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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Kerry's answer included:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who does this fellow think he's fooling?

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


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

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

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


Kerry resurgence shows voters have own minds...


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Go here to observe the typical Bushite-GOP tactic. Blame Clinton for anything for which you are directly responsible and your partisan supporters will suck it up like babies' pablum. Watch the partisan misleader Porter Goss facilitate the Bush administration's attempt to redirect attention from what's really going on here, which is their complete distortion of the evidence. Can't we trust any of our representatives in Washington to put 'the People' before 'partisanship' anymore?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The headline says : "Powell Defends War, Says He Expected WMD".
Because of the trust they once had in you, so did most Americans, Colin Powell.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No, no, Colin Powell-you have it wrong. The truth was not "murdered" in the run-up to Iraq war, it was smothered to near-death. Trust was murdered.
T-R-U-S-T. And you aren't getting it back.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here's a piece of pure garbage trying to be passed off as intelligent opinion. I thought I would share it with you. They started all the ridiculous rumor about the Clinton/Clark connection to sell their dummy-papers, so I guess they have to try to look like political swamis by creating more rumors. The story gets better by the minute. It's almost as good as the funny-papers. If Clinton had wanted to "dictate the Democratic nominee", he would have endorsed him. Duh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Kerry?! God--Not another intern/infidelity fiasco. Matt Drudge is telling us there's a Kerry commotion and it's a good part of the reason why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision not to drop out of the race after Wisconsin. Drudge states that, in an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [And that three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]
I wonder why Clark dropped out, then? Could it be he's hoping for a VP slot with Dean or Edwards? Well, wait a minute...why would Clark be endorsing Kerry, then?? It wouldn't make much sense, would it?

The right-wing rumor mills are gearing up for this story already. I can almost smell the drool. WorldNetDaily has scooped it up, spreading the great rumor heard on the talk-show with the host with all the integrity, OxiContin Limbaugh (pflurgh):

During his broadcast today, radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh speculated the bombshell information could have been leaked to Drudge by Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Ooooo yeah, baby! Blame Clinton!

At Editor and Publisher, they're wondering if the media will "pounce" on this rumor . I wonder, too..or will they just drone on hour after hour on cable news... pumping Kerry up as the top Democrat while the GOP adds to their stack of ammo to be used against him? If we don't get the skinny about this candidate up-front, we may wake up and find we've been backing the wrong donkey. We don't want anyone making asses of us. Let's get things out in the open...good and early.

I still do not forgive Terry McAuliffe for all the tacit (and sometimes overt) support of this one candidate to the near-exclusion of the others...and the near-destruction of at least one of them.

The story's gone international as well. The Scotsman has picked it up. They say Drudge claimed a close friend of the mystery woman approached a reporter late last year claiming “fantastic stories”. The Kerry campaign has no comment.


I wonder if this Seattle alternative music writer was onto something when, in speaking about the group Coldplay's lead singer at the Grammys, stated:

"Chris Martin earned the first cool points of his life by dedicating Coldplay's undeserved Record of the Year award to two Johns: Cash... and Kerry, "who will hopefully be your president one day." And hopefully employ a cigar on an intern and inadvertently make prime time a haven for raunch once again.

Funny...Susan Estrich had just said in her latest column:

"...The danger for Democrats, for the first time since the name Monica Lewinsky was uttered publicly, is that they might start feeling confident..."

But, Susan! That was 11 whole hours ago!! ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Love the picture? Click photo for story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Disinformation leads to a terribly warped public political consciousness. When I began to read this article, I initially thought the writer was buying into the current White House promotion of propaganda. The White House is clearly attempting to revise history by leading us to believe al-Qaeda was active and supported by Hussein in Iraq before the war (which was one of the Bushite's lies) when their only PROOF is that they are fighting American forces in Iraq NOW. (Remember Bush inviting the mo-fo's in? "Bring 'em on" were his words, I believe). Read this quote from the article:

"Weapons of mass destruction are nowhere to be found, but an al-Qaida presence in Iraq - another key justification for the war - is becoming increasingly apparent, U.S. officials say."

I was pleasantly relieved to see the article's writer continue on....

"What isn't clear, though, is whether this backs the Bush administration's prewar claims that Saddam Hussein had a long relationship with al-Qaida. Critics say it may instead show that the postwar chaos in Iraq actually gave al-Qaida terrorists an opening to enter the country to strike at Americans and their allies."

"Okay", I told myself...relieved after reading this paragraph. The writer isn't giving the Bushies the "honeymoon-treatment". I sense objectivity..how refreshing.

I've felt that way often lately. I've found myself holding my breath when I read the news or watch it on cable news networks. So often I've seen imbalance, indifference, and injustice to the truth. It mostly comes from journalists who believe they have to present two sides to a story in one sitting. Facts are buried or lost in the shuffle between perceptions. There's no better way to lose the truth. I believe in truly fair and balanced journalism. I know it when I see it. I liked this article because I sensed that it took in the facts and let you decide for yourself...the same thing the conservative FOX claims to do, but hardly ever does, in my view.

By the way, I did decide for myself after reading the article. The article says, at its conclusion, that the White House is not backing down. They don't have to back down. And I don't have to believe a damned word they say anymore...and I don't. That's just a consequence of a person being lied to for far too long.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Howard Dean declared yesterday: "I've actually said on the record that I thought Senator Edwards would be a stronger candidate against George W. Bush than John Kerry, because when Senator Kerry's record is examined by the public at a more leisurely time when we're not having primaries every week, he's going to turn out to be just like George W. Bush."

Speaking of Dean, HOWARD'S BIG IN JAPAN.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


When it comes to political strategy, Josh Marshall has asked the question: "Are Democrats warming to pre-emption?" See his article at The Hill titled "Maybe Dean has taught Democrats how to fight".

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


I enjoyed reading EdwardPig's take on the gay marriage issue. Here's the LINK.
EdwardPig makes a great point in his writings on the subject. The U.S. Constitution was written to guarantee rights to our citizens, not restrict them. Freedom isn't only for the people who agree to adhere to a certain framed pre-set of social values, nor should our Constitution ever be used for such social slavery. Americans, regardless of our emotions surrounding the issue, should never stand for our Constitution, thus our very freedom, being so politically abused.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


WHERE'S THE JUSTICE???

"Quack, quack!"

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

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

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

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

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

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

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

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

So now we learn that a John Kerry fundraiser helped finance the anti-Dean ads that used Dean's name with images of bin Laden. Man, that was some dirty sh*t. Who knew what evil lurked in the hearts of men, already? $50,000 for the filthy ads came from Bob Torricelli (already rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee two years ago for his relationship with a top political contributor to his campaigns). Kerry's affiliation with Torricelli...and now his indirect link to Americans for Jobs & Healthcare who ran these ads-- could cause political problems for him.... but with Terry McAuliffe (and thus the DNC) so obviously behind him, I don't think he can lose...regardless of what a bottom-of-the-barrel poor sport he's been or which unethical bums are his chums.

Creepy, huh?

Wesley Clark has dropped out of the Democratic race. The title of the Memphis Flyer article telling us the news is "GALLANT WARRIOR CLARK BOWS OUT". I couldn't think of a better way of describing this man....gallant. I am very sorry to see him leave. He brought some of the greatest ideas, truth, and honor to the race. (And Gert would have made a wonderful first lady).

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that, after a nationwide outcry, federal prosecutors have withdrawn the subpoena asking Iowa's Drake University to turn over a list of people involved in a November anti-war forum, as well as subpoenas ordering four activists to testify before a grand jury. U.S. District Judge Ronald Longstaff has also lifted his ultra-Draconian gag order that had prohibited Drake University employees from even discussing the case.

click photo..see story

The 9-11 Independent Commission's Family Steering Commitee is furious with the by the failure of the Commission to subpoena the White House for complete access to the Presidential Daily Briefings. Needless to say, the FSC is furious with the White House..particularly the President after his appearance on Meet The Press. They state that the public needs to be aware that the President's statements on Meet the Press, on February 8, 2004, were misleading.

A well-known figure with ties to terrorism is coming to Syracuse, NY to march in the 2004 St. Patrick's Day parade at the invitation and welcome of GOP Congressman James T. Walsh. His name? Gerry Adams of the Sinn Fein. Of course, Sinn Fein is only the political wing of the IRA...so that wouldn't be any different from Yasser Arafat being invited to march in a Palestinian holiday parade by one of our governmental representatives, I suppose...would it? Look, I'm not dissing Mr. Adams here. I actually believe he wants peace and justice, as we all would love to see in this world. Being an Irish-American, I even tend to personally (though certainly not actively) side with his cause. *Does that make me a terrorist-sympathizer?* I am coming to a point here (believe it or not and thanks for your patience.) It's just that..well...Mr. Adams' political cause is not a cause of a brown-tinted
non-Judeo-Christian people...even though history will show his battle has been every bit as violent as most of the troubles in Israel and Palestine. Being white and Judeo-Christian has helped to keep Sinn Fein off the terror-watch lists. Do you see the hypocrisy there? Will President Bush have any comments about this, I wonder? I tend to think he'd say it was a local matter and would probably love to leave it it that.


ABC will not censor political statements during Oscars According to the linked story, "ABC network's 5-second censor delay will be used to shield viewers from any unlikely profanity or nudity -- but will not interfere with any political statements winners may make." I expect there will be a fair number of such statements during this year's Oscar broadcast.

The problem of media concentration only gets worse. Comcast, in a hostile bid, has proposed buying Disney (which includes the ABC-network-family). In Europe, Vivendi Universal stocks leapt on news of the surprise $66 billion merger offer. This is all in anticipation of a key speech today from U.S. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.

I just read an article where I observed right-wing clingers John R. Lott Jr. and Grover Norquist trying to scare voters away from Democrats. They're pulling out the old tried and true "wedge issues". Observe the "God, guns, and gays" spook-tactics that Howard Dean astutely warned us about.
Speaking of Grover Norquist, I'll wager you haven't seen this most unusual New York Press interview of Grover's ass.

At Working For Change, Robert Scheer says President Bush sounded like a broken record on 'Meet the Press' in a column titled War as an excuse for everything.

At The Nation, David Corn didn't have a glowing review of Russert's performance as Bush's interviewer, stating "He was not his usual self: a polite but aggressive quizzer who sticks to specifics, wielding quotes and source material to force his subjects to address previous statements and past actions. Instead, Russert allowed Bush to dish out the all-too familiar, White House-approved rhetoric. It pains me to say, he was more enabler than interrogator......Russert never cornered him, never pinned him. Russert never made Bush sweat, and Bush was able to reel off the same-old/same-old. Was this because Russert was too respectful of the man or the office? Expectations (mine included) were high. After all, It's not too often a president has to submit to being interviewed by a smart, no-holds-barred journalist.....It was as if Russert wouldn't let Russert be Russert......"

Paul O'Neill has been cleared in the use of classified documents in the Suskind book. The probe has faulted a lapse in the Treasury Department for releasing any secret papers.

Christopher Hitchens is asked which Democratic candidate he'd recommend. He decides that we should make up our own minds.....only hinting that he believes an Edwards-Kerry ticket would be "made up of serious men".

Tony Blair refuses to be drawn out on whether he favors Bush or Kerry. I cannot purport to know what's in his mind, but judging from the fact that he was nearly politically destroyed through his dealings and connections with President Bush, I can imagine he's probably thinking: "Bushliar..get thee behind me!!" By the way, it's amazing how the press is already coronating Kerry as Democratic nominee. Well, I guess they're only following the leader..which is Terry McAuliffe himself.

In an incredible memory-loss incident, Donald Rumsfeld did not recall Tony Blair's pre-war claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed in 45 minutes. I'm serious, people. At a Pentagon news conference yesterday, he said: "I don't remember the statement being made, to be perfectly honest." General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he didn't remember the statement either. [source: Herald Sun]

At the NY Times, Nicholas Kristof is telling us Americans that our loss of jobs is our own fault. It's education's fault for focusing on the Humanities and not the Sciences. Kristof says (quote): "..free trade worked. Some autoworkers lost their jobs, but America emerged stronger than ever..." Gee, I'm not sure what Joe SixPack's grande American humanities education had to do with working the assembly line. While Kristof looks at the big picture and believes that America "emerged stronger than ever", I think he should consider that the American dream is one based upon the individual spirit and opportunity. Kristof ought to ask all those Joe SixPacks (laid off the assembly line, each with five mouths to feed) how "strong" they have emerged. Ask them what kinds of jobs waited for them once their assembly-line jobs and mining jobs went to India and Russia. I'm not saying Kristof doesn't have a point, but I do think he's throwing a cold blanket over anyone who might believe a protectionist consideration of economic issues is an important and relevant American consideration. I think Mr. Kristof is a bit too enamoured by the vision of a better world..at the expense of his average countrymen.

In a story related to Kristof's column, the Bush administration is stating that this movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation. To ask Americans not to complain about the bleeding away of their jobs is not realistic by any historic means. I have not yet located an example in world history (and especially American history) where workers have ever benefited by sacrificing their own families' economic futures for any government or any business. To the contrary, I recall a happening called the Boston Tea Party (which I'd imagine the Bush White House calling a 'socialist movement' today).

I found this to be an intriguing spirit-based article. The writer Sadhu Vishwamurtidas asks us to determine how we would identify a modern "saint". The line that stuck with me was: "He will have a heart in which the whole world can live." ('She', as well).

Have you seen these Afghan war rugs?

According to NPR, a few years ago, strange images began showing up in the traditional rugs woven by natives of Afghanistan. Instead of trees and birds, some rugs depicted tanks, missiles and fighter jets -- familiar sights in the war-torn nation. These rugs have now developed a cult following. It's not surprising some of the rugs have proven controversial, but I'd imagine they will someday be valuable collectibles.

If you look at the latest targets of the Iraq-based "terrorists", there seems to be a plan for these "terrorists" to pre-eliminate their "enemies"....homicide-bombing them before the potential soldiers and police have the chance to sign up in the cause to fight against them.

President Bush will have a lot of questions to face when he comes up against the Democratic candidate this fall.
Consider just some of these topics for discussion:

lies about WMDs; lies and excuses about keeping spending under control; comments about how Bush came to power in 2000; ongoing soldiers dying; 7 trillion dollar debt; record deficits; worst negative job growth since Hoover; overseeing economy with much outsourcing of high tech jobs; constitution in tatters because of the Patriot Act; oil supplies and oil security dwindling with no alternatives in sight; Afghanistan still dangerous and now #1 in heroin exports; those pesky Bush-links with Saudis and bin Ladens; get out-of-jail (and investigation)-free cards to Pakistanis who sell atomic secrets to rogue states and terrorists; Ken Lay still at large; states are broke; education is falling apart from lack of funds; defense contractors getting larger and large share of the pie; IMF says US deficits will take down entire world economy; AWOL-Desertion is a capital offense; traditional allies now disrespect America; the Kevin Phillips book, the Suskind book; the goofy Mars idea when we can't afford life on Earth as it stands; internet (and blogs) being used to inform and organize; Unocal pipeline scandals.....

If he answers to any of these topics the way he answered Tim Russert last Sunday, he'd best consider skipping any formal Presidential debates.

Opinion: French Assembly Votes to Ban Religious Symbols in Schools
What do you think about this assembly vote? I am not at all comfortable with it. When a government attempts to wipe away all outward signs of the spirit, it would seem to be only for the promotion of a non-spiritual, 'religion-void' society. Is this not what the most infamous authoritarians of the past have attempted to do?

Trivia: Did you know Brit Hume went to elementary school with John Kerry?

Speaking of John Kerry, the anti-Kerry websites are already sprouting. Democrats, know thine enemy.

I wonder how many times Ed Gillespie will pull this one out?
See any familiar faces behind baby Jane Fonda?
(Clue: Look north-west.)

Rubber Hose blog points us to an interview with Howard Zinn at American Amnesia.

Anonymoses leads us to Daily Kos, where there's more on the Iowa peace activist subpoenas.

Ready for this one? Deep breath...Pen-Elayne points to MadKane..who leads us to the hilarious Bush Unmasked!

Josh Marshall tells us how soon we can expect President Bush's military records to be released. ;)

See Cup o' Joe's response to the recent NY times editorial titled "Come Back Little Deaniacs". (My own is HERE).
This is a public coment made from an M.D. on a petition addressed to Terry McAuliffe:

I am 48 years old and have been a registered democrat since I was old enough to vote. I belong to "Dr's for Dean" and feel blessed that I am living in a time when he is politically active. I can see that if either Kerry or Edwards runs agains Bush every thing that they complained to him about they will be countered with "well you voted for it". That is very true and I consider them both 'Bushlights'. Since the stolen election and the failure of the party to stand up against Bush I lost total respect for the party. I have special interest in Dr. Dean. I view him as the last hope for the survival of this country. Please stop choosing a candidate for us. If Kerry is the candidate I cannot vote for him because he voted for a war that he knew was wrong.. If I knew there were no weapons or mass destruction and knew the plans of the PNAC he had to know too. I live in California and deserve the right to vote for Dean in the scheduled primary. If Kerry is the candidate I will leave the party.

N.Y. Times
David Brooks--just another frustrated intelligent soul stuffing his own words in Bush's incapable mouth
After the Russert interview, David Brooks supplies what he imagines President Bush meant...what he wishes President Bush meant...as so many of us are trying to do as we scratch our heads in numbed astonishment at Bush's never-improving dogmatic fact-vacant simplicity.
I can just see David Brooks in front of his television...saying "Come on, President Bush....come ON...!"
It must be very frustrating. I am lately finding I am desensitized to my prior frustration. I have given up on the man saying anything novel or hopeful as to my way of wishing to see the world. That is not to say I've tuned him out..I am always listening. My hope now lies in November, 2004. And I don't think I'll have to put words in the Democrat's mouth. *Sorry, David..I couldn't resist! ;)*

JWR/Inspirational Words
You Are Unique-
Make a difference

Reading these inspirational words this morning, I thought it would be a kindness to pass some of them along and share them with my readers:

"Every kind person is unique. You have unique talents, skills, knowledge, and resources. Utilize them to help others in ways that are uniquely yours. Learn from other kind people, but don't compare yourself with anyone else. Others will be able to do things that you cannot. And you will be able to do things that others cannot.

One who sings well can utilize this talent to cheer up the despondent, the ill, and those who need an emotional lift. One who has been blessed with financial wealth can help those who lack the means to meet their needs. One with time and energy can volunteer to help the elderly and those who require physical assistance. One with life experience can share the expertise amassed over time with those who will benefit...

Don't let the feeling that others are doing more than you, discourage you from doing good. First of all, you can never tell how much a seemingly small act of yours has accomplished.

Furthermore, you might have an opportunity to do a major act of kindness for an individual or an entire group of people. Opportunities for kindness can present themselves in unexpected ways. And it is because you will be the right person at the right place at the right time that will make a major difference. So keep your focus on what you can do rather than on what anyone else has done, is doing, or will do. Your life task is to do what you can do, and this is totally up to you."

--Rabbi Zelig Pliskin

New York Review of Books/Michael Massing
Now They Tell Us

The contrast between the press's feistiness since the end of the war and its meekness before it highlights one of the most entrenched and disturbing features of American journalism: its pack mentality. Editors and reporters don't like to diverge too sharply from what everyone else is writing. When a president is popular and a consensus prevails, journalists shrink from challenging him. Even now, papers like the Times and the Post seem loath to give prominent play to stories that make the administration look too bad. Thus, stories about the increasing numbers of dead and wounded in Iraq —both American and Iraqi—are usually consigned to page 10 or 12, where they won't cause readers too much discomfort. [New York Review of Books 1-29-04]

Please read this article.
See some of my prior entires on reporter Judith Miller here and here.

See Demagogue for comments on Miller last June.

See Pen Elayne for more comments about this article.
~~~~~~~~~

Also in New York Review of Books:
Paul Krugman on the new Kevin Phillips and Ron Suskind books

On the Phillips book:

In any previous administration—at least any administration of the past seventy years—this sort of incestuous relationship among foreign governments, private businesses, and the personal fortunes of people in or close to the US government would have been considered unusual and prima facie scandalous. What we learn from Kevin Phillips's new book, however, is that this kind of intertwining of public policy and personal self-interest has been standard operating procedure not just for George W. Bush, but for his entire family.

On the Suskind book:

What emerges from Suskind's book is a picture of an entirely cynical administration—much more cynical than Nixon's, in which the corruption was localized, and large parts of the policy process continued to be run by serious, even idealistic people. (Old hands at the Environmental Protection Agency describe the Nixon administration as a golden age.) Under Bush, it seems, political rhetoric bears no relation to reality—what officials say has nothing in common with what they do, or what they think. And policy decisions are driven almost entirely by politics, by what the political arm thinks will play well with "the base."

Juan Williams puts the blame on Dean
Dean's scream was played almost 700 times by CNN alone. I guess that qualified Dean as a "terrible candidate" as Williams avers. The media droned on and on about Dean's "anger" every time they spoke about Dean. I guess that made Dean a "terrible candidate".
Dean raised more money from the public (many of them first-time contributors) than any prevous Democratic candidate. I guess that's why his "whiny" supporters are doing the "pesky" excuse-making and finger-pointing at (suddenly) fickle folks like Juan Williams. Up to the Sunday before Iowa, Juan was pretty convinced in the power of the Dean candidacy. He predicted a Dean win in Iowa himself.
I'm not making excuses for Dean...but Williams is making excuses for the media by now sitting in his power-seat and looking back on it all as if no one ever had real confidence in the Dean candidacy. Now he says Dean is too intense and overly-combative. It sounds like Juan has fallen into the "angry-Dean" myth along with the rest of the media.
I think he's been working at FOX a little too long.
Williams says:

First, Dean's combative attitude toward President Bush played well with people angry at the results of the 2000 election as well as those upset over the decision to go to war in Iraq. That base of voters saw in Dean a man willing to take on the president. But that willingness to take on the president did not translate into voter trust that Dean had a good grasp on protecting the nation from terrorism. Exit polls show voters want an experienced candidate and someone who cares about them.

Dean intuitively pulled on a common string in most of us....someone was finally singing "our tune". I do not accept that there was a loss of voter-trust because of anything Dean directly did or failed to do. It was all about perception cast upon Dean by pundits and opinion-makers. If Williams truly believes the media had nothing to do with the perpetuation of misgivings about Dean's stability, I think he's got to be blind..or perhaps he's just lashing out defensively.
I would refer Juan Williams to what I see as a more intellectually honest appraisal of the Dean candidacy and the question "What happened?" In his February 6th column, Jon Carroll has simply said "I dunno."
Quote:

So now we've had 2.5 rounds of primaries (Iowa is its own thing, a quasi-democratic photo op of limited significance), and Howard Dean seems to be pretty much out of it. I do not pretend to understand the reasons; it is my guess that people who say they understand the reasons probably don't either.
Was it the Scream? The Wife? The Warmth Issue? The Impatience Problem? I dunno. Maybe it's just hard for a truly obscure and inexperienced candidate to endure the ritual bear-baiting we call an election.

Note: Mr. Carroll did not sink to saying that it was because of a "terrible" perormance. I think it's fair to say "obscurity" played a part in media's ability to play with Dean as they saw fit.

Juan Williams has stated:

His tongue-lashing of the Iowa man who asked him to tone down his attacks on Bush became a staple of conservative talk radio.

And?
A couple weeks later, another rabid Freeper-type person in a Dean crowd had to be physically subdued by venue management.
Dean raised passions. I don't believe a passionate candidate is necessarily a terrible candidate just because the media is concerned about their automaton version of "decorum". Does anyone believe our Founding Fathers were not men of great passion?
I usually find much in Juan Williams' commenary with which I agree.
He laid a bomb with this one. He comes off sounding very defensive of the fact that his initial instincts about Dean being a winner turned out wrong once the careless chatterering class (to which he belongs) got their sharp teeth into him. Join the club, Juan. Join the club.

Greg Palast
'Kahn-job':
Bush/NSA stymied investigation of Dr. A.Q. Khan, seller of Pakistani atomic secrets in order to protect Saudi Arabian interests

You may never have heard of Khan Laboratories, but if this planet blows to pieces this year, it will likely be thanks to Kahn Labs' creating nuclear warheads for Pakistan's military. Because investigators had been tracking the funding for this so-called "Islamic Bomb" back to Saudi Arabia, under Bush security restrictions, the inquiry was stymied. (The restrictions were lifted, the agent told me without a hint of dark humor, on September 11.)...
.....intelligence agencies under Clinton, based on many other leads as well, were following up on the Saudi connection until the Bush team interfered....[GregPalast.com]

San Jose Mercury
Iraq Intelligence-Public vs. Private
Viva la difference?
In this artice are excerpts from the public and classified versions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities. The first set of quotes under each topic is from the public version, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs," which was released by the CIA in October 2002. The second set is from the classified version of the NIE, portions of which were declassified and released by the White House in July 2003.

~~~~

Companion article/San Jose Mercury
Doubts, dissent stripped from public Iraq assessment

The public version of the U.S. intelligence community's key prewar assessment of Iraq's illicit arms programs was stripped of dissenting opinions, warnings of insufficient information and doubts about deposed dictator Saddam Hussein's intentions, a review of the document and its once-classified version shows.
As a result, the public was given a far more definitive assessment of Iraq's plans and capabilities than President Bush and other U.S. decision-makers received from their intelligence agencies...
.....The public version contained the alarming warning that Iraq was capable of quickly developing biological warfare agents that could be delivered by "bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland." No such warning that Iraq's biological weapons could be delivered to United States appeared in the classified version....
...In a section on chemical weapons, the top-secret findings said the intelligence community had "little specific information on Iraq's CW (chemical weapons) stockpile." That caveat was deleted from the public version....
....Deleted from the public version was a line in the classified report that cast doubt on whether Saddam was prepared to support terrorist attacks on the United States, a danger that Bush and his top aides raised repeatedly in making their case for war...

The Jamaican Observer/Wayne Brown
Government by lying

...In an editorial on Thursday entitled 'Baghdad Is Bush's Blue Dress'*, the Los Angeles Times accused the Bush administration of complicity in 'arguably the greatest scandal in US history' and raised the spectre of impeachment....

*Robert Scheer was the author of the LA Times column..I've used the link from "Working for Change" so you won't have to register/sign in.

Home News Tribune/ 2/05/04
A sorrowful father writes to the president

Dear President Bush,

With heavy heart, tears in my eyes and a home full of sorrow, I pick up my pen to write you about a brave soldier, 2nd Lt. Seth J. Dvorin, U.S. Army. My son was killed in Iraq on Feb. 3, 2004 fighting in a war.
Seth was a good boy, well-mannered, smart, kind and understanding.
He joined the Army in an effort to serve his country. And serve his country he did. Seth made the ultimate sacrifice.

Burying a child will no doubt be the hardest task that his mother and I shall ever have to do. The one question I have, and the one question I would like you to answer, is, "Why did my son and every other soldier that was killed, maimed and wounded have to suffer settling your vendetta?"
My son is gone just when he was laying a strong foundation to build upon for the rest of his life.

Now, President Bush, his life has been snuffed out in a meaningless war.
Where are all the weapons of mass destruction, where are the stock piles of chemical and biological weapons?

Please President, pray for all our fallen heroes and as a tribute to these heroes get our boys and girls out of Iraq now, before too much more blood is shed.
Since you waged this unnecessary war on Saddam Hussein the world has become a horrible place to live in.

I know my boy is safe now, in a new world free of hate and prejudices where GOD is his president, but you tell me President Bush why he had to go so soon and in such a violent way.

Respectfully yours,
Richard M. Dvorin

I hope Mr. Dvorin and his family do not mind me reprinting his heartfelt letter here on the blog. I would like to think he'd like as many to read it as possible. I feel it is the least we can do for him, other than to pray and offer sincere condolences. The same questions have haunted me, but I know I do not suffer as he now suffers. My heart is with him and all the troops and their families who loyally serve this country.

MSNBC: Russert interviews Bush
TRANSCRIPT HERE

"I don't think America can stand by and hope for the best from a madman."



"In other words, you can't rely upon a madman, and he was a madman. You can't rely upon him making rational decisions when it comes to war and peace.."

"I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a madman. He's a dangerous man.."

*I know what he means. He's gotta go in November 2004.

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

One of the most shaky/flimsy answers by Bush could be found here:

Russert: In light of not finding the weapons of mass destruction, do you believe the war in Iraq is a war of choice or a war of necessity?

President Bush: I think that's an interesting question. Please elaborate on that a little bit. A war of choice or a war of necessity? It's a war of necessity. We-- in my judgment, we had no choice when we look at the intelligence I looked at.. that says the man was a threat. And you know, we will find out about the weapons of mass destruction that we all thought were there. That's part of the Iraqi survey group and the group I put together to look at.
But again, I repeat to you, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but David Kay, who is the man who led the Iraqi survey group, who has now returned with an interim report, clearly said that the place was a dangerous place. When asked if President Bush had done had made the right decision, he said yes. In other words, the evidence we have uncovered thus far says we had no choice.

To which I could only think to say:
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?????!??

* Bush is doing his simpleton-best to screw with American minds by using these stupid semantic tricks. U.S. soldiers continue to die each day. These idiotic word games can't hide the truth anymore. I think most people in this nation are finally "on" to this incredibly ignorant leader. The Iraq war was unnecessary, unjust, and costly. It's not too late to turn it around..to "hold Bush to his lie"... and make this a worldwide effort to bring true justice and humane, non-market-concern-based support to the people of Iraq. It's not too late to find a way to win hearts and minds. Bush cannot do it, though..and in this very interview he promised he would not change for anyone..for any poll..for anything. Along with his tax cuts, he has nearly bankrupted the nation and stripped us of our jobs....blaming Clinton, bin Laden, and Hussein instead of taking personal responsibility. We are left with no choice..he must go in 2004. *

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

ATRIOS noticed some interesting reviews from NRO. *c/o Calpundit.

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

BushWatch
How Russert Gave Bush A Pass On The AWOL Question

Looking For Your Own Face


Your face is neither infinite nor ephemeral.
You can never see your own face,
only a reflection, not the face itself.

So you sigh in front of mirrors
and cloud the surface.



It's better to keep your breath cold.
Hold it, like a diver does in the ocean.
One slight movement, the mirror-image goes.

Don't be dead or asleep or awake.
Don't be anything.

What you most want,
what you travel around wishing to find,
lose yourself as lovers lose themselves,
and you'll be that.

--Attar
Persian Sufi poet, 12th Century
as translated by Coleman Barks

Village Voice/Suitcases from an insane asylum tell of lives long lost
What They Left Behind

Craig Williams, a curator at the New York State Museum, drove four hours to visit Willard Psychiatric Center in the spring of 1995. The complex, located 65 miles southwest of Syracuse, was about to shut down after more than 100 years. Williams figured he would be able to pick up some artifacts—maybe some antique furniture or a few nurses' uniforms. A staffer suggested he check out the attic of an abandoned building, and that's when he found 400 suitcases covered by decades of dust and pigeon droppings.

These suitcases bore the names of former patients. Inside were their long-forgotten possessions: snapshots, diaries, postcards, books, letters, news clippings. For Williams, finding these suitcases was the equivalent of stumbling upon a buried chest of gold. "You'd open these suitcases, and you could so clearly sense and feel a personality and a humanity," he recalls. He didn't know it at the time, but these dusty trunks would change the course of his life, sparking a mission that would stretch on for the next nine years—first to uncover the stories of the suitcases' owners, and then to present them to the public....

See the article for the biographies of some of the former Willard patients. They are adapted from materials featured in an exhibit titled "Lost Cases, Recovered Lives: Suitcases from a State Hospital Attic". It will be on display at the New York State Museum in Albany, N.Y. until September 19.