What about the Deaniacs?


I just read something I wanted to share here on the Iddybud blog. I can't tell you exactly where we're going, but we "Deaniacs" are doing a bit of scattering now that Dean's out of the actual race. Yet, our hearts are still with the candidate who changed our lives. To me, Howard Dean represented my version of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" Although I don't believe for a moment he was as politically naive as Smith, he was every bit as refreshingly idealistic. He had patriotic clarity and conveyed it well. He lifted a veil so that we may see the filth that pollutes Washington politics today.
There's a great thread at the for Change for America blog, and this is where I found these comments from "Politicalfinger":

"Why does Steve Grossman keep talking about Dean giving the eventual nominee (in his mind - Kerry) his vast number of supporters? Is this his dream to hand Kerry the Dean supporters and crawl his way back to the fold? It will be his nightmare. Dean supporters can not be bought and sold to the highest bidder. Grossman defected publicly right before the Wisconsin primary as a signal to Kerry that he was willing to throw a wrench in the Dean support at the polls. There are professional whores who work campaigns every election cycle and now there is much media about how they will be "punished" for supporting Dean rather than the establishment candidate pre-selected by the DNC/DLC (Kerry - Why do you think the convention site is Boston?) These professionals will always be around; they ridicule "true-believer" types (like Dean's supporters) and will do what ever they feel they need to do to get the next job. Beware these types and don't let the bastards get you down. Keep being a true-believer, otherwise we will continue to see "business as usual" in all areas of government. In the Sixties we said "Power to the People". That slogan is now being dusted off. Give them the Political Finger!"

Guys like Steve Grossman and labor leader Gerald McEntee (who recently called Gov. Dean "nuts" for not dropping out before Wisconsin) are only two representives what is wrong with politics today.

What's Next for Deaniacs?
Click on the link above...come to NationalGrassroots.us and join a national discussion.
National Grassroots' current objective is to:

--Create an umbrella organization to share and provide services to and from members including National Ad Spots, PR, Media, Technology, Volunteer Organizing, Voter Outreach Campaigns, Visibility, GOTV, and Strategy while enabling groups to maintain autonomy.

--Draw national media attention to the power, breadth, and depth of the grassroots by giving the grassroots a consolidated voice in the media.

--Maximize the effectiveness of grassroots activities by sharing our pooled wealth of volunteer talents.

--Strengthen the partnership between Dean grassroots volunteers and Dean For America.

Bin Laden "found"?

A British newspaper (The Sunday Express) is well-known for its "colorful" scoops (like World Net Daily or The National Enquirer). They are claiming Osama bin Laden "has been found and is surrounded by US special forces in an area of land bordering north-west Pakistan and Afghanistan." The Paper is said to have gotten information on bin Laden from a "well-placed Washington source". I've seen similar stories lately.
Interesting timing, wouldn't you say?
Perhaps a bin Laden capture would stop the swirling fervored chatter from the public about censuring President Bush because of the Iraq war intelligence fiasco.
Perhaps it will give President Bush a snowball's chance in Hades of winning the election in November.

The One You've Been Waiting For
By William Rivers Pitt

I consider William to be one of the greatest patriots this country could possibly know today.
For those who have been working hard to support the candidates of your choosing, regardless of their respective successes in the Democratic primaries, please take a moment and read this article. I guarantee you'll be glad you did.

The Government who lied-The greatest sin committed against Americans

Chalabi Got What He Wanted--The WMD Lies? As President Bush Said: 'So What's the Difference?'

"Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important."


So sayeth Ahmad Chalabi--puller of Bush administration strings

"We are
heroes in error!"


*"....And I am the hero of skimming off the financial benefits of our error!""

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and our Commander-in-Chief....these are only a few the "dreamteam dupes of Chalabi" who led America down the path to unnecessary war. I'm not certain if this sin against the American people can ever be forgiven.

"Now maybe, just maybe, Saddam's capture will start a virtuous circle in Iraq. Maybe the insurgency will evaporate; maybe the cost to America, in blood, dollars and national security, will start to decline.
But even if all that happens, we should be deeply disturbed by the history of this war. For its message seems to be that as long as you wave the flag convincingly enough, it doesn't matter whether you tell the truth."

--Paul Krugman NY Times, 12-19-03

We're heroes in untrustworthy recklessness!

About Thomas Friedman....

"I hear rumors that, for his next project, he is working with Pat Buchanan co-writing a screenplay for Mel Gibson. It is called:
The Jews Killed Kennedy, Mr. Rodgers and Captain Kangaroo."



Aww, c'mon, don't get in an uproar..it's a joke, already.
This is a memorable line from a new Jeff Dunetz article whose humor, albeit au courant, is not denotative of a Mel Gibson"Passion" puff-piece. This is about N.Y. Times columnist Thomas Friedman who, as of late, has been observed confusing us readers with inconsistent aplogist doublespeak about many a topic. Mr. Dunetz calls it like he sees it...with refreshing humor. But you won't get him wrong...he makes it clear that he means what he says.

"...look at some of the things [Thomas Friedman's] said. Like the time he said that the only reason President Bush supported Israel was that he didn't want to alienate the Jewish vote. "Mr. Bush blinked because he didn't want to alienate the Jewish Voter." (NY Times June 30th 2002 ) Does that really sound like someone whose last name is FRIEDMAN?" No, that sounded like it came from the Prime Minister of Malaysia. It's like he is ignoring Palestinian terrorism totally. He can't really believe that, he must be acting like an Anti-Semite to make a point...."

.......“Look at his statement this past January 18th that Israel is standing in the way of the Arab/Muslim world modernizing? Could any sane man really believe that? Totally ignoring that repressive regimes such as Iran and Syria refuse to modernize because it will lead do democratization…and the end of their power. Come on! He even uses terms like 'vicious cycle of violence,' putting the blowing up of a bus and the killing of terrorists on the same moral plane. I bet that Tom Friedman hates saying that. Surely every time he describes a West Bank settler a "fanatical Jew" a tear comes to his eye! But he is taking one for the team, fighting Anti-Semitism by taking it to the extreme. What a nice guy that Tommy is!”

I can't help but think of the old Wayne Walker song: 'Are You Sincere?"

Are you sincere when you say "I love you?"
Are you sincere when you say "I'll be true?"
Do you mean every word that my ears have heard?
I'd like to know which way to go, will our love grow?
Are you sincere?

I want readers to know I do not take this matter lightly.
Our most prominent journalists must be as rational and fair as possible in this treacherous day and age. The future of a decent and peaceful civilization depends upon it. Reuven Koret, the publisher of the Israeli daily magazine "Israel Insider", had this to say about Mr. Friedman in April, 2002:

"...He [Friedman] is privy to the plans of the New World Order. He can "pass" where other Jews cannot: within the borders of Saudi, to be used by their potentates, too. He dutifully leaks what they want us to hear, which is this: Unless it obeys the Order, Israel will be blamed for no less than the Clash of Civilizations. Israel will be blamed for future acts of Islamic terrorism against U.S. and Western interests. Israel will even be blamed for acts of terrorism against Israel itself. It is already happening..."

No matter how you may feel about the issue, I ask you to take a few moments and think about this.

Related: A website by Mark Rupert, a political scientist at Syracuse University, discussing his failure to appreciate Friedman's decidedly neoliberal views about globalization. Quote from the page:

Friedman has been among the most outspoken critics of the new social movements which have arisen to challenge neoliberal globalization, which had their coming out party in Seattle in November-December, 1999. In a column entitled Senseless in Seattle (NYT 12/1/1999), Friedman called the protesters "ridiculous," "crazy," "a Noah's ark of flat-earth advocates, protectionist trade unions and yuppies looking for their 1960's fix", who if they only "stopped yapping" long enough to think "would realize that they have been duped by knaves like Pat Buchanan".

Ralph Nader may run for President

The San Francisco Chronicle says: "Ralph Nader will announce Sunday [on NBC's Meet the Press] whether he will make another run for the White House, but all signs indicate the consumer advocate plans to jump into the race as an independent."

Labor leader disgraces himself by brutally attacking the dignity of failed Democratic nominee


This angry and troubled man owes Howard Dean an apology

Gerald W. McEntee, AFSCME president, did not wish to throw what he considered to be good political money after bad. He decided to abandon the Howard Dean campaign just before the Wisconsin primary. McEntee says Dean didn't understand how substantial his decline was after the "Dean'scream" in Iowa. McEntee admits to losing confidence in Dean after the Dean-scream. When Dean decided to move on with the race in Wisconsin, McEntee told him he "couldn't win". Dean decided to move ahead, regardless of McEntee's opinions about his chances.
Because of all this, McEntee calls Howard Dean "nuts".
I'm sorry...I don't see his point.
My opinion is that McEntee was sorry he didn't back Kerry after he realized Dean was being killed off by the
media-bashing he took after the "scream". (Which really wasn't a maniacal scream at all...anyone in that very loud room that night would tell you so). McEntee didn't get his way with Dean. He obviously couldn't take it like a gentleman. I think it's McEntee who needs a vacation...chill out..get some "R-and-R". Dean had many supporters to answer to...and none of us wanted to see him drop out before Wisconsin. He isn't "nuts" and I think McEntee's an ungentlemanly cad for insinuating so. Adam Nagourney's motivational decision to write about it is curious...and the NY Times' decision to print the story even MORE SO. It borders upon slander and libel. As far as decent journalism goes, this was bottom-of-the-barrel.

"Who would have ever thought that the New York primary might make or break a candidate?"
--Senator Charles E. Schumer, D-NY

10 states are going to the polls on March 2. (California, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont).
New York has a total of 236 delegates. Most of our State's Democratic primary voters come from New York City. In the last Presidential primary in 2000, there was a ratio of 70-to-30 downstate-upstate.
In today's New York Times article about the political landscape in New York state, one leading New York Democratic strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is quoted to have said bluntly:

"[Sen. John] Edwards's populist message of job loss works well upstate because it's a fading industrial area that's a lot like other parts of the country where he has done well....But in New York Democratic primaries, upstate is not where the votes are."

The article discusses which issues are most important to people living in the different regions of the State. Political strategists are not yet certain how Senator Edwards's brand of populism will be received in New York City. Because white-collar jobs are beginning to be sent overseas, they think Sen. Edwards' economic message may resonate in NYC and its suburbs as well as Upstate.

Will politics or common sense rule this summer's days in Iraq?
The following are excerpts from recent articles about the state of elections in Iraq and the upcoming date of expected turnover of power to the new Iraqi government.

"...even some in the [Bush] administration have begun to worry that the [June, 2004] date reflects more concern for American politics than Iraqi democracy. Their fear is that an untested government taking power on June 30 may not be strong enough to withstand the pressures bearing down on it.."
[New York Times Feb 19]

"..The US plan to hold council-based elections has collapsed--the Iraqis don't want it, Sistani doesn't want it, no one wants it. But Mr. Bremer insisted at a news conference on Thursday that 1) the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government will occur without fail by July 1 and 2) Islamic canon law will not be the law of the land, and the rights of minorities will be guaranteed in the Fundamental Law now being drafted by the Interim Governing Council. The major issue now is how exactly a government will be erected that will take control of the country from the US this summer, and that will then guide Iraq to open elections by the end of the year or so.."
[Juan Cole Feb 20

"...Amid preparations for pivotal elections Friday in Iran - and later this year in Iraq - analysts see two Shiite visions of democracy vying for dominance. Some say the traditionally "quietist" clergy represented by Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is growing more influential at the expense of Iran's all-embracing system of clerical rule embodied by Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei..."
[Christian Science Monitor February 20]

Tough words from George McGovern, who disagrees with Thomas Friedman

"Replacing Saddam Hussein with Ahmad Chalabi would be comparable to replacing Jack the Ripper with Al Capone. Such a development is not worth risking the death of one additional American."
--George McGovern, Democratic candidate for president in 1972

Read his letter to the NY Times here.
Mr. McGovern, like Thomas Friedman, speaks to Senator John Kerry as if he's already secured the Presidential nomination. (I'm so glad they can both so accurately predict the future.) McGovern's words to Kerry, to whom he feels compelled to aim his words, bring to mind the many complaints I've expressed here about Kerry's lack of a "leader's intuition" on the Iraq resolution. Especially the ending of the letter: "Thousands of young Americans bled and died in Vietnam to keep a series of political frauds in power in Saigon. Let's not go down that road again, claiming all the while, "We will not run." How about a compromise? Let's walk out of Iraq."

Bill Moyers Leaving PBS

Feeling compelled to get his book about President Johnson written, Bill Moyers will stay on through the Presidential race, but will then end his time as host of the program NOW, where he's been an executive editor and frequent reporter since its premiere in 2002. I'll miss him greatly, and I'll bet many others will.

Democrat-centrists will shut out Washington insiders who supported Dean.
I see where we're headed. I don't like it.

I'm not at all surprised to read the Democratic party-centrists are punishing those Washington insiders who threw their weight and influence behind Howard Dean. I am, however, disappointed. Did the Democratic party learn nothing from all of this? Will we simply forget Howard Dean's message existed and retreat to business-as-usual? Will we accept Senator Ted Kennedy's dismissal of Dean's criticism of Democrats for not standing up to Bush on the "No Child Left Behind" act (calling Dean "naive")? Does he think we're all "naive"? Because we are not "naive" enough to miss weakness when we see it. Compromise is necessary in politics, but knowingly selling your constituents' souls is unaceptable. Personally, I fully understand why Al Gore and so many others inside and outside the Washington beltway chose to support Howard Dean. I want true representation..not a diminishment of my child's right to a solid education in exchange for other needed political favors. To hell with that! I want to be truly represented. Isn't that what a healthy democracy is all about?

Democratic Presidential Race: New York Is In Play

Syracuse.com is reporting that Senator John Edwards is scheduled to stop in five New York cities in the coming days, not including Syracuse. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, is scheduled to campaign in Syracuse on Wednesday.( 2/25 )
Senator John Kerry will be in Rochester Saturday while his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, tours Western and Central New York, including Syracuse.

Assemblywoman Joan Christensen, D-Syracuse, who is undecided about which Democrat she'll be supporting, said (about the Wisconsin primary results) that she is "skeptical of a Democratic primary that allows in other-party members." (''I don't know what to make of it,'' she said. ) I have often contemplated the consequences of such a primary election myself. We cannot know what motivates individuals to vote one way or another...especially in a nation that is deeply polarized in a political sense. Divisive/partisan intent could always be a factor when those of an opposing party are allowed to participate in the other party's electoral process. John Edwards had a great showing in Wisconsin, however..and I can't believe it can be attributed to any particular anti-Kerry faction. I have watched the Edwards' campaign buoyed by the endorsements of many persuasive major newspapers in States where primaries have already taken place. When people see Edwards close-up, they seem to be won over. I'm curious to see how New York will like Senator Edwards. I believe Edwards' strength is in his gifted ability to generate passion for his candidacy by speaking directly to the individual, even when he's speaking to a room of hundreds or a television audience of millions. Frankly, I have not seen Senator Kerry generate this level of passion.

Today, there are people from Syracuse (including some former Dean supporters) who are talking about Senator Edwards at his campaign's website.
Here's some of what they are saying:

--"Will JRE be campaigning in Syracuse? They really need him up there, they've just lost Carrier, just like the folks in Tennessee. Anybody know if JRE will be in Central New York?"


--"Elizabeth will be there? YAY!! They will LOVE her! Does it say where she'll be and at what time? I'd like to get some family members and friends lined up to go watch her."

--"Hey it looks like there are a few Edwards supporters near Syracuse. Any word about a campaign office there or opportunities to volunteer?"

--"Yes, I was raised up there, for the most part, and my family still lives there. I used to live in Oswego as well, had to travel to Syracuse every day to work for a very low paying job. Eventually I had to move downstate. My brother is working his butt off up in Syracuse, way too many hours for way too little pay. He doesn't want to leave his home, and I know most people in Syracuse area face the same challenge. It's very heavy Republican base up there, and everyone hurting really badly under Bush administration. JR[Edwards] would win them over because he is EXACTLY what they need right now. I sure hope he can speak to them there..."

"Project Censored"- Top 25 Censored Media Stories of 2002-2003

On their website, the stated mission of "Project Censored" (out of Sonoma State University) is to 'educate people about the role of independent journalism in a democratic society and to tell The News That Didn't Make the News and why.'
Current "Project Censored News" can be found here.

George Will's column defending outsourcing sounds good in theory; looks bad in political reality

George Will's column appeared in the Syracuse Post Standard today. [See:"When jobs go away, sometimes it's for good reason" at Tallahasee.com site] Mr. Will begins by dismantling a statement by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert:

"An economy suffers when jobs disappear."

It seems like a simple statement, but Mr. Will wants us to know that it really isn't an accurate statement at all. He says the economy does not truly suffer and he gives a fairly good technical economic explanation as to why he believes it to be so.

I read it...I understand it. It left me cold..unconvinced.

In the end, it may not be an economy that suffers due to jobs being bled away to foreign lands where workers will do the work for less (and thus lift their own foreign economies). No..it's not the economy that suffers...it's the PEOPLE who suffer. These are the same people who not only vote, but who, in the Declaration of Independence , were said to be endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and to secure these rights, a Government was to be instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Which men? All men. (And women, naturally..although perhaps it wasn't completely apparent at the time...;)
My point: ours is a government of the people....not corporations. They are people with families who depend upon them. What the current administration will have to live with is the simple fact that when the people suffer because of their nation's economic policy..good or bad for the nation and/or world economy, those people (also voters) are not going to remember the greatness or social nobility of the policy. They will only recall their personal sufferings and how their government cared (or failed to care) about those sufferings.

While Mr. Will spells out his ideas in what seems to be an intelligently sound manner, outsourcing is not simply a
Hobson-like choice between free trade and no trade at all. With mutual interest must come fairness to concerned parties. The economy may be dynamic, yet the dynamics seem to have gone off-track for American workers. It seems that all the Bush administration has done is to put in temporary political fixes such as temporary steel tarriffs and farm subsidies. We seem to have forgotten that the economist John Maynard Keynes stated that capital is best employed at home. We must ask ourselves: "Who is setting the standards for investment and concentration of capital at home and abroad?"

Americans are not blind, nor are they numb to the effects of unemployment. They do not see dynamics at work here. They have seen the loss of millions of jobs here in the U.S. over the past four years and have been teased by fleeting (give-then-take-away) promises of jobs to come. NAFTA and WTO are not working as they should for some reason, and as pretty a picture George Will paints about the splendour of new American jobs from foreign auto companies, the bald truth is that free trade agreements and open borders are putting our own middle class workers into direct competition with the masses of very poor workers in third world countries. Without principled and moral governmental oversight, our middle class is left to hang. In the upcoming Presidential election, middle class workers (who make up the better percentage of voters in this country) will be heard more loudly than George Will's "plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face" talk about economic rationality. We desperately need principled leadership on this matter, or the backbone of this nation is going to lose ever-important ground. Cutting taxes while increasing the deficit is not going to cover the Bush administration's crucial mistakes much longer. A healthy economy with a middle class who suffers presents little more than a cold, meaningless, and unAmerican prospect.

The "Prince of Darkness" calls the kettle 'black'

In an amazing statement of hypocrisy, Richard Perle (loudest cheerleader for Iraq invasion at any cost) has pointed his twisted little finger at George Tenet and blamed him for "conclusions of the intelligence agencies".
Just last week, George Tenet averred that at no time did he advise of an imminent WMD threat from Iraq or Saddam Hussein.
People, this is absolutely an unbelievably bold accusation from Perle, who called New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist" for reporting about Perle's potential financial interest in seeing a war in Iraq. Hersh said of Perle, in an October, 2003 New Yorker article:

In a speech on November 14, 2001, as the Taliban were being routed in Afghanistan, Richard Perle, a Pentagon consultant with long-standing ties to Wolfowitz, Feith, and Chalabi, articulated what would become the Bush Administration’s most compelling argument for going to war with Iraq: the possibility that, with enough time, Saddam Hussein would be capable of attacking the United States with a nuclear weapon.

Possibility....enough time?? This doesn't sound "imminent" to me at all...how about you?

Then there's the article from August of 2003 in the Asia Times with this revelation about Perle:

There was some hint of a parallel policy apparatus dating back just after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It was known early on, for example, that the Pentagon leadership, without notice to the State Department, the NSC, or the CIA, convened its advisory Defense Policy Board (DPB), headed by Richard Perle, to discuss attacking Iraq within days of the attacks.
The three agencies were also kept in the dark about a mission undertaken immediately afterward by former CIA director and DPB member James Woolsey to London to gather intelligence about possible links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda, as if the CIA or the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) could not be trusted.

Perle also had a chance to head off this war before it was started, but he and his secret little friend at the CIA (the agency he's dissing now) decided to blow it off. They just weren't "interested".

Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board, said in a telephone interview that he was approached last winter by Imad al Hage, a Lebanese businessman, with what was described as a offer by Saddam Hussein to hold elections and perhaps to permit the entry into Iraq of a small number of U.S. troops. Perle said he conveyed the offer to a friend at the CIA.

A friend? I wonder what Tenet knew, if anything, about this "friend" at the CIA. Black Perle's always pointing at the kettles. Yet he's a-bubbling darkly away himself.

Update: More on the Neocon philosophy of intelligence from Feb 19 Asia Times

Howard Dean to end campaign?

AP Breaking news:

Howard Dean will end his campaign for the presidential nomination and oversee a new effort to keep his issues alive and his supporters organized on behalf of Democratic causes, two party officials said Wednesday.

If he drops out of the race, I'll predict he'll endorse Senator John Edwards. Personally, I hope he stays in the race. If he drops out today and endorses Edwards, I believe it could only mean that he firmly believes in John Edwards as the candidate (of the remaining two pragmatically "electable") to carry Dean's message forward. I've been a Dean supporter all along, and while I would be disappointed to see him end the campaign, I would put my support behind a candidate he would endorse.
We'll see what happens in Burlington, Vt. today.

Al Franken's coming soon--hopefully to a radio near you!
REAL MEN HELP ;) : Read about "a benefit for the Palace Theatre, which was actually arranged between Al Franken and Palace director Peter Ramsey following a controversial moment there a few weeks ago, during a Howard Dean rally. Franken made headlines for helping remove a heckler from the audience. Ramsey took the stage last night alongside Franken, and explained how, in the midst of the disruption, while ABC newsmen George Stephanopoulos and Peter Jennings did nothing, Franken took action....."




I'm glad to see the New York Times reiterating what I (and so many others) have been saying for quite a while now. We need a complete investigation...not a cover-up.

PBS New Hour, February 11, 2004:

JIM LEHRER : Speaking of Terry McAuliffe, he's the one who started this issue about President Bush's National Guard Service during the Vietnam War, the White House yesterday issued some papers related to the president's service, does that put it to rest?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it's an idiotic issue. When somebody is running for president, you want to know what their service was in the military, how they behaved. But when somebody has already been president, you know how he behaves, we know how George Bush behaves under pressure because he's spent three years in the White House. Something that happened 30 years ago I don't think is relevant, I don't think it's important. He's a different man than who he was before Sept. 11, and I just think it's an inane issue.

David Brooks has been trying to say that what happened 30+ years ago..what the candidates might have said or done at that time... should be of little impact and/or political consequence when it comes to the 2004 Presidential election. I believe he's seeing that it will have an impact...and there will be political consequences. I find it interesting that he now turns the table a bit and begins to point the conservative finger at Democrats for Viet Nam, saying Truman and JFK's post-WWII "confidence took them into Vietnam and into the quagmire." Mr. Brooks claims "Scoop Jackson Democrats saw Vietnam as a bungled battle in what was nonetheless a noble anti-Communist war. Most of these people ended up as Republicans." He categorizes the rest of the Democrats as liberals who "saw the bungling and the lies as symptoms of a deep sickness in the military-industrial complex".
Brooks goes on to suggest that Reaganites "saw themselves as the heirs to Truman and Kennedy", resulting in a great American perception that "Reagan was right about the world, and that the Democrats were naïve."
You have to accept this premise in order to concur with the rest of Brooks' questions about current events. I found it very interesting that Brooks never once invoked the name of Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon (and his "secret plan" to end the war), Gerald Ford, or Dem Lyndon Baines Johnson...as if they never existed.
Let's not forget that Reagan opposed the Helsinki accords signed by Gerald Ford and being used as a model for Middle East policy by today's Bush administration. Come on, David Brooks....would I leave Bill Clinton totally out of an article about the history of the War on Terror? Let's be more complete in our regurgitating of history lest we be seen as dishonest intellectuals!

Mr. Brooks seems to be indicting former President Carter for talking about "root causes like hunger and poverty". Is there something wrong with or naive about a President, past or present, addressing hunger and poverty anywhere in this world? Thankfully, Carter was never faced with a 9-11. We'd best understand that this is a far more sophisticated matter than the case David Brooks is making here. I concur that that after 9-11, the U.S. couldn't afford to sit back and wait to decipher or cure Middle Eastern terrorism's "root causes"...because the immediate causes are of a not so much economic in nature as they are depraved, homicidal, and obviously unpersuaded by any plea the Western world could make. I think, however, we rushed headlong into Iraq without a defined 9-11-connection, without a decent plan for after-battle activity...without the international-community, and with dubious reasoning. I don't believe it should ever have happened that way. I also credit most Americans with seeing things exactly as they are. Now that we are there in Iraq, we will have to consider "root causes" for the continued attacks upon our troops.
We will also have to consider an economic plan for the people of Iraq who have been systematically starved between years of international sanctions and robbery of its citizens by Saddam Hussein. If we want to "win hearts and minds", I think we'd better be a bit more "Carter" (who, by the way, was one of the most truly moral and diplomatic men who ever graced the Oval Office)..and a little less 'Hawk'...or at the very least, be a Hawk with sound, honest reasoning and a well-rounded plan.

GREGORY CLARK SPEAKS OUT ABOUT THE NAIVETE OF BUSH/BLAIR IN IRAQ

Gregory Clark is a former Australian diplomat and honorary president of Tama University who, in the past, has written that 'right-wing foreign policy mistakes leave the way open to the left-wing indulgences." Clark said, in a Nation article in 1972, ".....it is remarkable that a country can go to war for six years without anyone bothering to challenge the obviously false premises on which that war was launched. Even the U.S. Congress has had enough sense of democratic responsibility to repeal the Tonkin Gulf resolution."--[NATION, JULY 8, 1972]

The Iraq war has been the near-perfect formula for Clark's theory to be tested in recent months. While some may cheer on the Bush administration for initiating this 'preventive' war, we can look upon it, to date, with much skeptcism as to its policy-wisdom. We can...and we do. Just as some academic careers were virtually destroyed for those who had dared to oppose the right wing hardline on Vietnam and China in the mid-sixties, we see our universities under fire today for taking a stand against right wing policies on Iraq. Some like to blame academia and left-wing commentators, but the left's indulgences are borne of every mistake made by Bush and Blair in their rush to war.

In today's Japan Times, Mr. Clark writes that as things stand today, the U.S. military-intelligence complex is now virtually out of control, arguing that the 'naivete of the Bush/Blair arguments over Iraq cries out for explanation'. (Clark compares Indonesia's occupation of East Timor and resulting atrocities to this type of naivete where hawks are allowed to run the larger portion of the 'show'). He comments that religious fundamentalism seems to have been allowed to seep into U.S. government leadership and that an eerie "veil of silence" has befallen those who spoke of Iraq becoming a hub of secular democracy while we watch it unfold into something far different..Iraq's "democratic elections" being a "nonsecular activity similar to that in that other "Axis of Evil" candidate, Iran."

CNN reports that Archbishop Desmond Tutu challenged Tony Blair and George Bush to apologize for their pursuit of what he considers to be a counter-productive and "immoral" war in Iraq. "How wonderful if politicians could bring themselves to admit they are only fallible human creatures, and not God, and thus by definition can make mistakes....Weak and insecure people hardly ever say, 'Sorry.' It is large-hearted and courageous people who are not diminished by saying, 'I made a mistake.'....Who makes the decision about which regimes should be changed? And what authority do they (Bush and Blair) have to do whatever they may think is right .....is it a matter of 'might is right' and to hell with the rule of international law?" were some of Tutu's statements in an evening lecture delivered at Church House, Westminster, in central London.

In the Denver Post, Walter Cronkite states that he believes the United States has suffered a major self-inflicted wound in his article about U.S. intelligence and our reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Jimmy Breslin says he believes we have a commander in chief who only "plays" soldier with other people's lives while his apparent goal in the early 70s was to dodge war altogether. Not only "dodge".. "he is a guy who ducked the war, dodged the war, reneged on any chance to go to war, and yet without even a hint of personal shame sends young people to die in a war that his record shows that he would duck." According to Mr. Breslin, "Bush went to Alabama and that pretty much ended his fighting career although he did battle cavities in a dentist's chair at Maxwell Field, Ala."

HAPPY PRESIDENTS' DAY!


BATTLEGROUND GOD
This is a game you simply must play. I got myself a medal! Try it and see how you fare.


On this day in history..

On this day in history, 1945, the Bataan Peninsula in the Philippines was occupied by American troops and recaptured, almost three years after the devastating and infamous Bataan Death March. I had a great-uncle who survived the Bataan Death March, and his stories live on in my memory.


What's happening in the Dean camp??

Howard Dean's national campaign chairman Steve Grossman has left, former Gov. Dean won't say why...but it doesn't look too good for the future of his campaign. In my view, it appears that Grossman was hoping Dean would fall in behind Kerry now, or at least commit to doing so after Wisconsin. Grossman has obviously decided to hop onto the "Dems-are-united 100%" bandwagon, which is his rightful decision to make. Those most loyal and believing in Dean's message remain onboard, no matter how low the ship's bow is getting to the surface of the waters. I've believed in Howard Dean since this blog was a gleam in my eye. I admire him greatly and I hope he marches on. (Glory Hallelujah sounds like it would fit in nicely here :).
Political analyst William Saletan put it beautifully, in my opinion. In his review of last night's debate, he made these statements:

Dean's candor: It may be a fatal political flaw, but it's still a moral virtue. Yes, said Dean, your taxes must be raised in order to pay for his programs and balance the budget. No, focusing our military power on Saddam Hussein didn't make you safer. And yes, "If we do what I want to with our trade agreement, you're going to pay higher prices at Wal-Mart, because their stuff is all made in China, and labor costs are going to go up in China." God bless Dean for bringing honesty to a political process rotten with double-dealing and cowardice. That's why I'm counting on him to immediately fire his campaign chairman, Steve Grossman, for trying to slink aboard Kerry's boat even before Dean's has sunk. (Grossman's amazing statement to the New York Times: "If Howard Dean does not win the Wisconsin primary, I will reach out to John Kerry unless he reaches out to me first.") As long as there are Grossmans in the world, we'll always need Deans.

Are Democrats selling out the party by buying into warrior-America?

What is the fascination with having to have a "warrior" on board as the Democratic nominee of choice? DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe has made it abundantly clear for a long time that Kerry is going to be 'the one', by hook or by crook. In a Times' op-ed by Jake Tapper, McAuliffe is quoted as saying that one of John Kerry's main advantages in the coming presidential campaign is his"chest full of medals." These are the same medals Kerry allegedly told the Viet Nam-era American government, in one symbolic act, to shove up their rear admirals. When did Terry McAuliffe and his advisors decide winning at all costs was worth giving up the longstanding Democratic tendencies to be the doves? I realize 9-11 dealt us a terrible blow..yet it would be a shame if we allowed unrealistic fears to create a government where two parties are dominant and both sides are hawks of a feather. Give it some thought before you jump all over me, would you, please?


Iraq News Today

Acording to the Informed Comment blog, AFP reports that the Shiites say they have "alternative plans for elections" if direct elections are declared impossible by the United Nations. Some Shiites are warning of violence if the community is too deeply disappointed by the UN or US way of proceeding.
Professor Cole also has interesting commentary about the "Whodunnit?" controversy in Fallujah in which he discusses a Scotsman article (which he sees as "balanced") and their speculation concerning the identity of the attackers in Fallujah this past Saturday.


There wasn't one back then...
but there is now.

There has yet to be a proven connection between 9-11 and the twisted Iraqi government of the megalomaniacal Saddam Hussein. Columnist William Safire would have you believe, without question, that the connection is a "no-brainer", but after reading carefully into the matter, I must respectfully disagree. All the misleading statements of the past (especially made by VP Cheney) are magnified in all their emptiness by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's own statements...
In this article about a memo intercepted/dicovered from al-Zarqawi, it states:

There is nothing in the memo, however, that confirms or bolsters some key prewar White House claims: that al-Zarqawi was operating in the north as a leader of an Al Qaeda affiliate known as Ansar al-Islam, that he had set up a camp to produce deadly poisons and that, with Hussein's blessing and cooperation, he had moved people, money and supplies in and out of Iraq for months.

Terrorism expert and former FBI analyst Matthew Levitt, who has studied al-Zarqawi, noted that the memo reveals the ambitions of the "most frenetic operator working on behalf of Al Qaeda," but it does not provide ammunition for those out to prove that Al Qaeda and Hussein were in cahoots before the war.
"When people say 'I told you so' by linking the memo to prewar activities, "I'm skeptical ," said Levitt, now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

[Daniel Benjamin, a former director of counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff] finds little evidence that jihadists prospered inside Iraq before the U.S. invasion. Instead, if al-Zarqawi's memo is to be believed, jihadists now are comfortable in Iraq. If al-Zarqawi were involved in prewar activities in Iraq, it would be a curious omission in a memo by a terrorist... '[The letter] tells us nothing about prior connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq,' Daniel Benjamin said. 'What it does tell us is, now, we have a big terrorist problem in Iraq.' "

The Kerry/Polier story moves on...

-- Allegedly, Alex Polier, the woman allegedly involved in the Kerry infidelity Drudged-up scandal recorded a "tell-all" interview for an American TV station before Christmas.

--Ms. Polier is seeking to end these rumors herself. She has released a statement to the AP, saying:

"I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false."

Ms. Polier's parents have also issued a public statement. Perhaps, in the absence of any other proof, this will put an end to the internet frenzy. This surely doesn't look like a Lewinsky-type fiasco. I think Senator Kerry may be coming under attack by Republican-leaning nasties.

--I am not a fan of many of the policies of the Bush administration, as you will be able to determine by reading just about any entry this blog has to offer. I have been reading and listening to allegations left and right about President Bush and his questionable National Guard service in the established media. It started with Peter Jennings of ABC (during a Democratic debate) confronting Wesley Clark (of all people) about the Bush/AWOL allegations. What right did Jennings have to raise this issue at such a totally inappropriate time? It was sleazy. Not only did he hurt President Bush, he also hurt Wesley Clark's campaign. It was the lowest thing I think Jennings has ever done. It started a snowball from hell rolling down the media mountain. The Washington Post has been no exception, chiming in along with most other "big" media outlets. And now we have the Kerry infidelity rumors. When asked about the story and whether or not the Post would be reporting on it, Washington Post London correspondent Glenn Frankel said:

"We've been down this road many, many times before. We are extremely reluctant to follow this kind of thing up unless there is a really, really compelling public interest. We don't feel there is any reason to until it reaches a threshold. All we have at the moment is that the woman's parents, who are republicans, don't like Senator Kerry. In any case, nobody would be too shocked if Kerry lied about an affair. Even if someone came to us with photographs we still wouldn't run it. Lying to Don Imus [the radio host to whom Kerry gave his initial denial] is not a federal offence...."

I can see some of his points, but you aren't going to sit there with a straight face and try to tell me this story has no "really, really compelling public interest" when you're talking about the front-runner for the candidacy for the American presidency. Balderdash. Lying to Don Imus wouldn't be a "federal offence", but it's a matter of public record now. Nobody would be too shocked? Is Frankel saying it's expected of Kerry to lie, so it's not newsworthy? Another point: How is it NOT return-tabloid-style commentary to "color" the parents of the young lady as "republicans who don't like Senator Kerry". Do you know that those "republican parents who don't like Kerry said this today?

"We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."

I can't help but think there is a strange and unexplainable treatment of this entire situation if you go by what this particular journalist is saying. These statements from Mr. Frankel are very questionable to me.

-- Columbia grad students of journalism think we have to be "more savvy" about assessing the credibility of news sources, because of a mere rumor's tendency to create this sort of huge echo-chamber effect. The students think "we all have to become smarter consumers of media". I am skeptical here. While I see their point, I also see grunts like Matt Drudge going out on treasure hunts and the "established" media folks reporting about it after all the dirty (non-savvy) work's been done. They wind up with the prestigious journalism awards. Drudge gets the lowdown-dirty-devil prize. That's just life in the journalism business.
To the students' investigative credit, they have found
"a Friendster profile of an "Alexandra Polier" where she's self-described as a "journalist/socialite" and her location is "New York, NY," potentially linking her with the Alexandra Polier that graduated from the journalism school in 2003. But no direct evidence linked her with the AP, the Kerry intern, or even the school itself." (They're doing better than I am..I searched Friendster and found nothing of the kind. Could it have been deleted since??)

Do you know the name Ricardo Esquivia..or that millions of Christians worldwide are praying for him today? Do you care? Can you help?

"Peace cannot be separated from any part of life. Peace is love, peace is identity, peace is health… We need to continue to see peace as an integration of life.... We must develop a new consciousness that acknowledges that we are all dependent upon one another...We have to think with the heart and feel with the brain."

--Ricardo Esquivia

Lutheran World Relief's website provides you with information as to who Ricardo is and what his mission is in our world today. Ricardo has seen Colombians struggle forward in faith toward peace first-hand. He is an advocate for the displaced, a defender of communities in need, a founder of a national federation for peace. Few have struggled longer or more effectively than Ricardo Esquivia. He is being threatened with arrest by the Colombian government. Evangelical Christians are asking for your help in defending Ricardo 'the peacemaker' from false arrest. If you care, there's something you can do. We are not entirely helpless, and it's only together that we can make our voices heard.

A question posed to Senator Kerry during tonight's Democratic debate in Wisconsin

Craig Gilbert (from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal) asked Senator Kerry if he felt he had "any degree of responsibility for the war and its costs and casualties" since he voted for the Iraq resolution.
I did not feel entirely settled with Sen. Kerry's reply, which included:

"... the great burden of the commander in chief is to be able to look into the eyes of any parent or loved one and say to them, 'I did everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter, but we had to do what we had to do because of the imminency of the threat and the nature of our security.' I don't think the president passes that test."
(Only the President?) (*Congress had no responsibility to verify 'Imminency'?*)

Mr. Gilbert asked the same question I was thinking of at that moment:

"But what about you? I mean, let me repeat the question. Do you have any degree of responsibility having voted to give him the authority to go to war? "

Sen. Kerry's answer included:

"The president had the authority to do what he was going to do without the vote of the United States Congress...That's why we have a War Powers Act. What we did was vote with one voice of the United States Congress for a process..The process was to build a legitimate international coalition, go through the inspections process and go to war as a last resort...."

Sen. Kerry stopped short of accepting any responsibility for the costs and casualties stemming from the Iraq war. I wondered how Sen. Kerry could expect someone like me to believe he was only voting for what would be process back in October, 2002. The rest of the world seemed to know exactly where the fervent drums of war were leading us and that, as far as the Bush administration was concerned, it would have little to do with U.N. involvement or process.

Let's backtrack a couple months.
Political writer William Rivers Pitt wrote an article about a rather exclusive session with Sen. Kerry in early December, 2003. It was a time when Kerry's campaign was ailing, much to the surprise of many. Pitt, in his analysis of the reasons why, stated:

How did this happen? Kerry has all the components of a flat-out frontrunner. When did the wheels come off? Ask virtually anyone who accounts themselves a member of that liberal Democratic base, and they?ll answer in a heartbeat. The wheels came off on October 11, 2002, the day John Kerry voted "Yes" on George W. Bush's Iraq War Resolution. The occupation of Iraq, the mounting American casualties, the skyrocketing cost of the conflict, and the still-missing weapons of mass destruction have become a significant liability to Bush. Amazingly enough, however, the Iraq situation has been far more damaging to Kerry than to Bush.

When asked that December night about his vote for the Resolution, in retrospect, Kerry is quoted to have said:

"Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You?re G-d d-mned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

First--how on earth could Sen. Kerry or any of the Democrats NOT have known Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? I wondered then..and I still wonder.. how someone as intuitive as I'd thought Sen. John Kerry was could have made such a terrible mistake. Is it sometimes more intelligently patriotic to choose not to believe? I think so.

Toward the end of the session that night with Sen. Kerry in early December, author Pitt continues:

"....The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. "Senator," he said, "the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you're sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004."
Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, "You"re right. I was wrong to trust him. I'm sorry I did." And then he was gone."

We've all made mistakes. Senator Kerry is doing well now and perhaps he believes he no longer needs to regain the trust of so many out there who initially turned away from him (and turned to other Democratic candidates instead). I'd say he'd best be careful. His candidacy got off to a very bad start early in the primary season because of a perceived lack of intuition on his part.. due to his unbelievable misplaced trust in the light of such shaky evidence used by the Bush administration to justify preventive war. If he wants many of the liberal Democratic base (especially the Dean and Clark supporters) to throw their support to him at any time, I think he's going to have to accept responsibility and say, out loud, that he's sorry for having trusted the Bush administration.

N.C. Senator John Edwards has received the endorsement of Madison, Wisconsin mayor Dave Cieslewicz and The Capital Times of Madison. The Capital Times called him "the candidate who offers the best combination of electability and vision." These are two very important endorsements for Senator Edwards. The Wisconsin primary election takes place this Tuesday, February 17th. A Democratic candidates' debate will take place tonight at 6:30 pm (EST) in Milwaukee and will be broadcast on MSNBC. There is controversy surrounding the debate, according to the Madison Capital Times. The debate has been organized by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee NBC affiliate WTMJ and MSNBC, and will not be aired in most parts of the state. NBC affiliates in various Wisconsin cities were not offered the right to air the debate live. Wisconsin Public Television (which wanted to broadcast the debate statewide) is being denied an opportunity to do so.

The John Kerry-Alex Polier affair rumors have now graced the webpages of the 'elite' NY Times. Kerry "denies categorically" any truth to the rumor and claims it's "the last time" he intends to. (I happen to think it won't be this easy, in reality...judging from history. Visions of Bill Clinton come to our minds..) The Independent is chatting away at length about the story from its corporate home in merry olde England. It's one of their top stories. American newspapers are more subdued and careful at this point, which does not surprise me. FriedMan blog is keeping track of all the links to the initial Drudge story.

An AP article at the NY Times website shows the differences in the way Howard Dean and John Edwards are attempting to "catch up" with Kerry's steamrolling primary-performance. I appreciate the writer's point, which is that it's not too late for these two to catch up with Kerry....but rather, it is too late to change their respective approaches to beating him. Edwards has taken the deliberate 'polite' approach. Dean has not been afraid to say what he thinks in what is seen by some as 'attacks'. I found a bit of intellectual dishonesty (and a lot of political seasoning) in the following statement from this AP article:

"We'll never go at anybody with a sledgehammer. That is not what people want,'' said David Ginsberg, [John] Edwards' communications director. "The differences between John Edwards and Kerry will become clear to voters as they hear our message.''

I believe, if John Edwards was to pull ahead of Kerry, it would not solely be due to politeness. He would owe a great debt to fellow candidates (like Howard Dean) who were never afraid to make the differences between the candidates loud, proud, and crystal-clear.


UK newspaper The Guardian has asked 25 prominent contemporary authors to offer their opinions of the Iraq war. The website states this is a bit of a repeat of 1937, when WH Auden and Stephen Spender asked 150 writers for their views on the Spanish Civil War. The result was the book "Authors Take Sides".

How dat happen???
Geez....someone cued me in to this...look at this MSN search for "hot girls from israel".
LOL!

Good night...sleep tight. Don't let the bedbugs bite.
No..........really......I mean it.

I don't want to drag out the John Kerry sleaze-gossip anymore than I have to, but if my readers want to see the latest, here's a blog that delves.

I like Wes Clark. I'm watching a tape of him endorsing John Kerry. I consider myself to be a very rational and intuitive person..and something here seems weird to me. Why did General Clark invest so much time and effort telling us that we had to beware the Washington insiders...only to endorse the most longstanding, "special-interest-ed" Washington-insider-candidate? My only conclusion would be that General wants to be rid of Bush..far more than he loved his own message. I'm not in concurrence with this way of thinking. I was enamoured with the message..the vision. We will never move away from Bush-lite-ism if we do not vote with our vision. My enthusiasm has dulled greatly with the developments in this Democratic primary. Perhaps I am out of step with the Democratic party. I know I am not alone in this feeling. I am suspecting Kerry (and perhaps Clark) may have stolen Howard Dean's message to further them in their own respective candidacies...only to lose much of that message once they were coronated by those in the powerful Democratic establishment who have pretty much secured what they knew they'd get all along.
The vast centrist-wing conspiracy. (Yes..I can laugh along with myself-- although I see dismal truth in the joke).

When I think about all this AWOL arguing back and forth between the dizzily-talking media-heads, I realize these few and simple words from Paul Krugman ring true:

"There is, as far as I can tell, no positive evidence that Mr. Bush is a man of exceptional uprightness. When has he even accepted responsibility for something that went wrong?
....we may be on our way to an election in which Mr. Bush is judged on his record, not his legend. And that, of course, is what the White House fears."

We've seen enough of Bush's wickedly poor character to understand that the AWOL issue just doesn't matter.

Who does this fellow think he's fooling?

"RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie attacked Democrats for planning what he called "the dirtiest campaign in modern presidential politics." Psssst, Ed... Politics is and always has been a dirty game. Have you looked at your own ads lately? Does the name Max Cleland ring any bells? Do you know you get free mouthpieces like Rush Limbaugh to spread your diarreah all around so you don't have to stink? Better yet, check on the history of your party's activities throughout the entire eight years William Clinton was in office. It was the virtual stinking pig-sty of modern politics. Stop looking so forlorn...oh..or is that just your normal face?


This is the dumbest headline title I've found today on a news search: "Electability may play key role in elections" - UW Badger Herald. Luckily, when I got to the article, the revised headline made a bit more sense. Speaking of the Badger Herald, Howard Dean was in their news today. I thought this was worth repeating on this blog:

Although saying the campaigns of Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are embedded with special interests, Dean said any Democrat in the Oval Office is better than the current administration and that he would never use his campaign to "undermine the prospects of the Democratic Party."

I couldn't help but laugh when I read the title of this article: "Kerry resurgence shows voters have own minds." As if any of the people who've worked to support the other candidates did not. I especially laughed as I thought of the literal hundreds of thousands of Howard Dean-scream replays since the media sanctioned it as their anti-Dean anthem (after Dean's loss in Iowa, which was facilitated by Kerry supporters like sleazy Bob Toricelli and Kerry push-pollers warning reminding the poor folks in Iowa about Howard's "environmental racism"). Mind of our own indeed. The press and Terry McAuliffe coronated Kerry when this primary race was hardly begun. People followed. Baaaaaa! Baaaaaaaa!


Kerry resurgence shows voters have own minds...


Reuters is reporting that the U.N. recommends a new timetable for elections and that Iraq is not yet ready for such an election to happen. Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has been demanding early direct elections, but allegedly appeared to accept that time is too short to organize the proper polls before the U.S. handover. It won't happen before the U.S. hands over power to an Iraqi government in June. Realistically, three months just isn't enough time to arrange and conduct the elections. The initial caucus system proposed by the U.S. is no longer on the table.


Former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix certainly doesn't expect anything other than political perversion by President Bush of any of Blix's previous reporting on Iraq to the U.N. On Thursday he said he was sure President Bush's election campaign would "twist his reports on Saddam Hussein's arsenal to justify the war in Iraq." When asked whether members of the Bush campaign may try to alter the meaning of his reports to back the decision to invade Iraq, he said: "I'm sure they will."

It's interesting how we're hearing so much about Bush's AWOL and Kerry's illicit love life from media, but nothing about the alleged fact that Al-Qaeda has possessed tactical nuclear weapons for about six years. Al-Hayat newspaper reported Sunday that sources close to Al-Qaeda said bin Laden's group bought the nuclear weapons from Ukrainian scientists who were visiting Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 1998. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there's been serious concern over the possibility that nuclear technology and weapons could spread to other groups, in part due to the difficult economic situation in the former communist lands.
Speaking of nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Policy Research Institute hosted a panel this past Wednesday at the National Press Club in Washington that focused on three countries refusing to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pervez Hoodbhoy of Pakistan, Gautam Adhikari of India and Avner Cohen of Israel spoke about their countries' nuclear capabilities. Pakistani professor Hoodbhoy claimed it would have been impossible for President Pervez Musharraf to ignore the hard evidence that the International Atomic Energy Agency showed him about Abdul Qadeer Kahn and that there's a "serious credibility gap" at the moment.From the article:

Hoodbhoy explained that there was a general feeling of anger, grief and betrayal in Pakistan directed towards the government for allegedly buckling under U.S. pressure to persecute Khan. If Musharraf had kept silent, Pakistan would have been sanctioned, leading the economy in a downward spiral. Hoodbhoy said that Musharraf is trying to do a balancing act to please his citizens and the international community.
The principle reason for sacrificing Khan and incurring the wrath of the public, Hoodbhoy said, was so that Pakistan could keep its nuclear weapons.

Hoodbhoy also said it was "unfair" of the United States to call for only select countries to produce nuclear fuels. He questioned the logic in monopolizing nuclear production, saying that much of the world thinks the United States acts without consideration of larger issues.
"That creates a sense of outrage," he said. "The history of U.S. policy has been one essentially of expediency."
The United States knew that Pakistan was trying to obtain nuclear weapons in the 1980s, he said, but America was busy countering the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan so it looked the other way.

Gautam Adhikari, the former executive editor of the Times of India, said that there is mounting alarm over the direction in which Pakistan is heading. He said that India kept quiet about recent revelations in Pakistani nuclear proliferation for three reasons: India wants to maintain overall stability and does not want to impede upon Pakistan's peaceful overtures made at a recent South Asia Regional Conference; India does not want to disturb the increasingly close relationship it has had with the United States, particularly in light of the tensions that two nations have had with each other for decades; and India is focusing on economic growth and being a great power.

Avnar Cohen, author and former co-director of the Project on Nuclear Arms Control in the Middle East (who in the past has been threatened with arrest in Israel), said Israelis view the subject of nuclear weapons in Israel as subject "not to be discussed". He said that Israel's official position of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons is ingrained in the national culture and that The U.S. has taken a view of "exceptionalism" with Israel. Cohen believes the "bubble of secrecy" in which Israel handles the nuclear issue is "against the very tenets of democracy."

Did you see American Enterprise Institute's Jim Glassman have his lame excuses handed back to him by Lou Dobbs last night on CNN? It was a sight to behold! The transcript is HERE. I'll show you a sampling...but it won't have the full effect because Lou's face was oh-so-expressive. Picture Lou Dobbs with a "Get outta town, you intellectually dishonest sack of crap!"-look on his face.

GLASSMAN: Lou, over the last 10 years, we have manufactured 40 percent more than we did 10 years ago. Manufacturing is doing well. Jobs change. This is a dynamic society. Now, the thing I'd like to -- the thing I would like to say is, free trade is much better than the alternative, which is no trade or obstructed trade.
DOBBS: Wait, Jim, you are far too smart to do something like that. There is not simply a Hobson's choice between free trade and no trade. I just offered you one, a mutuality of interest, mutual trade.
GLASSMAN: That's the idea of the World Trade Organization.
DOBBS: It may be the idea of some in the World Trade Organization. It is not the practice. We have got 11 years experience with NAFTA. We have 10 years experience under WTO. It isn't working, Jim? What part of that don't you get?
GLASSMAN: It's not working?
DOBBS: It's not working.
GLASSMAN: Then why is the American economy as robust as it is?
DOBBS: Tell people it's robust.
DOBBS: Tell those 15 million people out there who can't..... -CROSSTALK- .....No, look in the camera, tell those 15 people out there who can't find a job right now...
GLASSMAN: I prefer to look at you. And let me say this. This is a huge economy. I have tremendous sympathy for people who lose their job and are in pain. And for those people, we need to concentrate on helping them. How do we do it? We do it through job retraining. We do it through...
DOBBS: What are you going to retrain them for, Jim? You're a smart guy.
GLASSMAN: What do you mean what I am going to retrain them
DOBBS: What are you going to retrain them for? We're exporting many, many jobs. We're exporting radiologists.
GLASSMAN: How did we retrain blacksmiths when the automobile came in? Forty percent of Americans worked on the farm. Today, it's 2 percent. We produce far more agricultural goods than we ever did. We export agriculture.
DOBBS: Do you want to go back to policies of the 1850s in this country?
GLASSMAN: No.
DOBBS: Well, then why are you quoting these metaphors?
GLASSMAN: Because I'm trying to tell you, this is a dynamic economy.
DOBBS: Well, I think we understand that.
GLASSMAN: Every week, Alan Greenspan, in his testimony...
DOBBS: There's no fool here again, OK, no fool watching, no fool here listening. Let me say this to you. David Ricardo, as you well know, never considered a world in which you were exporting American jobs to produce services and goods for reexport to the United States. It was never considered.
GLASSMAN: I really object to this term exporting American jobs.
DOBBS: Well, wait a minute.
GLASSMAN: It's not as though we start with 100 jobs. They have 100 jobs. We send a few. Our jobs have been on the rise for the last 20 years, enormously. We have 130 million people working in the United States.
DOBBS: Well, it's actually ... million, but that's all right.
GLASSMAN: Every week, as Alan Greenspan said in his testimony, a very interesting statistic for your readers.....they're viewers... for your viewers ...."Every week, one million Americans leave their job, but one million Americans take a new job. It is that dynamism....
DOBBS: Jim, Jim...
GLASSMAN: It is that dynamism that drives the American economy.
DOBBS: American corporations are shipping jobs overseas for one reason.
GLASSMAN: They are not shipping jobs. And I really object to this rogue...
DOBBS: They are not shipping jobs?!????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pig Lard To Be Used As Anti-Terror Measure Who knew? Authorities believe that the move could discourage Palestinians from carrying out attacks as pieces of their exploded body could come into contact with the pig fat, prejudicing their chances of entering into paradise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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???

"Quack, quack!"

Harvard Crimson/Zachary M. Seward
Old Crimson Interview Reveals A More Radical John Kerry
The Crimson reported Kerry called for U.N. control of troops in 1970
The Bush administration will be using much of this thirty-four-year old interview to try to attack Kerry, I'd imagine. In a "No-Sh*t-Dick Tracy" way, let's remember that "34 years later, Kerry's remarks on American military and intelligence operations vastly diverge from opinions expressed by the present-day Sen. John F. Kerry, D.-Mass......." PLEASE. Kerry SHOULD NOT be beholden to everything in that old interview...not by any means. I just heard David Brooks defending President Bush on the Lehrer News Hour, claiming that the Bush AWOL issue is moot because we already know all we need to know about his character after these four years. (I'll say we do--oye). Brooks' point was that a person changes a lot after 30 years...sometimes you'd think they were an entirely different person altogether. After Kerry's experience in Viet Nam, it's no wonder he felt the way he felt at the time! If Adam Clymer of the National Annenberg Election Survey thinks the interview should make its way to be used by the Bush campaign, I hope it totally backfires on them...and I think it will.
Let them open the old Viet Nam wounds and get this country talking about it all over again. It might actually be the best thing thing to revive the civic spirit of the late 60s. Young people "on the political fence" might just begin to understand the parellels between the Tonkin Gulf lies and WMD lies.
You know, I recall a certain Republican leader...a general, as a matter of fact, who solidly and unmistakably warned all of us Americans about the miltary -industrial complex.

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

How soon Republicans have forgotten. Bush has been a puppet to a good many at the Pentagon who knew the Bush nose was easy for the leading. The People of this nation have lost so much power in the last four years that I don't honestly know if we shall recover from it.

It's no surprise that the Bush campaign would highlight Kerry's Senate votes should he win the Democratic nomination, as Kevin Madden from Bush's campaign avers. He's got a long list of them. It was one of my many reasons Kerry was one of my lesser favorites (among the many other reasons I've stated on this blog over the past year).
I think Kerry will withstand it all, should he become the Democratic nominee. Why? He is not Bush. Period. He is a leader with a mind for leading..even if I have not agreed with the intuition lying behind many of his recent decisions.
This is what I know: Bush is a puppet with an imagined mission from God propped by those I believe he trusts...and who lead him by the nose. I don't want a leader like this. I want a real leader..not a leader by sheer team influence.