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.