labeled a "crackpot" by Fred Barnes. The right-wing blogosphere quickly spread tales of her divorce, her angry Republican in-laws, her supposed political flip-flops, her incendiary sloganeering and her association with known ticket-stub-carrying attendees of "Fahrenheit 9/11." Rush Limbaugh went so far as to declare that Ms. Sheehan's "story is nothing more than forged documents, there's nothing about it that's real."

But this time the Swift Boating failed, utterly, and that failure is yet another revealing historical marker in this summer's collapse of political support for the Iraq war.

As usual Rich pulls no punches...

Read it all. It demonstrates an all to clear pattern of abuse on the part of this Administration, abuse of power, abuse of the truth, abuse of the trust of the American Public. It also demonstrates further the sense of invulnerability that this administration feels. And rightfully so. They have successfully used the same tactic again and again and again...

But as Rich says:

When the Bush mob attacks critics like Ms. Sheehan, its highest priority is to change the subject. If we talk about Richard Clarke's character, then we stop talking about the administration's pre-9/11 inattentiveness to terrorism. If Thomas Wilson is trashed as an insubordinate plant of the "liberal media," we forget the Pentagon's abysmal failure to give our troops adequate armor (a failure that persists today, eight months after he spoke up). If we focus on Joseph Wilson's wife, we lose the big picture of how the administration twisted intelligence to gin up the threat of Saddam's nonexistent W.M.D.'s.

The hope this time was that we'd change the subject to Cindy Sheehan's "wacko" rhetoric and the opportunistic left-wing groups that have attached themselves to her like barnacles. That way we would forget about her dead son. But if much of the 24/7 media has taken the bait, much of the public has not.

this time the vast majority of the American Public is NOT buying it. The very principle of repeating something often enough until it becomes truth, has backfired. The American Public has been hearing about Administration lies and manipulation for years now, and the idea is finaly starting to sink in...

The majority of Americans feel compassion for Cindy Sheehan. While her protractors are vocal, the majority see her as a Mother grieving over the loss of a son, who is entitled to her moment with the President. His fundraising, vacationing and grandstanding with Lance Armstrong have come across as callous and heartless, at the very moment when he needs to be explaining some things not only to Sheehan, but to the whole nation. Bush ran the first time as a Straight Talk candidate. Those of us who watched the campaign from the Left, never bought this in the first place, but a lot of people did. His failure to provide Americans with a straight answer on the debacle in Iraq has eroded American confidence in him, and his administration. It does not help his case when his Generals are saying one thing, His SecDef another and Vice President something entirely different altogether.

Recent poll numbers more than anything, demonstrate a lack of confidence on the part of the American Public in ANYTHING having to do with Iraq, and rightfully so...

The attacks on Sheehan have only made the matter worse. I predict that Bush will eventually meet with Sheehan, calls to do so from within his own party have made this a nearly forgone conclusion. The delays at this point are more than likely based on Karl Rove trying to determine the best way to spin a lose/lose situation for Bush.

Welcome to Daou Report readers. Please feel free to comment on the post that the Daou Report linked to, as well as anything else you find interesting on ISOU.

And if you want to read two more interesting viewpoints on the effects of the war in Iraq on Bush's legacy. Professor Bainbridge and Kevin Drum have two excellent pieces on the subject. It is heartening to see Conservatives like Bainbridge waking up to the reality of this folly.

I found these two comments, particularly compelling:

The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine.

and

The second problem is that the fly paper strategy
seems to be radicalizing our foes even more. For every fly that gets
caught, it seems as though 10 more spring up. This should hardly come
as a surprise to anybody who has watched Israel pursue military
solutions to its terrorist problems, after all. Does anybody really
think Israel's military actions have left Hezbollah or Hamas with fewer
foot soldiers? To the contrary, the London bombing suggests to me that
it is only a matter of time before the jihadists strike in the US
again, even though our troops remain hung out as fly paper in the
Augean Stables of Iraq. {Update: The news
that Scotland Yard foiled a gas attack on the House of Commons, for
which the Yard deserves mega-kudos, doesn't change my mind. As the
climax of Tom Clancy's novel Debt of Honor suggests (and I still wonder of that inspired 9/11), the terrorists only need to win once. Conversely, the latest news
about that rocket attack on a US Navy ship in Jordan seems to confirm
my concerns: "The Abdullah Azzam Brigades -- an al-Qaida-linked group
that claimed responsibility for the bombings which killed at least 64
people at Sharm el-Sheik in July and 34 people at two other Egyptian
resorts last October -- said in an Internet statement that its fighters
had fired the Katyushas, bolstering concerns that Islamic extremists
had opened a new front in the region." Indeed, the NYT reports
that: "The possible involvement of Iraqis and the military-style attack
have raised fears that militants linked to Iraq's insurgency may be
operating on Jordanian soil."}

I have to admit, I often wonder what some Conservatives out there are smoking, that they can't see the obvious. I am convinced that they do see it. If 2000 was a heady experience for Conservatives who had suffered through eight years of Bill Clinton, despite aggressive attempts to get rid of him at any cost, then 2004, after surviving numerous mini scandals and debunking Rathergate, must have been the greatest of highs.

That Republicans managed to take healthy majorities in both Houses, and seemed to dominate the U.S. political agenda, must have given Conservatives a sense of invulnerability. But the cracks have been showing in the armor for some time now, and it has taken "Rovian," measures to keep the fact of the Emperors Nakedness from the American Public. It must be painful in the extreme to see those cracks appearing, and know that not only did they make a monumental mistake, but that all they worked so hard for is based on a foundation of lies, deception and corruption.

Admittedly, the Downing Street Memos, in and of themselves might have been compelling to those who already suspected the truth, but they were not "smoking gun," enough to convince the majority of the faithful. This is especially true of those who invested so heavily in what they felt was a new Conservative Revolution. They have been rewarded by stark failures on the part of the Administration to propel that Revolution forward, and have instead seen it get bogged down in a morass of ineptitude. For a time, they were able to defend against this ineptitude by making the issue "Liberal Hate of Bush," rather than accepting the realities of consistent and repeated failure by the Administration to accomplish much of anything, except successfully defending itself against charge after charge. Now, with more and more Conservatives beginning to acknowledge the obvious, the spin begins to ring hollow, even for those who once believed it.

Even still, some refuse to acknowledge the obvious:

I honestly don't see anything "inappropriate" about it. Cindy accuses the President of "lying" about several of the reasons for war in Iraq, so maybe these television stations are worried about giving air time to somebody calling the President a liar when its clear to most of us with common sense that he didn't lie about Iraq. But that's just a guess.

Were it up to me, I'd have let the ad run. Most Americans don't agree with the idea that the President "lied" about the WMD's and know that Saddam had plenty of ties to al Qaeda, though not to the 9/11 attacks specifically. This is why Americans re-elected the President in the face of these accusations of lying. Putting Cindy Sheehan up to repeat these accusations again is only going to do more harm to her causes than it would to the cause of the President.

Rob's argument is deeply flawed... First off, recent polls indicate that as many as 51% of Americans feel the American Public was deceived about Iraq. With some polls nearing 60%. So the argument that "Most Americans believe that the President did not lie is intellectually and morally dishonest.

The Left has often made this spin easier, by failing to stay on message, and by failing to present a clear alternative. The Left has also been guilty of wimping out at key times. Those who have shown strength, have been attacked as members of the "Loony Left." Rove has been able to successfully exploit this time and time again by pointing out the inconsistency of the Left's message, while hammering away on the Administration's, even in those cases where it was obvious that the Administration message was a nefarious one. Rove and his Conservative Disciples have been Masters of hammering away on a message until it BECOMES truth, even when it is clear to any thinking person that the message lacks logic.

9/11 was a catharsis for America. Karl Rove and the Administration have shamelessly taken advantage of this to smear Liberals, out a CIA agent in an act of revenge, and execute a disastrous and unjustified war. This administration's legacy will be based on Post 9/11. With information coming to light almost daily on how badly they bungled the so called "War on Terror," and with little else to point to as accomplishments, Bush's legacy will likely suffer. More significantly, he may join Nixon as a President corrupted by his own sense of infallibility.

Last week, I heard repeated for the nth time the charge that the war on terror is a failure. Why did we invade Iraq, and more importantly, why is Osama Bin Laden still out there somewhere? Where is he? And how can we say we're winning the war if he's still unaccounted for?

I can see that argument. There's a part of me (the liberal, emotional, vindictive, touchy-feely part of me) even sympathizes with it. I want to see his ugly, bearded head on one of the spikes on the White House fence. But my intellect dismisses it as a non-issue.

Osama Bin Laden is not THE enemy. He is not who we declared war against. He is not the be-all and end-all of our foes, and even if he were to surrender today, that would not put an end to the struggle.
Jay Tea
Wizbang

Eh, are these the same people who supported and continue to champion a war based on, "Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad man... and needed to be removed from power?" Well, I don't know, maybe I am missing something, but I see the dude who ordered the murder of thousands of Americans as being a pretty bad chap too, and "rendering him irrelevant," while convienant for those who want to deflect from the embarrassment that we have not captured him, does not make it so..." Neither do I see us, "thoroughly stomping," anyone. If we have, then the terrorist that Osama continues to at least provide inspiration for, must be roaches, 'cause for every one we "stomp," ten more seem to appear. Jay Tea was once someone I respected, as at least inserting logic into his arguments, now he is nothing more than a well written apologist for a failed policy and a disgraced administration, one that does not quite know it has been disgraced.... YET...

Want more proof of liberal's hatred guiding their thoughts? Try and figure out how this article relates to the "lies" that OIF is based on. Personally, I'm baffled.

Conservative Thinking

But he is right about one thing. Hatred pretty much describes my feelings about stupidity and political blindness. The post I made yesterday referred to a number of points. One (And I will keep this short to keep Chris' attention), is that as previously stated, the Iraq war was planned and pre-determined well before any effort was made to "justify," the war. Two, despite the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, and there appears to be significant evidence that it could have been stopped, had anyone in the administration been paying attention to the threat, Conservatives continue to blame it on Clinton, Liberals, anyone but the people most responsible for it...

I have ratcheted back my blogging lately, mainly because it is just ridiculous dealing with this crap. Disagree, hate me for being a Liberal, whatever. The chickens are coming home to roost, and history will be the judge as to who is right or wrong. Most blogs are preaching to their choirs, so I am sure Chris' audience is buying his spiel. But the Truth is out there.... I am confident that it will all come to light.

Oh, and as an asside, either Liberals are the only ones taking polls these days, or a significant numbers of Conservatives have stopped drinking the Kool Aid.

That is the sound of all those who have been denying the lies this war is based on, being beat over the head with a "truth stick!"

From Shakespear's Sister comes the latest:

Link (not blockquoted due to length):

State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans forpost-war Iraq security

Planning for post-Saddam regime change began as early as October 2001

Washington, D.C., August 17, 2005:

Newly declassified State Department documents show that government experts warned the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in early 2003 about "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance," well before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

In a February 7, 2003, memo to Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, three senior Department officials noted CENTCOM's "focus on its primary military objectives and its reluctance to take on 'policing' roles," but warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." The memo adds "We have raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials."

By contrast, a December 2003 report to Congress, also released by the State Department, offers a relatively rosy picture of the security situation, saying U.S. forces are "increasingly successful in preventing planned hostile attacks; and in capturing former regime loyalists, would-be terrorists and planners; and seizing weapons caches." The document acknowledges that "Challenges remain."

Since then, 1,393 U.S. military fatalities have been recorded in Iraq, including two on the day the report went to Congress.

The new documents, released this month to the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, also provide more evidence on when the Bush administration began planning for regime change in Iraq -- as early as October 2001.

Meanwhile, in Iraq.....

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi police arrested four people in connection with a string of car bombings Wednesday morning that killed at least 43 people and wounded 88 in central Baghdad, the Transportation Ministry said.

The blasts came as transitional governmental officials worked to complete a new constitution, which lawmakers hope will help produce stability in the volatile country.

The attacks began about 7:45 a.m. (11:45 p.m. ET), when a car bomb exploded outside of the al-Nahda bus terminal, police said. A second car bomb exploded about 10 minutes later.

Casualties were rushed to the al-Kindi Hospital, where a third explosion was reported a short time later.

Video from the scene showed the smoldering wreckage of a vehicle near two buses, but black smoke obscured much of the view. Iraqi police said 22 vehicles were damaged.

The "last throes," continue...

While some conservative bloggers blow sunshine up our ass... which is in and of itself amazing, considering that their own heads are up their asses. You see to them, it's all about Cindy Sheehan, the outrage of it all. Too bad they dont feel the same outrage about the bullshit that lead to Cindy being in Texas huh?

Wait NO, it was Clinton's fault!!! Everything was Clinton's fault. 9/11 was Clinton's fault... Let's just ignore the fact that it happened on Bush's watch, and that evidence has now been presented that 9/11 could have been stopped.

Have too much time on their hands.... Instead of beer busst and photoshop contest, wouldn't such creative minds be of much better use on the FRONT, fighting in the war they support so strongly? I mean wow, such energy, such wit, such creativity. I have no question that some of these guys could come up with a way to end the war tomorrow and poor Cindy could come home. What do you think?

Read Frank Rich's column from the NY Times. It's a classic. Somehow the man manages to cover all the bases on the war in Iraq, including Cindy Sheehan's protest movement.

My favorite excerpt:

Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America: not a shotgun constitution rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline, not another Iraqi election, not higher terrorist body counts, not another battle for Falluja (where insurgents may again regroup, The Los Angeles Times reported last week). A citizenry that was asked to accept tax cuts, not sacrifice, at the war's inception is hardly in the mood to start sacrificing now. There will be neither the volunteers nor the money required to field the wholesale additional American troops that might bolster the security situation in Iraq.

WHAT lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we'll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.

Thus the president's claim on Thursday that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president's preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.

I was not aware that one of Bush's "loyalist, Senator George Allen of Virginia, instructed the president to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother camping out in Crawford, as "a matter of courtesy and decency." Or, to translate his Washingtonese, as a matter of politics. Only someone as adrift from reality as Mr. Bush would need to be told that a vacationing president can't win a standoff with a grief-stricken parent commandeering TV cameras and the blogosphere 24/7."

It will be interesting to see if he takes this advice. Cindy pulled a brilliant strategic move today by inviting Bush to, "Pray with her," on Friday. For this President, who claims a lock on spirituality, that one may be even more difficult to pass up. I still have serious reservations about the Sheehan Strategy at the moment, but I have to admit I am impressed with some of the moves..

Is all the Democratic Party Leadership seems to be able to do these days. Read this shocker from Comments from Left Field!

Many thanks to Mark Crispin Miller for posting the full audio of a speech given by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at a private party in Georgia on August 2. I have clipped out the relevant two minutes of this speech and transcribed it for everyone to see. Bottom line, Schumer admits to, in effect, a new Democratic strategy whereby he and the DSCC leadership will choose who will run against vulnerable Republicans. The case he uses is our own fight for the seat held by Rick Santorum. Here is the audio clip in mp3 format.

Read the whole thing, Michael has a transcript of the pertinent points.

Others talking about this story:
News Dissector
Liz at the Pennacchio campaign blog.
Salon.com - Daou Report
2 Political Junkies

How many Republicans were STUPID enough to respond to this.

Tip of the Hat to Jesus General and Crooks and Liars.

From Digby:

Uhm no --- He's Just An Idiot

Bush's loyalty raises doubts about his political judgment

"It seems that President Bush is falling into the Nixon trap - his administration can do no wrong. His allies and people who support him can do no wrong," said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian. "Palmeiro is above suspicion, Rove is not to be questioned, John Bolton is a stand-up guy.

"The danger is he divorces himself from public reality, political reality, and it erodes his ability to lead the country," Dallek said.

It's not that his administration can do no wrong. It's that he can do no wrong. If he picked these people for his administration or for his friends, thay are, by definition, good people who are above suspicion. To sayotherwise would be to admit that his judgment is imperfect and that is impossible. Dear Leader is an infallible child.

Kind of says it all, doesn't it. No... It doesn't really. The biggest problem with Bush is that he is an "encouraged spoiled child."

He was asleep at the switch on 9/11 and he gets a pass. (Blame the failure to stop Al Quaeda on Clinton). He spends the Vietnam years drinking mint juleps and whatever other intoxicant of choice he wanted, and then in 2004, it was Kerry who had the questionable war record. He steals two elections, and NOOOO it was the Democrats who played dirty... He lies about the reasons for invading Iraq, and in a ridiculous revision of history... The reasons changed. A CIA Agent is outed, and the Husband, no reporters, no Who's Who via the Husband... is at fault. Bush has been empowered by the Wizbangs, Powerlines and Wall Street Journal OP/Ed pages for five years. Like a spoiled child he has pressed the boundaries each time, and delighted when he got away with it.

He has absolutely ZERO incentive to tell the truth, to admit fallibility or to acknowledge failure. His faithful supporters shield him from any sense of responsibility. But the day of reckoning is coming. With the sense of invulnerability, has come sloppiness, and cracks have appeared in the armor. Despite frantic and often irrational efforts by the Powerline's and Wizbangs of the blogsphere to spin administration scandals, the American People, including a Great Many Republicans are starting to lose patience. This is evident not only by Bush's falling poll numbers, but by the defection of major Conservative Bloggers and Journalist, who just cant tow the party line anymore... or perhaps it is that they cant stomach the stench... Whatever the case, the tide is changing, slowly but surely, and if the country is to be saved, it will be a combination of Progressives and disaffected Conservatives who lead the fight.

Update to this post.

It's amazing... Truly amazing... Kevin at Wizbang, who has posted:

Update 2: More on Novak and Plame later, but perhaps the raging debate in the comment section can dissect what effect, if any, Novak's piece would have had if he used Valerie Wilson instead of Valerie Plame? Also do you think Novak, on hearing of the wife's involvement got her name from Who's Who and stuck with it OR found the Who's Who reference to backup his source(s)?

*** Evidently one cannot even make a snarky remark about the Plame affair without having to explain oneself ad nauseum. OK here goes...

I'm over generalizing here, but it seem like there wasn't an outing of an agent until two non-secret bits of information were combined.Joseph Wilson's wife's maiden name, most would now agree, was not a secret. That Wilson worked at the CIA was not widely known, but it was hardly a secret [See Cliff May at NRO and Just One Minute]. That Wilson's wife was (or had been) a covert operative was only known to (if reports are to be believed) the Cuban government and perhaps those receiving information form Aldrich Ames, but it was still a secret. Novak puts two pieces of non-secret information together and gets this flashpoint.

But how did that combination "out" a covert agent? I turns out the the Valerie Plame name (remember, according to many commenters her name's no big deal) was her cover. If her cover name was Valerie Jones how exactly would Novak's column as it was written have "outed" her? It's wouldn't have. As former federal prosecutor Joesph DiGenoa contends it sure looks like the CIA didn't exactly bust a nut to "take every conceivable step to protect this person's identity."

to his misguided latest attempt to defend the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, has had it blow up in his face. He is getting hammered in his comments by "The Reality Based Community," who has apparently just had enough and called "Bullshit!"

The Right Wing efforts to defend Rove, Novak and the other co-conspirators in the treasonous act of outing an undercover CIA agent have gotten so ridiculous, that they don't even pass the smell test for some on the Right. Novak cracking under the pressure is just another example of things starting to unravel in the disciplined Bush Spin apparatus. This all started a while back with the unraveling of the Armstrong Williams scandal, followed by countless others. The recent Downing Street revelations, The exposure of the ACVR as a disgusting front for Partisan GOP Politics, and countless other mini-scandals, have demonstrated to any RATIONAL thinking person, that this administration is rotten to the core, and that the Emperor Indeed has no clothes.

That Wizbang, (A blog that based on comments on this blog demonstrate), has been discredited even among rational members of the Right (See RINOS), continues to spin the unspinnable, is no surprise. That they would do so with such completely ridiculous arguments, (even for them), is....

Apparently Kool Aide rations are running low, because more and more Right Wing Blogs seem to be changing their tone these days, subtly acknowledging that their Party has been hijacked by an extreme element that wants to impose a dogmatism on them that they never expected and don't support.

Many people on the Right voted for Bush last year for one reason. They saw him being stronger on Terrorism. These one issue voters are seeing religious dogmatism shoved down their throat. They are watching in horror as, "The man who would bring honor back to the White House," does anything but. They are alarmed.

There are those on the Right who absolutely believe the garbage that is coming from the Administration. And there are others who shamefully just cant stomach the idea that they made such a monumental mistake. Perhaps out of embarrassment, perhaps out of a vain hope that they are right, they will continue to defend the indefensible.

As a side note, while he has gotten a lot fewer comments, Rob has gotten slammed too.

"And, if memory serves me correctly, the information in the Who's Who listings are provided (or at the very least approved) by those listed in the directory themselves. Meaning that Wilson likely "outed" his own wife at least a year before President Bush was even in office."

The Ever so Brilliant Rob from Say Anything....

Eh, what did he "out her" as... His wife?"

Really need to think these things through Robster before you let your desire to crawl up the arse of the Wizbangers get the best of you!

I just got this email that says in part:

"You know why Republicans and Conservatives don't comment on your blog? It's because you are insulting. You insult anyone that does not share your POV. You are just like all the other Moonbat idiots that think they know everything."

Eh, Okay. Let me see. I am insulting, and yet half the email is full of insults. And the post and comments on Right Wing blogs that insult everyone on the left, call us moonbats, traitors or worse... Those are examples of reasonable debate right?

Well, let me straighten a few things out... For the record... I am a Liberal, not a pacifist. You come here with rhetoric, be prepared to defend it with logic, not insults. I don't roll over. Perhaps for too long I sold myself as a "reasonable," member of the left, and to some of you, that was taken as a sign that I was someone who could be swayed to your way of thinking... Eh... NO!

Some of you on the Right have sold out your country, and your soul in the process by electing an idiot to the highest office in the land. A man who is an international disgrace to the office. You thought Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office was a disgrace. Well, most foreign leaders, and foreign nationals thought that it was moronic that a nation like ours even wasted our time on that witch hunt.

You on the other hand voted for a President who cant speak for five minutes without sounding like a total moron. You voted for a President who is directly responsible for the death of 1,800 Americans, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, and the maiming of thousands of other Americans in a "war of vanity." You voted for a man who sees no problem with considering selling our Largest Oil company to the Chinese. You voted for a man who has lied repeatedly to the American People. You voted for a man who believes we should be teaching Creationism in our schools, right alongside REAL science. You voted for a man who has spent 20% of his time in office, ON VACATION! You voted for a man who has spent the last 4 1/2 years "working hard," to reward those who helped him steal the Presidency. You voted for a man who talks about National Security, while pandering to Vincente Fox and Business interest, as millions of illegal aliens flood into the country. You have elected a man who has draped himself in the greatest tragedy to ever befall this country, and has shamelessly exploited it for his own political gain. You elected a man who's administration has used our constitution as toilette paper.

I could go on, but I wont.

I enjoy debate. And there are people I can have civil disagreement with. But when you come to this Blog with snide remarks, insults and an air of superiority... When you come to this Blog, expecting me to be swayed by Rhetoric and Talking points... You need to realize something, being civil does not mean being compliant. Nor does it mean sitting still for insults direct or implied.

Tonight I get two insults in comments to post... Childish, arrogant and mal advised... But lets be real here. The reason that most hard core Bushistas don't comment here is simple... They like to attack in packs from the comfort of their own little echo chambers. For the past two days this one guy has been trying to convince me to go to Dan Gillmor's blog to "engage in debate," about a post I wrote here. Now what kind of idiotic logic dictates me going to someone else's blog to fight a battle started by my own post... Simple, on Gillmor's blog there were a group of "Right Thinking," people like my dear commenter. Nothing like having the crowd behind you! Please...

My advice? You come into my home claiming to want debate... DEBATE. Make your points. If I agree, I will say so. If I don't, I wont call you an idiot. Make sure you extend me the same courtesy, or stay in your own comfort zone where you can call Liberals anything you want.

From Billmon:

President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of -- nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time. The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and Tuesday was the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford -- roughly 20 percent of his presidency to date.

Washington Post
Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record
August 3, 2005

The U.S. ranks below 10 other countries in paid vacation
days for workers. In the U.S., the average worker gets 16 paid vacation
days a year, compared to 30 days in Portugal and Spain; 25 days in
Austria, Finland, Sweden and France; and 20 days in Belgium, the
Netherlands and Switzerland. European countries guarantee workers paid
vacation days by law.

Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-VT
Working Families in the Global Economyp>

Staggers the mind doesn't it. Tens of thousands of Americans out of work.... Stop Loss orders keeping soldiers in Iraq for obscene periods of time, other Americans afraid to take a vacation for fear that they will lose their job, and its all Barbecues and pony rides in Crawford. Makes you sick doesn't it?

I read this quote on Dean's World tonight:

The Left. Hopeless. Shameful. History will record that the U.S. could have saved tremendous loss of life and treasure had we liberated Iraqi with more troops and a proper "after-victory" plan. But the chronicles will also show that America could have saved time, money and--most especially, lives--had the Left contributed its valuable resources to the liberation effort as well. Imagine if feminists, labor leaders, environmentalists, civil rights activists, artists and the media had joined in the struggle instead of sitting on the sidelines--or worse, assisting the fascists? Imagine if the clarion cry of freedom and democracy had arisen from a unified progressive front consisting of conservatives and liberals? Just as we've learned how much succor the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong took from the anti-war protesters of the 1960s, we will someday learn how the parochial, small-minded, narrow-souled opposition to the establishment of democracy in Iraq stiffen the fascist backbone of the "insurgency." But of course, the Michael Moores, Robert Fisks, George Galloways, Ted Kennedys and innumerable Hollywood celebrities and academics of this world will not care--they will always find reporters, voters, fans and tenure committees willing to dull the sting of conscience.

Written by some right-wing death beast? No. By the late Steve Vincent.

Dean goes on to agree with the quote. Well, perhaps I am showing my ignorance, but I have no idea who Steve Vincent was. I will take some time tomorrow to read his blog. But I want to offer a strong opposing point of view.

I don't think Leftist have done ENOUGH in opposing the war. Yes you read that right, and if you have read ISOU before, you are probably not surprised.

Many of us opposed this war BEFORE the Downing Street Memos. We had different reasons. Mine is sitting in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan right now. I felt, and still feel that we should have focused our ire and our energies on punishing those responsible for 9/11, and bringing ALL of the perpetrators to justice.

No, we allowed ourselves to be deceived, and to be swept up in the "War on Terror," which has become a disjointed quagmire. Iraq is a mess, more of a mess than it was under it's former dictator, and even the CIA says it has become a breeding ground for 21st Century Terrorism. All the jingoism in the world does not change the fact that there was no plan and is no plan, at least no consistent one.

Iraq has become a meat grinder for our troops and the Iraqi people, and it will probably have to get to the point where it is proven that there have been more killed during the occupation, than during the Hussein Regime, before anyone on the Right is willing to admit it.

I am not a moonbat, and stupid/dramatic protest do not make an impact on middle America. What we needed was for our elected representatives to stand up, show some spine and demand accountability in the decision to go into Iraq. What we needed and still need is for Progressives to speak out logically, sanely and without rhetoric on the true impact of this war, on the American People, The American Economy and the Iraqi people.

That we did not contribute to a war that we did not believe in is not the sad thing, that we did not contribute to stopping it, and have not suitably contributed to exposing it for what it is, is...

First my apologies for breaking Blog etiquette and posting this post from Crooks and liars in it's entirety, but it is too hard to choose what to excerpt:

Brad Blog reports on this: "We'd expect it from the wingnut blogs out there like "Captain's Quarters", "Pardon my English", "Betsy Newmark", "WizBang", "The Anchoress" and "Mr. Remainder" (all of whom couldn't wait to re-type the nonsense without taking even thirty seconds to do a Google seach on the ACVR democracy-hating scam artists). But several in the "news" media faired as poorly as the Rightwing bloggers....read on"

The Moderate Voice is up in arms over this whole mess: WE WERE WRONG on that "The fact that a controversy has raged for months on the group being loaded with people alleged to be GOP activists means the report's allegations don't have the credibility it would have had if it was truly a bipartisan group with no controversy going back months....read on"

John Cole busted them this morning: "Sorry folks. I am calling bullshit on this group and on this report. The group was newly formed this year, it appears to be made up of nothing but Republicans, and for what it is worth, non-partisan groups concerned with voting rights don’t issue reports that amount to little more than “Democrats are worse. Neener Neener Neener!”

I have said it repeatedly, but it is worth repeating, John Cole is one of the few Conservative Bloggers I TRULLY respect. Please add me to the "Lefty Bloggers having a field day!"

The typical Conservative approach to the ACVR report is par for the course, echo chamber STUPIDITY and Hypocrisy. It is why I have stopped reading and linking to their silly rewarmed GOP Talking Points.

You want to talk about treason... Treason is serving the crap up on a daily basis that these people serve up. It is one thing for the Government to deceive the people, it has happened in Republican and Democratic administrations alike, but the GOP Bloggers as I like to call them, have taken this to a whole new level. They lie and they know they lie. They promote an agenda that is unAmerican, and they subvert the constitution in the process by supporting a radical agenda that has no respect for TRUTH!

I am not giving them a free pass by saying they were "deceived." Deceived means they did not know that this was a partisan group, and I am sure that the majority of them did. Wizbang prides itself in being a blog of Google Masters. I have not doubt that the Holy Trinity of Conservative Blogging "googled," this group the minute they read the report. What they then did was selective publish to make a point. So like John Cole, I am going to CALL BULLSHIT ON THIS ONE!

Posted by David A at 02:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1) | 486 Words