Go here to observe the typical Bushite-GOP tactic. Blame Clinton for anything for which you are directly responsible and your partisan supporters will suck it up like babies' pablum. Watch the partisan misleader Porter Goss facilitate the Bush administration's attempt to redirect attention from what's really going on here, which is their complete distortion of the evidence. Can't we trust any of our representatives in Washington to put 'the People' before 'partisanship' anymore?
The headline says : "Powell Defends War, Says He Expected WMD".
Because of the trust they once had in you, so did most Americans, Colin Powell.
No, no, Colin Powell-you have it wrong. The truth was not "murdered" in the run-up to Iraq war, it was smothered to near-death. Trust was murdered.
T-R-U-S-T. And you aren't getting it back.
Here's a piece of pure garbage trying to be passed off as intelligent opinion. I thought I would share it with you. They started all the ridiculous rumor about the Clinton/Clark connection to sell their dummy-papers, so I guess they have to try to look like political swamis by creating more rumors. The story gets better by the minute. It's almost as good as the funny-papers. If Clinton had wanted to "dictate the Democratic nominee", he would have endorsed him. Duh.
Kerry?! God--Not another intern/infidelity fiasco. Matt Drudge is telling us there's a Kerry commotion and it's a good part of the reason why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision not to drop out of the race after Wisconsin. Drudge states that, in an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [And that three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]
I wonder why Clark dropped out, then? Could it be he's hoping for a VP slot with Dean or Edwards? Well, wait a minute...why would Clark be endorsing Kerry, then?? It wouldn't make much sense, would it?
The right-wing rumor mills are gearing up for this story already. I can almost smell the drool. WorldNetDaily has scooped it up, spreading the great rumor heard on the talk-show with the host with all the integrity, OxiContin Limbaugh (pflurgh):
During his broadcast today, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh speculated the bombshell information could have been leaked to Drudge by Bill or Hillary Clinton.Ooooo yeah, baby! Blame Clinton!
At Editor and Publisher, they're wondering if the media will "pounce" on this rumor . I wonder, too..or will they just drone on hour after hour on cable news... pumping Kerry up as the top Democrat while the GOP adds to their stack of ammo to be used against him? If we don't get the skinny about this candidate up-front, we may wake up and find we've been backing the wrong donkey. We don't want anyone making asses of us. Let's get things out in the open...good and early.
I still do not forgive Terry McAuliffe for all the tacit (and sometimes overt) support of this one candidate to the near-exclusion of the others...and the near-destruction of at least one of them.
The story's gone international as well. The Scotsman has picked it up. They say Drudge claimed a close friend of the mystery woman approached a reporter late last year claiming “fantastic stories”. The Kerry campaign has no comment.
I wonder if this Seattle alternative music writer was onto something when, in speaking about the group Coldplay's lead singer at the Grammys, stated:
"Chris Martin earned the first cool points of his life by dedicating Coldplay's undeserved Record of the Year award to two Johns: Cash... and Kerry, "who will hopefully be your president one day." And hopefully employ a cigar on an intern and inadvertently make prime time a haven for raunch once again.Funny...Susan Estrich had just said in her latest column:
"...The danger for Democrats, for the first time since the name Monica Lewinsky was uttered publicly, is that they might start feeling confident..."But, Susan! That was 11 whole hours ago!! ;)
Love the picture? Click photo for story
Disinformation leads to a terribly warped public political consciousness. When I began to read this article, I initially thought the writer was buying into the current White House promotion of propaganda. The White House is clearly attempting to revise history by leading us to believe al-Qaeda was active and supported by Hussein in Iraq before the war (which was one of the Bushite's lies) when their only PROOF is that they are fighting American forces in Iraq NOW. (Remember Bush inviting the mo-fo's in? "Bring 'em on" were his words, I believe). Read this quote from the article:
"Weapons of mass destruction are nowhere to be found, but an al-Qaida presence in Iraq - another key justification for the war - is becoming increasingly apparent, U.S. officials say."I was pleasantly relieved to see the article's writer continue on....
"What isn't clear, though, is whether this backs the Bush administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had a long relationship with al-Qaida. Critics say it may instead show that the postwar chaos in Iraq actually gave al-Qaida terrorists an opening to enter the country to strike at Americans and their allies.""Okay", I told myself...relieved after reading this paragraph. The writer isn't giving the Bushies the "honeymoon-treatment". I sense objectivity..how refreshing.
I've felt that way often lately. I've found myself holding my breath when I read the news or watch it on cable news networks. So often I've seen imbalance, indifference, and injustice to the truth. It mostly comes from journalists who believe they have to present two sides to a story in one sitting. Facts are buried or lost in the shuffle between perceptions. There's no better way to lose the truth. I believe in truly fair and balanced journalism. I know it when I see it. I liked this article because I sensed that it took in the facts and let you decide for yourself...the same thing the conservative FOX claims to do, but hardly ever does, in my view.
By the way, I did decide for myself after reading the article. The article says, at its conclusion, that the White House is not backing down. They don't have to back down. And I don't have to believe a damned word they say anymore...and I don't. That's just a consequence of a person being lied to for far too long.
Howard Dean declared yesterday: "I've actually said on the record that I thought Senator Edwards would be a stronger candidate against George W. Bush than John Kerry, because when Senator Kerry's record is examined by the public at a more leisurely time when we're not having primaries every week, he's going to turn out to be just like George W. Bush."
Speaking of Dean, HOWARD'S BIG IN JAPAN.
When it comes to political strategy, Josh Marshall has asked the question: "Are Democrats warming to pre-emption?" See his article at The Hill titled "Maybe Dean has taught Democrats how to fight".
I enjoyed reading EdwardPig's take on the gay marriage issue. Here's the LINK.
EdwardPig makes a great point in his writings on the subject. The U.S. Constitution was written to guarantee rights to our citizens, not restrict them. Freedom isn't only for the people who agree to adhere to a certain framed pre-set of social values, nor should our Constitution ever be used for such social slavery. Americans, regardless of our emotions surrounding the issue, should never stand for our Constitution, thus our very freedom, being so politically abused.
WHERE'S THE JUSTICE???