David Brooks: The Importance of Religion in Politics

David Brooks: The Importance of Religion in Politics

[LINK]


David Brooks makes the same point I made a couple days ago in THIS POST.

Brooks says:

It's mind-boggling. Can't the Democratic strategists read the data? Religious involvement is a much, much more powerful predictor of how someone will vote than income, education, gender or any other social and demographic category save race.

Can't the Democratic strategists feel it in their bones how important this is? After all, when you go out among the Democratic rank and file, you find millions of Democrats who are just as religious as Republicans.

Brooks careens off the track when he says:

..the members of the secular left are interested primarily in social issues. What unites them more than anything else is a strong antipathy to pro-lifers and fundamentalists.

I consider myself to be a religious moderate as are many of my friends and family. What turns off many religious Democrats (note I didn't say "secular lefties") is the political dogmatic hypocrisy right-wing pro-lifers reveal. They will press on one issue (ie: abortion) while completely ignoring the pro-life aspect involved in the deaths of untold innocents who die as a direct result of merciless, violent and unjust wars in which their nation fully participates. If all life is truly sacred, it would only follow logic that no self-respecting Christian should back a candidate who seeks out unjust wars he knows will result in killing thousands of innocent people...especially when he lies in order to wage the unjust war.

Brooks forgets the fact that animosity runs much stronger from right-wing fundamentalists to the moderately religious (and even stronger to the secular left). They are positively intolerant. This fundie-group can be downright hateful in their outlook toward anyone who refuses to share their views. Brooks should know better. Culture wars were not started and are not being egged on today by either religious moderates or the secular left who hold steadfast to the principles of freedom as framed in our nation's Founding documents (many of the "secular left" are Libertarians). The Christian conservative group that Bush panders to on their favorite (politically divisive) issues is nearly always at the expense of the most important national concerns and are often issues adversely affecting true freedoms we enjoy in America.

Other than this misinterpretation (in its typical David Brooks-style overgeneralization), I agree when he says that John Kerry must build a bridge to religious moderates.

As I said on June 19th, John Kerry "needs to be unafraid and unashamed to talk about the importance of religion in his own life. Americans want to hear about it. They relate to it."

Here's Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution

Here's Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution

Hearts and minds ain't gonna work in Iraq. Bomb the livin' daylights outta them. Level Fallujah.
They're just people who are primitive. We know what the final solution should be. If we don't know, just listen to Bill. He'll tell ya. If you don't agree, just “shut up” or you will be declared an “enemy of the state.” [LINK]

Kim Sun-il

Kim Sun-il

Hearing Kim Sun-il crying "I don't want to die! My life is important-like your life in important!" has been heartbreaking.

As I watched the nightmare-video of the frightened young man begging for his life, I wondered where the Catholic pro-lifers are? Why are they not screaming out against this war? (especially the Catholic hierarchy.) Where are all the Christians who preach about the sanctity of life? If they fail to see the value in all these innocent lives lost to unnecessary violence, why should we believe in anything else they say about any other issues?

Kim Sun-il is now dead...his self-important and innocent life taken away. He was more complex than a stem-cell or an embryo. He wasn't a soldier. He was a civilian. We sit back and watch perfectly innocent civilians die because it's a cost of the war we're fighting. In doing so--in remaining silent-- we are totally immoral.

Our leaders tell our citizen-civilians in these dangerous nations not to leave those nations "or the terrorists win". This is totally irresponsible. Let's see those leaders sign up to work and walk the daily streets in those treacherous lands.

To all who believe that each life is sacred:
Isn't it time to open your mouths and scream for the insanity and violence of this war to end?

TNR: The New Rationalizations to Support Iraq War

The New Republic: The New Rationalizations to Support Iraq War
..because the old ones didn't pan out.

[LINK]

The editors of The New Republic believed that assuming a nuclear-tipped Iraq could be deterred (given Saddam's history of reckless miscalculation and mass murder) was a naïve idea. They worried that, had President Bush's threats of war against Iraq passed without action, so would the world's (the U.N.'s) vigilance. The editors say they believed France, Russia, and China would likely always have feared a U.S. beachhead in the Arab world more than those countries feared Saddam Hussein.

Now comes the "but"....

The TNR editors now say that waiting to confront Iraq would have allowed the United States to confront more immediate dangers. They admit that, in retrospect, we should have paid more attention to myriad warning signs about the truth behind the dismal intelligence. They say they feel regret, but no shame.

They cling to some of their initial moral reasoning to absolve them from shame as they believe Saddam's Iraq was "a moral cancer at the center of a region whose pathologies were threatening the world". Yet they underestimated the effect on the Iraqi people, now considering the forces of "fanatical Islam, America-hatred, and a penchant for conspiracy theories." They claim our (U.S.) inability to provide security has caused us to undermine ourselves and that as a result, this war's moral costs have been higher than they'd foreseen.

TNR searches for a moral reson to stay in Iraq, and they find it in the simple fact that they are, in a decidedly perverse sense, "free" and that we can assist them to remain "free".

They make what I consider to be a freshly-created naive statement: that people from the Arab and Muslim world are watching..that they "may not hate America any less than they did before the war" (bullshite)....that, "for the time being, they may even hate it more" (Oh, come on, TNR--let's keep things real. We've inflamed the Arab street). TNR's pie-in-the-sky musing is that, with the fall of Iraq's dictator, the people of the Muslim world can finally envision the fall of their own dictators.
(*I have to add this:..."...and America's leaders can lie to their people again so the U.S. can help them to overthrow their dictators."*)

TNR's editors, in their hand-wringing over being oh-so-wrong over the attack on Iraq, bring this all down to the United States triggering a debate about democracy in the Middle East as their one true morally-justified reason for our loss of almost 850 troops after two straight years of proven misleadings from our government.


I'm sorry, but there is such thing as healthy optimism in a realistic light. On the other end of the spectrum, there is pure delusion. If TNR still believes this war--the invasion of Iraq--still carries a glint of moral justice, I don't think they're naive--I think they're reaching..reaching.. in the hope of intuitive redemption and moral absolution.

Hitchens tries too hard to call Moore a liar

Hitchens tries too hard to call Moore a liar

"...speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European...it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans.

They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative American...someone who actually embodies all of those qualities."

- Christopher Hitchens attacking Michael Moore

________________________

I read Christopher Hitchens' review of Michael Moore.
(Oh--and I read his comments about Moore's movie 'Fahrenheit 9/11', too).

It seems that Mr. Hitchens is reaching as far as he can to turn Michael Moore's artistic film presentation into a bag of deliberate anti-American political lies.

After seeing Hitchens on CSPAN -June 1st- making a blantantly uncivil public ad hominem attack on Michael Moore and after reading Mr. Hitchens' recent rant on Ronald Reagan, I'm losing my faith in his credibility as an intellectual. I've not seen a stronger post-9/11 change in any intellectual journalist to date...I suspect Mr. Hitchens was philisophically shaken and perhaps ruined by the attack on America.

Here is one example of Mr. Hitchen's well-stretched exaggerations:

If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out....
..I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk...

[LINK]

Mr. Hitchens makes it sound like a pipeline is not a prime consideration for the U.S. economic interests. Ah! But let's look at reality:

The governments of Pakistan, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan on December 9, 2003, signed a formal protocol agreement in Islamabad after two days of talks on a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline project linking the three countries

[LINK]

It didn't take Afghanistan long to sign new agreements for their pipeline once they got their new government started up, did it? Of course, a highway and security will be necessary to literally pave the way to the pipeline dream. Let's not kid ourselves. The proposed TAP gas pipeline would move up to 30-bil cu m/year of natural gas from the Daulatabad fields in southeast Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan. It's a wonderful economic opportunity for all invested international companies (and we know damned well the U.S. will be heavily invested).

When we see an intellectual reaching for cheap rationalization while lashing out ungentlemanly against a man he wishes desperately to call a liar, as Mr. Hitchens has clearly been doing, we see a confused soul who doesn't deserve much of our serious attention.

It's a shame. I really used to enjoy Mr. Hitchens. Post-9/11 politics have rolled him into a spinner of confused yarn. He is clearly not the "polished, sophisticated European" (as he tries to pass himself off). Let's use Hitchen's own words and turn them on him..I think he deserves it after the ad hominem attacks that have revealed his true nature: "To describe this film review as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film review as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental."

Headlines at Iddybud June 21

Headlines at Iddybud June 21


ISX Roll-Out Begins

Is Nedra Pickler an AP op-ed columnist?

Chalabi & al-Sadr may have future in Iraq gov't

WELCOME, SUMMER 2004!

Chalabi & al-Sadr may have future in Iraq gov't

Chalabi & al-Sadr may have future in Iraq gov't

Juan Cole mentions Al-Hayat news that Iyad Allawi recently dispatched Ahmad Chalabi to mediate between him and the Kurdish leadership in the north of Iraq. Also, a preparatory board has met to begin planning an Iraqi National Congress of 1000 notables. This includes an invitation to the Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr, who observers thought might well be elected to the advisory council. Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has allegedly called on Muqtada to come to the congress.

From Informed Comment:

The American attempt to destroy Chalabi politically, and to destroy Muqtada al-Sadr physically, has so far failed miserably. Allawi is clearly eager to do business with both, and to pull them into his orbit. Both are now poised to gain seats in the proto-parliament, the national advisory council, and they have made an improbable and wholly cynical alliance with one another, according to an informed Iraqi observer. The two of them could well show up in the government to be formed in January, 2005.

Juan Cole also writes about the fact that Shiite Indians were being supported by Hindus in yesterday's protest in New Delhi against harsh U.S. policies in Iraq and to demand that the U.N. take the leading role in putting the country back on its feet. Indian Shiites have in recent decades been moderate and politically timid, but this issue has clearly galvanized them. Professor Cole believes there is only more trouble to come, seeing that the Shiite International has turned anti-U.S. I can only blame the Bush administration's sheer stupidity in their foreign policy for this unfortunate turn of events.

I'm beginning to believe that the Bushites will do anything...and I mean a desperate anything... to get the security failure known as Iraq under control so they can politically align themselves for re-election. I happen to think nearly everything they've done has had a political-advantage-strategy importance above our national interest. The Democrats are seen by the Bushites as more the enemy than the real enemy. For this reason, I think we will wind up leaving the people of Iraq with an anti-U.S. government in place. This is certainly not in our best national interest. It's a cob job. With some of these Iraqi notables, the anti-U.S. sentiment may be closeted away for their own political furtherance. I think, in the end, we will have failed the Iraqi people (and will have lost 846 men and women of our own armed forces) over the folly of "liberating" a nation while actually installing a new anti-U.S. government in Saddam Hussein's place.

Is Nedra Pickler an AP op-ed columnist?

Is Nedra Pickler an AP op-ed columnist?

The AP headlines that grace Nedra Pickler's journalistic ventures certainly seem like mini-op-eds...or perhaps slogan-suggestions for the Bush campaign.

One particular headline (and accompanying story) in question:

Campaigning for the poor paused to vacation with rich
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We have a fellow from one of the richest families as our sitting President and I have to say that I think he's been incredibly stupid in handling world affairs.

Somehow Americans have gotten the impression that it's fine and dandy to have a rich Republican run for President...but not a wealthy Democrat.

Why would a professional newsperson wish to push this idea?

This type of thinking leads us to the only rationalization that we could make: Republicans are well-known to have gotten rich by greedily stepping over the flattened bodies of the poor, I suppose. We expect rich Republicans to run and once in office, to continue their naturally-inherent greedy streak of sinking the poorest..and..well...that's supposed to be alright
with us(?!)

I guess Nedra Pickler thinks so. I know she's not even trying to hide her bias anymore. I find her way of thinking philosophically bankrupt and her writing unprofessional (if she's supposed to be relaying the news). Why are we being subjected to such trash by the AP? If a writer can't give us straight facts, she should be replaced by someone who can. Make Nedra an op-ed columnist, a job for which she has auditioned in the guise of a newswriter and has proven herself an excellent candidate.

ISX Roll-out begins

ISX Roll-Out Begins

The ISX (Iraq Stock Exchange) has been established with a nine-member Board of Governors.

Here is a bit of history if you are unfamiliar with Iraq's financial markets. The Baghdad Stock Exchange (BSE) opened in 1991. It was government-owned and tightly controlled by Iraq's Ministry of Finance. Baath Party members routinely engaged in illegal seizures of listed company shares. The BSE ceased trading on March 19, 2003 due to the invasion of Iraq. Since its closure, the BSE's 300,000+ investors’ brokerage accounts have been frozen. Private transactions have been occurring, some illegal.

Since the BSE was owned by the Iraqi government and capital raising did not conform to free market principles, a new Iraq Stock Exchange (ISX) has been established with an SEC as the oversight regulator. Independent of the Ministry of Finance, the ISX is a self-regulatory organization chaired by a public member of the Board. There will be satellite communication for a remote branch office in the U.S.

They are opening up now...rolling-out over the next few weeks, with five new companies per week. Rigorous market regulation is promised in order to control fraud, manipulation and unreasonably volatile price fluctuations.

If security issues are nipped in the bud, investors will come flocking, I'm sure. If security issues remain as they are today, I would consider investment extremely risky.

At least the groundwork has been set for a possible success.

Headlines at Iddybud June 20

Headlines at Iddybud June 20

DUH! Those not paying attention support Bush on Iraq

Remembering Reagan (cartoon)

Accenture- Bush Rewards Corporation Avoiding U.S. Taxes

Democrat Convention Credentials Bloggers

John McCain as running mate...on whose ticket?

Fourth of July Downloadable Flyer

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!

Fourth of July Downloadable Flyer

Fourth of July Downloadable Flyer

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

--Frederick Douglass, 1857

There is a marvelous Independence Day flyer available here.(Note-it's a pdf file).

It has fantastic quotes from the intelligently patriotic George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass and others, giving us a wide, varied, and fearless view of what being patriotic means. (John Ashcoft would faint when the walls of his narrow vision were ripped away to expose the open-sky view of these truest patriots).

You can print them out and distribute them at your own Fourth of July celebrations. The thoughtful creators of the downloadable flyers say:
May these quotes serve to remind us all of the ideals and values upon which
the United States was founded.

Take a look...I promise you won't be disappointed.

McCain as running mate...on whose ticket?

John McCain as running mate...on whose ticket?

Why am I hearing the tune "Dueling Banjos" running through my head?

I've said "..blah!" in the past when the rumors were swirling about John Kerry courting John McCain for his running mate...especially since Senator McCain made it crystal-clear he was fully committed to supporting a Bush re-election.

Now rumors are swirling about Dick "I swear there's a terror connection"-Cheney getting bumped for none other than Senator McCain as VP on the GOP ticket in November.

In order to accept, Senator McCain would have to have healed from those push-polls in South Carolina in 2000 just before the Republican presidential primary. Do you remember those infamous McCain-defeating push-polls? The Bushites tried to eat McCain alive by insinuating his wife was a drug addict, that McCain might be mentally unstable from his captivity in Vietnam, and that he'd fathered a black child with a prostitute. Perhaps he hasn't healed from that experience, but would be ready to suck it all up and move ahead like the good soldier and patriot he's well-known to be if his President should ask him to join the ticket.

Don't you just LOVE politics?

Sidney Zion of the Daily News writes:

How about a Bush-McCain ticket?

This would turn John Kerry's dream of running with John McCain into the mother of all nightmares for the Democrats. But it's hardly the only good reason for Dubya and the GOP bosses to see that it's done......

....If the President's poll numbers continue to go south and still look dreary when the Republican convention comes to Bloombergsville in August, it's a good bet that somebody -perhaps even 41 - will tell Cheney that it's not his night....

.....A Kerry-McCain ticket would have been cynicism in living color. Bush-McCain is an ideological perfecto.



[LINK-N.Y. Daily News]

The wise Mr. Zion is absolutely right--and what a nightmare it would be for John Kerry. I think I was correct last April when I asked: "Why has the DLC been dancing with this fellow [McCain]? At the end of the ball, he's leaving with the village idiot."

When you consider the wonderful field of well-qualified Democrats from which Senator Kerry's had to choose all along, you just want to kick his political advisors in the shins....hard.....don't you?

Democrat Convention Credentials Bloggers

Democrat Convention Credentials Bloggers
From the N.Y. Times

A handful of scribes publishing in a newer medium will join the thousands of newspaper, magazine and broadcast journalists at this summer's political conventions. They'll be blogging.

The Democrats are holding true to their ``party of inclusion'' billing vis-a-vis the online chroniclers, whose Web logs have leapt in popularity this year as political junkies increasingly get their fix with mouse clicks.

[LINK]

Accenture- Bush Rewards Corporation Avoiding U.S. Taxes

Accenture- Bush Rewards Corporation Avoiding U.S. Taxes

The Bush administration recently awarded a $10 billion Department of Homeland Security contract to Accenture, a company that based its headquarters in Bermuda to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

The move defied the President's promise to make sure everyone is "paying their fair share." If that isn't enough to get you steamed, last week the White House's Congressional allies defeated legislation that would have stopped the contract. Congress rejected legislation sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) that would have prevented the contract from moving forward. The White House, through these Congressional allies, defeated the legislation on a sheer party line vote.

The General Accounting Office has cited Accenture for using offshore tax havens. Because of the GAO's report, at least one state has had the courage to do what Congress and the White House refuse to do. In May,
Illinois held up a $2 million state contract to the company because of its tax behavior. In its defense, the company denies getting serious benefits from moving offshore. But, according to a June 1 Bloomberg News report, Accenture's tax liability decreased while its U.S. earnings increased in 2002 and 2003.

*Thanks to Misleader.org for organizing this information to help us understand the big picture.

Remembering Reagan (cartoon)

Remembering Reagan (cartoon)

Duh! Those not paying attention support Bush

DUH!
Those not paying attention support Bush

There is "solid support" for Bush policy in Iraq from those Americans who do not pay attention to Iraq

*35% pretty much admit they could care less about news from Iraq

________________________________

Despite the deadly unrest and the growing scandal over the abuse of Iraqi detainees at US-run prisons, some 57 percent of Americans say the US effort there is going well, up from 46 percent in May, according to a survey by the independent Pew Research Center.

At the same time, Pew reported that the number of Americans very closely following events in Iraq had dropped to its lowest level in 2004, to just 39 percent, down 15 points since April.

And 35 percent said that people they know are becoming less emotionally involved with the news from Iraq, up from 26 percent in May.

[LINK]

June 19 Headlines at Iddybud blog

June 19 Headlines at Iddybud blog

The strange, sad death of the American way
George Bush's war imperils a cherished political tradition, writes Paul McGeough


Bush Censure by Envoys Makes History
From: Bloomberg News

A 'tortured' interpretation of the president's vast powers
By Robert J. Spitzer, Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at SUNY Cortland From: Syracuse.com

The disturbed man in the Oval Office
“In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

9/11 Commission Puts Cheney on the spot

Imperial Hubris

*And a belated Happy 1st Blogiversary to The Yorkshire Ranter.

The strange, sad death of the American way

The strange, sad death of the American way
George Bush's war imperils a cherished political tradition, writes Paul McGeough

There is a growing sense that Americans have become victims of September 11 in a way that has blinkered their democratic instincts...

So now the hard questions are being put in a pre-September 11 context...

...The commentator William Rivers Pitt poses them all before concluding: "The time has come, bluntly, to get over September 11; to move beyond it; to extract ourselves from this bunker mentality which blinds us while placing us in moral peril. It happened and it will never be forgotten, but we have reached a place where fear and obeisance can no longer be tolerated."

Bush, Blair and Howard would dearly love to move on, to shelter in that obedient, obeisant world and their shallow argument that the global community must deal with the reality on the ground in Iraq; hoping, too, that we'll just slip-slide with them, over and around their recklessness in dragging Iraq into the War on Terror.

But legitimacy is truth and questions of legitimacy will keep drawing us back to the propriety of their decision-making on the road to Baghdad - the lies, the half-truths, all the obsfucation....

...arguing that time will tell, the greater reality on the ground in Iraq is that the chaos and death from a mismanaged foreign occupation is a product of all the lies.


[LINK]

Bush Censure by Envoys Makes History

Bush Censure by Envoys Makes History

From: Bloomberg News

"Their prominence and seniority and influence when in their diplomatic or military posts, and their number, is really remarkable," said Richard Kohn, the Pentagon's chief Air Force historian from 1981-1991 and chairman of the University of North Carolina's peace, war and defense curriculum in Chapel Hill.

As I detailed earlier this week, twenty-seven "heavy-hitters" in U.S. diplomacy and military (many from the Reagan era) have created a group statement titled 'The Need for Change in U.S. Foreign and Defense Policy' with the aim to see Bush defeated in 2004. Apparently, when it comes to comparison, this has no historic parallel.

It really looks bad for this sitting President.

[LINK]

A 'tortured' interpretation of the president's vast powers

A 'tortured' interpretation of the president's vast powers
By Robert J. Spitzer, Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at SUNY Cortland
From: Syracuse.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Presidential claims to vast executive power are seductive because they offer a promise of security to Americans justifiably worried about terrorism. But the promised security is illusory, because it is a power grab cloaked in the guise of security, not security delivered by power."

-Professor Spitzer

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Robert J. Spitzer's commentary at Syracuse.com begins:

In the furious debate to come over why the president is not bound by laws against torture, the necessary debate over the morality and effectiveness of torture is likely to push aside scrutiny of an underlying administration rationale - arguably the most sweeping claim to executive power ever penned by an administration.


Professor Spitzer reminds us that Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson could have been speaking to today's president when he wrote in 1952: "Emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their control is lodged elsewhere than in the executive who exercises them." The Bush administration has (arguably) made the most sweeping claim to executive power ever penned by any administration. Professor Spitzer sees a danger in Bush's uncontrolled conduct of U.S. foreign affairs through his administration's grandiose claims to executive power. He maps out a wonderful historic record detailing where he believes this administration has gone wrong in virtually denying Congress their due powers as prescribed in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.


[LINK]

The disturbed man in the Oval Office

The disturbed man in the Oval Office


“In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

--an anonymous (and troubled) White House aide

All I can say is "Yikes". Read this article from Capitol Hill Blue. As friendly, folksy and simple as he seems in public, he sounds like such a small, frightened, petty and spiteful man when the cameras stop rolling.

9/11 Commission Puts Cheney on the spot

9/11 Commission Puts Cheney on the spot

The leaders of the Sept. 11 commission called on Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday to turn over any intelligence reports that would support the White House's insistence that there was a close relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

Cheney's been going to the media to spread the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection on thick, and now he's going to have to talk turkey with a panel that won't take this type of politics-play. Americans deserve real answers. The 9/11 families deserve real answers.

[LINK-9/11 Panel Presses Cheney on Hijacker-Prague Meeting]

Imperial Hubris

Imperial Hubris

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now."

--Anonymous, the writer of "Imperial Hubris", who thinks it possible that another strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, but of keeping the same one in place.


Scheduled for release on the July 4,"Imperial Hubris" was written by an anonymous U.S. senior intelligence official. Arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaeda, the writer demonstrates how Bush is playing almost directly into Bin Laden's hands. The tone is said to be "angry and urgent". While some may say it's just another Bush-bashing book released in an election year, I would bear in mind that the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaeda led this anonymous writer to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the late 90s.

Perhaps if we'd listened to him then, he never would have had to be writing a book like "Imperial Hubris".

It's time we asked "What's going on?" before more Americans have to die.

Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

Why??

Why??

Just why was this a just war?
Editorial/Seattle Post-Intelligencer

What is now left of the Bush administration's case against Saddam Hussein?
Editorial/DAWN

Bush has misled Americans on Iraq
Editorial/Financial Times

Why are we in Iraq?
Editorial/St. Petersburg Times

..by believing what he wanted to hear and ignoring the advice of friendly governments while shutting out informed officials within his government, Bush launched his country upon an adventure that has seriously damaged his war against international terror. Editorial/Arab News

Whatever the reality now, it is hardly logical to cite the terror backlash provoked by the war to justify having launched it.
Guardian/Blind to the truth

New David Corn Weblog

New David Corn Weblog

For those of you who may not yet be aware, David Corn is blogging at Bushlies.com.

Paul Johnson has been beheaded

Paul Johnson Jr. has been beheaded

"Delivering on our promise, the mujahedeen from the Fallujah Squad slaughtered the American prisoner Paul Marshall Johnson after the ultimatum set by the mujahedeen to the tyrants of the Saudi government expired."

-from a statement posted on an Islamist website and signed by "Al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula."

__________________________

"...the United States will soon withdraw about 7,000 U.S. military personnel from Saudi Arabia and terminate a significant military presence there that lasted more than a decade..."The Persian Gulf", Donald Rumsfeld said, "is now a safer region because of the change in Iraq.".....

--April, 2003
[LINK]

_____________________


Donald Rumsfeld's words (above) have proven out to be totally wrong.
It's time for our President and the Pentagon to stop playing Friendly-footsie with the Saudi Arabian government. It's turning awfully sour in the Persian Gulf region these days. (See my comments from earlier this week). This has gone too damned far. If the Saudis are not willingly harboring terrorists (and I have to say I am actually skeptical these days, considering Bush's definition of a nation who harbors terrorists), they are surely not in control of their own national security. If they can't do it, it's time we did...at least if Bush is going to be consistent with his own foreign policy. Perhaps it's time for Prince Bandar to head for a spider hole.

I heard the Saudis killed a guy they claim was the al-Qaeda ringleader in the country.


Here he is..here's the proof the Saudis were good soldiers. When will the Saudis start taking serious pre-emptive action to get these murderers before they lop American heads off?

So--(ding dong)the wicked ringleader's dead. I guess that means they've solved the problem..right? Bush is appeased, perhaps they suppose? We can expect to see no more heads lopped off? (Why did I hear more warnings of future heads to roll on CNN this morning?)

It's important, I believe, to share with my readers the reason I seem so unconvinced that Saudi Arabia has been doing all they possibly can to stop their citizens from attacking Westerners and that I believe it's time to get tough as nails toward them. Many more of their typical citizens (so many more than we've been told) are cheering the Jihad on:

....residents of three Islamic fundamentalist districts in Riyadh, interviewed before news broke of Johnson's killing, suggested that the kidnappers enjoyed popular support, partly because of U.S. policy in Iraq and its perceived backing for Israel.

"How can we inform on our brothers when we see all these pictures coming from Abu Ghraib and Rafah," Muklas Nawaf told The Associated Press as he ate meat grilled on a spit at a restaurant called Jihad, or holy war in Arabic.

He was referring to the pictures of Iraqis abused by U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and Israeli military incursions and killings in the Gaza refugee camp of Rafah.

"This is not a little skirmish. It is a war," Nawaf said.

[LINK]

I am not alone in my mistrust of Saudi Arabia. Look at the views of this conservative American at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order.

This isn't going to have a happy ending for our relations with Saudi Arabia. If we think it does, we are DREAMING.

I heard Bush say he will not allow "these kinds of extremist thugs" to intimidate America. So what is Bush going to do? Send troops into Saudi Arabia? Somehow I don't think so.

The saddest joke of all?

While Bush has our troops bogged down amidst an unnecessary bloody civil war in Iraq, al-Qaeda has moved to a new address and has hung out their sign for the new "central front for the war on terror."
It's called Saudi Arabia.

[LINK]

--Link to site for VIDEO-CNN

--Colin Powell Hopes Americans Stay in Saudi Arabia So They Can Get Their Heads Cut Off, Too Despite Risks

--From the "No sh*t, Dick Tracy" headlines: "Saudi US embassy says hostage killing "inhumane"

--See Joe Gandelman's June 15th op-ed on Paul Johnson

--See Joe Gandelman at Dean's World today

Grand Forks Herald Suggests Zinni or Powell for Kerry VP

Grand Forks Herald Suggests Zinni or Powell for Kerry VP


Really.

The question of "Who will it be?" is looming heavily.

We scan the horizon..we ponder..we check Google every 30 minutes....

[LINK]

Jesuit tells Kerry: Ignore Right-wIng Bishops; Move Ahead with Grace

Jesuit tells Kerry: Ignore Right-wing Bishops; Move Ahead with Grace


Being wise enough to understand the Communion debate "is a nonissue" in the Kerry campaign and simply a tool of the Republican Party, Jesuit priest Robert Drinan has advised John Kerry to clamp down on religious rhetoric and "keep cool on the Communion thing". He believes it would be far more graceful to let the Communion issue go during this campaign season. [See LINK]

I think Rev. Drinan understands that if you place the scalpel too close to the collective heart composed of the individuals who make up today's American Catholic church, that heart would have to be split in half. There are far too many divisive issues. The heart, of course, would soon stop beating after the chambers were separated.

Respectfully, though, John Kerry will not benefit by ignoring the subject of religion altogether. Kerry recently said "Catholicism is not defined by one issue," and I think he's absolutely right to continue to remind people of that fact.

What the political right-wing aims to do is to separate the chambers of Catholicism's heart from one another. The scalpel is in their hands. Certainly not in possession of the wisdom of Solomon, they'd rather see the baby cut in two.

Recent scandals involving priest-pedophelia nearly bled the heart of the church, but it did not kill it. If there is ANY issue that should be at the forefront today in the Catholic chrusch, I think it's the pedophelia issue. We know it has not been resolved to the satisfaction of most Catholics. It was smoothed over.

To see a priest deny Communion to a man like John Kerry (knowing many of those priests protected pedophiles..or perhaps had been pedophiles themselves) is nothing short of a sad and unbelievable joke.

I do hope John Kerry takes Rev Drinan's good advice, but also understand that he needs to be unafraid and unashamed to talk about the importance of religion in his own life. Americans want to hear about it. They relate to it.

Right wing ignorant evildoers should be ignored. (Anyone who would aim to split the baby in two is definitely ignorant and inherently evil).

Meanwhile, Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, didn't like the fact that a Kerry aide (Mara Vanderslice) attended (and allegedly helped to organize) an IMF protest where some violence erupted. That got me wondering: What does Bill Donohue think, as a Catholic, of the war in Iraq? I did a bit of research. I saw that Donohue has defended the Catholic position for war, saying that "the pope’s position on the war was that it could be resorted to only ‘as the very last option,’ thus allowing room for a legitimate debate on whether that time had arrived."

Now, if the IMF protest sparked violence, what the hell do you call the war in Iraq?

Do you see..do you smell Bill Donohue's hypocrisy?

We can go and kill untold thousands of innocent civilians over a "religious debate of legitimacy", but a Democrat cannot legitimately speak out against injustice in our world?

Holy bullcrap!

It seems a moral shame to see Kerry's campaign allow people like Mara Vanderslice to be marginalized over such ignorant attacks.

If all that being Catholic means these days is being an automaton without the fire of Christ's mission in our hearts, then I suppose Catholic people like Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, and the Berrigan brothers are evil to men like Bill Donohue.

When it becomes "evil" to make it a little simpler for people to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves in a free and peaceful environment as God intended them to do, I might side with Bill Donohue..but right now I have to say I think his soul is dulled and corroded by politics.

Catholicism isn't defined simply by two issues..homosexuality and abortion.

The right-wing (many not even Catholic themselves) are pushing the issues of homosexuality and abortion with the goal of trying to do damage to the Democratic party. I would hope, when American Catholics see how their spiritual lives are being used and abused by those only interested in politics, that they will be spiritually strong enough not to lose their faith altogether. I hope they will stand together and say: "Get politics the hell OUT of our churches."

Michael Moore film was only film that may have saved Disney summer

Michael Moore film was only film that may have saved Disney summer

Or: How being intimidated by Government is bad for Business

Or: The Free Market is Laughing at Michael Eisner

...the one hit film Disney could have had this summer, Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," is set for a blockbuster opening a week from today from Lions Gate and IFC Films.

[LINK]

Putin: American Intel was told what Russian Intel Knew--And..?!

Putin speaks:
American Intel knew what Russian Intel Knew--
And...?!

Any shock-value intended in this news article is incredibly underwhelming. [see LINK]

Russia's president Vladmir Putin says Russia warned the U.S. of Saddam's desire to attack us on our own soil. This, of course, means nothing. Why do I say that? Because it's old news. Older than our pre-emptive war on Iraq. Russian intelligence informed American intelligence at the very time the information was relevant.

America knew everything Russia knew. And.....?!

There is no "rest of the story", you see. What Russia knew didn't change Russia's mind when they opposed regime change in Iraq.

It all comes back to American intelligence and all the failures that have come back to haunt them...and the mis-leaders who knowingly used the highly questionable intelligence. There is still no proof of ties to al- Qaeda terror wrapped up in Putin's so-called "new revelation".

All I can say is that I can clearly see the Bushites are desperate. They've been forced to defend their weak charge that there had been links between Saddam and al Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq. Now they rely on Putin to bolster their lies to the American public.

Russia...the same country right-wingers have berated for their ulterior motives in the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal..the same country whose companies the Pentagon barred from bidding on Iraq reconstruction contracts because they'd totally opposed the regime change in Iraq.

I repeat--totally opposed the regime change in Iraq.


UPDATE: June 20, 2004: Zev Chafets writes about the Putin statement (and its odd timing):

Bush argues that no responsible post-9/11 President would shrug off such warnings..The GOP will ask: What would President Kerry have done with the Russian warning? One answer is that there was no warning, that Putin is lying to curry favor with Bush.

Looking Forward to Tomorrow

Looking Forward to Tomorrow

One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President and no longer resides here."

The man thanked him and, again, just walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "I look forward to seeing you tomorrow, Sir!"

Childish Cheney Lashes Out at N.Y. Times for Headline Truth

Childish Cheney Lashes Out at NY Times for Headline Truth
FOX News fan Dick Cheney lashed out at the N.Y. Times yesterday for reporting the news that the 9-11 Commission found absolutely no link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists. He called the NY Times reporting headlines "outrageous" and commenced spreading the same tired garbage about Saddam's "general" connections to "terror" all over again in an interview with Gloria Borger on CNBC's Capitol Report.
And you'll never guess who Cheney wanted to expound upon to try and make his case: The one---the ONLY---Abu Masab al-Zarqawi. (The Bogeyman! What did I tell you just hours ago? al-Zarqawi's the only hook these misleaders have to hang their liar's hats on these days.)

In today's N.Y.Times, Maureen Dowd has a delicious description of Cheney's unbelieveably stubborn insistence that his war was justified by the connections that were never there....

Mr. Cheney did it again on Monday in Florida speaking at — where else? — a conservative think tank; he said Saddam "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." This claim, used by the White House to justify its gallop to war, was once more flatly contradicted by the 9/11 panel's report yesterday: "Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The report says Osama did seek help from Saddam in the 90's, "despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime." But aside from sending an official to meet with Osama in Sudan, Saddam stiffed his request for weapons and training-camp space.

Mr. Cheney isn't programmed to process evidence that shows he was wrong; he simply keeps repeating the same nonsensical claims as if he has a microchip malfunction.

Unfortunately, there's no spouse to give him a knock on the head, as the Stepford husbands do when their Farrah fem-bots go haywire and keep repeating things like, "I'll just die if I don't get that recipe. . . . I'll just die if I-I-I [bop!] don't get that recipe. . . ."

Cheney-bot just keeps going and going: "He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda. . . . He had long-established ties with Al Qaeda-a-a. . . . He-he-e-e—— brzzzrrrp!"
[LINK]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATES:

--See Center For American Progress for discussion of this topic

--See David Corn's take on the subject

Dubya Unchained!

Dubya Unchained!
At The Hill, Bill Press says we can't afford another four years of G.W. ("My Way or the Highway") Bush. Give him four more years and he'll bring you more war, more extremist judges (including as many as three on the Supreme Court), bigger and bigger deficits, more environmental destruction, more anti-Americanism around the world, and less freedom at home.

[LINK]

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons

According to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, in a December 15, 1986 article, the CIA began to secretly supply Iraq with intelligence in 1984 that was used to "calibrate" mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. Beginning in early 1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive US satellite reconnaissance photography ... to assist Iraqi bombing raids".

Iraqi chemical attacks on Iranian troops--and US assistance to Iraq--continued throughout the Iran-Iraq war. In a parallel program, the US defence department also provided intelligence and battle-planning assistance to Iraq....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

....On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be "taken out", at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.

Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.

On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it "premature". The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.




[LINK]

Christian Version of American Idol Set to Debut

Christian Version of American Idol Set to Debut

I hear William Hung will be coming back to perform "She Hangs".

-SHE HANGS! SHE HANGS!-

[LINK]

New book: "Bush on the Couch"

New book: "Bush on the Couch"
Inside the Mind of the President



Here at Iddybud, I'll soon be reviewing this new book by Dr. Justin Frank. It's already generating a lot of conversation. Dr. Frank, 35 years in practice as a psychoanalyst, is a clinical professor at George Washington University Medical Center. He traces the development of George W. Bush's character from childhood to the present day and relates this development to Bush's hampered ability to manage his emotions. His psyche, according to Dr. Frank, is charged with restless anxiety. Dr. Frank shows how Bush's life-charted psychological development has conditioned him to view the world in the black-and-white terms that have so evidently shaped his administration (and our nation's ultimate destiny).

For the past four years, there has been a record of violence and cruelty which has seemed to be increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center.

Dr. Frank begs the all-important question (too-often unspoken) in this book:

Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?


I cannot wait to read this book and share my thoughts with my readers.

Related sites:

Official Site-Harper Collins
Salon
Washington Post
Sify.com
Daily Kos
Anonymoses
Billmon

NOTE:
You may wish to read Dr. Frank's unforgettable satirical piece on Kenneth Starr

The Rumor: Howard Dean as VP

The Rumor: Howard Dean as VP
O.K.

I'll play the gossiping little blogger.

Word is, on Blogdom Boulevard, that Howard Dean helps neutralize potential dissatisfaction with the Democratic party's left and might be on the V.P. A-List.

See Daily Kos.

Pass it on.

Move Over, Osama: It's al-Zarqawi-The Bushites' New Bogeyman

Move Over, Osama: It's al-Zarqawi-The Bushites' New Bogeyman


It seems that Abu Masab al-Zarqawi is the last man the Bushites can try to use as the Saddam-connection-to-terror "bogeyman" link. They love to summon up his fear-producing name. His terrorist moniker makes us shudder.

The name al-Zarqawi pops up everywhere..his fingerprints are allegedly on every act of Iraqi terror, according to the Bush administration. He was allegedly present at the beheading of Nicholas Berg (although, strangely, the person alleged to be al-Zarqawi didn't have the identifiable al-Zarqawi ill-fitting wooden leg). He is alleged to have been the mastermind behind every defiant act against the U.S. in Iraq, it seems...even the one that occurred today.

The Bushites do not like to talk about Iraqi nationalist insurgents fighting the Western power they perceive behind the new Iraqi government. They want you to believe all the terror is coming from outside Iraq. It looks better for their war.

To infer that some of these people are fighting for their own version of national identity undermines the fact that we're trying to "free them".

Have you ever walked into a lion's cage and tried to explain that you were there only to set them free? Why, they'd tear at your limbs, then proceed to eat you alive. After you were digested, they'd seek their own level of freedom and would claim to have never needed you to give it to them. I don't see this war as any different. This nation, Iraq, was a wild land. Saddam Hussein had not fostered a civil society among these poor people. We entered as savages dropping bombs over civilian's heads rather than utilizing every possible bit of diplomacy with our friends around the world. There was never a heart or a mind to be won by attacking an already-weakened country while killing the ones we didn't like (and, indiscriminately, the ones unlucky enough to be in the way).

The 9/11 Commission reports are revealing the folly of Bush's shock and awe upon Iraq. In a recent CPA poll, just 2% (that's TWO percent) of Iraqis believe we came as liberators.

Only 1 (that's ONE) man with any possible connection to "terror" in Iraq in recent years was...guess who? You've got it!

Abu Masab al-Zarqawi.

The bogeyman.

In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.

Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.

*Sketchy..always sketchy...*

[LINK]

Walter Shapiro Dismisses Moore Film as Snide, Immature

Walter Shapiro Dismisses Moore Film as Snide, Immature

[LINK]

I found Walter Shapiro's review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be intellectally insulting.

Shapiro asks:

Does anyone seriously believe, as Moore suggests, that the United States invaded Afghanistan primarily to pave the way for a natural-gas pipeline? Or that the war in Iraq was a single-minded effort to win new contracting business for Halliburton?

Primarily? When did Moore say "primarily"? These are Mr. Shapiro's words.

I think this is dissemination on Mr. Shapiro's part. We'd be pretty naive to think a new free market in Afghanistan would not benefit us greatly when it came to opening a go-ahead path to the pipeline. Like most of us, Moore wasn't born in a turnip patch. The very name of his film, containing the numbers 9/11 make it quite obvious why we began a campaign in Aghanistan. It would also be very naive of us to believe Halliburton did not benefit greatly from this war in Iraq. One look at a factual breakdown of DOD contracts made for Iraq reconstruction will tell you they received sweet corporate welfare from U.S. taxpayers.

Mr. Shapiro seems to miss the "joke" entirely as Moore places a French product in his pre-9/11 scenario:

A single sentence captures the filmmaker's cheap-shot style. Describing George W. Bush's trip to Florida on Sept. 10, 2001, Moore gleefully declares in his voice-over, "He went to bed that night in a bed made with fine French linens." The way Moore presents this tiny detail conveys the impression that stalwart Democratic presidents such as Bill Clinton slept only on the cheapest sheets available from Wal-Mart. Maybe Moore and his fans can call this hitherto unreported Bush scandal "Linen-closet-gate."

Huh?!
I wonder if Mr. Shapiro simply didn't "get it" or worse..if he's feigning disgust at Michael Moore's so-called "snide" commentary to keep his cushy job with USA Today?

At a time when the nation's problems seem so daunting, it is tempting for voters to derive nourishment from moviemakers and radio personalities who offer entertaining theories about how the world really works.

Oh!
You mean, like, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh?

But it does raise troubling questions about the ability of voters to render mature judgments about America's role in a hostile international environment. What does it say about our democracy when Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live are regarded as respected sources of political commentary?

Actually, Jon Stewart betrays 50 times as much truth in 30 minutes than FOX News in a whole day. Saturday Night Live is politically irrelevant these days. Jay Leno is a Bush-man. FOX News is a comedy every time they claim to be balanced. The big-lipped blonde FOXette Laurie Dhue knows how the world works? Give me a break!

I think Mr. Shapiro has given Moore a very unfair shake, considering the deep sh*t we have to wade through every single day in the world of right-wing talk radio and cable TV news.

Bill Clinton's Very Personal Reflections

Bill Clinton's Very Personal Reflections
In '60 Minutes' Interview, Ex-President Calls Affair 'Terrible Moral Error'
By Howard Kurtz/Washington Post
[LINK]

Clinton's greatest accomplishment, in his opinion, was the creation of 22 million jobs.

Dan Rather said Clinton was "supportive" of President Bush on Iraq and that "it will surprise some people."

I don't plan to be overwhelmed or impressed by the "support" Clinton will throw to Bush. Anything he offers will probably be a security blanket for Hillary's political future. Iraq was an unnecessary war and the American public was used badly by a lying administration. Bush alienated our nation from the respect of many of our allies. His Iraq folly drew resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda. The Iraq war caused an increase in membership to terror groups and probably will for years to come. We've only succeeded in spending hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security. More than seven hundred Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured.

If Bill Clinton says he clearly supports any of those things, I'll eat my hat and howl at the moon.

The Simple Wisdom of Mad Kane

The Simple Wisdom of Mad Kane

Mad Kane was so pleased last week to see that Bush wasn't exploiting and politicizing former President Ronald Reagan's death. So pleased was Mad that she was inspired to write this lovely poem in his honor:

Dubya Takes The High Road
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Reflected glory Dubya seeks
From Reagan's mourned demise.
Too bad that next to Forty-Three
Ron's statesmanlike and wise.

[LINK]

Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Kerry Before Nomination Accepted

Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Kerry Before Nomination Accepted

It's very unusual to see an endorsement of this kind in the pre-election season. I wanted to share it with you because it is so politically unique. They explain that this endorsement is being made now, when the election is months away, because this race promises to be close and Pennsylvania is one of 18 swing states that can go to either candidate. I'm not sure if this is the first time in American history that such a strong endorsement is made this early, but it certainly stands out as significant and indicative of an expected tough contest to come this fall.

The endorsement is titled:
"KERRY FOR PREZ:
Why Him, Why Now-
And How To Put Him In The White House"

An excerpt:

The Case Against Bush

George W. Bush received - and deserved - praise for his leadership during the dark days immediately following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But since then, the Bush administration has been marked by failure - failure to shepherd the country through a tough economic downturn, failure to keep the nation focused on the true enemies to our security.

He has failed in even the one challenge he set out for himself at the beginning of his administration - to bring the country together. His has been one of the most ideologically driven and divisive administrations in recent times.

Instead of moving forward, the country has been on the wrong track. These last four years have been wasted.

Bush wasted the opportunity to lead an international movement against al Qaeda, the real terrorist threat. Instead he has led us, with false intelligence, into a senseless war. In less than two weeks, the United States will hand over control of Iraq to the Iraqis. But our troops will remain - and will have to remain for years to come.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, there was a sense of national unity. Bush wasted the moment by deciding to appease the most strident in his conservative base, opposing gay marriages, gagging abortion information and giving comfort to the more irresponsible voices in the National Rifle Association...


The Case For Kerry

Kerry acknowledges that his privileges left him with a responsibility to serve and an ambition to lead. And he has - from combat in the Navy, then as the cleancut (and therefore highly effective) leader of the Vietnam veterans' anti-war movement, as a prosecutor in Boston, and in four terms in the U.S. Senate.

He is not the indecisive waffler the Bush team would have you believe. Instead, he is offering a concrete, pragmatic direction for the nation.

On the issue of high unemployment he is proposing changing the tax laws that give U.S. companies incentives to outsource jobs to India and China.

Kerry promises to roll back the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 to help cut the federal deficit and help pay for his health-care program, which seeks to expand coverage. He will withdraw the special privileges given to polluting industries and the oil companies as we work toward freeing ourselves from dependence on oil from the Middle East.

On homeland security, Kerry understands that if we are attacked again, the first to respond will be firefighters and emergency medical teams, which have been largely ignored by the Bush administration. Kerry is proposing recruiting an additional 100,000 firefighters. Bill Clinton did the same with police during his term. Afterward, crime went down across the country. Coincidence? Hardly.

On Iraq, there's little evidence that Bush can enlist the international help necessary to bring more of our troops home. There's reason to believe that Kerry, who understands the human cost of war, will.....

Because he respects the intelligence of the American people, he rarely talks in sound bites.

He understands that sound bites aren't solutions.....



[LINK]

Plundered/Sabotaged: Iraq losing oil revenue all around

Plundered/Sabotaged: Iraq losing oil revenue all around


Is it any wonder there is so much anger amongst the people of Iraq?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Despite Allawi's words of assurance, the scene on the street suggested that popular revulsion against the U.S. occupation and the government is growing...."

--From a news report describing Monday's rioting in Baghdad's Tahrir Square, the worst since Baghdad fell in 2003

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plundered by the Ones They See As Occupiers

Our Coalition Provisional Authority is positively scrambling to beat the June 30th date to give away $2 billion of Iraq's oil revenues in reconstruction bids to private contractors. The Bush administration knows the new Iraqi government is going to take the reins in just 14 days and they will then have a rightful claim on how their own oil revenues are used. It's ethically disgusting for the CPA (ie: Bush admin/Pentagon) to commit the money to their preferred contractors now. It's really no wonder they're despised and mistrusted by so many Iraqis. The money will come out of the Development Fund for Iraq. The UN Security Council resolution (passed on June 8) requires the new Iraqi government to satisfy all outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq made before June 30, leaving the new interim Iraqi government with no choice but to honor these questionable expenditures by the CPA.

Just as bad as robbing the Iraqi people's revenues, the business of the State subsidizing corporations through the use of these private contractors (far out of the realm of the "free market") is little more than State-sponsored theft from the People of the U.S. America is providing the capital necessary to undertake Iraq's reconstruction projects. The organization known as the Program Management Office Concept of Operations has the responsibility to ensure Americans receive the best value possible from their investment into the Iraqi infrastructure for the benefit of the Iraqi people. What are they doing? Are you paying attention?


The whole story of the pre-emptive attack upon Iraq is nearly pornographic...one of the most obscene moral tales you could ever hear.


Sabotaged By Those Who Fight Occupation

Iraq's oil exports have been hurt badly by the Basra sabotage. It would take about $30 billion a year in income for the Iraqi state to run the country properly and repair everything that needs to be repaired, as well as servicing its debts and paying reparations. In the past year, Iraq has only been able to generate about $10 billion from petroleum. This is a real kick to Iraq "sovereignty's" credibility-kiester since the direct hit to oil-revenue will be an economy-buster for the new government. Reviving petroleum exports is the key to restoring Iraq's economy after decades of war, international sanctions and Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

If the instability-trend in Iraq spreads to Saudi Arabia (which it seems to be doing right quickly), prices at the pump are soon going to be devastating to us.

American citizens..have you considered that you are being robbed alongside the citizens of the new Iraq? Do you see where your tax-dollars are going?

And you thought IRAQ was terror-connected?

And you thought IRAQ was terror-connected?

The Bush administration and the right-wingers who love them have been desperately attempting to tie Saddam with 9/11 terrorists. VP Dick Cheney constantly tells us there was a connection while offering no proof. We just found out that Osama was rebuffed by Saddam, matter-of-fact. While the Bushites continue to lie (bald-faced) to us and then dig and dig for more fake proof of the slightest coincidental connection, we see stories like these from Saudi Arabia that SCREAM 'terror-harboring'.

We understand that Saudi Arabia knowingly harbors terrorists (voluntarily or not, it's sure terrorists exist fairly openly amongst them).
We understand that Saudi Arabia is a dangerous place for Americans.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has appeased terror-abiding Saudi Arabia by pulling our military bases out.
We've warned American citizens to leave the country.

Yet---
Saudi Arabia has promised George W Bush a re-election campaign boost by manipulating oil prices at the 'right time'.

This leads me to believe that if a government will cooperate with the U.S., it doesn't matter what their terror connections are.

If Saddam had played the U.S. game, he may have been sitting pretty still today. He was not a 9/11 terrorist nor was he "connected". He was a rebellious ex-friend of the Reagan era.

If American contractor Paul Johnson is murdered by these terrorists who hold him captive, we'd better get ruthlessly tough on Saudi Arabia if we're going to be consistent and credible. Saudi Arabia is no less than infested with terrorists and the Saudi government is not firm enough in their resolve. They are too bloody afraid of their own populace.

Why are we allowing them to get away with their inadequate responses? Why aren't we chasing Prince Bandar into a spider-hole?

The hypocrisy of our foreign policy is astounding.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: If you think chasing Prince Bandar into a spider-hole seems a ludicrous idea for a civilized nation to propose, think about the proportion of 9/11 terrorists who were citizens of Saudia Arabia compared to the number that were from Iraq. The Bush administration has made a hypocritical circus of this war on terror...attacking a nation who played no part in killing so many of our citizens in NYC in 2001.

Ashcroft: Worst Attorney General in History

Ashcroft: Worst Attorney General in History

Paul Krugman says there's no question:
John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in American history.
(This particular column is focusing only on Mr. Ashcroft's role in the fight against terror.)

[LINK]

5.2 Earthquake in San Diego

5.2 Earthquake in San Diego

Today's earthquake in San Diego (a 5.2 earthquake) took a lot of people by surprise. You can read about the experience (and memories of a far more dangerous quake) at Moderate Voice. Kevin at Primary Main Objective, Lt. Smash, Cinediva, San Diego blog, and USS Clueless have reported in about the quake at their blogs as well.

Louis...if you're out there..how did you make out?

David Brooks and the Great Overgeneralization

David Brooks and the Great Overgeneralization

Someone please tell David Brooks that it doesn't matter that Dubya is a "Manager" and went to business school and drives a pick-up.

Bush is destroying America from the inside.

I don't really care that John Kerry plays classical guitar.

He might be able to turn America's disastrous tidal path. We're heading for the rocks.

Of Managers and Professionals

I worked for a major corporation most of my life as one of David Brooks' "Managers" in a "Professional's" skin. A false career for me, I suppose, when you consider my nature, although I did very well and derived a sense of personal satisfaction for a job well-done. After a post 9/11 career change, I now do the work that better suits my nature. 9/11 informed me in a way that no career-advisor could ever inform a client.

Life isn't very long.

We need to do what we can while were here.

Watching all Bush has done after 9/11..pick-up truck and classical guitar considerations aside...I know that part of what I need to do is to remind my fellow Americans that we have a dangerous man at the helm of a country so many of us love with breath and depth indescribably immense.

Brooks blames the citizenry

One look at a man like Lincoln Chaffee or Christopher Shays completely dilutes Brooks' pick-up/management overgeneralizations. Chaffee, Shays, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar...just a few examples of GOP men who do not fit Brooks' "Manager" overgeneralization. Brooks says, if not for the civil war within the educated class in America, this country would be far less polarized. I wonder why it is Brooks fails to fault leadership in Washington, D.C. for the absolutely shitty job they've done this past decade to show the American people what it means to intelligently argue their ideals without all the ad hominem attacks? These are the figureheads of our nation. If they are not charged with heavy responsibility for setting the tone of civility, who should be? To fail to assign blame where blame belongs is little more than delusional and misleading dissemination on Mr. Brooks' part.


America was born through the driving force of David Brooks' Professionals

David Brooks says:

"Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith."

Let me be blunt. Ben Franklin got more tail than a toilet seat. He loved the women. That wouldn't go over big with the faith-crowd in today's technological news age. Yet, Ben Franklin's abundance of ideas fostered the creation of our nation.

David Brooks says:

"[Managers] prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective."

Dear heavens. "Managers" would have HATED Ben Franklin.

If Brooks thinks he's broken some magical political code with this analysis, someone needs to know we're out here laughing...through our tears.

Less censorship! Not more!

Less censorship! Not more!

"One of the most important lessons everyone can take from 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' whether they support the war in Iraq, oppose the war or are undecided, is that we need less censorship in this country, not more!"

-- Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Releasing, which is distributing the film
[LINK-MoveAmericaForward is moving America backward]

See my story from June 11.

Blogger Tsuredzuregusa has some good ideas about how to fight the right-wing's campaign for censorship.

There's a great thread at Daily Kos..

*Discussion:

It was suggested to me by one of my good readers that this is more of a boycott than censorship since censorship is generally considered a government's action and not a function associated with the private sector. I explained that I begged to differ and that there is more to censorship than meets the popular desciption. I've heard many a Rush Limbaugh fan say "Censorship cannot be done by corporations...that's not censorship." I am here to remind them that they couldn't be more wrong.

The inescapable fact that the U.S. has an oligarchical concentration of power through corporations (especially with so many mergers over the past 30 years) cannot be discounted when those same markets decide what will be marketed and what will be relegated to silence. The markets are directly responsible for many discriminatory acts...whether or not they could be deemed legally unconstitutional. Bush and Company need not do the censoring..they can sit back and enjoy their corporate partners doing the dirty work for them. What Disney did to Moore was censorship. Disney didn't boycott Moore. They refused to distribute his film. Disney feared governmental rebuke...not a loss of profits. It was censorship, sure as you're born.

Like our Founding Fathers, we need to understand that a concentration of power in the hands of a few is a dangerous game. I urge you to look at the big picture when it comes to the people who are deciding what you'll see and what you won't be able to see.

Linked HERE is a further discussion of the issue.

Eric Alterman Congratulates Iraq Hawks

Eric Alterman Congratulates Iraq Hawks

In a sarcastic way, mind you. I liked it enough to share it with you in case you missed it.

Take a look at this:

It’s hard to say which is the best representation of what this war is doing to and has done to this country. Is it the lies that were told to get us into it? Is the fact that we are picking up innocent people off the street and torturing them? Is it that we have suspended the most basic civil liberties in our own country? Is it that the work of professional intelligence agencies has been corrupted? Is it that we have drawn resources away from the fight against Al Qaida which has completely regrouped? Is it that we are creating more terrorists? Is it that more than seven hundred Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured? Is it that thousands of Iraqis have been killed but nobody is keeping an account of the numbers of their deaths? Is it that we are now more hated around the world than we have ever been? Is it that we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security? Is it that we are doing all this while starving the most crucial homeland security programs? Is it that everyone who told the truth about what was being planned has been dismissed and seen their characters attacked? The usually soft-spoken and moderate intelligence analyst and author Thomas Powers does not exaggerate when he notes that Bush and the neocons have "caused the greatest foreign policy catastrophe in modern U.S. history."

Congrats to everybody involved…
[LINK-Altercation]

U-Turn for Colin

U-Turn for Colin


"Terror attacks were way down!"


"Uh..Terror attacks were way up..."



"Sheeit, Colin, how come the fibs didn't work?"

*Seriously, people, do you believe anything this administration tells you anymore???

Halliburton/Cheney the focus of new MoveOn PAC Ad

Halliburton/Cheney the focus of MoveOn PAC Ad

MoveOn PAC has a new ad reminding Americans voters that Vice President Cheney's office helped ensure that Cheney's old company Halliburton would receive a $7 billion no-bid contract for rebuilding Iraq. Faced with a choice between serving our troops and helping out his corporate buddies, Cheney chose the latter.

Starting tomorrow, Congress will be holding hearings on whether Halliburton used its close ties to administration officials to get sweetheart deals, shortchanging both our troops and U.S. taxpayers. This is probably an opportune time to coordinate a political ad of this nature.

Halliburton has overcharged taxpayers millions for gas and charged hundreds of millions of dollars for meals for our troops that were never delivered. Last week, Time Magazine exposed this: newly disclosed internal Pentagon emails suggest that the office of Vice President Dick Cheney was instrumental in sealing an $18 billion no-bid contract for the Vice President's former company. In a Pentagon audit, Halliburton was warned that its food service facilities (which serve our troops in Iraq) were dangerously unsanitary, with "blood all over the floor" of its kitchens, "dirty pans," and "rotting meats..and vegetables." As Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) put it, Halliburton is ultimately "a company that arrogantly is overcharging when they can get away with it and not providing the quality of service that they agreed to do." Vice President Dick Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of stock options in the company. It's hardly surprising that the Administration's response has been anemic, even when faced with clear evidence that the company is bilking taxpayers.

See the MOVEONPAC ad here

Put This Photo on the Sawbuck

Put This Photo on the Sawbuck


Reagan's Envoy Rummy circa 1983

....to remind us of one of the top 10 American Presidents of all time who embraced a murderer..who created a monster...who looked the other way when Saddam murdered his own people..who supplied Saddam with the evil weapons we could no longer find when Dubya wanted to use them as an excuse to attack.

The Long Journey

The Long Journey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God's given us years of happiness here
Now we must part
And as the angels come and call for you
The pains of grief tug at my heart

Oh my darling
My darling
My heart breaks as you take your long journey...

From a song by Doc Watson & Rosa Lee Watson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Valerie Reitman of the L.A. Times speaks to us about the language we use to prepare for the longest Goodbye. Whether the crossing is real or metaphoric, it's an inevitable mystic event.

Families and health care-workers hear words about the journey so often from the dying, conveying a sense of moving from one place to another, of being in transition...that a reasonable conclusion is that it must be a special language the dying have to communicate what they're experiencing.


[LINK]