Pol Pot or Pot Roast?

Pol Pot or Pot Roast?




"It's not Pol Pot at Gauntanamo -





It's Pot Roast!"

- Tom Price, Republican Congressman from Georgia, on the floor of the House today

Price was hyperbolically whining for an apology from Sen. Dick Durbin, while totally neglecting to lend honest intelligence to Durbin's call to ethics and honor, which Durbin strongly and clearly sent.


Price

I think my message above graphically matches Congressman Tom Price's whiny hyperbole.

No one should apologize for waking Americans up to the truth and the call to honor and decency.

____________________________


Statement of Jamal al-Harith, former detainee at Guantanamo Bay:

I was moved [to Camp Xray/Gauntanamo Bay] on or about 11 February 2002. Before take-off I was hooded and shackled. Mittens were placed on my hands and earphones over my ears. Chains were placed around my legs and my waist. Goggles were placed on my eyes and the straps on the goggles were so tight they cut into my ears. A medical patch was placed on my forehead which I believe contained a muscle relaxant.

On arrival at Guantanamo I was placed on a barge to get me to the main camp. Whilst on the barge, US military forces kicked, slapped, elbowed and punched me in the body and head and they said repeatedly “You are now property of the United States Marine Corps.”

I was taken to Camp X-Ray, the prison camp for detainees. My goggles and hood were removed but I was told I must keep my eyes closed and I was not allowed to speak or move. My clothes were stripped off. I was placed in a shower. My chains were released so I could wash.

I was later placed in a wire cage of about 2 metres by about 11/2 metres to 2 metres. During my imprisonment by the United States Forces, I was deprived of access to my friends and family. I was never allowed any legal advice and never informed of any specific allegations or charges against me. I was repeatedly questioned to try to make me confess to something I had not done.

During the time I was detained by United States Forces I was subjected to systematic abuse which I have been informed amounts to torture under international law. I was assaulted on a number of occasions. This included being punched, kicked and slapped. In addition, I was subjected to a procedure called “short shackling” in painful “stress positions” for many hours at a time. This caused deep flesh wounds which have left me with permanent scarring on my wrists and ankles.

On occasions, unmuzzled dogs would be brought to my wire cage and encouraged to bark in a ferocious and threatening way. I was intentionally subjected to extremes of heat and cold for most of my stay whilst in Guantanamo. For long periods of my detention in Guantanamo I was kept in a filthy cage for 24 hours per day with no proper sanitation and no regular access to cleaning material. I was denied access to necessary medical care.

I was harassed in practising my religion. I was deprived of adequate food. I was deprived of adequate drinkable water. I was also deprived of communication with my family and friends. Very powerful spotlights were kept on during the night-time period which made it hard to sleep properly.

On "Obstruction"

On "Obstruction"

Toxic waste and shit are being pumped, by a strong, unnatural force, through the sewer pipe.
If that waste and shit escape the pipe, the ocean will be poisoned and diseased.

So what do you do?

Wouldn't you do everything you could do in order to to stop the force behind the waste and shit?

(Even though you realize 'God' may blow the shit through the pipe while you're on recess?)

Skippy Speaks and Will Soon Be Three

Skippy Speaks and Will Soon Be Three


Par-tay!

Skippy The Bush Kangaroo is having a Blogiversary soon. It will be their third. Go and wish them a Happy 3rd - and hear Skippy, himself, on the radio.

Love ya, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo-ers.. Happy Happy Joy Joy.

Quote of the Day

Quote of the Day

"We are talking here about creating the right political preconditions for moving populations toward a war, quite a different matter from not having decided on the war."

- -Tom Englehart, speaking about the page-11 David Sanger NYT piece ("Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made") that focused on the second of the Downing Street memos. Engelhart claimed that Sanger wrote as if reflecting a situation in which no "political decisions" had been made." Sanger employed no caveat or alternative possible explanation. Englehart feels that was a very bizarre way for Sanger to have showcased his piece.


See my own comments about Sanger's article at this June 13 post. I had given the article my "Most Misleading Headline of the Day" distinction.

The Memos Are Authentic

The Memos Are Authentic

At American Street, Hesiod has posted about confirmation of the authenticity of the Downing Street memos in a June 17th Newsweek article by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball.

The rightwing parlor trick isn't going to work as magically, this time, as it did when they sought Dan Rather's head.

Right Blogs Try to Turn Downing Street into A Rathergate

Right Blogs Try to Turn Downing Street into A Rathergate

Since I have a lot of content here, I wanted to point out this story which I wrote on Sunday morning.

Rush Limbaugh said something that I stated myself:

"...The Rathergate stuff, those memos are 20 years old written by a dead guy. I forget the name of the commanding officer at Bush's National Guard unit, but he's the guy that supposedly wrote them. These memos, the Downing Street memo, they're current. The people all involved are still alive and they haven't denied any of this and you would think they would if they were not true.."

Rush says he simply "isn't interested" in talking about the Downing Street memos. I don't blame him. He could create no spin that would work very well against the citizens who are concerned, especially the moms and dads who've lost kids in Iraq.

DSM: Texas Attorney Publically Demands Investigation

"As a citizen, taxpayer and voter, I believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government, representatives and commander in chief when representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war are made.

As a result, I have asked Congress to publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible."

- Channy Wood, an attorney in Amarillo, TX

DSM: Amarillo Attorney Publically Demands Investigation

The following is an opinion posted at Amarillo.com. LINK (registration required).

I write because of concern regarding The London Times' recent disclosures of a Downing Street Memo, comprising the minutes of a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers. These minutes indicate that the United States and Great Britain agreed, by the summer of 2002, to attack Iraq, well before the invasion and before congressional authority to engage in military action was sought, and that U.S. officials were deliberately manipulating intelligence to justify the war.

Among other things, the British government document quotes a high-ranking British official as stating that by July 2002, President George W. Bush had made up his mind to take military action. Yet a month later, Bush stated to the public that he was willing to llook at all optionsn and that there was "no timetable" for war. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld flatly stated that the president has made no such determination that we should go to war with Iraq.

In addition, the origins of the false contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction remain a serious and lingering question about the lead-up to the war. There is an ongoing debate about whether this was the result of a massive intelligence failure (in other words, a mistake) or the result of deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war. The memo appears to resolve that debate as well, quoting the head of British intelligence as indicating that in the United States, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

As a result of these concerns, I ask that Congress respond to the following questions:

- Do lawmakers dispute the accuracy of the Downing Street Memo?

- Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before congressional authorization to go to war was sought?

- Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

- At what point did Bush and Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

- Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to lfixn the intelligence and facts around the policy of going to war with Iraq as the leaked document states?

As a citizen, taxpayer and voter, I believe it is imperative that our people be able to trust our government, representatives and commander in chief when representations and statements regarding our nation engaging in war are made.

As a result, I have asked Congress to publicly respond to these questions as promptly as possible.

Nearly 2,000 American soldiers have given their lives in this war, and tens of thousands have served and been wounded, including men like Rob Winchester and Pat Tillman.

We must ensure that we do not ask the fighting men and women of this country to sacrifice their health, bodies and lives at the whim of the commander and chief.

These soldiers' lives are precious; the families they leave behind are precious. And the sacrifices they make deserve and honest response from our government.

I ask our Texas congressional delegation to join Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., in his effort to bring our troops home to their families.

Our troops and their families deserve that.

- Channy Wood

DSM Cartoons

credit: Pat Oliphant


credit: Walt Handelsman


credit:Toles

DSM: Tacoma News-Tribune's Opinion Conflicts With Prior Opinion on Bush Handling of Iraq War

DSM: Tacoma Tribune Makes Odd Decision to Ignore Facts in British Memos
Newspaper's Opinion Not in Keeping with Prior Opinion on Bush Handling of Iraq War

Last fall, the Tacoma News-Tribune had this opinion of Bush and the Iraq War:

President George Bush led America into war in Iraq certain that weapons of mass destruction would be found and destroyed. That proved to be an illusion. He sent our soldiers into Iraq, far too few of them, under the illusion that it would be a cakewalk – that American troops would be hailed as liberators and soon sent home.

However good it is to be rid of Saddam Hussein, the fact is that our venture into Iraq has become a disaster, sapping America’s blood and treasure with no end in sight. The U.S. will be mired in Iraq for years, perhaps more than a decade. The president prematurely declared victory. The mission is far from accomplished. The occupation has been bungled from the start. For that the president deserves to be held accountable, regardless of the merits of his initial decision to go to war.

Last week, the Defense Department revealed that the insurgent forces are greater than previously estimated. They have heavily infiltrated the Iraqi security forces that the administration is building in hopes of shedding some of the burden of policing Iraq. Worse yet, the guerrilla groups have virtually unlimited financial backing from sympathizers in our nominal ally, Saudi Arabia. America is not safer today because we went into Iraq. The opposite is true. The war against terror will not and cannot be won in Iraq. Terrorism is an amorphous enemy that knows no boundaries.

What we have done by occupying a Muslim country is make our nation and its citizens even greater targets for implacable enemies who have not one shred of respect for innocent human life. We have antagonized the allies whose help we need to successfully fight terror.

Here we are, eight short months later, with Iraq more of a disaster than ever, and the Downing Street documents have surfaced.

In today's News-Tribune, executive editor Dave Zeeck writes:

The memo created a political row in Britain during the elections. It became a story in the U.S. this month, when Bush and Blair, appearing together at the White House, were asked about it.

The memo seems genuine, but both men say it reveals nothing. Both say they still did everything possible to avert war and did not rig, spin or hide intelligence to justify an invasion.

I’ve read all the memos and, while I think they’re an interesting window into history, I don’t think they tell us anything we didn’t already know: The Bush administration was spoiling for a fight with Iraq (even though they exhausted every bit of U.N. pressure before invading) and they used intelligence regarding WMD (which we now know was flawed) to support the case for war.

Nothing in the Downing Street memos proves the U.S. had determined war was inevitable in July 2002 or that it knew at the time the intelligence was wrong.

Zeeck is willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By dismissing the British documents altogether, he forgets that his own newspaper, just last fall, believed that Bush needed to be held accountable for bungling the post-war. In these British documents, you will find this statement from the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Tony Blair and top government officials. "C" refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

This statement raises questions and should raise eyebrows, especially after we see the strong prior statement from the News-Tribune. Why is the editor so quick to want to dismiss the official British government information? This isn't only about the decision to go to war, it is about the RUSH to an unprecedented type of (preventive) war for which there was no post-war plan. Americans deserve a follow-up investigation. I'd like Mr. Zeeck to look any of us in the eye, especially parents who've lost sons and daughters in this war, and tell us why we citizens don't deserve a follow-up.

If officials in Britain were seriously concerned about post-war Iraq, why weren't we?


Mr. Zeeck seems very willing to accept the "flawed intelligence" line, yet he seems to have little tolerance for those citizens who are not as easily convinced. With the surfacing of these official British government memos, how could Mr. Zeeck possibly think it's fair or reasonable to allow Bush to escape all accountability for the charges these documents suggest?

This, to me, seems to be just another acceptance of a lame excuse President Bush throws to the supine press, hoping nothing will stick to him.

We cannot deny there is a fiery debate about whether this war was the result of a poor choice made by relying on intelligence with a resulting massive intelligence failure - - or the result of deliberate manipulation of intelligence to justify the case for war.

And we allow an official set of a foreign government's documents pass us by - unquestioned by Congress?
Are you kidding, Mr. Zeeck?

Rocky Mountain News Chooses to Look Away From Key Downing Street Questions

Rocky Mountain News Chooses to Look Away From Key Downing Street Questions

The Rocky Mountain News doesn't care to know whether or not President Bush employed bold-faced lies to convince America to accept an optional and unnecessary war (without a post-war plan). They attempt to wave the Downing Street memo away by calling it just "an interesting memo" and nothing more. Stating that regime change in Iraq had been U.S. policy since 1990 seems good enough reason for the Rocky Mountain News to accept a poorly-planned rush to a type of war that was unprecedented in U.S. history! Knowing all we know today, with over 1700 American soldiers dead in their graves, and knowing that the Rocky Mountain News is willing to quickly look the other way when an official set of documents arrives at our doorstep, all I can say is: 'What is wrong with the Rocky Mountain News?'

Tar Heel Tavern #17 - Summer Cold

Tar Heel Tavern #17 - Summer Cold
Anton Zuiker (aka mistersugar) hosts the Tavern this week - be sure to pay him a visit.

Newspaper Editor Admonishes Those Who Label Paper "MSM"

Small Town News Editor Explains Slowness to Report on Downing Street Memo
Editor Admonishes Those Who Label Paper "MSM

Terry Greenberg, editor of the Pantagraph in Central Illinois, wants us to understand that there is more than meets the eye when we accuse his paper of being "the biased mainstream media." He states:

"The public doesn't see any difference between The New York Times and The Pantagraph. We're just all part of that vast media.....A lot of times that pressure may lead to stories, but it's the worst way to pressure journalists. We don't react well to biased people and organizations claiming we're biased."

The main point to remember is that Mr. Greenberg's newspaper relies on wire services for national news.

Therefore, if we didn't see the Downing Street Memo story in his newspaper right away, Mr. Greenberg says it's because the national mainstream media in the United States (the wire service) did not react as quickly as they could have.

Mr. Greenberg still has a problem, even if his newspaper is not 'the national media.' The customers are unhappy with the lack of coverage being provided. The newspaper is being scooped by bloggers while the national media drags its feet. Perhaps newspapers should either hire bloggers or ask for blogger-volunteers to cover topics the newspapers might be missing.

I speak from experience. I write a blog for the Syracuse newspaper's website. When the public comes to read, they understand the difference between an AP article and a blogpost. A blogpost informs, but the author is known to inject opinion. People are happy that the news editors are, at the least, not "blackballing" the free flow of information, which is available to (and is well enjoyed by) all who surf the blogs these days. If you can't beat 'em, I say "..join 'em."

Editorials Grow Increasingly Skeptical of War

Editorials Grow Increasingly Skeptical of War
Editor and Publisher provides us with samplings of the most recent news editorials about the Iraq war from around the nation.

VIDEO: Conyers' Downing Street Hearing

VIDEO: Conyers' Downing Street Hearing
You can see the video of last Thursday's meeting on the Downing Street memos, led by Congressman John Conyers, here.

Britain: Preoccupied with Finding Legal Case Against Iraq for an Entire Year Before War

Britain: Preoccupied with Finding Legal Case Against Iraq for an Entire Year Before War

Warren P. Strobel of Knight Ridder reports that Britain spent at least a year on its preoccupation with finding a legal justification for a preventive war on Iraq.

Blair's advisers repeatedly expressed concern that the case against Saddam had been weak all along and that the White House wasn't giving nearly enough attention to what would happen after he was toppled.

Neither the U.S. government nor the British government has disputed the Downing Street memos' authenticity.

If these revelations do nothing more, they will surely provide a lot of public support for Republicans like Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, who is calling for a timetable on U.S. withdrawl from Iraq. See his statement.

Father's Day

Father's Day



I dedicate this to the man who taught me the importance of independent thinking and who guided me by his example of truth and honesty. Truth is a great asset when it's in fashion, but when it runs against our own convenience, it can be tempting to cast it aside.

My father taught me that either there are or there are not moral and basic truths, and if you're going to stand tall and firm, you can always expect to run into instances where you may become quite unpopular...perhaps even unaccepted.

Popular or not, I'll always have my father's spirit and gentle guidance deep inside of my heart and mind. I've learned that it is only from the truth that conscience takes its value..and I have found that my conscience is my path to finding self-satisfaction (dare I say happiness?)

I'll always love the game of baseball, too, because of the time he took to teach to me to swing and explain the rules of the game. As a child, I recall how much I looked forward to him coming home from work so we could head out to the back yard to practice.

To the most honest and decent man I have ever known
(and the most die-hard Yankee fan):
Happy Father's Day, Dad.

British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office

US and British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office

Here is some new information from Michael Smith, who the American Right, with all their might, is trying to discredit.

Excerpt:

"A sharp increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice."

Question:
Given the recent turn of events, where Right blogs are trying very hard to decrease the effect of the impact of this story, I have a question. Why would the Right blogs wish to defend the President, even when the hard evidence is presented to them that the President ignored the Rule of Law? On what kind of value-system are these blind supporters operating? We are Americans first - before party. At least, we should be. Doesn't this blind type of defense, in the face of hard truth, give many Right bloggers the appearance of throwing away their honor and respect for the rule of law - all for partisan "gotcha" game-playing?

What is true patriotism, in this case? Does showing patriotism include those who would defend a political party blindly? Or - does patriotism include those who would want to see America cleared of the dishonor that is making her appear weak (and wrong) to the world? "Strong and wrong" has been claimed to be a preference over "weak and right." We are becoming "weak" and "wrong" - and that's a deadly combination for an allegedly free and democratic nation.

Right Blogs Try to Turn Downing Street into A Rathergate

Right Blogs Try to Turn Downing Street into A Rathergate
It's all smoke and mirror defense from the Right - the contents of the British documents are already part of the government's official record

The Right blogs are hoping they can turn the Downing Street documents into a case of Rathergate-style forgery. This time, the Associated Press is the target of the Right's hoped-for scandal.

I think there are just to many pieces of information coming forward to discredit the information held in the documents, regardless of who typed them - or re-typed them - on a typewriter or a computer). This isn't a case of a journalist producing what turns out to be false evidence to "sell" a story. The parties who were responsible for much of the information in the British memos are quite real, quite official, still alive, and we may see more information coming from them in the near future.

Most importantly, Prime Minister Tony Blair has never denied the British documents' existence, and neither has any British official.

The Butler Committee, a UK commission looking into WMD, has quoted the documents and accepted their authenticity, along with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. It is undeniable that this information is an inseparable part of the official record.

At the popular Right blog Captain's Quarters, concerned citizens are accused of "fixating on one sentence of one memo," but that is not true. The contents of all the British documents, when reviewed and analyzed, serve to give us a comprehensive view of the intent of the United States. It's clear - perfectly clear - that it was the Bush administration's intent to remove Saddam Hussein from power by force as early as summer, 2002 - and likely well before that time.

What value is lost by the Right claiming the documents were re-typed?

Americans can make up their own minds. They can review all the statements that were fed to them by the Bush administration in the lead-up to this war -and they can measure them up to the fact that the President had made his mind to make optional war (with no post-war plan) political-light-years beforehand. The American people are smart enough to decide, for themselves, whether or not they believe the President violated their trust.

John Conyers has written to the UK's former MI6 chief Dearlove, asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He has also asked precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.

These facts are going to come out - out of real, live mouths. What's next? Will the Right accuse the Democrats of using talking mannequins?

Quote of the Day: Frank Rich

Quote of the Day: Frank Rich

"Once a story line becomes incredible, it's hard to get the audience to fall for it again."

- Frank Rich, Two Top Guns Shoot Blanks

Sarcastic Cheer For "Media Abundance" on Conyers Hearing

Sarcastic Cheer For "Media Abundance" on Conyers Hearing

"I watched Congressman Conyers' Downing Street Memo hearings on Cspan 3. Comcast, my cable provider, doesn't carry Cspan 3 in my Los Angeles neighborhood, so I had to watch it on my laptop. I did a spin of the channels on my television to see if anyone else was showing the hearing. None of the broadcast channels, and none of the cable channels. But three of the 24-hour national cable news channels were giving blanket coverage to an LA freeway chase, which had also taken over several local LA stations.

This splendid situation is what the Republican-dominated FCC calls the age of media abundance."

- Marty Kaplan/Huffington Post

Fox News Sunday Snubs the Story Everyone's Talking About

Fox News Sunday Snubs the Story Everyone's Talking About

What a loser of a "news" network.

Chris Wallace had Condoleeza Rice engaged in dialogue this morning, and he failed to forward one word of inquiry into the Downing Street Memo scandal.

Managing editor Brit Hume and his panel discussed Dick Durbin and Terry Schiavo and deliberately ignored the story of the British memos that was showcased in the Syracuse newspaper's 'Washington' section this morning, and which is showing up in most other American newspapers. (See the 6-page online story at the Boston Globe, for an example).

The disconnect is absolutely stunning - even for Fox News.

Brit Hume and Fox News are losers for fearing to say a word about the Downing Street Memo because they prove (as if we don't already know) that they are nothing but unquestioning apologists for the Bush administration.

I'm waiting to see if Tim Russert has any guts. He's got John McCain on Meet The Press this morning.

UPDATE: Tim Russert's Meet The Press interview with John McCain was little more than Tim panting like a trained puppy for McCain. No hard questions. Easy. Breezy. Cheesy. Not a word about the larger questions for which the emergence of the Downing Street memo has begged. Sleazy.

We have some disgusting creatures in the mainstream media. It's no wonder that American citizens are so deluded.

DSM: News Breakthrough

See Daily Kos for details

See These News Stories:

• Is 'Downing Street Memo' a smoking gun? - Christian Science Monitor

• 'Downing Street' documents renew debate over U.S. motives
at MSNBC

• President must answer to Downing Street Memo at Palm Springs Desert Sun

• Answers needed on Downing Street memo
at Detroit Free Press

• What's the Deal With the Downing Street Memo?
at Village Voice

• Think Again: The Memo Springs to Life
- Center For American Progress

• Leaked Files Show Bush Rushed War
at Detroit Free Press

• Secret British Government Memos Show That Britain Was Concerned U.S.
Was Rushing to War in Iraq
AP

• Conyers vs. The Post
Yahoo News

• Excerpts From the Downing Street Memos
Yahoo News

• Memos: Postwar Iraq a Concern in Britain
Yahoo News

• U.S. War Plans Much-Discussed in Memos
Yahoo News

• 2002 Memos Undercut British WMD Claims
Yahoo News

• Memos Show British Fretting Over Iraq War
Yahoo News

• Downing Street Secrets
at Boston Globe

• The Pentagon Papers of Our Time?
at Editor and Publisher

• FAIR: On the Media Justifying the Silence on Downing Street Memos
FAIR

"The truth is that the Downing Street Memo is a reminder of how poorly the media served the public before the war-- which might explain their reluctance to take it seriously."

Bush Has Lied & GOP Continues to Cover For Him

"You can’t just say the President is lying." - Elizabeth Bumiller

"Like hell, you can't." - Iddybud

Bush Has Lied & GOP Continues to Cover For Him

It's shameful. With the news spreading about the Downing Street Memo revelations, the White House continues to mock the memo. Worse, there is still no Republican who will seriously acknowledge what millions of people are talking about, more and more each day, in America and around the world.

Ask yourself: Why wasn’t there a vote on the 2nd UN Security Council Resolution in 2003, before we made an unnecessary and illegal "preventive" war on Iraq?

Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, had gone before the UN to ’make a case’ (cough) for a 2nd UN Resolution authorizing war, and the Security Council vote on the Resolution never happened. President Bush swore to us Americans that Saddam Hussein possessed the most lethal weapons known to man, and apparently, all the while he knew it was a lie.

Lying to American citizens may not be a crime, but lying to Congress to start a war, if it's proven that Bush did, could be a case of treason. In July 2002, the Bush administration needed $700 million to build runways and pipelines - and for making all the preparations in Kuwait necessary to make war on Iraq possible. The president approved the money without the knowledge of Congress. The money came from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghanistan war, which Congress had previously approved. The Constitution says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress...and Congress was never made aware of how this money was being used. In April, 2004, blogger Steve Soto asked:

"Have we become so jaded as a country that a $700 million unauthorized redirection to a secret war effort by this cabal is not shocking anymore?"

On February 24, 2003 Newsweek published a leaked transcript of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel (Saddam's son-in-law) testifying that all Iraq’s weapons had been destroyed - yet in August 2002, Dick Cheney lied, through his teeth, in a speech to the VFW, saying that Kamel had told us the exact opposite.

Within a short time after the Newsweek expose (which the media walked away from as if the story had leprosy), the Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency testified before the UN Security Council that Bush’s "uranium from Niger" claim was a forgery (which John Bolton helped to try to pass off as legit).

Soon after that, the belligerent George W. Bush (who'd had his mind made up about Iraq a long time with no post-war plan) and the naive Tony Blair (who thought he could be the bridge to get Europe to embrace the idea of war) pulled the 2nd UN Security Council Resolution as if it was clear to them that they would lose embarassingly if it did come to a vote. Without the UN Security Council's approval, Bush and Blair never had legal grounds for preventive war on Iraq. The United States had set itself and, by extension, the ‘coalition of the willing’, apart from international law, and had set its own law and policy - unilaterally.

Republicans in Congress are apparently not concerned now, nor have they ever shown concern about the rule of law when George W Bush fails to uphold it. We see Republicans ignoring the Downing Street memo, which will forever be used as a 'primary source' by historians and will forever beg the question: "How could Americans have FAILED to have questioned their government after learning the facts from this official document?" ...unless we act now.

The Republicans in Congress apparently believe in ignoring the concerns of American citizens when the concern is about George W. Bush. Congress, with a power-grabbing/non-compromising Republican majority, currently has about a 19% approval rating with the American people. If you ask a Republican Congressman or Senator (the ones with control over the majority and the political capital, mind you) why that approval might be so low, I guarantee they will tell you it's all the Democrats' fault. They think they are fooling the public, and that Fox New network will create enough propaganda to convince citizens that their obfuscations are true.

They are wrong.

________________

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- Theodore Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star, 149 May 7, 1918

Nancy Pelosi Creates a Diary at Daily Kos

Nancy Pelosi Creates a Diary at Daily Kos

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has joined the ranks of Daily Kos diarists. I wish her a warm welcome and hope to see (and read) her often.
She appeals to you to Become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the Pelosi Amendment.

DSM: I'm Outraged at Some "Liberal" Journalists

"So what's the big deal?
.......When [the Downing Street memo] was first ignored by the U.S. press, it was said the memo wasn't news because it contained no "new" information. I agreed with that statement at the time and I still agree with it. It wasn't news because too many of us believed the reasons for going to war were not sound and also believe the concept of Weapons of Mass Destruction was a lie. The Downing Street Memo now seems to prove what we all believed. Is that where the outrage is coming from?"

- Bud Beck, also known as Harold Thomas Beck is the former host of the Bud Beck Show and the author of: Ripe For The Picking (The Story of the Kathy Wilson Murder), Cornplanter Chronicles, The First Terrorist Act, and Tyrannus Bush?

DSM: I am Outraged at Some "Liberal" Journalists

First, how did "Political Gateway" get their site to appear on the Google news headlines? Why is their opinion more important than any blogger out here? (Mine included?)

Read the quote above. Bud Beck, who calls himself a "liberal" radio show pundit, cannot understand citizens' concerns about the sizzling information revealed in the Downing Street Memo. He uses the excuse that, because many journalists already knew and believed what was is now revealed as truth in the memo, the memo, itself, is "meaningless."

If President Bush and his administration had not deliberately misled this nation and our Congress, I am certain WE WOULD NOT BE AT WAR IN IRAQ TODAY.

If the Bush administration had not deliberately used the media as a tool for propaganda (especially the beastly FOX News Network), I AM CERTAIN WE WOULD NOT BE AT WAR IN IRAQ TODAY.

If this was such a slam-dunk case of so many journalists knowing these facts all along and had they professionally and effectively conveyed those facts to the public, I am certain WE WOULD NOT BE AT WAR IN IRAQ TODAY. (* Could it be they felt that they could not have conveyed the facts, for fear of losing their jobs, in the absence an official document like Downing Street memo?)

If most Americans had understood the consequences that we would face as a result of the Bush administration's criminal misleading, I AM CERTAIN WE WOULD NOT BE IN IRAQ TODAY.

This Downing Street memo information is "new" because it has come from the officials of a government of a foreign land. It is part of the historic annals of a foreign country's official documents. We're getting an official glimpse of went on behind the official scenes - from an official document. This isn't rumor nor is it innuendo. How many times does this have to be repeated before people start to get it?

Understanding that this is, indeed, "new" information should be a no-brainer.

"Too many of us believed the concept of WMD was a lie. The Downing Street Memo now seems to prove what we all believed. Is that where the outrage is coming from? "

This bullshit is coming from a professional political commentator? I can hardly believe I'm reading it. How about thousands of families whose lives have been shattered? How about 1700 American lives and thousands of casualties and countless Iraqi civilian deaths and casualties for what can be officially be proven as a needless war for which the President may have conspired to LIE to Congress? This is not worth an investigation to this writer, after what Bud Beck says he believes? Has he no sense of law, truth, ethics, or morality?

There are TWO stories at work here. The first story is about the Bush administration's lies, which may be impeachable lies. The second story is the media's professional negligence.

I have to ask myself why Beck is trying to whittle it down to only one story - giving 100% of the blame to the supine/ineffective media and letting Bush off the hook. Listen to what he says:

If there is a story here I don't believe it is the fact George Bush manufactured the reason for the war. I believe the real story is what the media was doing when it should have been reporting on what the White House was saying as opposed to what the White House was really doing. Why were they so willing to be the propaganda machine for the Bush White House?

The next (and last) quote from Beck makes me want to spit on him. That is how incredibly ignorant I believe his statement is and how frustrated I have become with people who are so willing to allow this President and his administration get away with what they've done. He says, about the Downing Street Memo:

"It isn't important evidence as to what the truth is. It can't be because everyone, including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even Andrea Mitchell, knew the same thing British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw knew."

History may prove me right or wrong on the importance of the Downing Street Memo, and it really doesn't matter, but I'll tell you this:

If any of you professional mainstream writers are going to let this President and his administration get away without so much as an investigation for what he has done to this nation and its people - - - and when you start pointing fingers at each other, instead, for your extreme negligence in the lead-up to the war, you'll remain just a bunch of navel-gazing LOSERS, and take us down the tubes with you. I can just imagine the secret planning going on for the NEXT unecessary war under your self-absorbed noses.



* Thanks to all who are reading this after seeing my headline on the Daou Report/Salon.com

Summer Cold

Summer Cold
A Blogstream of Cool Consciousness

I was feeling so trusting
Gave it all right down to the bone
But she did me wrong
On a summer night, on a summer night
On a summer night, on a summer night
A cold chill, a cold chill, a cold chill, cold chill

- Stevie Wonder

_______________

Aaah - summer romance gone cold. What could be sadder? I get goosebumps just thinking about the ice-olation.

Anton has chosen "Summer Cold" as the carnival theme for this week's Tar Heel Tavern. I wasn't sure what to say, as I don't want to even think about the possibility of getting summer sneezes and wheezes, so I thought I would simply ruminate on cold summer/summer cold.

Would you like a Chinese recipe for preventing a summer cold?

- Herba Agastachis (5 g)
- Herba Eupatorii (5 g)
- Herba Menthae (3 g);
prepared as decoction for drinking...
suitable for prevention of common cold in summer.

Movie Break: The Cold Summer of 1953

In the arctic summer, the dark-colored ground absorbs energy from the sun, so plants grow close to the warm ground rather than towering high above ground. Often, I feel like the arctic plants, obtaining shelter from life's harsh elements by doing my best to keeping myself grounded. Ear to the ground. Feet on the ground.


Other times, I feel like flying.



Do you sometimes dream about the cold in the middle of the summer?
When there's more than enough heat to be had for the asking, why is it that we yearn for something else?
Are we never satisfied?





Have you ever felt gusts of cold air on a still and warm August day and think it might be a ghost?

What becomes of the ghosts of summers that never came? Mount Tambora, which is on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa, erupted on April 5, 1815. It resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the 'year without a summer.'



All insects are cold-blooded Even on an arctic summer day, the chill in the air can make it difficult for them to move, let alone fly. Billions of mosquitoes, midges, gnats, crane flies, and hover flies warm up by basking in the sun often in the middle of a flower like the arctic dryad or arctic poppy.

Feeling under the summer weather? Remember that Chinese elixir to ward off illness.

Are spirits chilling your summer hallways? Let them pass through you - you deserve a break from the heat.

Healing a summer romance-gone-wrong? Dream about making yourself small enough to fit into the warm refuge of the poppy's embrace.

May your summer be warm - but not exceedingly so.

I'll let Stevie take you out....

_______________

It was a cold chill
"Like standing in the deep freeze
A cold chill
Like when snow's above your knees
Cold chill
Like sitting at the north pole
A cold chill
Wearing not one stitch of clothes
Cold chill
Like a winter Chicago night
A cold chill
Twenty ice cubes down your back for spite
Cold chill
Stranded in sub-zero degrees
A cold chill
Layed out on the arctic sea
Cold chill
When your fingers get frost bite
A cold chill
Buried beneath ten feet of ice
Cold chill
Baby, that ain't so nice
A cold chill......"

Mocking the Memo? I'm not laughing. You?

Mocking the Memo? I'm not laughing. You?

The White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan is mocking the 'Downing Street Memo,' as Congressman Conyers calls for an inquiry.



President Bush also mocked the search for WMD as young men and women fought and died for what is shaping up to be an apparent deliberate misleading of Congress and the American people.

Washington Post writer Dana Milbank mocked the memo, too. John Conyers wasn't laughing.

I'm not laughing.

Are you laughing?


*The real question of the day is: WHO will be the first Republican to call for a Congressional Investigation into the Downing Street documents?

Today's Downing Street Memo Hearing

"Members of Congress -- whether they are Democrats or Republicans -- should do the right thing. They have a Constitutional duty to investigate the facts surrounding the Downing Street Memo. They didn't ask my son if he was a Democrat or Republican when he joined the military. These are life and death questions and should be treated that way."

- Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace; mother of Casey Sheehan, who died in Iraq

What Happened At The Downing Street Memo Hearing?

Every Congressman and Congresswoman who spoke at John Conyers' hearing on the Downing Street Memo commented on how sad it was to have to meet in a basement room at the U.S. Capitol that was about the size of "two freight elevators." Every Representative who spoke commented upon their disgust at the Republicans in Congress who have abrogated their sworn duty to the American people by downplaying this information and failing to ask for an inquiry into serious questions posed by the Downing Street memo's public release.


Joseph Wilson

Joseph Wilson was the first witness to speak at the hearing. He stated firmly that he has not worked for America as a Republican or a Democrat. He clarified that he has only worked for America. Wilson believes that, if the information he provided about Niger and those infamous aluminum tubes was ignored because it did not fit certain Bush administration preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

He spoke of many things I have posted here at my personal blog over the past two years. (I've written a lot about Joe Wilson):
- What He Didn't Find in Africa,
- The treasonous act against Wilson's family
- Dick Cheney's curious denial of knowledge of Joe Wilson
- The "burning" of Valerie Plame
- The sordid intelligence leaks
- Former CIA agent Larry Johnson's anger at the outing of Valerie Plame
- American Prospect coverage
- Why I continued to believe Joe Wilson
- Even while certain people tried to discredit him,
- Especially the blind partisan Jonah Goldberg
- I'd heard it all, and STILL believed Joe Wilson
- Joe wrote a column for the LA Times in summer, 2004.

Wilson was discouraged after seeing the most recent WaPo-opinion piece (Howard Kurtz?), which made it sound as if many journalists in the mainstream press did not see this new memo as a big deal or a smoking gun - with so many journalists acting as if they 'knew it all along' and that this is no "smoking gun".
(* so why the heck didn't they REPORT it to the American people?).
He reminded the panel that James Baker wouldn't have written a column when he did, just after 2002, and Brent Scowcroft and Wilson himself wouldn't have written opinion pieces in newspapers if they didn't feel the cards had already been dealt well before the American people were misled into war. Wilson said that Gen. Anthony Zinni may not have participated in the debate at the time he did in 2002, had he not known that a decision had already been made to go to war.


Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey Sheehan, a soldier who died in the Iraq war, was next to speak about the effect which the Downing Street Memo has had on her family. The leak of the Downing Street memo confirmed what she's suspected all along - that intelligence was cherry-picked and lies were told to take our nation to a war that was unnecessary. Ms. Sheehan quoted Mickey Herskowitz, who, in 1999, was hired to ghostwrite a campaign autobiography for George W. Bush, an assignment that was later withdrawn.
*Herskowitz later spoke about Bush for an article by journalist Russ Baker:

“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999... It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.”

Ms. Sheehan said that it looks like George W. Bush was ready to go to an avoidable war, well before he became president - lying to Congress is a serious offense - over 1700 brave Anericans (including her son) have died while only trying to do their duty. They are coming home in coffins that our leaders won't let us see. Ms. Sheehan said she wouldn't say any cuss words at the hearing, because she wanted to give her complete respect to the panel, but if anyone has a right to cuss, it is the mother of a soldier who died in a war in which a President had lied to citizens and troops in order to obtain their trust and support.


Ray McGovern

Former CIA official, Ray McGovern, was next to speak. McGovern has made serious accusations about the Bush administration in connection with the planning of the war in Iraq. McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 30 years. From 1981 to 1985, he conducted daily briefings for Ronald Reagan's vice president, George Bush,(father of the incumbent president.)
McGovern began by talking in terms of what he called "AOL" -the Anatomy of a Lie. On August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney gave a major speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he told them:

"...we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

McGovern makes a very strong accusation, saying that Dick Cheney lied about Saddam's son-in-law in that VFW speech. McGovern quoted page 13 of his own debriefing report which said that Saddam's son'in'law confirmed that all WMD were destroyed in July of 1991, at his order, to prevent the UN inspectors from finding them after the first Gulf war. A whistleblower had leaked this debriefing to Newsweek magazine as the Bush administration's drumbeat for war got louder. The article about it appeared in Newsweek on February 24, 2003, weeks before the war began. The story never got much play because the timid media supressed the story. McGovern said that a "supine press" eager to accept official explanations contributed to the facilitation of this war.

McGovern talked about VP Cheney's personal visits to CIA. He said not only were they "unusual", they were unprecedented. McGovern said that he believed 'the best of the CIA' is gone from the department now. In the old days, you never would have seen CIA acquiesce to fixing the facts around the Executive's policy whims. Yet, when Cheney went to CIA and told them he wanted certain intelligence to take priority to fit the case for war, too many CIA officials became yes-men. In McGovern's time, he said most of the CIA would have walked out if they'd been presented with such a request.


John Bonifaz

John Bonifaz is the founder and general counsel for the National Voting Rights Institute. He used to work with the Center for Responsive Politics. His writings have been published in both the Yale Law and Policy Review as well as the Columbia Law Review. Bonifaz is also the Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org.

Bonifaz said that, if the documents were proven to be true, the president may have violated a federal law against misleading Congress, and his actions would be grounds for impeachment.

Quoting Bonifaz:

"If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street minutes is true, then the President's submission of his March 18, 2003 letter to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including the Federal Anti-Conspiracy Statute which makes it a felony, (quote), “to commit any offense against the United States or to defraud the United States or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose,” and the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing Street minutes and other related evidence and to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States. A resolution of inquiry is the appropriate first step in launching this investigation.

The Iraq war has led to the deaths of more than 1,700 United States soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Thousands more have been permanently and severely injured on both sides. More than two years after the invasion, Iraq remains unstable and its future unclear. The war has already cost the American people tens of billions of taxpayer dollars at the expense of basic human needs here at home. More than 135,000 United States soldiers remain in Iraq without any stated exit plan. If the President has committed high crimes in connection with this war, he must be held accountable. The United States Constitution demands no less."

Read Bonifaz' statement here

More References on Downing Street Hearings (FYI)

Ray McGovern: The Secret's Out - Now What?

PBS Online News Hour Special: War Memos

Video: Why The Downing Street Memo Matters - (4.5 mins long)

Downing Street and Beyond: Hearing Builds Momentum for Full Investigation (Democracy Now)

The Downing Street Memos and the Revenge of the Bloggers

War on Iraq: "Go Find Me A Way To Do This"

See the list of 123 House Reps who have signed on to the letter calling on President Bush to answer new questions about the Downing Street documents.

Do a Google Search on Downing Street Memo

_________________


Last Note: John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted a letter to President Bush, has now written to the UK's former MI6 chief Dearlove, asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.


*this piece is also appearing at The Rational Liberal/Syracuse.com

A Damning Statement and A History Lesson

A Damning Statement and A History Lesson

To me, the quote below is the most "telling" statement in the UK Cabinet Office Paper titled: "Conditions for Military Action." (Which showed that the U.S. had no post-war plan). Who knows if there may have been something even more "telling?" The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing.

17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.

So, there you have it - Australia and the UK owe the US; France might go along if she feels that she has no other choice; Russia and China might be "bought" for their cooperation; the U.S. is bound and determined; the writing's on the wall. Amen.

Meanwhile, at the same time in history, the Bush administration was telling America nothing about its determination to go to war with Iraq. Here's a good old-fashioned HISTORY LESSON for all of you (from Bob Woodward, LINK at CBS):

“And there's this low boil on Iraq until the day before Thanksgiving, Nov. 21, 2001. This is 72 days after 9/11. This is part of this secret history. President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically, and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, ‘What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.’"

Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam - and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

”Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the preparations in Kuwait, specifically to make war possible,” says Woodward.

“Gets to a point where in July, the end of July 2002, they need $700 million, a large amount of money for all these tasks. And the president approves it. But Congress doesn't know and it is done. They get the money from a supplemental appropriation for the Afghan War, which Congress has approved. …Some people are gonna look at a document called the Constitution which says that no money will be drawn from the Treasury unless appropriated by Congress. Congress was totally in the dark on this."

July, 2002 - the same time that the secret UK Memo was written.

Now, examine all the statements that the Bush administration threw at you (long after they'd made up their minds).

America - you've been punk'd.

John Conyers' Hearing on the Downing Street Memo

"It's official: The Downing Street memos, a snooty New York Times "News Analysis" informs us, "are not the Dead Sea Scrolls."

- So begins Greg Palast, in an online testimonial re: The Downing Street Memo Hearing in D.C. today

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

John Conyers' Hearing on the Downing Street Memo

Dem Bloggers has a videoblog interview with Congressman Conyers available in WMV at their site today. They will be providing a quicktime version, a high quality version, and an mp3 of this interview later this evening.

You can watch the hearing on CSPAN3 Live today - currently scheduled to air at 2:30 pm.

Listed speakers:
Conyers, John Jr., U.S. Representative, D-MI
Bonifaz, John C., Founder, National Voting Rights Institute
Wilson, Joseph, Deputy Chief of Mission (1988-91), Iraq
McGovern, Ray, Member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Sheehan, Cindy, Mother



From the Pacifica.org website:

The John Conyers' Hearing on the 'Downing Street memo' has changed the start and end time. The new time is from 2 PM to 6 PM EST.

If you are an online listener, you can hear the live streaming audio at Pacifica.org.

Confirmed guests for the Pacifica special broadcast include:

- Congressman John Conyers (Chair of the Hearing)
- Ray McGovern (CIA analyst, witness for Hearing),
- George Galloway, Member of Parliament/United Kingdom,
- Frances Boyle, University of Illinois Law Professor who has drawn up Impeachment papers, and more.

Initially prevented from holding the Hearing on Capitol Hill by the Republicans, Conyers was to hold it at the Democratic National Committee Building in Washington, but now reports indicate the Hearing may in fact happen on Capitol Hill.

tip of the hat to Common Ills

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

Palast Credits the Bloggers

"Let me conclude with a comment about those pesky "blogs" that so bother the New York Times. We should stand and offer a moment of quiet gratitude to the electronic swarm of gadfly commentators who make it so much harder for the US media to ignore news not officially blessed. Yes, Judith Miller's breathless reports for The Times that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction may have maintained "access" for the mainstream press to its diet of White House propaganda, but the blogs insure that, whatever nonsense the US press is biting on, the public need not swallow."

- Greg Palast

* * See Harry Shearer's smackdown of mainstream journalists who've created revisionist versions of the Iraq story in the name of self-preservation.

David Yepsen on John Edwards

David Yepsen on John Edwards
Yepsen Calls for Less Conviction, More Compromise with Partisans

In the DesMoines(Iowa) Register, David Yepsen asks:

"Can [John Edwards] stand up to Democratic constituency groups and tell them things they may not want to hear about fighting poverty while still courting them in another bid for the White House?"

Within this question lies an imaginary gauntlet, set down by Mr. Yepsen himself, that seems quite unnecessary at a time when Democrats are striving to find a way to unite and attract new interest in the party.

Curiously, Yepsen flatly accuses John Edwards of "pandering" to the Iowa Coalition for Housing and the Homeless in Des Moines on Tuesday - and provides no basis for proving his strong opinion. He forwards a notion that he has little faith in John Edwards' sincerity. Yepsen says that, if Edwards "just panders" to the democratic constituency, "we can dismiss his center's work as just another effort to keep some politician in the limelight." Yepsen fails to mention that Edwards was a volunteer with Urban Ministries in Raleigh, NC long before he entered political life.

Yepsen seemingly places himself in a universe where, in order to inspire people to fight poverty, you have to remain ideologically neutral. Has he forgotten the past four years and the policies of the current GOP? Has he neglected to observe some of the most blatant power-grabs, by the majority party in Congress, in America's history? What kind of "fresh thinking" does he imagine the American people are looking for, when it comes to fighting poverty? Does he imagine the highly partisan Bush supporters will say to themselves "Hey - I think John Edwards is right - let's forget our blind support for all things GOP and fight poverty?"

I think Mr. Yepsen is calling for something quite unrealistic, while he seems to be creating a negative view of John Edwards by accusing him of simply being what he is - a Democrat and a politician with strong conviction.

If it's only a watered-down non-ideological call to arms against poverty that will please Mr. Yepsen, all I can say is that I'm awfully glad it's John Edwards who's heading up the Poverty Center rather than Mr. Yepsen, who would kill any inspiration I might have for joining the cause.

Notable Quotes: Hillary, Bush, the Draft

Notable Quotes:
Hillary, Bush, the Draft

Hillary:

Robert Kuttner reports on Hillary Clinton's view of being a political lightning rod:

"She has told associates .. that being a polarizer can actually be a plus, as George W. Bush has demonstrated: It doesn't matter if you rally the other side's base as long as you rally your own base plus enough moderates."
Link

Bush:

In a column where he lays out a realistic set of goals which address the genuine challenges that confront America, Kuttner bemoans the fairy-bubble from which he believes George W. Bush is leading the nation. He says:

"In a decade, historians will ponder how the American people could possibly have reelected a president who lives in a fantasy world and who is doing such damage to the real world."
Link

The Draft:

Joan Vennochi explains how, for some American mothers, while it's easier to say 'don't join the Army,' it's harder to say 'don't serve your country.'

"The numbers tell a story about a war that is growing more unpopular with the country, especially with parents whose flesh and blood the Pentagon covets. If the US military presence in Iraq continues at its current level and enough citizens do not volunteer for military service, a draft seems inevitable."

Vennochi, in a cautious way, tells us readers that it's natural for a mother to say "not my son" and that the current war in Iraq causes the volume of "not my son" to be turned up inside a mother's head. (Full blast as far as I'm concerned). She speaks of hearing a father's story about the death of his son - who was a soldier in Iraq:

"Listening to that father mourn, I also thought: not my son. It is a typical baby boomer reaction, in my case, underscored by the belief that this current war does not justify the sacrifice of any son or daughter of America."
Link

Media Defensive On Downing Street Coverage

Media Defensive On Downing Street Coverage

Mark Follman (salon.com) writes about the rebound of the Downing Street Memo, now that the mainstream press realizes the story is not going to be allowed die while it's in the hands of the ever-tenacious citizen's media. Members of Congress are beginning to step over mainstream media to reach out to citizen bloggers - offering interviews, tips, and information they once offered exclusively to the mainstream journalists.

I appreciate Follman's critique of statement made by Howard Kurtz about the quality of the media's coverage during the lead-up period to the Iraq war.

Kurtz said:

"The press performance in covering this tightly disciplined administration has been far from perfect, especially on Iraq. But it's worth remembering that during the Clinton years, it was conservatives who saw the media as being embarrassingly soft on the White House."

Follet commented:

Whether or not that was the case -- the press was plenty vigorous in its pursuit of Whitewater and Monica -- the stakes are an awful lot higher now.

- Think back to the time of Clinton's friendly fellatio, and then bring yourself back to 2005.
- Understand the consequences of Bush misleading an entire nation into a war of option - along with a post-war which was not adequately planned, and in fact, has proven to be a nightmare.
- Contrast the proportionate amount of in-depth media coverage the respective stories received.
- Cry for a loss of solemn responsibility - which is overruled by ratings-wars and advertising dollars - in the mainstream media.
- Pray for a whistleblower.


UPDATES:

Robert Parry Commentary
-LSMSM (The Lying Mainstrean Media)
- Mocking the Downing Street Memo

Iddybud Debuts On CNN's "Inside the Blogs"

Iddybud Debuts On CNN's "Inside the Blogs"

I've been spending a lot of time at my parents' home lately. My mother is going through chemotherapy and she needs a lot of help with routine chores which she is far too weak to do herself. I was taking a break to watch CNN's Inside Politics this afternoon, (I try to watch every day), and when the "Inside the Blogs" segment came on, I thought I saw a familiar blog page on one of Abbi Tatton's computer screens.

It was my own.

The transcript calls me "ittybird", but I heard Abbi, and she clearly said "Iddybud."

ABBI TATTON, CNN BLOG REPORTER: And so, of course, Randy Cunningham -- we said he has made a statement saying that he's denied any wrongdoing. And that's over here Ittybird.Blogspot.com (ph) with a picture of the Congressman.

In an interview last week, they point out he said, "My whole life I've lived above board. I've never even smoked a marijuana cigarette." Well, there you go, is the point they make on that one.

I hope Abbi will pay me future visits. She and Jacki Schechner are always welcome here at Iddybud.

New Blog: 'Now, That's Progress'

New Blog: 'Now, That's Progress'
The Progressive Depot has a brand new blog of its own. It's called "Now, That's Progress." The blog's introductory declaration can be read by going HERE.

Thomas Friedman Offends Many With Terrible Misjudgement

Thomas Friedman Offends Many With Terrible Misjudgement

Thomas Friedman is making some terrible judgements lately, and the most unfair judgement I've seen in recent days is his assertion that

(quote) "Liberals don’t want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don’t want the Bush team to succeed. As a result, Iraq is drifting sideways and the whole burden is being carried by our military."

I'd remind Mr. Friedman that not only have people like myself TALKED about the Iraq war, we have been SCREAMING about the Iraq war from the lead-up until the present.

How does Mr. Friedman come to the twisted conclusion that, by our pointing out the catastrophic blunders which the Bush administration has made, it is resulting in the military failure itself? BALDERDASH!

I would remind Mr. Friedman of the not-so-liberal General Anthony Zinni's list of Ten Mistakes made by the Bush administration.

I would also remind Mr. Friedman that he was taken in by the administration himself, and I believe it's partly because he is an opitimist and wants to see success in the region. That said, Mr. Friedman is not being intellectually honest in presenting any provable form of truth in his all-too general interpretation of how "liberal" Americans feel and/or think "deep-down." That's voo-doo mind-reading malarkey and, needless to say, it is not at all professional.

I'd remind Mr. Friedman that we'd all like to see peace and prosperity in the region and that we do not cheer at the news stories of dead civilians and soldiers. To the contrary, it breaks our hearts.

How dare he make such sweeping generalizations? I am deeply offended.

I'm forwarding a reference to this post to the NY Times ombudsman. You, too, can reach Brian Calame, the NYT ombudsman, here: public@nytimes.com or call (212) 556-7652.



*Mr. Friedman offended Billmon.

Tom Delay Doesn't Want a Cunningham Investigation

Tom Delay Doesn't Want a Cunningham Investigation

"Just because it appears in an article doesn’t mean a thing....Duke Cunningham is a hero."

This is a recent statement made by Tom Delay, while defending Rep. Duke Cunningham's home sale, which some suspect may have been an actual 3/4 million dollar "payback-favor" he got from a recently-enriched defense contractor named Mitchell Wade. Wade had purchased Cunningham's house for an exorbitant price with the help of a real estate businesswoman named Elizabeth Todd, who also happened to be a major political contributor to Cunningham. Wade quickly sold the house at a loss, to himself, of $700,000. At the same time, Wade was mysteriously enriched with government contracts. Did Cunningham pocket $700,000 in return for special favors to Mitchell Wade?

Tom Delay doesn't want this investigated.

Duke Cunningham's statement in his own defense:



"My whole life I've lived aboveboard. I've never even smoked a marijuana cigarette ... I feel very confident that I haven't done anything wrong."
LINK

Well, there you go. Any upstanding politician who's never smoked a "J" must not be capable of graft.

Josh Marshall is doing a fantastic investigation into this story at Talking Points Memo.

photo

photo credit: BBC news

A homeless child sleeps on a bed made from a campaign poster in the south-eastern province of Kerman, Hashem Hashemi, Iraq.

Wolfowitz Recommends Cutting Subsidies to American Farmers

Wolfowitz Recommends Cutting Subsidies to American Farmers



The only way that Paul Wolfowitz, as new head of the World Bank, can foresee helping Africa's farms to grow and compete, is to hurt the American farmers.

This will be a bitter pill to swallow for America's farmers. They will wonder why it is them who should directly suffer, in a free, democratic nation and a land of "opportunity", so that the World Bank can assist another continent.

It also puts the 'new world order' at odds with American democratic interests.

I think its worthy of debate. It cannot be denied that the interests of the World Bank do not run in true course with the business interests of the free American individual and the way that individual is served by his own nation's government.

On one hand, we see that the World Bank is offering compassion for Africa and its people by offering a constructive economic design for their future. These aren't hand-outs being given to Africa for the sheer sake of hand-outs. Instead, they are being given the economic tools to become independent and free.

Yet, many American farmers will ask: Why did it have to come at their expense?

I'm not as concerned about the American corporate agricultural system as I am worried about the family farmer who is barely getting by. We tend to forget that this nation's earliest economic backbone and social order once rested, in large part, among and within the lives of the family farmers. They work harder than most other people for meager economic return. They provide us with nourishment. I think, in a political sense, that we should give them far more economic respect.

The Change to Win Coalition - Labor Moves On

The Change to Win Coalition - Labor Moves On

There's a conundrum that has been presented by Harold Myerson in today's WaPo. Splitting up the Labor movement would fragment the force required to organize Wal-Mart or dethrone Tom DeLay in 2006. Yet, to reverse labor's decline, the SEIU contends that the movement must be restructured so it can organize again. The problem seen by SEIU is that the AFL-CIO has "encouraged" unions to work toward worthy goals, yet they have not moved to make the changes in strategy, structure, rules, and budget priorities to achieve those goals. Talk is cheap - action is necessary.

The SEIU is the the AFL-CIO's largest affiliate. They passed a resolution last weekend authorizing its top officers to take the union out of the longstanding Labor federation when they deem it appropriate. The central point of contention surrounds a loss in confidence toward incumbent AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.

Change or die - sometimes it has to come down to that. Let's hope the AFL-CIO finds a way to stay together by agreeing to restructure. If not, I hope that Americans will support Labor in their struggle to find a successful way to move on.

Reference:
SEIU
Unite To Win Blog

We Don't Believe Judith Miller Anymore

We Don't Believe Judith Miller Anymore

Josh Marshall reminds us of what I've said in the past. Judith Miller cannot be trusted after her writings in the lead-up to the Iraq War heavily contributed to the misleading of America. Why is she still with the NY Timid Times? We don't believe a word she says anymore.