In a Cold Room, Memories of a Life of Flowers

In a Cold Room, Memories of a Life of Flowers

Alissa J. Rubin [LA Times] interviews Abu Imad, an Iraqi who once tended the garden at Yamouk hospital. Shortly before the start of the war in Iraq he was assigned to tend the dead at the morgue.

"....I received two children this morning — 3 years old. They had been sent [to the hospital] by their mother to have an injection … they had coughs and colds. And they [the nurses] used half the dose that they use for adults, but the children died immediately. They will wait for the report from the forensic [to find out whether an overdose or a bad reaction was to blame]. Only the father came for the bodies, and he beat his head against the wall, crying for them. I wept indeed when I saw those two children today. I felt they were my own children. They were wearing pajamas and T-shirts and their hair was very long. They were like flowers..."

LINK

Around the Blogs

Around the Blogs

At Voice of a Veteran, there is a fish tale I think you will like.

Corrente (Lambert) has a great "you provide the caption" challenge. I learned about it from Dan Froomkin, who has some very interesting things to report here.


Mark Adams asks a plain and simple question:

Why am I supposed to expose my bleeding heart for the Iraqis? Their dead and wounded remain uncounted and uncountable (to borrow Reichmarshall Rumsfeld's phraseology). WE are not better off with a new Mecca for terrorists recruitment and training in their newly founded Islamic Republic.

Cindy Sheehan's supporters and a group of counter-parent-protesters are both planning major rallies for today. I think it looks like a WWF wrestling match where parents of fallen soldiers get down in the mud. You know it's bad for a President's administration when it comes down to something like this. Bush fails to rally the nation and we get a wrestling match of grief and other assorted emotions.

Kathleen Parker can tell you how she thinks Maureen Dowd is wrong, but she can't tell us what Kathleen Parker thinks is right.

..people lost in their emotions get a pass from the usual standards of debate and fair play, as Sheehan has. That's about to change. As others arrive in Crawford who share Sheehan's grief and her moral authority — but not her politics — her free pass expires.

Parker's tone suggests that Mrs. Sheehan is going to get her comeuppance - all free passes are off the table, the big face-off between grieving mothers is coming, etc. We can all see that this is a circus brought on by a war that no American clearly understands - but I don't think you'll see Kathleen Parker mentioning that fact anytime soon.

Arthur Chrenkoff is also on a mission to prove MoDo wrong, and in doing so, he only serves to prove her right by displaying thoughts from other parents of fallen soldiers who have the same level of moral authority. Mr. Chrenkoff shows his political stripes, in a "can't beat 'em, join 'em" sense, by saying that "Kos and the rest of the left think that exploiting Cindy Sheehan's exploitation of her loss is the best new secret weapon in the war against George Bush." So now it's Chrenkoff's turn to exploit the other parents. We can all see that this is a circus brought on by a war that no American clearly understands - but I don't think you'll see Arthur Chrenkoff mentioning that fact anytime soon.

Michael J. W. Stickings has been a guest blogger at the Carpetbagger Report this week, and he has something to say about George Will's recent campaign to "shrill-ize" the Democrats he thinks are not "moderate" enough. When I think "shrill", I think of a Vice Prez who says "F**k you" to a fellow Senate member. That's pretty shrill. See my comments from August 21st.


Steve Soto talks about the LA Times article where a summary of what is known about Plamegate is provided. It is made clear that TIME magazine deliberately laid back on the story last year because it was close to the time of an election. Soto says:

I’m sure watching what the White House and Mighty Wurlitzer did to CBS over the TANG memos convinced Time that they made the right decision to keep the public in the dark on this until well after the election.

I believe this whole thing is an American tragedy, and I'll wager it will be looked upon in posterity as such.

Medical Error Bill - Patient Safety Canard

Medical Error Bill:
"Patient Safety" Canard

About the recently passed "Medical Error" bill:

The legislation encourages health professionals to confidentially report errors. Patient safety organizations would be established to analyze them, look for weaknesses in the system and recommend ways to reduce mistakes and save lives -- without setting off an avalanche of malpractice lawsuits.

[CNN]

If the above is true, we can only assume that health care professionals can turn in others for their negligence, under the cloak of secrecy, and the American public will be banned from legally knowing what errors, however negligent, their particular health care pro may have committed.

See Privilege section of Bill S.544 [loc.gov] - - exmple: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, and subject to subsection (c), patient safety work product shall be privileged and shall not be admitted as evidence in any Federal, State, or local governmental civil proceeding, criminal proceeding, administrative rulemaking proceeding, or administrative adjudicatory proceeding, including any such proceeding against a provider.

Legalizing the keeping of secrets about another's potential negligence, in the name of patient safety, runs against everything I have ever been taught about justice.

The reporting of an error by a hospital will not result in the hospital being granted immunity from a lawsuit, but the conduit for revealing negligence is protected from subpoena. A lawyer would not be able to discover whatever negligence a hospital or doctor admitted to. With this new law, this would have to be kept confidential.

Section 923 states that "the information resulting from such analyses shall be made available to the public and included in the annual quality reports prepared under section 913(b)(2)." Meaning, once a year the public will get a general reporting. The trade-off is a big one: our right to know about negligence our individual healthcare providers may have had. I am not comfortable with this.

Americans should question the grounds for this type of secretive and closely-held review of negligent mistakes which may be costing our loved ones their lives. I believe it is a move against freedom when you legally privatize a potentially disastrous truth and hide it away from the people of America for fear that they may learn they have perfectly legal grounds for a civil suit.

I regret to say I would have expected this from today's GOP and President Bush.

Lawsuits have been instrumental, in and of themselves, in improving public health and safety. Legal action as a last resort against physicians, pharmaceutical firms and other corporations have stopped the use of dangerous medical practices, drugs and devices, such as kidney-damaging statin drugs, off-label use of Neurotinin, the IUD, “FenPhen,” and thalidomide, just to name a few.

This medical error bill does not directly address malpractice law, but we know what the Republicans are trying to do by passing this bill. It's restricting our right to KNOW, thus limiting the legal suits we are capable of bringing successfully for lack of evidence.

This national mandatory error reporting database has only been created with a protection to hide the legal negligence of healthcare pros from the American individual who should always have the right to make his own judgement, along with his own attorney, on whether or not he wants to bring lawsuit.

I'm all for safety - but at what price to freedom and justice?

I'd wonder if the Democrats who agreed to this bill were thinking straight when they voted for it?

I'd love to have a freeedom-respecting lawyer-blogger take a look at this Bill and tell me what she/he thinks of it.

Plowing Thru the "They Win When We're Weak" BS

Plowing Through the
"They Win When We're Weak" BS

I had the following exchange with a fellow American on Blogcritics [President Bush, Call the Dogs Off Cindy Sheehan]:

HE SAID:

I live near Ft. Hood and the soldiers were calling in with their opinions of - to use their words - 'Cindy Jehad'. They are really, really not pleased with her activities. One who had just returned from Iraq commented that right before he left terrorist sympathizers in Iraq were handing out leaflets with pictures of Cindy Sheehan to show their supporters that they're winning because we're weakening - with her as evidence. One of the repeated themes was that Cindy Sheehan, by her actions is going to be responsible for additional dead soldiers in Iraq. They really despise her.

MY REPLY:

Terrorist sympathizers in Iraq are not Americans. Those people you call "terrorist sypathizers" over in Iraq would be the last ones I'd assign any moral authority to. Dead last.

We don't need a permission slip from terrorists to ask questions which we free Americans think are appropriate and necessary to ask.

In the case of that one soldier you mentioned - I would tend to listen to him before I'd listen to you. As a matter of fact, knowing how you feel about this topic from your many posts, I would tend to want to hear this soldier speak myself, rather than hearing him through your filter.

When you say "the soldiers who called in.." - we do not know if they've been in Iraq. I would have liked to have heard them speak without your filter. Hearing something with one's own ears is the best way to place authority and make personal judgements.

Calling the woman "Cindy Jihad" is, in truth, disrespectful and just plain inaccurate. Cindy Sheehan and the Gold Star families are not promoting holy war or any other senseless kind of war. They fear that the one we're fighting is senseless and that our leadership has been deceitful.

What "terrorist sympathizers" want is not what concerned Americans want.

HE SAID:

Cindy Sheehan, by her actions is going to be responsible for additional dead soldiers in Iraq

MY REPLY:

There's a political psywar going on in America. Propagandists would lead some to believe that citizens asking the toughest questions will lead to non-success.

In truth, the buck stops with the President of the United States. If the war wasn't an obvious non-success to begin with, no one would be asking the tough questions.

The responibility for anyone dying in Iraq today would lay squarely on the shoulders of the leaders who plan and direct it.

That's where the power is - the man with the greatest military power in the world has failed to rally a nation - and the world.

The man with the greatest power, by his position, takes on the trust of those who give him moral authority.

Bush has lost his moral authority because of his lack of leadership and character.

That one small mother's voice - the voice of Cindy Sheehan - didn't do that.

He did that on his own.

There are some rational debates and questions in this country about the way the Iraq war has been conducted that have absolutely nothing to do with people believing we should show weakness in the face of terrorism.

I've heard that bullcrap argument far too many times to swallow it.

We really do need to break these myths and fear-mongerings apart whenever we see them.

Nothing vs Everything

Nothing vs Everything

What did Saddam Hussein have to do with 9/11?

Nothing.

What does today's fight in Iraq have to do with Saddam Hussein?

Nothing. Saddam left the building (aka spider hole) long, long ago.

What does today's fight in Iraq have to do with the Bush administration's near-total imcompetence in managing the anarchy which they should have known would accompany the vacuum which Saddam Hussein's ouster would create? (After lying the nation into a war of their heavy-handed choosing)?

Everything.

Jon Stewart was HOT Last Night

Jon Stewart was HOT Last Night

David R Mark [BlogCritics.org] credits the Daily Show's Jon Stewart with a brilliant episode (from August 25th).

BUSH MONTAGE: The war arrived on our shores on September the 11th, 2001 ... September the 11th ... September the 11th I made a commitment to the American people ... from September the 11th ... the lesson of September the 11th, 2001 ...

STEWART: You know, if I had a nickel for every time Bush has mentioned 9/11, I could raise enough reward money to go after Bin Laden!

On the same episode, Jon Stewart handed his guest Christopher Hitchens his stubborn, stuffy and equivocating defense of the Iraq war right back to him (fried crispy) on a silver platter. It was tasty. I savored every "bite".

Thanks to Wonkette for capturing some of it:

Stewart: The people who say we shouldn't fight in Iraq aren't saying it's our fault. . . That is the conflation that is the most disturbing. . .

Hitch: Don't you hear people saying. . .

Stewart: You hear people saying a lot of stupid [bleep]. . . But there are reasonable disagreements in this country about the way this war has been conducted, that has nothing to do with people believing we should cut and run from the terrorists, or we should show weakness in the face of terrorism, or that we believe that we have in some way brought this upon ourselves. . .

Hitch: [Sputter]

Stewart: They believe that this war is being conducted without transparency, without credibility, and without competence...

Hitch: I'm sorry, sunshine... I just watched you ridicule the president for saying he wouldn't give. . .

Stewart: No, you misunderstood why. . . . That's not why I ridiculed the president. He refuses to answer questions from adults as though we were adults and falls back upon platitudes and phrases and talking points that does a disservice to the goals that he himself shares with the very people needs to convince.

[Audience erupts in applause]

Hitch: You want me to believe you're really secretly on the side of the Bush administration. . .

Stewart: I secretly need to believe he's on my side. He's too important and powerful a man not to be.

Hitch: [Sputter, return to talking about his latest book.]

-from Wonkette-

At Think Progress, a commenter named "C" says:

"...it says a lot about how weak our media is when it takes a comedian to point out the obvious."

I think he's right. In addition, I think it says a lot for Jon Stewart, who is a confident and intelligent person with great debating skills and a dynamite built-in nonsense-detector. It also says a lot for the Comedy Network - obviously unintimidated by market forces because they understand that Mr. Stewart is their cash cow.


Crooks and Liars has the video of Stewart interviewing Hitchens.

Iraq: The Sticking Points

Iraq: The Sticking Points
The following are "sticking points" in Iraq's Constitution debate:

* ARTICLE 1: "The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic."

The Sunnis suspect that federalism is code for the Shias and Kurds slicing up Iraq's oil-fiels in the northern and southern regions and keeping them for themselves.

* ARTICLE 2: "Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation... No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam."

Divine (sharia) law will kill off a healthy future for the advancement of women's rights.

* ARTICLE 3: Iraq "is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation".

What's the mumbo-jumbo about "Islamic world"? The Sunnis (among others) believe Iraq should be constitutionally considered, first and foremost, an "Arab nation" (secular).

* ARTICLE 4: "Arabic and Kurdish are the two official languages for Iraq. Iraqis are guaranteed the right to educate their children in their mother tongues, such as Turkomen or Assyrian."

The Kurds are worried about being dominated by the Arab majority. (They'll possibly secede before long anyhow, agreement or no agreement - it's in the wind - no secret).

* ARTICLE 16: "Equal opportunity is a right guaranteed to all Iraqis, and the state shall take the the necessary steps to achieve this."

Equality for all Iraqis? That's far too lofty for those who want divine Islamic law to trump civil law. We have come this far to prop up a new theocracy.

* ARTICLE 20: "Citizens, male and female, have the right to participate in public matters and enjoy political rights, including the right to run as candidates."

Women's rights seem to be unpopular with most power-hungry Iraqi men.
Evil code word: "female"

* ARTICLE 151: "A proportion of no less than 25 per cent of seats in the council of representatives is specified for participation of women."

Affirmative action seems to be unpopular with power-hungry Iraqi men.
Evil code word: "women"


Source: Independent Online

Proud Bush Mishandles What Could Have Been an Opportunity

Proud Bush Mishandles What Could Have Been an Opportunity

This story about President Bush spotlighting the mom of four live active-duty troops who backs the Iraq war has me picturing Bush putting his thumb to his nose and waving his four fingers at Cindy Sheehan and her dead son. Everyone I have spoken to thinks it looks very small of him.

In a disturbing piece at Capitol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson reveals something I find to be hard to believe, and if it's true, then God help America:

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him. “I’m not meeting again with that g**damned b*tch,” [edited by Iddybud] Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”
.....Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherf**king traitors.” [edited by Iddybud] He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullsh*t protectors” [edited by Iddybud] over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW as*h*les [edited by Iddybud] that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

Yesterday's NY Times' stinging editorial reveals that the Emperor is wearing nothing but a deceitful and faithless smokescreen.

Take a look at this challenge from the Steering Group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:

"..we believe a quiet, respectful session with the wise women and perhaps others at your doorstep would give you valuable new insights into the ironic conundrums and human dimensions of the war in Iraq.

A member of our Steering Committee, Ann Wright, has been on site at Camp Casey from the outset and would be happy to facilitate such a session. A veteran Army colonel (and also a senior Foreign Service officer until she resigned in protest over the attack on Iraq), Ann has been keeping Camps Casey I and II running in a good-neighborly, orderly way. She is well known to your Secret Service agents, who can lead you to her. We strongly urge you not to miss this opportunity."

_ _ _

/s/
Gene Betit, Arlington, Virginia
Sibel Edmonds, Alexandria, Virginia
Larry Johnson, Bethesda, Maryland
David MacMichael, Linden, Virginia
Ray McGovern, Arlington, Virginia
Coleen Rowley, Apple Valley, Minnesota
Ann Wright, Honolulu, Hawaii

[source: Common Dreams]

Digby has a comment about Bush's "animated" speech:

And to think they gave Howard Dean days of shit for his scream. This guy is doing a bad imitation of a certain gentleman who also used to work himself into a frenzy before his adoring crowds. Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!

Chavez Taunts Bush in Retaliation for Mullah Pat's Idiocy

Chavez Taunts Bush in Retaliation for Mullah Pat's Idiocy

In a typically robust response to remarks by the US televangelist Pat Robertson, Mr Chávez compared his detractors to the "rather mad dogs with rabies" from Cervantes' Don Quixote, and unveiled his plans to use Venezuela's energy reserves as a political tool. "We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," he said. Mr Robertson's remarks have threatened to inflame tension between the US and one of its main oil suppliers. [Guardian]

There is more Guardian coverage on Chavez here.

The fingers of mad preachers are usually far from the button, but the untimely words of Pat Robertson, easily discounted in Washington and airily dismissed by the state department as "inappropriate", might yet wake an echo among zealots in Venezuela.

- Richard Gott who is the author of Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution

Chavez is using Venezuela's windfall not to fatten his own country's oligarchy but to benefit the Venezuelan poor and help neighboring countries:

Pat Robertson looks at Chavez and sees a devilish danger. He wants our government to "take him out." Over at the White House, Bush and his aides may use more restrained language, but their goals are not much different. But there's a whole different view down in Latin America, where a half-dozen nations have seen liberal and populist governments swept into office in recent years. Down there, Chavez has become the new miracle man of oil. Unlike Exxon/Mobil and the Big Oil fat cats, who wallow in their record profits while the rest of us pay, Chavez is spreading the wealth around.A dangerous man, indeed. [Juan Gonzales/NY Daily News/Common Dreams]

The South American view of Chavez is much kinder than the United States' view of him:

He's highly popular with the country's poor but resented by many in the upper classes. Recent polls show him receiving about 70 percent support from Venezuelans. To U.S. observers, his warm relations with Castro and his regular criticism of U.S. actions and policies such as the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan have been worrisome. He regularly warns against what he calls the United States' imperialist policy and threatens to use Venezuela's oil money to counter northern influence.For many South Americans, however, Chavez is little more than a colorful president who's feuding with the world's superpower. [Contra Costa Times/Knight Ridder]

Pat Robertson showed that, as a so-called Christian leader, he is a hypocrite, and his apology comes too late to see him as anything other than a hypocrite. UK writer Ron Ferguson spots off a beauty from the Gospel according to Mullah Pat:

And Jesus goeth up to a high mountain with his disciples and saith unto them: "See that King Herod? I want him taken out. He hath it coming; not only that, it will be cheaper than waging war on the Romans." And Peter, also known as Scarface, saith unto Jesus: "Right, boss. Your wish is our command. It shall be done." And so it came to pass. [Herald]

_____

Related:
Land for People not for Profit in Venezuela

The New Republic:

"..the U.S. struggle against violent religious extremists abroad is damaged significantly when our own religious extremists all too casually resort to violent exhortations. Nor does it help that Robertson's invocation of American covert assassins only feeds Chavez's paranoia of, well, American covert assassins, which he then uses to justify taking his country further down the road toward authoritarianism."

A Bush Blair Love Ballad

A Bush Blair Love Ballad
Must-See

I picked up this romantic gem from Mark Oliver at the Guardian newsblog. Thanks, Mark. I've gotten all squishy about the eyeballs after viewing it. Mwwwaaah!

Cindy Sheehan Speaks to Parents of Fallen Soldiers

Cindy Sheehan Speaks to Parents of Fallen Soldiers

Excerpt from today's statement from Mrs. Sheehan, directed toward the parents of fallen soldiers who still support the Bush narrative of the Iraq war's cause and course [source: Crooks and Liars]:

"If there is any family who says that they believe their child died for a noble cause, I say that is your right; if that helps you get through the day..if that helps you in your pain. We might not have the same politics, but trust me, we have the same pain. We do what we have to do to get through our pain and we hope they respect us for that, and we respect them in anything they have to do to get through their pain."

Friday Blog Showcase: Random Fate

Friday Blog Showcase: Random Fate

At Random Fate, Jack Grant has a quote for all of us to think about.

Jack also has some interesting thoughts about the Iraq war controversy. Many people on the Right are becoming conscious of (and concerned about) certain points about which those on the left have been screaming, at the top of their lungs, for a long time. When the Left does it they are called "shrill". When the Right does it, the Left feels vindicated for the sore throats they got while having had to scream.

Mort Kondracke Compares Fallen Hero's Mom to Mullah Robertson

Mort Kondracke Compares Fallen Hero's Mom to Mullah Robertson



Mort Kondracke had the nerve to compare this cowardly, hypocrital, nutcase-chickenhawk to the mother of a fallen American hero today on Brit Hume's Fox News show panel.

His words: "Cindy Sheehan, meet Pat Robertson."

All I can say is: What a stupid and insulting demagogue Mort Kondracke sounded like today. This is the same Mort Kondracke who said about Zell Miller at last year's RNC convention,

"Miller went over the line into demagoguery by accusing the Democrats of defaming American troops."

Demagogy bleeds from Kondracke's moral relativism in which he attempts to draw an unequivocal connection between Pat Robertson and Mrs. Sheehan, in terms of their "outrageous statements".

Poppycock.
Robertson wants someone murdered.
Mrs. Sheehan wants to know WHY her son, a war hero, was murdered.

"Mort Kondracke, meet Zell Miller."
Mort seems to want to be the Zell Miller of cable news journalism.

He has sunk about as low as you can go. (Almost as low as Robertson himself). Perhaps the job at Fox News has washed away a good chunk of his common sense. Maybe he's gotten into Brit Hume's bottle of hair dye and it's permeated his brain and left him tetched.

________

Pat Robertson's call for American agents to assassinate President Hugo Chavez is a "terrorist" statement that needs to be investigated by U.S. authorities, Venezuela said Tuesday. [Yahoo News]

Moog Dies in Asheville

Moog Dies in Asheville

Anonymoses has a blogpost about the life and death of Robert A. Moog, who died at his home in Asheville, N.C.



Inspired by the genius of Mr. Moog, I have memories of my father, who was an electrical engineer and a musician, building his own synthesizer at my family's dining room table back in the early '70s - and my mother asking the daily question, "When are you going to get that thing done?"

My heartfelt sympathies to his wife, Ileana; his children, Laura Moog Lanier, Matthew Moog, Michelle Moog-Koussa and Renee Moog; a stepdaughter, Miranda Richmond; and his former wife, Shireleigh Moog.

Bryan Preston Calls 70% of America "the Enemy"

Bryan Preston Calls 70% of America "the Enemy"

70% of Americans are questioning whatever the hell it is we are doing in Iraq today...and what the pre-war secular government of Iraq ever had to do with the bin Ladenism.

Bryan Preston, a guest blogger at Michelle Malkin's website today, send kisses and flowers to David Frum, saying that: "... our war premise had the effect of leaving us vulnerable to any flimsy charge either the caliphascist enemy or the anti-American agitators in the West could throw at us."

Note that Preston uses "us", "our", etc, as if Americans who disagree with his version of the two popular war narratives are "the enemy" themselves.

The repeated and haughty categorization of Americans who question our purpose in Iraq as "anti-American agitators", whom he lumps in with the "caliphascists", is nothing but disgusting.

Mr. Preston may feel strongly about his beliefs, but he'd best understand that he lives in a nation where over half the free and democratic citizens have doubts.

When he points a finger at them and cries "anti-American", he looks like a fool who severely regrets that they are exercising their right to say what they honestly feel.

While I encourage Mr. Preston to state his beliefs, I totally condemn him when he accuses fellow Americans of betrayal.

His biggest break from reality is when he says "We premised this war not so much on a nation's right of self-defense as on our moral superiority over the enemy."

Interesting use of the word "we". I think, for a reality check, Mr. Preston should take a good, hard look at the President's speech to the nation on March 17, 2003 - less than 48 hours before the Iraq war began.

I saw this line from one of Mr. Preston's writings:

"The left has argued--in complete bad faith--that President Bush said Saddam already was an imminent threat, then used the lack of major WMD stashes to somehow "prove" that Bush was lying about the whole thing."

Complete bad faith? Dear God, what is Mr. Preston thinking? The war was advocated as necessary, in its pre-eminent nature, because Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to our national security. It was pressed into the American public's psyche, day in/ day out in the lead-up to the war; in an unmistakable political hardball-style; by the Bush administration.

The took a risk with intelligence they knew was shaky and controversial.
They turned out to be dead wrong.

Now Mr. Preston suggests it is "in bad faith" that we mention it? That is insane.

We are all Americans, and until Mr. Preston respectfully speaks to all Americans with something logical that reaches their hearts and minds, he will be seen as a polarizing and repulsive force - even if his intentions are in good faith.

John Edwards: Podcast #4

John Edwards - The Fourth Podcast

Cate Edwards is the special guest on John Edwards' fourth podcast. Edwards was in NYC for the podcast, along with his daughter Cate Edwards. He began with some updates on last month's progress:

Cate Edwards
This month's special guest
- Elizabeth and the children have moved back to North Carolina. Elizabeth is there with Jack and Emma Claire, and they're having a great summer together.

- Sen Edwards was in Chicago, speaking at a Rainbow Push meeting; he was speaking about Poverty, which he says is his life's cause, and about the need for the Democratic party to stand strong for their core beliefs.

- He was in New Hampshire raising money for Democratic candidates and had a Poverty meeting.

- He had a Poverty meeting in NYC on the day of this podcast.

- He's been very busy, in a good way, raising money for a State senator in New York and other state candidates.

Cate Edwards took the microphone to send a message about the organization she helped to start, which is called Generation Engage. It is a youth voter initiative of a different kind. The group would like to promote an increase voter turnout for youths aged 18-24 through community infrastructure - built from the ground-up. They are targeting 19-29 year olds - especially non-college youth (one half of those in the 18-29 age bracket are not attending college). This age group is harder to reach because they are not in typical college atmosphere. Generation Engage will be a sustained effort, even when it's not a campaign season. It's going well so far. Cate invites anyone interested to go to the Generation Engage website for more information.

Benjamin from Michigan asked Cate for the best piece of advice her parents have ever given her. Cate replied that she's had a lot of great advice, all different kinds, but the best is probably to never look down on anybody. A belief in equality is the best advice that Cate believes anyone could give.

Jasmine from Nashville asked about Sen Edwards' work on the minimum wage - how does she get involved? Sen Edwards replied that he's working to raise the minimum wage (now at an embarrassing $5.15 per hour) in Pheonix, AZ; Albequerque, NM; Lansing, MI; and Cleveland and Columbus, OH. In the next several months, Edwards will be concentrating on working with coalitions in various cities (including ACORN) to promote the program and get wage increases on the ballot and into law, along with an expansion of the Earned income tax credit.

Lane, a Cincinatti resident and a student at the University of Ohio, was extremely discouraged with the 2004 election in his state, after all the change he and his fellow activists had tried to effect. Some of the many problems were: long lines, poorly trained election offiicials, absentee ballot problems, race-related issues, and difficulties with registration and polling locations. Sen Edwards commented that a recent DNC report, which was a very thorough study, showed that, 40 years after the Voting Rights Act, we still have enormous work to do to in order to ensure equal access and to ensure that your vote is fairly counted. Sen Edwards believes that Republicans will likely ignore the result as they have in the past, and that the RNC will continue to do as little as possible, saying they'll register voters and make sure no voter fraud occurs - and we know what that means - it means that they'll engage in the same questionable tactics in which they've engaged in the past. There have been far too many obstacles to fair voting. Sen Edwards believes that there is no excuse for all these questions that need to be raised about the fairness of our voting system - the leading democracy on the planet should have the best election system in the world. It's absolutely ridiculous to have to wait 6 hours to vote and to have questions about your ability to vote once you get there. Much needs to be done. It's especially important that partisans are not in control of the election process. Knowing that Kenneth Blackwell was in charge of the Ohio election process and was, at the same time, the head of Bush's Ohio campaign was INSANE. It could not have possibly been seen as impartial. This system must be fixed. Bush talks about promoting democracy overseas, but for all the talking, we know he he has a heck of a lot of work to do about democracy right here at home. Democrats must lead the way - or no one will do it.

The next question is from Sharon - the country is clearly divided, the Supreme Court. If you were advising President Bush, what would you tell him to do? Tongue-in-cheek, Edwards procalimed that Bush is not likely to ask him for any advice anytime soon, but he offered some ideas for what he thinks Bush should do:
- Consensus is important - before nomination. Bush needs to consult with members of the Democratic party. It could avoid a fight. If he nominates someone out of the mainstream, the Democrats must be prepared for a fight - backbone and guts will be absolutely necessary.
- Nominating a Supreme Court justice who is out of the mainstream will effect everything that happens sunsequently. Look back on what has already occurred: we saw the results of Bush v Gore in 2000, where the US Supreme Court decided who president would be. We see what an impact a Supreme Court can have. Every justice has a huge impact on the fate of our nation. This will be a fight well worth having - if Bush refuses to do what is right. While serving in the Senate, Sen Edwards opposed a judicial nominee named Terry Boyle from North Carolina because he felt that Boyle didn't belong on the court. Later, Allison Duncan's name came of for Fourth Circuit nomination, there was consensus, Edwards felt she was a very capable Repulcan from North Carolina was a good, solid African-American justice sailed through the process.

*SEE FINDING A JUSTICE WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT by John Edwards [Raleigh News & Observer]

Ali from Pennsylvania asked Cate, since she's been working for Vanity Fair in NYC, if she'd heard anything about the Mark Felt story. (aka 'Deep Throat') Cate is an assistant to one the the editors (who edits Christopher Hitchens, James Wolcott, Amy Fine Collins). She loves the job and is very happy. She has three rommates, one she's known since she was a 6-year-old in Raleigh. North Carolina; and two friends from Princeton. She had no inside scoop on Mark Felt. The first she heard about it was in an e-mail from Mom (elizabeth), who had found the story while "scouring the internet." (In the background, John commented that Elizabeth is great at keeping on top of what's going on. He said, "Nothing gets by Mom!" He also mentioned that this podcast seemed a bit strange, since they were not podcasting into a microphone set up on Jack's blanket this time. ;)

Wilma from Phoenix had a question about Social Security. She asked "what do you think of the Republicans' new Social Security plan?" Sen Edwards replied, with a knowing laugh, "What do I think? I think it stinks. They don't believe in Social Security - they didn't believe in it to begin with." We know their aim is to privatize the Social Security system and remove the safety net. He said his view was uncomplicated.
We believe people who worked hard all their lives ought to be able to grow old without their having to depend on their children to support them. He assures us that we'll fight to the death to save it.

Tara from Sacramento asked Cate about Generation Engaged, what are the important issues for young people today and how can young people stay engaged and involved in between election cycles? How are we going to keep young people involved in the Democratic party? Cate recommended that all young people should stay informed - when the big issues come up rather than waiting until an election season. She raised the issues of Social Security and the minimum wage as examples of something which effects young Americans' lives and of which conversations should not be delayed until election time. She suggested having simple conversations with one another about all issues, and that political activism is important. Getting together in numbers to have these conversations will lend young people a greater voice in the issues that affect their country. Young people have an interest in the same basic issues as anyone else. Regarding the question about keeping young peopel involved in the Democratic party, Cate said that it isn't merely the issues that hook young people, they're also "good at telling whether or not someone really means what they're saying." The younger generation has a lot of passionate people, and young people look for passion, heart, and morals in their leaders. Cate mentioned poverty as an important issue. Young people in particular, have great compassion for all people around them, and the issue of poverty is appealing to passionate young people looking for a moral cause. They see it, simply, as the right thing to do.

Sen. Edwards thanked Cate for her participation and said that he and Mrs. Edwards were very proud of her.

The Podcast ended with an ethereal musical composition called "introspection" by Bob Alexander, an artist from North Carolina. See BobAlexander.net. If you are interested in submitting music for future podcasts, you may write an e-mail to: infoOAC@oneamericacommittee.com

Iraq Updates

Army Recruitment Down; Iraq Updates
Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, the Army deputy chief of staff, said the Army can sustain 100,000 in Iraq for the next four years if needed without "breaking the force" but he said it would include three or four rotations for some troops. [Fox News]

Juan Cole has what I consider to be the best blogging today on the subject of Iraq.

Cole has a list of Ten Things Congress Could Demand From Bush on Iraq.

The attack on US vessels at the port of Aqaba in Jordan shows that the Iraqi war is spreading terrorism in the region.

Ledeen the Cur

Ledeen the Cur

James Wolcott rips Michael Ledeen to shreds.

Listen to: Prairie Chapel Road

Listen to: Prairie Chapel Road

Eric Folkerth has written a song about Camp Casey. You can listen to the song by clicking here.

Prairie Chapel Road
By Eric Folkerth

The grieving mother pitched her tent,
On Prairie Chapel Road...

With questions for the President
On Prairie Chapel Road...

A host of pilgrims came along
To Prairie Chapel Road...

Raised their voices, sang their songs
On Prairie Chapel Road...

You can mow down the crosses,
but you can’t mow down our hope,
‘Cause the truth will always greet
The light of day.
And we know what the cost is,
In this darkness, where we grope,
But we know that peace
Will be the better way...
On Prairie Chapel Road...

Around the nation, all eyes turned
To Prairie Chapel Road...

To mark the lessons we had learned
On Prairie Chapel Road...

People who had found their voice
On Prairie Chapel Road...

Millions more who joined their choice
On Prairie Chapel Road...

In every city, and small town,
There’s a Prairie Chapel Road

Where two sides of the road are found,
On Prairie Chapel Road...

And we may always disagree
On Prairie Chapel Road...

But the right to do keeps us free
On Prairie Chapel Road...

The grieving mother pitched her tent,
On Prairie Chapel Road...

With questions for the President
On Prairie Chapel Road...

Copyright © 2005

Why is DLC Generating Party Disunity?

Why is DLC Generating Party Disunity?

I deeply regret that the DLC is so obviously attacking members of their own Democratic party, classifying those who have serious reservations about the security disaster in Iraq right now as "unpatriotic". Actually, I am more aghast than sorry upon seeing it. Without party unity, the Democrats will not be winning elections in 2006 or beyond.

Can you imagine Ken Mehlman talking about "upscale white conservatives" who "seem torn about the meaning of patriotism"?

Can you??!?

Is any strategy devised to make your party members look strong on defense worth questioning the patriotism of people like myself, a hard-working and loyal American who has serious and realistic questions about the war in Iraq?

If anyone affiliated with the DLC sees this blogpost, I say to you: Stop this tactic immediately. It's no-win.

"Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe. And they need to have faith in their fellow citizens: Americans will accept constructive criticism of their country if they know the critic's heart is in the right place."

Will Marshall is directing this message to people like Cindy Sheehan, who happens to have people like Michael Moore (an Eagle Scout) who agree with her at the moment. Will Marshall, in my humble opinion, is dead wrong when he goes into this territory and calls any concerned American citizen "anti-American". These are the tactics of hate talk-radio, and it's not honorable or respectable to buy into that line of thinking and turn it around to use on your own fellow party members.

In a recent article which I consider to be required reading for all, James J. Kroeger states:

"They [Republicans] define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively]."

The DLC are defining members of their own Democratic party negatively, and are thus campaigning as a Republican would...against their own! Losing confidence in their own convictions, they have bought into the lies which the Right has expertly and negatively employed against the Democrats - and are making it their own message, turning the tables on key members of the Democratic party.

Oh - this is very bad, DLC. Do you hear me?

Very, very bad.