Harpers: Anti-Bush Sentiment Swing at CIA

Harpers: Anti-Bush Sentiment Swing at CIA

From Harpers.org blogpost "The CIA Wehrmacht" regarding renditions of individuals to countries that torture their detainees:

An ex-senior agency officer who keeps in contact with his former peers told me that there is a “a big swing” in anti-Bush sentiment at Langley. “I've been stunned by what I'm hearing,” he said. “There are people who fear that indictments and subpoenas could be coming down, and they don't want to get caught up in it.”.[...].Scott Horton, a human rights activist who has become a principal spokesman for the New York City Bar Association in evaluating the Bush Administration's tactics, said that he's also hearing stories of growing dissent at the CIA. “When the shit hits the fan,” he explained, “the administration scapegoats lower-level people. It doesn't do a lot in terms of inspiring confidence.”

While right-wing Newsmax, in ho-hum 90s-style, is still headlining blame toward former President Clinton for anything they can (in this case for being responsible for CIA's low morale), Bush has nearly destroyed the integrity of the institution with his policy (or looking the other way for too long) on torture and teh scapegoating of CIA on the Iraq WMD dupe.

The Harpers blog also comments that the revolt within the military against Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld is really nothing new.

"...cracks definitely have developed in the Administration's relationship with the Armed Forces. Most recently, several active duty senior commanders who spoke on the record at the “Current Strategy Forum” that ended here last week were critical to a point that walked a fine constitutional line of disloyalty to the political leadership.....[What I think is going on here is serious concern among officers to protect the integrity of the institution."

- part of a 2004 quote from an unnamed source at the Naval War College

Rumsfeld and the Bush administration have done "a number" on our military with the entire Iraq debacle. The way I'm seeing it, either Rumsfeld will step down or, if you go along with former President Gerald Ford's opinion, the entire Bush administration will sink down the sewer of history together in one loyal turd-like lump. One columnist has said that

Bush cannot afford to fire Rumsfeld, certainly not at this moment, since such an action would then turn the generals' guns (and those of their supporters elsewhere) against the president himself.

Former US ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke has categorized what has been dubbed as The Revolt of the generals, as “the most serious public confrontation between the military and an administration since President Harry S. Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951”.

Norquist Sticks to His Scuzzy Guns

Norquist Sticks to His Scuzzy Guns
Defends 'K-Street'

Grover Norquist is holding tight to the "K Street" brand - which is now a stigma representing the undemocratic, the immoral, and the unethical. Good for him. Maybe he'll slide down the drainpipe along with all others who proudly wallow in unethical D.C. practices. Norquist was no more than a high-powered D.C. thug in a "Big Man in D.C." costume. Now that so many Americans have caught on to the tactics of Norquist's kind and the moral bankruptcy of Norquistian ideas and procedures, he's more of an embarrassment to those Republicans who have gravitated freely toward that type of behavior. They're fleeing like bugs from Raid because of the public shame.

Maybe Karl Rove will soon race him for bottom of the black hole, a position they both deserve.

General Batiste Calls for New Leadership on Iraq

General Batiste Calls for New Leadership on Iraq

Retired Army major general John Batiste, a fellow Central New Yorker, has an opinion printed in the Washington Post today. He says that the army's transformation started years before the Bush administration, even though Donald Rumsfeld seems to want to take so much credit for the idea. Bottom line, he believes that Rumsfeld chose to go war with what we know was the wrong war plan, all the while discounting professional military advice and ignoring more than a decade of competent military planning. He calls into serious question Rumsfeld's character and skills - both necessary attributes to lead our nation to a successful outcome in Iraq.

photos

Me and Alexander Hamilton at Signers' Hall, The National Constiutution Center, Philadelphia, Pa.



"What's up, fellers? Let a gal in on a secret?"

Hunger in America

Hunger in America

The Food Stamp program barely scratches the surface of the overall unmet hunger need in America today. See my post at the One America Committee about this subject. An excerpt:

The food stamp rolls had decreased from 1994 (27.5 million participants) to 1999 (18.2 million participants) because of a robust economy and changes in eligibility for the program at the state and federal levels. We are currently living in an economy that appears to be expanding only for only the richest. Need is increasing in our communities. According to Results.com, a website dedicated to Hunger issues, the Food Stamp program served 25.4 million people in March 2005. That amounts to 7.2 million more people than in 1999. Even with this increased need in our communities, the House Agriculture Committee passed a bill on October 28, 2005 to cut about 300,000 people off the Food Stamp program. Food Stamp cuts would account for $844 million over five years, impacting 300,000 low-income families, of the $3.7 billion of cuts in the Agriculture Committee package. See this analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Hunger is up, and the House leaders have cut the budget, taking assistance away from the hungry. Maybe the House leadership just doesn't get it, or perhaps they care more about the lobbyists and special interests that pamper them and contribute to their campaigns. Take a look at the leadership in the state of Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union. Governor Haley Barbour wants to keep the cigarette taxes low and the tax on groceries high, claiming that food stamps are already "taking care" of the poor and the working poor in his state. Jackson Clarion Ledger editor Sid Salter reveals the irresponsible nature of the political myth being perpetuated by Mississippi's misleading governor with a list of statistics that cry out for moral action.

Why the Washington Post is Wrong on the Generals

Why the Washington Post is Wrong on the Generals

"In our view Mr. Rumsfeld's failures should have led to his departure long ago. But he should not be driven out by a revolt of generals, retired or not." [WaPo editorial 4-18-06]

While I understand the concerns laid out in today's Washington Post editorial about the Generals' public revolt in pressuring Donald Rumsfeld to step down, I strongly disagree with them. It seems that anyone who has any prescience, especially after all the arrogance and dangerous ignorance we have seen from the Bush administration that has placed our nation and our military in an embarrassingly weakened position, would understand that the Generals' speaking out is the only way to move Mr. Rumsfeld closer to the "out" door. Bush will never do it unless his hand is forced. Public polls mean nothing to him. The media have been very weak in making effective arguments and Bush does not pay a lick of attention or respect to them, either. To my way of thinking, Bush's blind stubbornness and fear of political damage for making necessary changes of course in Iraq makes him the worst leader - the most dangerous leader - that this nation has ever seen. The Washington Post has said it themselves. There are myriad glaring reasons why Rumsfeld should have stepped down long ago. The startling fact that he has not done so causes their concluding argument to hold no water for me or for most Americans, I would suspect. In this case, we see the Generals as our champions - their first concern and priority being the Constitution and our country. This is an unusual circumstance and I wholly support and respect the Generals for speaking out courageously. May their one concerted voice make the difference. I'm with David Broder. Listen to the brass.

Rumsfeld thinks he'll go on and on. At least that's what he told Rush Limbaugh.

E.J. Dionne knows that Rumsfeld's departure wouldn't touch the ones who were most accountable for the unconscionable errors made in Iraq. But do we expect that Bush or Cheney would offer to step down? Of course not. Mr. Dionne is simply pointing out that these Generals are not people that Bush can easily dismiss as crybaby liberals. They don't fit the mold...and either someone is going to have to fall on their sword for the mistakes in Iraq or we will go on making the mistakes. Mr. Dionne has written:

For all his mistakes, Rumsfeld is not some alien creature operating as a loner sabotaging the otherwise reasonable policies of his bosses. President Bush is the commander in chief. Vice President Cheney is on record as having made outlandishly optimistic predictions before the war started about how swimmingly everything would go. Rumsfeld is Bush's guy, which is why the president resists firing him. Letting Rumsfeld go would amount to acknowledging how badly the administration has botched Iraq.

see Buzztracker at Real Clear Politics for more comments.

Cross Left on Immigration Reform

Cross Left on Immigration Reform

See Cross Left's posting on Immigration Reform. Take action today - this is still a hot topic. The pressure is on to reform our broken and inefficient immigration system. When our legislators return from recess, we'll likely see them take it up once again. Speak your mind while you can.

Make no mistake, this is a moral issue. We're excellent repairers and reformers here in this country, and we can afford to deport all the people we want at any time if that's the road we choose to take.

However, that's not what this debate is about. Not at the heart of the matter. This isn't about how America values infrastructure and process. It's about how America values and treats the people that come here looking for a better life (regardless of how they got here).

Tom Tancredo and his ilk seem to have forgotten that their own ancestors were once immigrants...like most of our ancestors. Some of the federal legislators that want to build physical walls and impenetrable legal walls to keep Mexicans from seeking out our so-called land of opportunity are also people who claim to be "people of faith." They harp and preach from their faith-bandwagon constantly. Well, if their stand on immigration is from a Bible-based faith, perhaps I've been reading a completely different version of the Good Book!

This problem which has our political leaders at a stalemate is about human relations. We are talking about millions of hard-working, living, breathing, feeling human beings. The spot where our political leaders have to start compromising is within their HEARTS, because there is a spiritual deficit that seems to be growing even deeper than the economic deficit in America today. Barriers between "us and them" should be dismantled before the thought of building one physical wall is entertained.

Tom Tancredo is wrong at heart - and millions upon millions of America are waking up to that fact.

John Edwards (Video)

Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) and Fmr. Mayor Tom Fetzer (R-Raleigh) take questions from students at a Wake Tech Community College iChat sponsored by Generation Engage.


*Used with the permission of Generation Engage / YouTube.com
Tip of the hat to Michelle Bair..see more of this conversation at Michelle's YouTube page

Federal Appeals Court Rules for Involuntary Homeless

Federal Appeals Court Rules for Involuntary Homeless

A federal appeals court has ruled today in favor of six homeless persons in their challenge of the city's practice of arresting homeless persons for violating a municipal ordinance which states that "no person shall sit, lie or sleep in or upon any street, sidewalk or public way."

The appeals court ruled that the manner in which the city has enforced the ordinance has criminalized "the status of homelessness by making it a crime to be homeless," and thereby violated the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. City officials had no immediate comment on the ruling, but it appeared that the decision could have significant ramifications for the city's policy on the burgeoning problem of homelessness..

..In her ruling, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said that Los Angeles' Skid Row has the highest concentration of homeless individuals in the United States. She said that about 11,000 to 12,000 homeless people live in Skid Row, a 50-block area, bounded by Third, Seventh, Main and Alameda Streets.

"Because there is substantial and undisputed evidence that the number of homeless persons in Los Angeles far exceeds the number of available shelter beds at all times, including on the night" the plaintiffs were arrested or cited, "Los Angeles has encroached upon" the plaintiffs' 8th Amendment protections "by criminalizing the unavoidable act [my emphasis] of sitting, lying or sleeping at night while being involuntarily homeless," Wardlaw wrote..

April 14, 1865

April 14, 1865
April 14, 1865: Lincoln fatally shot by John Wilkes Booth while attending play at Ford's Theater, Washington, D.C.

A southern sympathizer loyal to Virginia, Booth was a twenty-six-year-old struggling actor at the time of the assassination. Shortly thereafter, after escaping to Maryland and then Virginia, he was apprehended and shot to death during a struggle with federal agents in a barn in rural Virginia.

-----


A 19th-Century poster


"He dreamed at night of his death by the hand
Of a bitter world and a faceless man

And he saw his body in a ghastly dream
Draped in black while his widow screamed

Two silver dollars on his eyelids lay
"Abraham Lincoln has died today."

- From the song "John Wilkes Booth" by Mary Chapin Carpenter

THE PREMONITION

"About ten days ago, I retired very late. I had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front. I could not have been long in bed when I fell into a slumber, for I was weary. I soon began to dream. There seemed to be a death-like stillness about me. Then I heard subdued sobs, as if a number of people were weeping. I thought I left my bed and wandered downstairs. There the silence was broken by the same pitiful sobbing, but the mourners were invisible.

I went from room to room; no living person was in sight, but the same mournful sounds of distress met me as I passed along. I saw light in all the rooms; every object was familiar to me; but where were all the people who were grieving as if their hearts would break? I was puzzled and alarmed. What could be the meaning of all this? Determined to find the cause of a state of things so mysterious and so shocking, I kept on until I arrived at the East Room, which I entered. There I met with a sickening surprise.

Before me was a catafalque, on which rested a corpse wrapped in funeral vestments. Around it were stationed soldiers who were acting as guards; and there was a throng of people, gazing mournfully upon the corpse, whose face was covered, others weeping pitifully. 'Who is dead in the White House?' I demanded of one of the soldiers, 'The President,' was his answer; 'he was killed by an assassin.'

Then came a loud burst of grief from the crowd, which woke me from my dream. I slept no more that night; and although it was only a dream, I have been strangely annoyed by it ever since."

-- President Abraham Lincoln

An Entire Community Left Behind in New Orleans?

An Entire Community Left Behind in New Orleans?

An entire community of hard-working Americans is incredulous at the thought that they are being left behind by their government in Katrina-battered Louisiana. The federal government is not sure whether it is "worthwhile to spend so much money to protect 14,000 people" [because it's only 2 percent of the population of metropolitan New Orleans.] That's 14,000 hard-working Americans whose only "sin" was to live in a city that wound up being in the direct path of a disastrous hurricane.

"We have sacrificed a great deal for this nation, and now to turn their back on us and cut us off would be un-American," said Benny Rousselle, [lower Plaquemines parish president.] "We're fighting for our survival."

Walesa: U.S. Has Lost Moral Superiority

Walesa: U.S. Has Lost Moral Superiority

No one doubts America's economic power, but we have lost our standing as a moral superpower. That's basically what former Polish president and Nobel laureate Lech Walesa told a group today during a lecture at Kansas State University.

"No one has the least doubt that you are the economic leader and the military leader to the world, but I have heard a lot of doubts regarding the moral and political leadership of the United States."

I'm glad that Mr. Walesa has spoken clearly on this matter. I want to be proud of my leadership once again. The strength of our democracy is that we know that can elect new leadership in due time. The People want more than they have gotten from the morally bankrupt majority in Washington D.C. November can't come too soon for us.

If we ever expect to lead other nations to the light of freedom by inspiration and example, we must start by setting some examples.

Rumsfeld Must Go

Rumsfeld Must Go

Reuters is reporting that six retired generals have now called for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down, including two who spoke out today. The White House needs to act now. The longer they wait, the deeper the unrest will become with the general public. We are a nation at war, and it is a war that was so badly mishandled by the present Secretary of Defense that even Newt Gingrich has felt the need to speak out. When retired Generals publicly revolt and the White House carries on as if it's business as usual, it puts our Republic's domestic and national security in peril. Pretending there is no problem is a charade that our nation can't afford to continue. If we are going to truly support our troops and hope for a new plan to handle the mess known as Iraq, we must see Mr. Rumsfeld step down now.

Raise the Federal Minimum Wage

Raise the Federal Minimum Wage

A Job Should Keep You Out of Poverty, Not Keep You In It by Rev. Dr. Paul H. Sherry, Campaign Coordinator of the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, Coordinator of the Anti-Poverty Program of the National Council of Churches and co-author, with Holly Sklar, of "A Just Minimum Wage: Good for Workers, Business and Our Future." [CAP]

Not Everyone in Media Was Wrong About Iraq

Not Everyone in Media Was Wrong About Iraq

Steve Rendell points out that not everyone in the media was wrong about Iraq.

Charles J. Hanley has had his hand in some big stories...As Hanley reported, when inspectors returned to Iraq, they visited the Al Tuwaitha site and found no evidence to support Bush’s claim. “Since December 4 inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei’s International Atomic Energy Agency have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and reported no violations.” The same was true of site after site, as Hanley reported:

In almost two months of surprise visits across Iraq, U.N. arms monitors have inspected 13 sites identified by U.S. and British intelligence agencies as major “facilities of concern,” and reported no signs of revived weapons building, an Associated Press analysis shows.

Hanley’s story should have been one of the most important of the pre-war period. By debunking the very claims that had been advanced as proof of an Iraqi threat, Hanley’s analysis ought to have cast severe doubt on the White House’s entire evaluation of the Iraqi threat.

Bloggers Hit New Low on Jill Carroll Story

Bloggers Hit New Low on Jill Carroll Story

Ellen Goodman blasts the bloggers who couldn't wait to shoot off their mouths about Jill Carrol before they had any facts.

In 2004, they proved the power of the Internet as a great equalizer when they confronted the house of CBS and Dan Rather over Bush's military records.[..]Two years later, we have -- ready, fire, aim -- the Jill Carroll affair. These attacks raise the question of what bloggery is going to be when it grows up. An Internet op-ed page? Or a polarized, talk-radio food fight?

Power must be used wisely. I recall being blasted by Jim Geraghty on the NRO website when the bloggers were piling on Eason Jordan. Jim Geraghty had written about my comment:

“Those who are hot on Eason’s trail are only those who wish to inflict some political damage on the few in the mainstream media who still possess extreme courage of conviction.”

He said:

You know, I try (and sometimes fail) to refrain from speculating about others’ motives. I would appreciate it if others extended the same courtesy to me. Everybody, Ms Camwell? Mickey Kaus? Jay Rosen? Glenn Reynolds? They’re all trying to attack “the few in the mainstream media who still possess extreme courage of conviction”? Come on.

I tend to be blunt, but I also consider myself to be a principled and conscientious human being. I can see what is directly in front of my eyes, and what I saw was a concerted effort to ruin a professional journalist's integrity for speaking out on behalf of fellow professionals. I am a "little" blogger with a voice that was big enough to cause Jim Geraghty to feel that he had to defend himself. Why? Because I hit a sensitive spot. I can never assign motives to one person, but I could clearly see the overt motives of the blogmob. I don't get on my blog with the fierce determination to "gun" for Brit Hume's professional integrity. (He does a good job of ruining it all by himself by simply opening his mouth on Fox News each day).

Those who live by this kind of determination risk to be called on it when they succeed. While they may think they have good reason to join in the attack, they cannot distance themselves from it later on and try to look removed and innocent. They succeeded with Dan Rather. They succeeded with Eason Jordan. They succeeded with Trent Lott. Make no mistake, these were blog campaigns and they were witchhunts. Trent Lott didn't deserve what happened to him. Neither did Dan Rather and Eason Jordan.

________________________

"This was a guy caught up in the tension of the moment. He deserves the benefit of the doubt."

David Gergen, referring to Eason Jordan who had just returned from Baghdad and was still "deeply distraught" over the journalists who'd died in Iraq. [WaPo 2-8-05]

"Funnies" and Looking Back

"Funnies" and Looking Back

I'll start with a joke that I read at Comedy Central's website:

A judge asks a defendant to please stand. "You are charged with murdering a school teacher with a chain saw." From out in the audience a man shouts, "You lying bastard!"

"Silence in the court!" the judge shouted back. He turns to the defendant again and says, "You are also charged with killing a paperboy with a shovel."

"You goddamned tightwad!" blurted the spectator.

"Quiet!" yelled the judge. "You are also charged with killing a mailman with an electric drill."

"You cheap son of a..." the man starts to shout.

The Judge thunders back "If you don''t tell me the reason for your outbursts right now, I will hold in contempt!"

"I''ve lived next to that lying bastard for ten years now, but do you think he ever had a f*****g tool when I needed to borrow one!"

I'm feeling nostalgic. Let's take a walk down Memory Lane.

One year ago on Iddybud Journal

Two Years Ago on Iddybud Journal

How to Organize Hispanic U.S. Workers

How to Organize Hispanic U.S. Workers

Act like white supremacist meatheads by promoting a public policy that looks like pre-Civil Rights America.

Speaking of marches that drew hundreds of thousands and created coalitions across the lines of Hispanic national identity, Juan Williams writes:

People from disparate Hispanic nations coalesced around the debate on illegal immigration. It took a radical step by the House -- giving serious thought to dragnet arrests of all illegal immigrants and charging them with a felony -- to achieve this. To some, the level of hatred and racism against immigrants seemed to match that once directed against blacks in this country.

Well done, Tancredo and Company. Bush got over 40% of the Hispanic vote in the last election. I'll wager you won't see that same enthusiasm for Republicans in future elections.

RNC Says Bush Leaked to Educate Citizens

RNC Says Bush Leaked to Educate Citizens

Responding to former Senator John Edward's comments regarding President Bush declassifying the NIE for political reasons, Republican National Committee spokeswoman Anne Marie Hauser said the information was declassified "for the purpose of educating the American people about the war on terror."

And what an education we had. We got big lies in the press from then-NY Times journalist Judith Miller, who naively swallowed dirty spoon-fed Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame-attacks at the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, who preferred to have more faith in the lying weasel Ahmad Chalabi then our own CIA. We got "a degree" in how to lead a nation to unnecessary war based on the word of well-orchestrated liars and conspirators. With the blessing of the man in the Oval Office, apparently.

American spirits are crushed by the collective efforts of the Executive administration to "educate" us with lie after lie.

We've learned. Where's our diploma, already?

Israel Upset with Bush for Leak

Israel Upset with Bush for Leak

Bush's selective leaks are not only a problem in his own nation, he's got our best ally in the Middle East Israel steamed at him for his administration's brutal negligence.

tip of the hat to The Corpus Callosum

John Kerry on Meet the Press

John Kerry on Meet the Press

The absence of diplomacy in Iraq is nothing but negligence on the part of the White House. The U.S. needs to lead that effort and we have failed to do so. There is an absence of real leadership on Iraq. He said that he refuses to be a member of the Senate and add one more name to "the wall" without speaking up. We have to have a leadership that stops acting unilaterally.

Tim Russert used past statements to make Kerry look like the flip-flopper that he was made out to be by Republicans in the last election campaign. Senator Kerry said that back in 2004 when he made those statements,he assumed we were primarily fighting al Qaeda in Iraq (as the nation was being told). He now clearly sees that this fight is all about the indigenous population of Iraq. He made no excuses for the confusing things he may have said about the war in 2004, but it pales in comparison to what George W. Bush has done about the war.

Tim Russert read an excerpt from Senator John Edwards' "I was wrong." statement in the Washington Post last fall. Senator Kerry confirmed that he, too, takes responsibility for his Iraq War Resolution vote in 2002.

On the declassification of the NIE by Bush and attorney general Alberto Gonzalez' defense of the president's authority to do so, Kerry said it's time for the attorney general to stand up and defend the constitution rather than defending the President for wrongful acts. It was wrong for Bush to buttress phony arguments for going to war in a way that attacked people politically. The declassification was done for the MISLEADING of America and it's a disgrace, whether or not Bush had a right to do it. Kerry referred to G.W. Bush's own father George HW Bush, who said in 1999:

..we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

Kerry was rather cagey when he was asked about Russ Feingold's move for censure of the president, stepping around the real issue and saying that Americans are looking forward to how the government will lead them. [see this diary from the One America Committee about Senator John Edwards' position].

If the GOP did not have their own internal squabbles, Kerry said we would have had an immigration reform bill today.

He took personal responsibility for his presidential campaign in 2004. Message control will be very important in future elections.

Specter Blames Dems and Arcane Rules for Immigration Failure

Fox News Sunday: Specter Blames Dems and 'Arcane Rules' for Immigration Reform Failure

Arlen specter appeared on Fox News Sunday and in his first sentence, blamed the "arcane rules" of the Senate and blamed the Democrats for what appears to be the death of the immigration reform bill. Why is it that any time a Republican cannot get his way in the Senate that he blames the rules and ignores the facts?

Specter also strongly defended the President for leaking a CIA agent's name simply because he could....because he had a legal right to declassify information. He then, almost as an afterthought, he said that the matter needs looking further into. I wondered - at what point do Senators stop defending what they (and we) can clearly see as morally and traditionally wrong? Perhaps the Executive order allowing the President to declassify certain documents is already an "ARCANE RULE." [Note: Later in the day, Senator Specter was shown on CNN calling for more investigation into the declassification. I firmly do not believe that Senator Specter communicated the same strength of will when he appeared on Fox. He likely realized he was playing to two different audiences and "acted" accordingly.]

Fox News Sunday had Rep. Peter King (R-NY) as their guest. He's taken a hard-line stand on immigration reform. Brit Hume played semantics with King on the word "amnesty"...trotting out the Webster's Dictionary definition out. King tried to say thatthose who voted against reform were "intimidated" by the protests around the country. He never mentioned that their votes may have been based upon their individual conscience. He said we need to send a signal to other countries not to send illegals here. How about abolishing NAFTA and CAFTA? That would be a good start. They certainly have not created greater opportunity for Latin Americans in their own countries.

Zalmay Khalilzad, ambassador to Iraq, appeared as a guest. Iraqis leaders have not yet agreed on a government - Iraqis are becoming impatient - we need to press them to compromise. Condoleeza Rice and Jack Straw's politically motivated visit to the Iraqi leaders to put pressure on them didn't backfire. If the U.S. "abandons" Iraq, the sectarian conflict (in light of Iranian interests and US interests) will expand. Same old sh*t. Different day. I'm with Sen. Kerry - give them a deadline. May 15th. Or else we pull up stakes. It's going on four years. If they'd been hungry for democracy, they would have stepped up to the plate by now. We've brought them to the doorstep of freedom. Our loyal troops did their very best with the mission they were given - almost 2400 gave all for that mission. It's time for them to come home with honor. This is not worth the spilling of one more drop of American blood.

The Bush Leak and the Outing Of a CIA agent

Charles Krauthammer said that the whoile story about the Bush leak is "absurd." He went on to rehash all the destructive distortions about the victim of the politics of destruction here - Joseph Wilson IV. Maura Liasson ignorantly fell into the meaningless "talking point" question, "What is the definition of a leak?" Bill Kristol did a lot of fast-talking about the matter, bottom line is that he thinks Wilson deserved what he got (and he must think Valerie Plame Wilson deserved being outed, too). Kristol minimized he outing of Plame, framing it as "an afterthought". Juan Williams brought the question back to the crux of the case: "Did the White House lie to a grand jury? Did Bush obstruct justice?" and "Why didn't Libby leak information about the truth about Niger and the lack of credible evidence about WMD instead of outing Plame?" This was a scummy political attack - whether or not it was a leak. It had nothing to do with communicating a truth that Americans can look at today and say "I really trust this White House to do what is right and good for all of us." For Pete's sake - Bush dismantled a sensitive and important CIA operation on Iran with this declassification!

On Immigration

Who's more politically vulnerable on immigration? Juan Williams talked about the Republican base causing a rift among Republicans and the fact that unions are split on the issue which splits the Democrrats. Bill Kristol spoke of the mean-spirited nature of the hardline view. He held out hope for immigration reform to pass with the right bipartisan leadership. Maura Liasson spoke about the hardliner-obstructionists and the upcoming demonstrations having a possibe positive affect on the future of reform. Krauthammer blames Democrats for obstruction. [Blah.] He said Republicans are "stuck" on the "Amnesty word." He thinks the entire bill is a mess. [I'd ask him to look at "the mess" in this country presently because of a broken immigration system and suggest that we do the best we can by passing a bill that eliminates the mean spirit that Bill Kristol spoke about. Complaining will get us nowhere.]

Harry Taylor - American Icon

Harry Taylor - American Icon





*credits and text to follow

Leaker in Chief

"If there's a leak out of this administration, I want to know who it is."

- G.W. Bush

Bush Misleads Again

Bush Misleads Again
He's got to be nuts if he thinks we believe it's all Harry Reid's fault

Immigration reform has fallen victim to severely divided ideology among members of the Republican party. Yesterday, the measure in the Senate was shelved because of Even Senator John McCain voted "NO" to the Hagel-Martinez amendment because of differences in philosophy that transcended party lines. Rather than following party lines, the Senate vote followed the line of individual conscience. Finally, the Senate was acting in a way in which they should have been acting for the past five years (when istead, Republicans were Bush's "rubber stamp".)

So what does President Bush do? He blames Harry Reid and the Democrats!

He used his bully pulpit today to unfairly attack the Democrats. These days, that "bully pulpit" has been reduced to the corner Pinocchio is sent to when his nose begins to grow. Public polls show that he's not a credible leader. His words bounce off the walls of the isolated and marginalized corner he's created for himself. During his weekly radio address, Bush said:

"I call on the Senate minority leader to end his blocking tactics and allow the Senate to do its work and pass a fair, effective immigration reform bill."

Most Americans look at Bush today and understand that if he's moving his lips, it's a lie based on the one thing that has counted the most to him throughout his presidency: his own political gain and that of the Republican party. The rest of us are chopped liver. We're nothing to George W. Bush except punching bags with minds and mouths he regrets we were born with. This is just one more example that he will do or say  anything to divide America for his own political benefit. But it's backfiring. If he thinks we're buying it and that the Republican party has no responsibility or accountability for the divided part they've played, not only do I think he's despicable, but frankly I think he's tetched.

I certainly hope that the mainstream media would not fall into Bush's lie about Democratic obstruction. If they  perpetuate the lie, they are not doing the job the Fourth Estate is meant to do. Granted, Fox News will likely pick up the ball and run with the great lie because they are the 'Republican News Network.' If they do then they, like our own President, will be telling a political lie of which they should be morally ashamed.

The beauty is (at least my HOPE is), the majority of America is on to their lies.

Iran and U.S. on a Path to Unnecessary Danger?

Iran and U.S. on a Path to Unnecessary Danger?

"I think Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program—I believe it, but I don’t know it." - Richard Amrmitage to Seymour Hersh during G.W. Bush's first term

Seymour Hersh has written a very important story about the pros and cons of Washington going to war with Tehran.Read it here. I'll start with a quote from a European diplomat. If you, like Harry Taylor of Charlotte, North Carolina, are deeply concerned and perhaps even afraid of the decisions coming from the Bush administration, pay close attention to this:

"Everyone is on the same page about the Iranian bomb, but the United States wants regime change," a European diplomatic adviser told me. He added, "The Europeans have a role to play as long as they don’t have to choose between going along with the Russians and the Chinese or going along with Washington on something they don’t want. Their policy is to keep the Americans engaged in something the Europeans can live with. It may be untenable.."[..]"If the diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’ There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic." [my emphasis]

If you remember the lead-up to the Iraq war, you will be very disturbed to see what is currently happening in D.C.:

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. [my emphasis - and gee, I wonder if that lone Dem might be Joe "Hawk-o" Lieberman of Connecticut?] A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.” [my emphasis - as always, keeping our representatives out of the loop based on partisan considerations]

The House member said that no one in the meetings “is really objecting” to the talk of war. “The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. [my emphasis] At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?” (Iran is building facilities underground.) “There’s no pressure from Congress” not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” [my emphasis] Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

This is no way to lead our country to another possible war. The method is secretive, unAmerican and wanton. I'm beginning to think that the President is truly deranged - he certainly cares little for the rule of law or the spirit of the Constitution - and I am extremely worried for our nation. Those who do not voice objections are either gutless or codependents in his Messiah complex.

The Bush administration are diplomatically retarded. An adviser shows us that the foreign policy road we're on - good at threatening manly violence/crappy at diplomacy - is a pathway to potential catastrophe and that we can change now or risk WWIII. If they continue down this path, get your sons and daughters ready for the draft, because they'll be desperately needed

“The whole internal debate is on which way to go”—in terms of stopping the Iranian program. It is possible, the adviser said, that Iran will unilaterally renounce its nuclear plans—and forestall the American action. “God may smile on us, but I don’t think so. The bottom line is that Iran cannot become a nuclear-weapons state. The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen.”

Deja vu all over again?

The Administration’s case against Iran is compromised by its history of promoting false intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled “Fool Me Twice,” Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote, “The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war.”

Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told Mr. Hersh that an Iranian retaliation against a U.S. attack might be focused on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.

“They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.”

Tracey Schmitt Sinks Low

Tracey Schmitt Sinks Low

This snarky remark from Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt might have been cute if the inept hypocrite who was leading her party didn't have zero credibility with the American public. Instead of sassy, it was ass-y.

"John Kerry deserves credit for continuing to take himself so seriously, despite the fact that no one else does."

You might think a representative of the party of Bush might be a tad more cautious and realistic at a time when the levels on the public confidence meter are eating dust. But no. She's appealing to the three people who still trust Bush. Maybe she's pissed off about the Harry Taylor thing in Charlotte yesterday. The bruises are showing.

China Browsing For Boeings

China Browsing For Boeings

From Stratfor.com:

Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi is leading a delegation of Chinese companies to the United States on April 6 that intend to sign contracts totaling $15 billion with U.S. companies. Among the U.S companies China is looking to do business with are Boeing Co., General Electric Co., Microsoft Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG. This move comes after U.S. President George W. Bush's demand that China increase its investment in U.S. goods and services to attempt to even out the U.S.-China trade deficit.

More from China Daily.

China will be seeking additional business with General Electric. I wonder what they'll be looking for? What is it about the thought of increased business with American weapons systems experts - for the political sake of shrinking the trade deficit - combined with these two words that cause me to shiver?

China. Nuclear.

From Investors.com:

The Energy Department predicts China's nuclear energy will double between 2010 and 2015, outpacing single-digit growth in mature economies. General Electric, (GE) Siemens (SI) and Mitsubishi are chasing deals with Chinese power companies in Shanghai and the southwestern industrial city of Dongfang. Says Chi Ping Chen of Cap Gemini in Beijing: "With more than 25 sites planned for the 15 years . . . China is the center of the global nuclear power industry."

Oy. The blind trust is brethtaking, in light of all we hear from the Bush administration about mushroom clouds and evildoers.

Look at what Australia is doing:

Australia on Monday signed an agreement with China, allowing the Asian giant to buy uranium to feed its fast-developing nuclear energy sector. Because uranium also can be used to fuel nuclear weapons, the deal is a sensitive one, and the Australian government sought to play down concerns that the sale would have any impact on China's nuclear arsenal. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said supplying China with uranium would not make "the slightest difference" to Beijing's nuclear weapons program. [Yeah. Right.

Forbes reports that two-way trade between Saudi Arabia and China passed the $14 billion mark in the first 11 months of last year--a nearly 60% increase over the same period a year earlier and nearly nine times the figure six years ago. Neither country breaks down trade figures by category, but the rising price of oil and petrochemicals, and a jump in Chinese demand, accounts for much of the increase, according to Samuel Blatteis, a Fulbright Fellow researching Gulf-China energy relations. The two countries didn't have much of a relationship until 1985, when Saudi Arabia turned to China for ballistic missiles after Washington wouldn't provide them.
[content taken from the Forbes article].

In other news from China, police yesterday confirmed that 121 skulls found in the the western part of Northwest China's Gansu Province were human and had been hacked from their bodies after death. [warning: graphic photo]

Immigration and the Catholic Conscience

Immigration and the Catholic Conscience

"No human being is ever to be reduced to being totally or even primarily identified by the color of their skin, their country of origin, their legal status or any other external characteristic. Every human being is first and foremost a person. "

Vincentian Father Richard Benson is academic dean and professor of moral theology at St. John's Seminary, Camarillo. He offers a Catholic perspective on Immigration.

Immigration: Senate Compromise Likely To Sink Bill in Hardline House

Immigration: Senate Compromise Likely To Sink Bill in Hardline House

Steve Soto has my favorite commentary on today's Senate Immigration Reform compromise. It's title: 'Immigration Deal Reached - GOP Will Be The Loser.'

Bloomberg News' Nicholas Johnson reports that Rep. Tom Tancredo is having a hissy fit about the compromise.

Colorado Republican Representative Tom Tancredo, chairman of the 96-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, called the compromise "miserable public policy."

"I do not believe that a plan of this nature can pass the House," he said.

Senate Democrats said they would support the Senate compromise as long as it isn't undermined by amendments that are too harsh and they have commitments that it won't be significantly changed in negotiations with the House."

Nicholas Johnson also shows how these Republicans just cannot be trusted - not even by their own statesmen-colleagues.

"We're trying to figure out some mechanism by which we can have an assurance that the bill that we've agreed to is actually the bill that gets voted on and is the bill that the president signs,'' Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois said.

Al Franken Eviscerates Ann Coulter

Al Franken Eviscerates Ann Coulter

This is a must-see for anyone who's ever been disgusted by the stylings of Ann Coulter.

Al Franken took her to task at a a dinner for about 75 sponsors of a lecture series sponsored by the University of Judaism, at which he and Ann were set to debate.

At the Huffington Post, Franken humorously writes about Ann's affect on that particular audience:

Before the debate, there was a dinner for about 75 sponsors – mainly middle-aged-to- older Jewish couples. Between dinner and dessert Ann and I were to each make three minutes of remarks. I had planned to open with my usual at such Jewish events: "I'm going to start by answering the question I've been asked most tonight – Yes, I've had enough to eat."

But Ann went first, and set her tone for the entire evening. "It was fascinating being here for the demonstrations this weekend," she said with a snotty Darien sneer. "I guess that's why I didn't get clean towels in my hotel room this morning."

There was an audible gasp from the Jews. Ann continued: "I haven't seen so many agitated Mexicans since the World Cup Soccer Games were in L.A." As offended as the diners were, the waiters were pissed. Ann was actually dumb enough to drink her coffee afterwards.

I answered by saying that I hadn't seen so many agitated Mexicans since 1846 when James K. Polk invaded Mexico because he thought Santa Ana had weapons of mass destruction. I wasn't sure of the year, but I thought the different approaches to our "agitated Mexican" jokes might give everyone an idea of what to expect.

There's a copy of his speech at his Midwest Values PAC blog.

President Bush Authorized NIE leak

President Bush Authorized NIE leak

According to a headline at Raw Story, L. Lewis Libby has testified to a grand jury that President Bush indirectly gave him permission to release sensitive information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003. (The direct authorization came from VP Cheney's office). This new information comes from an article appearing in today's New York Sun and is based upon a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case. This is the first revelation of a direct Bush link.

From the Sun article:

In a court filing late Wednesday responding to requests from Mr. Libby's attorneys for government records that might aid his defense, Mr. Fitzgerald shed new light on Mr. Libby's claims that he was authorized to provide sensitive information to the Times reporter, Judith Miller, at a meeting on July 8, 2003.

"Defendant testified that he was specifically authorized in advance of the meeting to disclose the key judgments of the classified NIE to Miller on that occasion because it was thought that the NIE was 'pretty definitive' against what Ambassador Wilson had said and that the vice president thought that it was 'very important' for the key judgments of the NIE to come out," Mr. Fitzgerald wrote.

Mr. Libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed Mr. Cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. However, according to the vice presidential aide, Mr. Cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from Mr. Bush. "Defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE," the prosecution filing said.

According to the court filing, a legal counsel to the vice president named David Addington had indicated to Mr. Libby that President Bush's permission to disclose the estimate "amounted to a declassification of the document."

According to the Sun, Bush may not have know that Judith Miller would be at the receiving end of the leak, but VP Dick Cheney did.

The court papers filed by Mr. Fitzgerald do not make clear whether Mr. Bush knew the disclosure was destined for Ms. Miller, though they indicate Mr. Cheney knew that fact. Mr. Libby is also said to have testified that five days later Mr. Cheney authorized the release to the press of information about a cable about Mr. Wilson's trip.

An important question to ask is why the President felt it was important enough to declassify this extremely sensitive information and leak it. And why did Bush (if he knew) or Dick Cheney (who knew) have leaked it to Judith Miller of the New York Times? Doing something just because you can does not relieve anyone - especially the President - of the responsibility to do what is right.

Murray Waas has the story at the National Journal.

At Think Progress, Judd is highly disappointed by the White House press corps' lack of curiosity (or nerve?) :

When the White House press corps had an opportunity this morning to ask Press Secretary Scott McClellan questions [regarding this story], they didn’t ask him about it.

It's all over the internet already.

This may cause people to wonder if former Chief of Staff Andrew Card's resignation didn't come at just the right time. Bod Woodward has claimed that he had been told about Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA employment in June of 2003, before any other journalists. Last November, he'd written a Washington Post column about it and identified his source as a "senior administration official". Raw Story claims it was National Securioty advisor Stephen Hadley, but we must remember that Andrew Card was closely involved with WHIG and he was "leak-proof" (according to Dan Froomkin). Yet, here we have an intentional leak with the blessings of the Oval Office. The White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was formed in summer of 2002 by Andrew Card to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. WHIG operated out of VP Cheney's office. Cheney allegedly knew exactly where the leak was going to and did it for the politics of destruction. Libby is fingering Bush as the one who declassified the document and who gave permission to leak information from it. WHIG has become entwined in Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. Last year, Fitzgerald had subpoenaed the WHIG's emails and other documents.

I realize this is confusing if you haven't followed the story. In the simplest terms, both the State Department and the CIA concluded the Niger aluminum tubes story was total bullcrap prior to WHIG, Bush, and Dick Cheney went off leaking to the press and attacking Joseph Wilson. Not only that, there was a paper trail left by the CIA confirming that after they were commissioned to look into it. I still have questions about the INR (see Left Coaster's astute commentary from today) in its relation to known Bush propagandist Jeff Gannon (aka J.D. Guckert) and the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee.

The Washington Post explains why this "declassification" seems to have been done in such a questionable, haphazard, and disjointed way that the public looks upon the Bush administration with even more skepticism and distrust than they did before (if that could be possible). As I heard Conan O'Brien predict during his most recent "In the Year 2000" skit, Bush will need to have remedial lessons in Math when his poll percentages dip into fractions.

In one telling footnote in the filing, Fitzgerald notes that even after Bush authorized the dissemination of the intelligence data, White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley was "active in discussions about the need to declassify and disseminate" the information.

"There is an institutional interest and ultimately a public interest in having these decisions documented," said Ronald D. Lee, a Washington lawyer and former general counsel to the super-secret National Security Agency. "You can't have a government where everything is sort of done in people's heads."

Sen. John Kerry on Iraq

Sen. John Kerry on Iraq

Wise words from Senator John Kerry today in the New York Times:

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.

We definitely need to get tougher on this lax dragfoot Iraqi leadership group. More wisdom from Senator Kerry:

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military.

The girly men of the Bush admistration have been letting these Iraqis play 'Philadelphia 1780s-style' while our kids are dying for their dog and pony show. The time for public tolerance of this folly is over. Its been over for quite some time now.

The show's over - and we need to close the curtain - and these Iraqi leaders need to see it closing.

NYT Editorial on the Amnesty Trap

NYT Editorial on the Amnesty Trap

Reading today's NYT editorial about the status of immigration reform...

Now Senators Mel Martinez of Florida and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska are offering a "fallback" compromise if the committee bill fails. They would not eliminate the citizenship track, but narrow it severely.

...my first thought is that that immigration reform, as currently being proposed, should be allowed to die, just like Social Security reform was allowed to slip away into Reform Hell. I believe that only a Democratic majority could be trusted to get it right. Save immigration reform for the next Congress, which will undoubtedly be enriched with more Democrats. It's obvious that the divided Republicans will not pass a bill that keeps the beacon shining at the Statue of Liberty. They just want to create a race to the bottom for the lowest-paid workers in America, whether they are citizens or non-citizens.

See my piece and the discussion about it that follows at One America today - Immigration Reform Will Not Be the Panacea For What Ails the U.S. Workforce

Excerpt:

There have been many confusing statistics on the complex issues of immigration and U.S. Labor lately. I see the same talking points in the media about immigration driving down wages for native-born U.S. workers, yet no one seems to place a proper proportion of responsibility for the shrinking middle class where it's due. I'm speaking of the negative effects of the last two decades of conservative economic policy on the native born U.S. worker, regardless of how many jobs immigrants have taken. If all those illegals disappeared tomorrow, do we really think that U.S. workers would suddenly see a wave of patriotism from big business? Would they be offered big salaries, reliable pensions, and healthcare benefits? I think not...and the fact that the embarrassing $5.15 per hour minimum wage (in States where there has been no mandated increase) is all that American workers could probably expect to be receiving for those jobs adds insult to injury.
Bottom line, we can't put the blame for U.S. unemployment and low wages solely on immigration. The middle class will not be "grown" and low-wage workers will not do better while minimum wage remains stagnant. The value-challenged Republican-led government has forgotten the people of America and from what we have witnessed, the tax-evading boardrooms of this country certainly do not foster or promote patriotic behavior. While the U.S. economy is more dynamic than the European economy, we should remember that a dynamism characterized by layoffs, real wage declines, and dramatically increasing income inequality is not a positive thing for the people. It seems that the immigration debate is bringing about a race to the bottom for all low-wage workers in the U.S. - citizens and non-citizens alike.

Jill Carroll Slandered on Imus Show

Jill Carroll Slandered on Imus Show

Read Vanessa's post at Plucky Punk's Happy Land. Don Imus had an especially repulsive conversation with his radio show guests about journalist Jill Carroll on his show and everyone should send email expressing their disgust. This was slanderous. They should all apologize for having engaged in such rot.

Mine:

Dear Sirs:

I could not believe what I read on this website.

This was not appropriate for a network show on MSNBC. It was slanderous. It was disrespectful. It was vulgar.

Ms Carroll deserves a public apology from Mr. Imus for such comments to have been made on his radio (and MSNBC television) show.

Jude Nagurney Camwell

Send your own.

No More Money For Iraq Until Rumsfeld Resigns!

No More Money For Iraq Until Rumsfeld Resigns!

Senate Pushes War, Hurricane Bill to $100B

On Iraq and Afghanistan, $67.8 billion goes to the Defense Department for operations and logistics, fuel, replacing equipment damaged by harsh conditions, supporting Iraqi forces and classified intelligence activities. More than $4 billion in foreign aid is also included, including $3.1 billion for Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that $320 billion has been spent on Iraq and Afghanistan since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, including $50 billion that Congress sent Bush in December.

I would ask our Senators not to authorize a dime to DOD until Rumsfeld is GONE. Otherwise, they're pouring our tax dollars into more ineptitude, lies, and failure.

Hurry! Hurry!

Hurry! Hurry!

Bush says "Hurry!"

Once a government is formed in Iraq, he will tell America that there has been another astounding milestone reached. And the violence will continue in Iraq. And the Iraqi troops won't be able to handle it alone. And he'll insist that he won't "lose his nerve". But he's already lost the war.

Let's get the hell out of there. Make a plan to bring our troops home.

Stay Up Late Tonight and...

Stay Up Late Tonight and....

Call it a coincidental sign of our digital times or a reason to stay up late and stare at the clock. Either way, early Wednesday morning the time and date will be:

01-02-03-04-05-06.

At 1:02 a.m. and three seconds on Wednesday, April 5, 2006, it will be the first hour of the day, the second minute of the hour, the third second of that precious minute in the fourth month of the fifth year of ... uh oh. It's not really the sixth year. It's actually 2006 -- only in our shorthand is it '06. [AP/NYT]

Brass Coating Rubs Off Hammer Head

Brass Coating Rubs Off Hammer Head

The headline:

DeLay Decides to End Career in Congress

No, that's not really what happened. America had to decide for him. The cheating worm would have still been majority leader in the House had he not been revealed as the cheating louse that he is.

Frank Luntz: 10 Commandments for Dems

Frank Luntz: 10 Commandments for Dems

Frank Luntz has never been a Moses for the Democratic party, and I'm not convinced we should be allowing him to lead us into the "promised land" now...

Luntz recently worked with MSNBC to come up with a compilation of suggestions for 2008 Democratic hopefuls, along with a summary of results from one of his infamous "focus groups". He's been notorious for leading such groups - often with pre-formatted talking points handed out to cherry-picked participants.

See my post Frank Luntz and His Ten Commandments at the One America Committee blog

How I know John Snow will be gone soon

How I know John Snow will be gone soon

The message is buried in the headline:

Bush believes Snow doing a ‘great job‘ at Treasury

Ooooo - it's the kiss of death.

Let's see a show of hands. How many people recall "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job.." ?

On Jill Carroll

On Jill Carroll

My blogging about Jill Carroll has reflected the fact that I have truly cared about her and her well-being throughout this ordeal. I was a reader of Jill's well before she was kidnapped. I believe she's a reporter with a strong passion for truth. I have a deep respect for her professionalism.

That said, I am disappointed by all who have judged her before they knew what she truly had to say. It's happened on the right wing blogs (and to be fair, the left). It's doubly dismal to see the spats that occur after both sides have made their misjudgements. I believe it's an ethical mistake for bloggers to react so emotionally about Jill's statement, made while still in cativity. It isn't respectful or thoughtful. We won't even know how this young woman feels until she has had time to sort all of this out. She's been through hell. Leave her alone.

I'm so glad she's back home - safe and unharmed. That doesn't mean that she is ready for public statements. When she's ready, and if she chooses to talk about the Iraq War, I'll be back to talk about her views.

Brooks: Leaked Memo from Kerry Campaign!

Brooks: Leaked Memo from Kerry Campaign!

"...a leaked memo from the John Kerry campaign to hotel managers, informing them that "JK hates celery".

Wow. This one's really a blockbuster. It came one day late to make the April Fool's parade.

NYT Editorial on Iraq

NYT Editorial on Iraq

From today's NYT editorial:

It was chilling to read Edward Wong's interview with the Iraqi prime minister in The Times last week, during which Mr. Jaafari sat in the palace where he now makes his home, complained about the Americans and predicted that the sectarian militias that are currently terrorizing Iraqi civilians could be incorporated into the army and police. The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.

I apologize ahead of time for having to say something that is rather blunt, but I feel that it's important. When I read this, I immediately thought about Judith Miller and the New York Times' front page stories before the Iraq War. I suspect that hard lessons have been learned. I realize that there has been a mea culpa from the Times and I appreciate that, but I have to say that the United States government wasn't the only institution that has "helped to bring this all to pass."

As we hear more and more sabre rattling on Iran....more fear mongering whistles through Dick Cheney's bottom teeth and lying twisted lips, I'd ask the fourth estate not to forget what happened in 2002 and to vow to never let it happen again. An editorial like this one is a hell of a good start.

General Zinni: "We've lost Ground in Iraq"

General Zinni: "We've lost Ground in Iraq"

General Anthony Zinni was a guest on this morning's Meet the Press. He said we are now paying the price for a lack of a plan from the Bush administration in Iraq. The administration understimated the situation they were getting into, and they got distracted from the actual war on Terrorism.

He said that we have to see the Iraq war through now - for we are committed. Militias in Iraq are a large part of the problem, and it's disturbing that the Bush administration doesn't seem to be addressing that problem. U.S. intelligence capability needs to be strengthened in this war, ie: getting people to turn against the bad guys. We are not fighting the SS in Iraq - it's a rag-tag bunch of fighters with IEDS, etc. Zinni said that we've needed to win hearts and minds in Iraq and we haven't done that yet, three years on. We haven't given the general populace enough security or reason to turn in the insurgents.

When asked about the benefits of having removed Saddam Hussein, General Zinni commented that it was like comparing heart disease to cancer. Saddam Hussein was bad for Iraq; this sectarian war is certainly not good for the country.

In these three years, we've lost ground in Iraq.

Any positive efforts that are being made on the local level in Iraq are made in vain because of the failure of the overall strategy. General Zinni commented that positive efforts are being made by people such as Lt. General David Petraeus, but hearts and minds in Iraq are not being won because of the weakness of the "strategic brand" which comes from the top down (from Washington D.C.)...not from bottom up. Condoleeza Rice has said "tactical errors" had been made, but America sees that no adjustment has been made for the core strategic errors that came from the very top.

General Zinni thinks that the media is used as scapegoat by the Bush administration. Security in Iraq has deteriorated to the point where journalists, of whom we've lost at least 80 to violence, can't get out without the likelihood that they'll be kidnapped or killed. It's hard to dwell on "the good" when "the bad" is so catastrophic. The balance between the two must be considered and it's not fair to blame the media for reporting on what they see.

Zinni bemoaned all the Bush administration's pre-war spin, the cherry picking of intelligence, the metaphors used to invoke emotional response from the public, and all the shaded contexts (ie: "mushroom clouds").

In reality, the U.S. walked away from ten years worth of planning on serious foreign policy. It was literally thrown away. General Shinsecki was insulted by telling the truth. There was faith placed in Iraqi exiles that any experienced official knew was bogus. These were strategic mistakes made in D.C., not on the ground in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld should be held reponsible for this poor strategical planning -along with anyone who stood by the strategy. They must be held accountable. If they keep defending mistakes of the the past, they can never move on with any success. That's where the Bush administration is now..standing by old mistakes. President needs to annunciate clearly the mistakes that have been made in order to gain any form of future credibility on Iraq.

When General MacArthur screwed up (I know from family experience), the President relieved him. Honesty and confidence have to outweigh politics.



Reference posts:
Counterpunch: "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time - Gen. Zinni: Heads Should Roll By Sam Hamod


(more to follow)

Russert Frames McCain as Flip Flopper

Russert Frames McCain as Flip Flopper

A very crafty Tim Russert has framed 2008 hopeful John McCain as a flip-flopper of amazingly hypocritical proportions on Meet the Press this morning.

See Georgia's post at Daily Kos
(details coming)

An Opinion on Alleviating Poverty

An Opinion on Alleviating Poverty
Written Especially for the Tar Heel Tavern


After Katrina

In a Seattle Post Intelligencer article by AP writer Allen G. Breed about poverty, we are told that Americans are so overwhelmed by the very thought of attacking poverty that not only can they not fathom how government would begin to end poverty, but because of the government failures after Hurricane Katrina, they see government as the last place for the promise of a solution.

And do you know what I think? I think that they're right. The government in Washington D.C. today not only has no rational ideas about how to alleviate poverty, but the truth is, I really don't think it's a priority of the Bush administration or the "Rubber Stamp Republicans" at all. Just one overview of their agenda, their Budgets for the past five years [see this post for an example], and their legislative record will prove it.

From the same AP article:

Not long after Katrina struck, the Census Bureau released figures showing that the poverty rate had climbed for the fourth straight year. More than 37 million Americans live below the federal poverty level (defined as an income of $19,000 for a family of four), including 12 million children.

Five million of those children live in families that earn less than half the poverty level.

Jane Knitzer, director of the National Center for Children in Poverty, says it's not so much that Americans don't know that poverty exists. They just don't want to think about it, because it's just too hard.

"Very often people feel that there's no solution to poverty, that's it's intractable," she says. "It's a secret nobody wants to deal with."

Anyone who thinks alleviating poverty will be easy is deluded, indeed. However, if we stop believing that it can be possible and if we ignore the problem, we will become an America where being a low-wage or unemployed worker will mean an even further decrease in the opportunity for providing a basic and sound existence for many families.

We have to start somewhere.

It won't be easy. We've become used to one too many slick politicians giving us pie-in-the-sky promises about reform that will end poverty as we know it, yet today we still know poverty as the blight that it is on our respective communties - just as we did decades ago.

It won't be solved by partisanship. No one political party has all the answers.

The past five years have brought us great disappointment in our leadership. Tax cuts are given to the richest. Major welfare handouts go to corporations these days - many of them corrupt - and favors are paid back to well-connected lobbyists. America is divided - there is a wide "culture gap" and one side is constantly at odds with the other. Meanwhile, the poor are still demonized and blamed for their own poverty by ignorant people. There seems to be no strong moral voice in Washington these days to dispel the myths about those who live in poverty, and there certainly has been no balance in Congress. Conservatives rely on dated methods. Liberals rely on dated methods. No one will work cooperatively to find solutions. The minority party is routinely shut out of the American democratic process or simply silenced by partisan shenanigans and rule-changes when the majority can't win the traditional way.

In the AP article, there is an reason given for the alarming public indifference on the issue of poverty which I believe can be attributed only to poor leadership in America. [I had hoped this wouldn't happen.] What I see as a fairly poor excuse for bad leadership was somehow gleaned by Stanford University researchers Emily Ryo and David Grusky. They used data from Syracuse University's Maxwell Polls on Civic Engagement and Inequality, conducted shortly after Katrina. The way I see it, Grusky and Ryo are handing the mainstream media's coverage of Katrina the blame for telling the truth and getting a natural reaction from television viewers. The viewers, in this case, saw that the government's response under the leadership of President Bush to Hurricane Katrina was woefully inadequate.

From the article:

News coverage could partly explain the rise in denier and realist views. Some "did not take well to the liberal lesson that they no doubt regarded as foisted upon them," Grusky and Ryo wrote in their report, and so "the `call for action' story ... was countered by the equally powerful lesson that government intervention is all about inefficiency and ineptitude."

The mainstream media has become an entertainment tool, which is the opposite of what responsible journalism should be. That said, I think the mainstream did a damned good job on the Katrina coverage. They had tons more information - and much sooner - than the Bush administration did. The media hasn't dropped the ball on Katrina, and no one can deny that there was a poverty we'd not noticed before the hurricane that was exposed by the media after Katrina. If the public doesn't care about the poverty of the people from New Orleans or if they're overwhelmed by the very thought of it, we should give the credit shame where it is due - our political leaders. What are people supposed to think when they see their government abdicating their responsibilities? Why should the public care when they believe that their government clearly does not care enough about poverty to do something about it?

After seeing the hidden poverty of the Ninth Ward uncovered by Hurricane Katrina, who among us can we possibly turn our heads and look the other way - or worse, crawl into our shells? What kind of people are we? What kind of leadership does that reflect?

Public indifference isn't the media's fault. It's the fault of leadership who lack a moral compass.

Our best hope is to overturn the House and Senate in 2006 and elect representatives who will change the direction of economic policy in Washington, D.C. We need a better balance of voices in government which will then migrate to the mainstream media. In the past five years, I have learned that cable news media will simply not give the minority party a fair shake. What we are seeing now are the blunt failures of the Republican agenda coming home to roost and a nation looking for that one voice out there that will cause them to have hope that they might be able to trust their federal government to actually lead the way.

The Republican majority in the Legislative branch has been a Rubber Stamp for the Bush administration - and the Bush administration has not led on alleviating poverty.

Is it any wonder the public thinks it's a lost cause?

In the same AP article, a weak excuse is made for President Bush, saying that he was too pre-occupied with Iraq to have time to address poverty. To that, I say "Poppycock!" There have been many opportunities for Bush to include poverty in his agenda, but at every corner, he has simply neglected to do so. If he's too busy doing anything, it's taking care of his richest contributors - gifting them with contracts and political favors.

What we have here is a major failure of leadership. With the Bush administration. With Congress.

There was an article in last Sunday's New York Times written by Erik Eckholm about former Senator and 2004 VP candidate John Edwards and his focus on the issue of poverty.

This is his true passion, he said in an interview, and he thinks that voters may be more responsive in the coming years, both because the middle class is becoming less secure and because of a shared sense of fairness.

If you want to see a political leader who seeks new ideas and solutions to alleviating poverty, I recommend that you take a look at the new John Edwards One America Committee site. Don't miss the new One America blog. I'd love to see the Tar Heelers sign up at the blog and join the conversation. [They were talking about you Tar Heel Taverners on One America just this week!]

It will take a moral leader - a leader with innovative ideas - to steer Americans, famous for their short attention spans, toward remembering that, just as important as rebuilding the damaged Twin Span bridge from New Orleans to Slidell, Louisiana, we need to do the hard work of building real and lasting bridges out of poverty. See my post titled "The Helping Hand".

Excerpt:

Bishop Jakes spoke about the Twin Span Bridge that connects Slidell, Louisiana to New Orleans which was partially submerged by Katrina and will need rebuilding. He called it a symbol of our need to rebuild bridges between our ideas, our perspectives, and our differences - we must build unity. "We can't multiply by dividing and we can't add by subtracting," said Bishop Jakes. If we rebuild that bridge with unity, it could make a real difference, letting go of the divisive illusion that we're black or white; Democrat or Republican; "right" or left." The true vision, he said is "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The media, who have been really good at hammering away at the Katrina story, would be well-served to have Senator Edwards as a voice on every talk show. Not to pump him for his Presidential aspirations, but to sit down and talk to him about the issue about which he is so passionate - alleviating poverty. People pay attention and develop the political will to see change when a political leader is willing and able to have a rational public conversation about an issue that, whether we realize it or not, affects all of us. I'm sick of seeing the same old faces on the political talk shows. It's no wonder that America is indifferent.

Bolten's Snow Job - I Predicted It

Bolten's Snow Job - I Predicted It

John Snow will soon be shown the door. I knew it! Only, Card's not coming back to replace him - probably because of Valerie Plame's outing and WHIG's dirty little tactics.