ABC Docudrama: Neglecting Pre 9/11 and Post 9/11 Realities?

ABC Docudrama: Neglecting Pre 9/11 and Post 9/11 Realities?

At Daily Kos, blogger theyreal is reporting that there's an upcoming ABC docudrama that will blame Clinton and Democrats for 9/11. Allegedly, Conservative leaders are pumping it up for all its worth.

Disgusting.

Who's failed to capture Osama Bin Laden each and every day for the past 5 years?
George W. Bush, thanks to the divisive, failed, and stubborn perversion he calls a foreign policy.

After all the educated warnings given to the Bush administration by the likes of Richard Clarke and Sandy Berger. they knew - don't let anyone tell you that the Bush administation didn't know that attacks were imminent in this country.

Their bungling and hanging out at the Texas ranch while death warrants were being written by Bin Laden for innocent American civilians can't easily be passed off to the Clinton administration, because Clinton knew about the danger all along and tried, actively and intelligently, to warn and protect us!

In the pre-9/11 world, back in the late 90s when rightwing as*holes were doing all they could to hunt and drag down the POTUS, they contributed directly to exposing our nation to sheer peril. Rightwing trash poo-pooed terrorism warninings and cried out for appeasing Bin Laden themselves - all at the expense of President Clinton's credibility.

It's high time for former President Clinton to get real - to get angry - and to speak out.

~~~~~~~~

The most important point to remember, in my opinion, is that we had a pre 9-11 world and a post-9-11 world.

Those worlds are nearly strangers to one another.

Look at this information from an AP article in 2004 about the preliminary findings of the 9/11 Commission:

Both civilian and military officials of the Defense Department said that neither Congress nor the American public would have supported large-scale military operations in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001.

The GOP Clinton-witch-hunters would have gone all 'WAG-THE-DOG' on Clinton if he'd asked for a ground war on terror. They would have accused him of creating distractions to get America's mind off Monica Lewinsky. That's how much these rightwing bozos thought (and cared) about the threat of terrorism.

Here's just ONE horrific (but true) example from a 1999 article by rightwing harpy Phyllis Shlafly about Bill Clinton and his clear pre-9/11 world terrorism warnings. Schlafly tired to make Clinton look like a liar and an exaggerator. This was the late 90s-MO of rightwing fools and detractors, and we can see how it actually harmed American security via political shenanigans that bordered on evil intent. This is from Schlafly in 1997 (my own comments are in bold letters):

"...Bill Clinton is riding high since his "not guilty" verdict and, unfortunately, the Republican Congress is letting him get away with his foreign and domestic grabs for power. Kosovo is much more important to Americans than just pictures on the evening television news about a faraway conflict.

First, it's a "wag the dog" public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the "life is truer than fiction" movie Wag the Dog. The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to "move on" from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence.........

Second, by putting U.S. troops in Kosovo, Clinton is provoking terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals connected to Saudi renegade Osama bin Laden, who has declared a worldwide war on Americans. Fanatics bent on jihad against the "Great Satan" United States could hardly ask for a more tempting target than Americans deployed close to terrorist bases in northern Albania.

(note: It appeared Schlafly would rather have had us appease than fight so Bin Laden wouldn't bother us. In reality, Schlafly was wrong, anyhow. Bin Laden was supportive of Albanian Muslims/KLA, and curiously, so was the U.S.).

..Even more dangerous, entering the Kosovo war may provoke terrorist retaliation within the United States. It's not only our U.S. troops who will be put in mortal danger. Bin Laden has stated unequivocally that all Americans, including "those who pay taxes," are targets.

(*note: So we should have appeased Bin Laden??)

Clinton predicted on January 22 that it is "highly likely" that a terrorist group will attack on American soil within the next few years. He is using this risk as the excuse to create a Domestic Terrorism Team headed by a military "commander in chief," with a $2.8 billion budget. We should not underestimate the deceit and deviousness of Clinton's plans to use aggressive presidential actions to wipe out public memory of his impeachment trial......

(*note: An excuse. Hear that? Using terrorism as an excuse.....what a fool this woman was - as were so many like her at the time.)


Clinton has already issued a Presidential Decision Directive to authorize military intervention against terrorism on our own soil. Secretary of Defense William Cohen said in an Army Times interview that "Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection."

Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre has been floating the idea of designating a unit of U.S. troops as a Homelands Defense Command to take charge in case of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Hamre argues that the military's role should be formalized under a four-star general, and he has even speculated about creating a bi-national command with Canada called the "Atlantic Command."

(*And you thought Homeland Security was Bush's idea, right?)


The far-reaching nature of the plans being discussed within the Clinton Administration is indicated in the Autumn 1997 Parameters, the scholarly publication of the Army War College. The article predicts that "the growing prospect of terrorism in our own country . . . will almost inevitably trigger an intervention by the military." The article casually adds, "legal niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern."

(*note: General Tommy Franks recently said the same thing about those "legal niceties".)


The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 is supposed to protect us against a President using the Army to enforce the law against civilians. The spectacle of the military patrolling the streets of U.S. cities is something that should happen only in totalitarian countries and in movies like The Siege....."

(*note: And yet rightwingers think Bush's idea to take a chunk out of Posse Comitatus is fine and dandy.)


--Phillis Schlafly [Schlafly Report March, 1999]

This is how divisive politics helped bring about 9-11. Shame on all who participated then..and now.

__________

UPDATE: Members of Bill Clinton's administration are furious over having been so blatantly misrepresented by this Disney disinformation drama.

Quote of the Day - David Sirota

Quote of the Day - David Sirota

My featured quote of the day is from David Sirota. He's talking about the Washington Post's front page story this Sunday about the Democratic Party's position on the Iraq War, in which he believes the newspaper makes a highly misleading statement about the Republican Party's position:

"Here's the thing - politicians either support a plan to draw down troops at some point in the future, or they support leaving U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely. There is no "middle ground" and there is no "third way." Being for one of those positions automatically means you are against the other position, and vice versa - it's a zero sum question, no matter how much the Washington Post, the Beltway neoconservatives or D.C. Republican Party operatives try to fudge the issue with warmed over double talk. In other words, this is the one of the times where Bush's black-or-white world view is actually applicable: you are either for ultimately bringing troops home, or you are against ultimately bringing troops home - and thus for leaving them as targets in the Iraqi shooting gallery indefinitely."

Mr. Sirota's entire opinion can be seen at his Daily Kos diary.

After Katrina: Bush and GOP Have Neglected Poverty

After Katrina: Bush and GOP Have Neglected Poverty

On today's Fox News, Bush point-man on Hurricane Katrina, Don Powell, proved to America that the Bush adminstration is intent upon rebuilding the curtain that hid the face of poverty from our eyes for far too many years in the city of New Orleans. Mr. Powell appeared proud to say that he was satisfied that the ports, energy, and tourism were "back." He said nothing about the President's blatantly broken promises to attend to the poverty that has been so pervasive in the city. If anyone who heard Mr. Powell speak on Fox News this morning had suspected that the government's slow response to the hurricane was due to racism or class discrimination, their concerns may have been further reinforced. Don Powell looked like he didn't care about the people while he was concentrating on the fact that the money-machine was rolling in the region.

Shortly after Katrina, George Lakoff had best explained how the hurricane had moved the issue of poverty into the forefront of America's consciousness:

"The Katrina tragedy should become a watershed in American politics. This was when the usually invisible people suddenly appeared in all the anguish of their lives -- the impoverished, the old, the infirm, the kids and the low-wage workers with no cars, TVs or credit cards. They showed up on America's doorsteps, entered the living rooms and stayed. Katrina will not go away soon, and she has the power to change America."

Last September, NY Times columnist David Brooks had anticipated "political disturbance" because of the fact that the victims of the terrible storm were predominantly black and poor. He explained how floods are also civic examinations. He said:

"Amid all the stories that recur with every disaster - tales of sudden death and miraculous survival, the displacement and the disease - there is also the testing. Civic arrangements work or they fail. Leaders are found worthy or wanting. What's happening in New Orleans and Mississippi today is a human tragedy. But take a close look at the people you see wandering, devastated, around New Orleans: they are predominantly black and poor. The political disturbances are still to come."

Almost a year ago in his Jackson Square speech, President Bush said that "the floodwaters exposed a deep-seated poverty that has cut people off from the opportunities of our country," yet he hasn't taken discernable steps to do a thing about it. Newsweek's Jonathan Alter mentions an article written one year ago that suggested the hurricane's wrath had prompted a fresh look at "The Other America" — the 37 million Americans living below the poverty line. Today, Mr. Alter points out that the federal government's neglect of the problems of the poor is not in the least "benign." Congress has been MIA on the issue of Poverty, and if you look at their tax cuts for the wealthy and their immoral budgeting efforts, it is easy to get a sense that this Republican-controlled governnment firmly agrees with Grover Norquist's "drown American social safety net in the bathtub" style of governing.

It is evident that the Philadelphia Inquirer's editors can see the forest for the trees in their editorial:

In the days and weeks that followed [Katrina], pundits, politicians and others expressed remorse that their nation had allowed the situation to get so out of hand in New Orleans. Not just post-Katrina, but before, when the poverty that made the storm's victims so vulnerable was cultivated. Their hand-wringing commentaries got the president's attention and focused the nation's attention on the many holes in its safety net - for about 11 seconds. That was then, and this is now. A year later, Washington's approach to the issue of poverty amid plenty in America is little changed: Ignore it as much as you can.

Newsweek's Michael Eric Dyson suggests that those who experienced a heightened state of consciousness about poverty after Katrina and focused on the government's need to attend to the problems of the poor that affect us all have been disappointed by the Bush administration and GOP-led Congress in the past year, when they had every opportunity to use their power to do something aboout it. Instead, the president (with a willing GOP-controlled Congress} have "failed to foster public policy and legislation that helps the poor to escape their plight. Instead, Mr. Dyson suggests, President Bush "remains intent on slashing tens of billions from social programs that help the poor combat such a vicious legacy.":

In the aftermath of the tragedy, Katrina’s violent winds and killing waters swept into the mainstream a stark realization: the nation’s poor had been abandoned by society and its institutions long before the storm. Since then, we have failed to acknowledge that grinding poverty is fueled by social choices and public-policy decisions that directly impact how many people are poor and how long they remain that way.

Over 70% of the Dutch economy operates below sea level and over 70 percent of the deaths from Hurricane Katrina were (mostly poor) people over 60 years old. Half a telephone directory after the worst natural disaster in America's recent history, the Bush administration and GOP-controlled Congress have shown that, with all of its wealth, their America isn't an efficient or caring place. If we were to be politically caustic, Katrina's wrath which took more than 1,000 (mostly poor) people in the city and displaced tens of thousands (mostly poor) people could easily be seen as a helpful Republican tool for eradicating poverty from New Orleans.

The tragedy surrounding Katrina had morally called, required, and empowered all of us to change America. It had driven Senator and 2004 VP candidate John Edwards’ “Two Americas” message front and center – and straight into our hearts and minds. American citizens heard the call, and what did the Bush administration and GOP-controlled Congress do about poverty? They ignored it after enough time had passed and once they felt that the cry of the poor had left the consciousness of the American public. They went on to pass one of the most immoral budgets ever seen and they are fighting minimum wage increase unless it comes in a package with more obscene tax cuts for the richest.

D. James Kennedy Is An Irresponsible, Manipulative Extremist

D. James Kennedy Is An Irresponsible, Manipulative Extremist

We have to question D. James Kennedy's sense of ethics and motivation as he defends his pseudo-documentary about a Darwin-Hitler link. John Dean has written about Michelle Goldberg's study of the rise of Christian Nationalism and said that, although Kennedy is a lesser-known figure, he is now a key player in Christian nationalism. Kennedy's latest efforts seem to speak far less of spiritual faith and much more of extremist manipulation. His abuse of power as a spiritual and religious leader is most irresponsible and highly unfortunate. The Anti-Defamation League, whose mission is to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all citizens alike, is boldly denouncing a television documentary produced by the extremist Christian broadcaster and his Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust.

Can you believe it? As a Christian, I clearly see that Kennedy is making a mockery of our Christian sensibilities as human beings in a world where we are perfectly aware that we don't have all the answers. P.Z. Myers shows how the Coral Ridge Ministries is revising their blurb about the upcoming broadcast - and it's apparently changing by the moment. Frederick Carlson points out to the fact that the brash rightwing pundit Ann Coulter follows Kennedy, one of the leaders of the schism known as Presbyterian Church in America. Go figure.


Orac of Science Blogs has more. Pam Spaulding points out that the wingnut crowd will be in their glory watching this crap. Ellis Weiner asks in his own delightfully humorous way:

I'm stunned. How could I have gone through twelve years of public school, and six years of Hebrew school, and four years of college, and two years of drum lessons, and still not know that the deadly career of the world-famous dictator, Adolph Hitler, is directly attributable to Jesus Christ?

Waterfall

Waterfall


photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell


Waterfall
Nothing can harm me at all
My worries seem so very small
With my waterfall

I can see
My rainbow calling me
Through the misty breeze
Of my waterfall

Some people say
Daydreaming's for all the
Lazy minded fools
With nothin' else to do
So let them laugh, laugh at me
So just as long as I have you
To see me through
As long as I have you

Waterfall
Don't ever change your ways
Fall with me for a million days
Oh, my waterfall

- Jimi Hendrix

Bush & GOP Create Fear and Exaggerations on Iran Threat

Bush & GOP Create Fear and Exaggerations on Iran Threat

Can you believe they're doing this again - and expecting Americans to stand by and trust their word?

It seems to me that 2006 is coming and these desperate men and women of the politically fundamentalist right will go to any length to make us think we need to take military action against Iran...when we know that this demented brand of foreign policy is strengthening Iran's hand in the Middle East.

I can't help but think, after the Iraq fiasco, that this public overreaction on the part of the extremist Republicans will backfire on them. The fear-mongerers and neocons continue to wave war around like a loaded gun when, in reality, the only surplus of loaded guns are being recalled to chaotic Iraq.

Blogging theologian Tim Simpson has been rendered almost speechless by the audacity of those in the Bush administration and Congress who are once again leaning heaviliy on our intelligence agents for the purpose of sheer manipulation and apparently for the manufacturing of bogus rationales for our nation to go to war - something that should always be a last resort! Ray McGovern's talking about Hoekstra's Hoax. Professional intelligence officers were "as a courtesy" invited to provide input to Hoekstra's report, but there is no evidence they contributed. Have Bush and his rubber-stamping crew lost their minds? Many out there are thinking and wondering if, indeed, these people have lost their minds; they wonder what Bush has up his sleeve; and if Bush will act as a king or an American president.

Steve Soto wonders why the Bush administration would go the non-UN "sanction-lite" route if they still planned military action.



Bush's obsession with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only serving to endanger despairing human rights activists like Shirin Ebadi and Ahmed Batebi, who were making better strides for progress in Iran before the Iraq war fiasco contributed to a fundamentalist hardliner being elected there.

Timothy Samuel Shah , who is a Senior Fellow in Religion and World Affairs, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, talks about this political trend - hardliners being elected worldwide due to the fact that religion and "God" are winning everywhere in world politics - and I'm not talking about the God that tells us to love our enemies. When Jesus said, "Love your enemies," we can safely assume he meant don't kill them.

Responding to the New Pro-War McCarthyism

Responding to the New Pro-War McCarthyism
Weekly Action Coalition

Most Americans believe the Iraq War was a mistake. However, due to blatant efforts to confuse and mislead, some Americans still associate the war in Iraq with 9/11 and the war against al-Qaeda. Desperate supporters of the President's failed policy are stooping to levels of political trash talk that can only be described as a New McCarthyism.. Here are three examples and some well-considered replies from the past week alone.



Vice Preident Dick Cheney as quoted in the Washington Post:

The vice president suggested that Lamont's victory might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

He portrayed the Democratic Party as preferring that the United States "retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home." (snip)...

(Sen Harry) Reid took issue with the vice president's comments, saying, "This situation isn't going well and anyone that suggests that the people of Connecticut are somehow supporting terrorists, I don't think that's credible and that's what Cheney suggested."



c/o Boston Globe By Robert Kuttner :


There are really several different policy challenges and debates here. If you disentangle them, it adds up to a stunning indictment of Bush.

Did Al Qaeda have any connection to Saddam Hussein? (No.)

Was Bush's Iraq war a debilitating diversion of attention and resources from the more important ongoing battle against Al Qaeda? (Yes.)

Did Bush spend most of 2001 blowing off warnings about Al Qaeda, shutting out people like national security official Richard Clarke who actually knew something about terrorism, and ignoring escalating warnings of a plot in progress? (Yes.)

Has the Iraq war made America a more effective force for stability and against militant Islamism? (No.)

Did Bush's grand strategy advance the cause of Middle East democracy and civility? (No.)

Does Bush's larger design for the Middle East make Israel more secure? (No.)

Can we have effective levels of surveillance against terrorism and still remain a constitutional democracy with liberties for law-abiding Americans? (Yes -- but this administration is needlessly jeopardizing those liberties, and bungling intelligence operations despite expanded resources.)

Does Bush's contempt for government impede his administration's ability to use government to promote national security? (Yes.)

With hundreds of millions of ordinary Muslims increasingly disgusted and alienated by Bush's policy, can't we just settle this thing once and for all, with an Armageddon to take out Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda, in one fell swoop? (No!)

This argument isn't about who supports terrorists. It's about the right strategy for protecting America. And ever since this president took office, his policies have set back that cause.

Undaunted, the right will be relentlessly pounding one story: Republicans will keep you safe, Democrats won't. Meanwhile, the far right allied with Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld will be pounding Bush to widen the war and compound the damage.



c/o Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:


{Russ) Feingold's reaction to Tuesday's Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut, where incumbent Joe Lieberman fell to challenger Ned Lamont.

"Among the most significant election results in recent years," Feingold judged. He said Lamont's win showed "the American people's enormous frustration with our policy in Iraq."

To Randy from Oregon, Feingold called the war "a mistake" in the "larger fight against those terrorists who attacked us on 9-11."

The senator added: "The phony arguments for going into the war in Iraq are now being matched by the phony arguments to stay in Iraq, and the public realizes the administration is trying to deceive them again."


Reply three:

In fact, as Juan Cole notes: "Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas said the administration's "poor management" in Iraq "has created a rallying cry for international terrorists" and "diverted our focus, our military and more than $US300 billion from the war on terrorism." Pryor said US ports, borders and chemical plants remain unsecured, emergency personnel lack critical resources and the military, including the National Guard, was stretched. "It's time for Washington to be tough and smart about the threats we face," he said. "Americans deserve real security, not just leaders who talk tough but fail to deliver."



MCCARTHYIST EXAMPLE # 2.


From the Washington Post: Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, who lost Tuesday's Democratic primary and is now running as an independent, said the antiwar views of primary winner Ned Lamont would be "taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England."

: MARK SHIELDS: I mean, that is -- that isn't beyond the pale. I mean, that's just unacceptable. That is objectionable and unacceptable language, and it is totally alien to the Joe Lieberman that most of us have known and liked. I mean, it was -- it sounded like the desperate words of a desperate man who was really, you know, at the end of his rope.



Reply 2 from NY Times article :

"Senator Lieberman is sounding more and more like President Bush every day,” said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant. “He’s trying to demonstrate strength, but the risk is that he comes across as desperate.”

Gary L. Rose, a professor of politics at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., said he, too, was surprised that Mr. Lieberman would link anti-Western terrorists and Iraq, noting that many Democratic leaders separate those issues.

“Connecting the war on terror and the war in Iraq has been a Republican view mostly, and I think a lot of Connecticut voters don’t see a true link there,” Mr. Rose said.

Mr. Lamont hesitated when he was asked if Mr. Lieberman’s criticisms were beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat.

“To try to score political points on every international issue ——” Mr. Lamont said, before stopping himself. Then he added, “Why do I have to say anything?”



MCCARTHYIST EXAMPLE #3.)

The President of the United States, quoted in AFP. The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin.



Reply: c/o Reuters

We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter-productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group."We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he told a news conference in Washington. "We urge him (Bush) and we urge other public officials to restrain themselves.




Reply 2 Wikipedia

A number of academics, however, disagree with the use of the term fascism in this context. Roger Griffin believes it stretches the term fascist too far to apply the term 'fascism' to "so-called fundamentalist or terrorist forms of traditional religion (i.e. scripture or sacred text based with a strong sense of orthodoxy or orthodoxies rooted in traditional institutions and teachings)." He does, however, concede that the United States has seen the emergence of hybrids of political religion and fascism in such phenomena as the Nation of Islam and Christian Identity, and that Bin Laden's al Qaeda network may represent such a hybrid. He is unhappy with the term 'clerical fascism,' though, since he says that "in this case we are rather dealing with a variety of 'fascistized clericalism.'"

Get Well Wishes for Cindy Sheehan

Get Well Wishes for Cindy Sheehan


Wishing a swift recovery to Cindy Sheehan, who has written about her thoughts after having had surgery last week.

Cindy: You have our full support. May you heal and carry on strong, sister.


*photo of me and Cindy by David K. Beckwith

Curious George Gets Bugged

Curious George Gets Bugged

One day George was scolded because he was so curious about killin' things that he'd gotten carried away.

He looked at a wee rabbit and some pretty flowers.




"Can I kill these?" asks George.

The judge in the big black robe says, "No George, you may neither drive this beast nor these lovely flowers to the brink of extinction.




"How about this one? It ain't American, so it shouldn't matter.
Let me try out my spray on 'em," begs George.

"No, George, you may not," says the judge in the big black robe.




George asks, "How about them pests in them big white trailers down there in New Orleans? Can I do away with them?"

The judge in the big black robe says, "You tried that, already George. It almost worked. Maybe just one more hurricane...."

John Edwards on the Rise for 2008

John Edwards on the Rise for 2008

The NY Observer is reporting that Hillary Clinton's "Iowa predicament can be summarized in two words: John Edwards." Steve Kornacki says:

Consider yourself excused if you haven’t kept tabs on Mr. Edwards since 2004. Now an exiled former Senator based out of Chapel Hill, N.C., he has been toiling under the radar, and the opinion-shaping class in Washington sneers at his prospects. But look for yourself and you’ll find a new Mr. Edwards emerging before your eyes: an unreconstructed, Potomac-phobic crusader for economic justice who has persuasively repented for voting as a Senator to send America to war.

Chuck Todd sees John Edwards as a candidate who may naturally benefit from the new DNC primary calendar for 2008:

Think of this primary calendar schedule as a "draw" and then match up the candidates best positioned to run the table in those states.

Suddenly, you come up with another front-runner with Clinton: and his name isn't Mark Warner or Evan Bayh or John Kerry. It's John Edwards.

Organizationally, Edwards is in the best shape of anyone in Iowa. His close ties to the hotel labor workers give him an interesting leg up in Nevada. South Carolina is a primary he's already won once. About the only state where Edwards is weak is New Hampshire. And, frankly, if he wins Iowa and Nevada, New Hampshire support will gravitate to him. He's planted plenty of support seeds in the state, but he's just never been anyone's 1st or 2nd choice.

But let's forget geography for a minute and look at who is best positioned on the two biggest issues Democrats will debate between now and 2008 -- Iraq and electability. Edwards has become an unabashed opponent of the war and liberal activists in Iowa will remember that. That should play well in New Hampshire as well. He's also heavily courting labor and someday labor is going to matter again in a Democratic primary; at least that's what labor keeps telling itself. But the combination of labor and Iraq positions Edwards very neatly to Clinton's left, where she'll leave a vacuum since she's trying so hard right now to make herself electable in a general.

Fox News is reporting that Americans are giving John Edwards "a second look" for 2008 and they show how, in an August Gallup poll, Hillary Clinton's lead is diminishing while Edwards' is raising:

Thirty-five percent of respondents said [Hillary Clinton] was the Democrats' best bet compared to 24 percent who said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards would be a winner. Seventeen percent backed former Vice President Al Gore and 13 percent pointed to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's presidential candidate in 2004.

In June (June 1-4), the Gallup poll reported Hillary Rodham Clinton had a 36% rating among Democratic voters and John Edwards had had only 12%. Edwards has doubled his support among Democrats in two short months.

In the August Gallup poll, the gap between Clinton and Edwards is even smaller when the Republicans' opinion on the chance of a Democratic candidate defeating a Republican candidate comes into play.

In the following poll question, you can see that those who choose Edwards are firmest in their belief that no other Democratic candidate would prevail against a Republican in 2008. This shows strength in voter confidence toward John Edwards.

When You Can't Afford to Go Back Home Again..

When You Can't Afford to Go Back Home Again...

If you asked Americans, I'd wager that a significant amount of them would be ashamed to know that, after Katrina, many families who rented apartments in New Orleans will never be able to afford an apartment in New Orleans again.

LINK

[..] Before the storm, [Tina Moore] paid $415 a month for an apartment. Now those few available apartments are going for nearly twice that amount.

"I don't make that kind of money. Neither does my husband," she said. [..]


[..] According to a report released Wednesday by the Mississippi chapter of the NAACP many Gulf Coast residents like Moore who lost everything in the storm stand little chance of getting any of the billions in federal recovery dollars streaming into the region.

Nearly half of Gulf Coast residents were renters, not homeowners. Most of those residents, many of whom make up the Coast's working poor, are not eligible for a share of the $5.1 billion in Community Development Block Grant funds allocated to the state last December.

The report, which was produced in conjunction with the Rutgers University School of Public Policy, found that renters and low- to moderate-income residents face more hurdles to recovery and risk falling prey to predatory lenders.

The report praises the philanthropic efforts of charities and faith-based groups, but concludes those efforts are not enough to plug the gaps.

Minister Points to Old-Time Religion After Katrina

Minister Points to Old-Time Religion After Katrina

Katrina served to change one minister's church and faith focus from what he calls the focus of the "normal" American church toward a more ancient Biblical time - or a third world. On the first-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Rev. Cliff Nunn, pastor at the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, will preach at a Marietta church.

"I believe one of our major roles as clergy is interpreting this event for the rest of the country. We need to go to where they are and encourage them to come to where we are. If I can get them down here and get them a scouting trip, I can tell people we have a mission field down here. We need all the help and support we can get."

Pastor Cliff Nunn said First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans lost 46 pews, 184 hymnals and 92 Bibles when water filled the sanctuary to a depth of two feet. Photo credit: Evan Silverstein.
Caption credit: PC-USA

Katrina served to turn Reverend Nunn around after he saw what became of the people in his small parish.

....the storm upturned normal lives and so-called normal churches, he said. "The storm makes you into a church that is much more like the Old Testament image of the Israelites and the New Testament early church than our normal American church experience. There are people who are suffering and poor and who have diseases - and you don't typically have that in the normal American church. And so people feel like they have been made abnormal. I used to have some poor people in my church. Well, now I have a whole bunch of people with a whole set of problems."

What he says here reminds me of the Biblical references to lepers.

It doesn't matter to the volunteers who've traveled to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast - Republican, Democrat, church, religious affiliation - people who are willing to help their fellow men and women in New Orleans are finding their "own circle"...and this circle reminds Reverend Nunn of the earliest Christians at a time when the passions were pure and the motivation was nothing more than the message of love.

Since Katrina Hit the Gulf Coast

Since Katrina Hit the Gulf Coast...

At the most recent count, 1,836 people lost their lives as a result of the storm, with a further 150 still unaccounted for almost a year after the event. (some say 1723). Forty nine victims remain unidentified. Developers want to bulldoze the areas where the poorest populations resided. Many of those people are still waiting to get their possessions out of their condemned apartments.

Outside the tourist areas, New Orleans seems ghostly a year after Katrina. Shopping plazas are boarded up in empty parking lots. In one article, a comment was made that "ruined belongings are still piled up in yards, and it looks like a week has passed since Hurricane Katrina, not a year."

Less than half of city's 450,000 population have gone back to their homes one year after Katrina. Newsweek has a new article about where the storm evacuees are today. Many of the 25,000 to 50,000 evacuees in Baton Rouge, Louisiana today are uninsured, and hundreds are still living in FEMA trailer villages—unsure how to start anew, with no place else to go. A Texas state-funded survey released recently implies that most of the quarter of a million Katrina evacuees still living in Texas don't have jobs and nearly half live in households with incomes of less than $500 a month.

More than one hundred thousand Gulf Coast residents have been living in FEMA trailers, which recently have been the focus of health and safety concerns. In St. Bernard parish, nearly 1,200 families are still waiting to get into trailers that sit locked on their home sites but need utilities or other services and an additional 400 families who were made homeless by Katrina are still waiting for trailers. Until recently, FEMA was not allowing residents in FEMA camps to speak freely with the press. Some families have been waiting since last October for a huge pile of sand left by the levee break to be removed from their back-yards so they could begin to repair and rebuild. In some spots, the sand was higher than the window sills of the homes.



Eldo and Julia Allen's story is a testament to the kind of government failure that cuts to the soul's core. Say a prayer for them tonight as Katrina's anniversary draws near.

American Psycho Blames American Psyche

American Psycho Blames American Psyche

Psyche is defined as the seat of the faculty of reason.

George W. Bush says the American psyche is "strained."

Given the fact that Bush flatly refuses to campaign for the Republican candidate in Connecticut - just because Joe Lieberman supports the Iraq war - shows that Bush's own reasoning faculties are intact and that the psyche of the Republican National Committee is hard at their desperate work.

With his usual fuggly grimace, Dick Cheney adds to the psyche strain by blatantly suggesting that Connecticut voters are aiding the terrorists by having democratically chosen someone in the Connecticut primary who strips the emperor of the paper-thin veil of clothing he's got left.

The Bush administration has been a miserable and embarrassing failure in Middle East policy. And Bush blames the psyche of the Americans, in yet another astounding attempted escape from accountability, for his own responsibility for the faliure in Iraq.

The American people are smart enough to have reasoned it all out by now. If there is an effect on the American psyche, it comes with the innate ability to reason with which each human is potentially equipped by the Creator.

What Bush is really saying is: Americans aren't stupid. They see my complete failure. They're concerned. They're going to vote for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 because Democrats won't only bring tax relief to the middle class, they will bring death-relief, disaster-relief, and failure-relief.

What better way is there to unstrain the psyche?

Mary Beth Maziarz

Mary Beth Maziarz

Listen to the sweet voice of Mary Beth Maziarz singing A More Perfect World. This YouTube video is a creation by " mnemosyne23" featuring the characters Jim and Pam from an NBC show that I love - "The Office".



Note: The YouTube video is strictly from the creator's own artistic ideas, not an actual production of The Office show. Mary Beth's songs have been heard on TV shows like Dawson's Creek, Everwood, Beautiful People, and Joan of Arcadia

Bush's Strategy....

Bush's Strategy....



"The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams.."

- George W. Bush, August 21, 2006

A Year After: Katrina Poverty Ignored - Poor Berated by Some

A Year After: Katrina Poverty Ignored - Poor Berated by Some

I added some links to this excerpt from a Shreveport Times op-ed from a Louisiana minister who has been highly disappointed about the political rhetoric of false promise and the lack of action on poverty.

As the anniversary of Katrina approaches, I wonder what happened to the great debate on poverty in America.

Shortly after the hurricane, politicians on the right, left and in the center were talking about the ugliness of poverty. Even the president stood in New Orleans' Jackson Square and spoke about the deep, persistent poverty in the Gulf Coast region. Promises of action were made. So, what happened since?

Not much. But that shouldn't be surprising. After all, talk is cheap.

We've all seen political opportunism before. The reality is there is more political traction to be gained by playing the politics of terror and politics of religiosity than the politics of helping those in need. Recent elections bear out that there is no political pressure on elected officials or points to be made helping poor people. Too many people believe the poor are either not poor enough or they are poor by choice. Not to mention those who see the poor purely through the prism of race and therefore say, "why bother?" While many Americans were truly generous and briefly remorseful there still are those who saw Katrina as just another opportunity to berate the poor and underprivileged.

The federal poverty level for a family of four is $18,400. However, realistic evidence shows at least double the amount considered poverty is needed for most families to provide basic necessities like adequate food, stable housing and health care. The families who live in a sort of "gray area" between "official" poverty and minimum economic security share many of the material hardships and financial pressures "officially" poor families face. Studies suggest approximately 40 percent of all American children live in low-income households.

That's troubling.

Let's face it, the talk about a new attack on poverty was dead in the political water from the start. While Katrina momentarily increased empathy for the poor, it didn't alter the public attitudes of likely voters toward them. What is unfortunate is that people tend to equate the terms poverty and welfare. While we all saw the horrible depictions of the elderly trapped in the scorching heat without medicine or children trapped on rooftops all some people could think about were welfare checks.

Someday, politicians of all stripes will take poverty seriously. And someday, propagandists will stop framing poverty as an issue of laziness.

That day may come when attitudes change.

- Gregory Hudson, a local minister from Shreveport, La.

DSCC Leader Mark Pryor Betrays democracy and Democrats

DSCC Leader Mark Pryor Betrays democracy and Democrats

In my book, any Democrat who would ignore the Connecticut Democratic primary voters' choice Ned Lamont - like DSCC vice-chairman Mark Pryor who so disrespects real Democrats and trashes traditional democracy - is a blatant betrayer of his own party and of the American way.



Pryor's the same turncoat who sided with the Republican party and the Bush administration in favor of using torture as an interrogation tactic. America wants its values back!

Experts: Bush Foreign Policy A Bigger Security Threat than Iran

Experts: Bush Foreign Policy A Bigger Security Threat than Iran

This is a must-see from Foreign Policy Magazine. Click on each section below to read how more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy experts rated Bush's War on Terror.

McCain Would Heap More U.S. Troops on Iraq Mess

McCain Would Heap More U.S. Troops on Iraq Mess

On Meet the Press this morning, Senator John McCain rightfully criticized the Bush administration's many Iraq war blunders, but I felt that his failure - and his calculated resistance - to put any responsibility directly with the President of the United States was rationally ludicrous and it made McCain look like Eddie Haskell from the old Leave it to Beaver series.

SEN. MCCAIN: "It’s never been the right strategy as far as I’m concerned, since the beginning when I came back from my first trip to Iraq after every military person, including the British, told me that we didn’t have sufficient troops to control the situation."

Eddie Haskell was a well known insincere brown-noser. McCain talks about Bush like Eddie Haskell used to talk to Ward and June Cleaver. Kiss-up city. He verbally whips Donald Rumsfeld, but he tells us what a wonderful job President Bush is doing. Bah! Who does he think he's kidding? He tells us that there were never enough troops to do the job - as if that's news to us. That water that went under the bridge almost four wasted years ago.

I wondered why McCain would have spoken so highly of Bush at the 2004 RNC convention when he told David Gregory this morning that he had anticipated many problems because of the insufficient number of troops in Iraq.

He was overly critical, in my opinion, of General Peter Pace's recent comments about the state of the Iraq war - seemingly attempting to make General Pace look naive - while McCain defended the Commander in Chief and himself at every step of the Meet the Press interview.

How to insult General Pace, then go wobbly on the reality of civil war and what to do about it:

SEN. McCAIN: General Pace, you said there’s a possibility of the situation in Iraq evolving into civil war. Is that correct?

GEN. PETER PACE: I did say that, yes, sir.

SEN. McCAIN: Did you anticipate this situation a year ago?

GEN. PACE: No, sir.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Why was that an important question and what did the answer tell you?

SEN. McCAIN: Because many of us anticipated that we would have greater difficulties because of the lack of troops on the ground and the lack of the elected government in Iraq from, from being able to stand up and from the problems with the police that many of us thought that it might—that this deterioration may take place. And we expect our leaders to anticipate things in war, we really do. And so because we don’t anticipate, then you are surprised.

"MR. GREGORY: Should U.S. troops remain in Iraq if they are in the middle of a civil war?

SEN. McCAIN: I think that that’s a very difficult decision because you’d have to, to decide whether we can have an effect on a civil war if it was taking place in Iraq, so I don’t know the answer."

"I’m not sure that it’s turned into a civil war."

McCain's answer is pouring more troops onto a four-year old disaster that has turned to an undeclared (and hotly burning) civil war.

"DAVID GREGORY: ...do you need more U.S. soldiers on the ground now?

SEN. McCAIN: I think so.."

More troops - and from where, you ask? I would have hoped David Gregory would have pinned McCain down on that one - where is he going to get these troops? A draft, perhaps? I really don't think an uneasy public is going to go gently toward that idea. McCain said - with much bravado - that President Bush doesn't pay attention to public opinion. More troops in Mess'o'potamia? Is McCain brown-nosing to get Rumsfeld's job, perhaps? (Who'd want it?)I think John 'Eddie Haskell' McCain had better think this one out again. Ward and June didn't like 'The Beave' and Wally hanging out with Eddie. Like Ward and June, many Americans won't be comfy with a weasly wobbler like John McCain hanging around our Oval Office. His respect for the President is more fake than Eddie's greasy compliments to Mrs. Cleaver.

Real Americans want to bring our troops home and see our leaders call a spade a spade.