FP Mag: Experts Assess U.S. War on Terror

FP Mag: Experts Assess
U.S. War on Terror

"We are losing the war on terror because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause. Our insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time feeds al Qaeda’s vision of the world."

- Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
From an article called The Terrorism Index in ForeignPolicy magazine (July/August 2006}

FOREIGN POLICY and the Center for American Progress teamed up to survey more than 100 of America’s top foreign-policy experts — Republicans and Democrats alike - mining the highest echelons of America’s foreign-policy establishment for their assessment of how the United States is fighting the Global War on Terror.

10 Steps to End America's Fossil-Fuel Addiction

10 Steps to End America's
Fossil-Fuel Addiction

The most current edition of Popular Science boasts a special secion called the Future of Energy- 10 Steps To End America’s Fossil-Fuel Addiction.
• Step 1: Harness the Wind
• Step 2: End Gridlock
• Step 3: Rev Up Our Hybrid Rides
• Step 4: Brew Better Ethanol
• Step 5: Switch on the Sun Lamp
• Step 6: Go H2
Step 7: Ride the Waves for Watts
• Step 8: Dig Deeper
• Step 9: Make Gas from Trash
Step 10: Use "Negawatts"

Click here for an interactive map titled The New Power Planet.

Lookin' For a Leader

Lookin' For a Leader

Don't miss Amy (NC Dem's) animated short "Lookin' for a Leader" (as seen at Youtube)

'Matriot' Peace Majority: The New Soccer Moms

'Matriot' Peace Majority: The New Soccer Moms

Katrina vanden Heuvel introduced Voters For Peace to readers at her Editor's Cut feature of The Nation online this week.

The Matriots - mothers/patriots/peace activists - these women are the new soccer moms. They take their responsibility as citizens just as seriously as they take their responsibility as mothers. They belong to diverse families and they live in every kind of neighborhood in every state of the union. They're raising the next generation of Americans. Cindy Sheehan lost her son, who was an Eagle Scout and a soldier, to a war that all can see as a chaotic mess and a macabre mistake. These "matriots" believe that life is precious - far too precious to play rhetorical games while pursuing a failed policy. After all, their children are the ones who are asked to fight these wars - risking death and having to wound and kill others. They believe that war should always be a last resort because, as evil as the United States should choose to label anyone else, these mothers know that war brings about its own evils. Ending the war in Iraq is of the utmost importance to them. Regardless of party, they will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not wholeheartedly a speedy end to the war in Iraq. They believe that all elected representatives should act overtly to prevent any future war of aggression. This public position must be part of the campaign of any politician who expects to get their votes.

42 House Democrats voted to pass the vacuous resolution this week (HR 861) despite convincing and heartfelt debate from so many on the Democratic side of the aisle. These are the names, and may I say that I am deeply ashamed of their vote on this issue:

Barrow (12th-GA), Bean (8th-IL), Berman (28th-CA),

Berry (1st-AR), Bishop (2nd-GA), Boren (2nd-OK),

Boswell (3rd-IA), Boucher (9th-VA), Cardoza (18th-CA),

Case (2nd-HI), Chandler (6th-KY), Cooper(5th-TN),

Costa (20th-CA), Costello (12th-IL), Cramer (5th-AL),

Cuellar (28th-TX), Davis (4th-TN), Edwards (17th-TX),

Etheridge (2nd-NC), Gordon (6th-TN), Gene Green (29th-TX),

Herseth (SD), Higgins (27th-NY), Holden (17th-PA),

Kind (3rd-WI), Larsen (2nd-WA), Lipinski (3rd-IL),

Lynch (9th-MA), Marshall (3rd-GA), Matheson (2nd-UT),

McCarthy (4th-NY), McIntyre (7th-NC), Melacon (3rd-LA),

Moore (3rd-KS), Peterson (7th-MN), Ross (4th-AR),

Salazar (3rd-CO), Smith (9th-WA), Snyder (2nd-AR),

Spratt (5th-SC), Taylor (MS), Thompson (2nd-MS)




What if millions decided to vote their conscience and said 'No More War Candidates'?

Engelhardt Interview with Andrew Bacevich

Engelhardt Interview with Andrew Bacevich:
Time to Rethink U.S. Role in the World



I am not ashamed to call myself an intelligent patriot. The writing you see me do here is not for profit of any kind. It is a direct extension of my deepest conscience. I joined a contingent of concerned and intelligent patriots last month in Washington D.C. on a two-mile walk through the streets of the city. You didn't have to belong to a special interest group to be a part of this march. One hour before the march began, I'd had no idea it was even going to take place. As the group marched, citizens on the street were invited to join and shouts of "Wake Up, America!" were echoing off the walls of tall buildings where citizens waved and gave "thumbs-up" from open windows above. Escorted by police on either end of the group of walking and chanting citizens, we made our way to the front of the home of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld to tell him that we would not accept a war in Iran as part of the failed course that the Bush administration has taken in America's war on terror.

Cindy Sheehan and others gather peacefully outside the Rumsfeld doorway

Last month, Tom Englehardt interviewed Andrew Bacevich, who recently took part in an eye-opening and frank discussion for Harpers magazine titled "American Coup d’Etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable." Mr. Bacevich is professor of international relations at Boston University and the author, most recently, of The New American Militarism. He served as an officer in the US Army from 1969 to 1992.

Judging from the underlying tone of uncertainty represented in the interview, Mr. Bacevich is not completely convinced that Rumsfeld isn't plotting a strategy that would include militray attacks on Iran as part of his vision of a future extension of the war on terror. Mr. Bacevich reminds us that the officer corps of the U.S. military privately want none of it:

Having said that, with all the speculation about Bush administration interest in expanding the Global War on Terror to include Iran, I suspect the officer corps, already seeing the military badly overstretched, doesn't want to have any part of such a war. Going public with attacks on Rumsfeld is one way of trying to slow whatever momentum there is toward an Iran war.

I must say, I don't really think we're on a track to have a war with Iran any time soon -- maybe I'm too optimistic here [he laughs] -- but I suspect even the civilian hawks understand that the United States is already overcommitted, that to expand the war on terror to a new theater, the Iranian theater, would in all likelihood have the most dire consequences, globally and in Iraq.

Juan Cole has recently said something along the same lines, as I posted here yesterday.

Mr. Bacevich says, when we hear the generals talking about Donald Rumsfeld's incompetence and micromanagement, what they're doing is arguing against Rumsfeld's military transformation project that, in Bacevich's all-too-kind words, resulted in an outcome in Iraq that, to date, is "at best ambiguous."

He puts a counter-spin on the talking points you hear about the alleged brilliance of the vision of Rumsfeld's downsized lean-mean-and-ready military transformation, along with the "New American Century" chickenhawks and their blown expectation for the success of American military supremacy to achieve an imperialistic goal. At one point in the interview he says that he doesn't buy as readily into the "Bush lied" set of beliefs. He thinks Bush and company believed everything they were saying.:

They really believed that, once they succeeded in Iraq, a whole host of ancillary benefits were going to ensue, transforming the political landscape of the Middle East. All of those expectations were bizarre delusions and we're paying the consequences now.

He lays out some of the consequences:

This country of 290 million people has a force of about 130,000 soldiers committed in Iraq, fighting something on the order of 10-20,000 insurgents and a) we're in a war we can't win, b) we're in the fourth year of a war we probably can't sustain much longer. For those who believe in the American imperial project, and who see military supremacy as the foundation of that empire, this ought to be a major concern: What are we going to do to strengthen the sinews of American military power, because it's turned out that our vaunted military supremacy is not what it was cracked up to be. If you're like me and you're quite skeptical about this imperial project, the stresses imposed on the military and the obvious limits of our power simply serve to emphasize the imperative of rethinking our role in the world so we can back away from this unsustainable notion of global hegemony.

When Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa) and many other House Democrats argued for a change in course last week during the debate on the vacuous House Resolution 861, they were saying that we need to rethink our role in the world. How that translates to "cut and run" is rationally ambiguous, but "cut and run" is a perfect rhetorical slogan to make a political opponent look like a coward. HR861 was just that - - a perfect rhetorical tool to help partisan Republicans make Democrats look like cowards. In the meantime, the same Republicans made a collective agreement, even if it was a subconscious agreement, to abdicate their responsibility to even pretend to welcome reasoned debate on rethinking the United States' role in the modern world. I think it's going to come back and bite them in the ass unless they can turn their narrative around with Rovian stealth-craftiness when (and if) the Bush administration finally sees the dire consequences of their failed policy.

Be sure to read the Englehardt interview with Andrew Bacevich in full. Beyond the U.S. being preoccupied with trying to manage Iraq, he says he's hard-pressed to see a coherent strategy in the Middle East or elsewhere.


Seeing this for myself, I joined that walk to Rumsfeld's house last month to let him know that you can only fool the American people for so long. Rumsfeld's put on a good game face, but it's past the time we should have ended the occupation in Iraq. It surely isn't a time to be stirring up a new conflict in Iran. The longer we wait to have real debate about our nation's role in the world, the weaker a nation we will become to the world and to ourselves.

* Those readers who want some background on the issues discussed in this interview are advised, by Mr. Egelkhardt, to pick up a copy of Bacevich's book, The New American Militarism. There is also a background post about Mr. Bacevich and his ideas at TomDispatch.

Robert Zoellick Walks Away

Robert Zoellick Walks Away

I have something that I wish to say regarding the lack of commitment and responsibility that stems from what I believe has been a series of poor choices made by the Bush administration when considering the people most likely to take seriously their solemn duties to the people of this country in the positions of great responsibility to which they are assigned.

This thought came to me today when Condoleeza Rice announced that Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, 52, the department's No. 2 official is resigning his post to take a job with Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., the world's biggest securities firm by market value. Rice has not yet announced a successor to Zoellick. White House spokesman Tony Snow said that Zoellick "has been wanting to pursue opportunities in the private sector for sometime and now he's going to do it." I guess opportunity to be a chief diplomat on behalf of his nation and its people wasn't the opportunity that Zoellick found most inspiring. After having persuaded the most powerful rebel group in the western Sudanese area of Darfur to sign a peace agreement with the government after four sleepless nights of negotiations earlier this month in Nigeria, Mr. Zoellick is walking away.

Was it the lure of the green on Wall Street that tempted our #2 State chief away? I don't think so. I believe it was a matter of pride. When John Snow's replacement for Treasury secretary was made and Hank Paulson took the job, Mr. Zoellick was ready to bolt because he didn't get the job himself. It was no secret. Bloomberg News reported last month that "a prominent Republican close to the White House said Zoellick told administration officials in unmistakable terms of his plans and that the No. 2 U.S. diplomat has received indications that President George W. Bush is unlikely to tap him for the Treasury job."

It seems that Sudan was just a stepping stone to Robert Zoellick in his prideful quest for the top job at Treasury. His personal hopes fell flat and you can see how quickly he dropped the public facade of caring and commitment to the awesome responsibility that had been handed to him by the President of the United States. Simply put, Zoellick was ready to bolt because he had bigger fish to fry. I'd thank Mr. Zoellick for every significant part he'd played in securing peace when the only other option was violence, but I would hope that the person chosen to replace him has less ambition and more genuine and serious commitment to peace and diplomacy. He's leaving a hole during a period when he's needed the most. At a time when the President and his administration have made so many decisions on the side of unnecessary violence when diplomacy was the first and best option, Americans need to know they have committed and responsible people in the top positions at State.

It should be disturbing to know that Mr. Zoellick was only performing while waiting for a cushier job to come along.

On a last note, think, if you will, about another one of the poor choices that this administration has made about the people they put into top positions of responsibility. Think back to the woefully inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina and FEMA’s (Heckuva-job-Brownie) Michael Brown, the failed "Boss Hog" of the Arabianhorse show cicrcuit.

"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth, that ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans:

That the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too.

All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents and meetings and material assistance, which no man could have dreamed would have come his way.

Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, BEGIN IT.
Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.
Begin it now.

--Goethe

Goldberg Wears An Empty Moral Hat

Goldberg Wears An Empty Moral Hat
..covering a Democrat-hating head

I'd never view Jonah Goldberg as a leader, especially after what I just read. His imagination seems to be about as wide as the walls of his closed little mind. All he seems to know and to understand is "kill or be killed."

Reading his latest attack piece on Democrats, I sense that he cannot seem to imagine any other route to settling the Iraqi situation with any scenario other than crack downs and more futile killings. Goldberg feigns shocked distaste over what appears to be a common-sense belief among many political leaders (and sensible American people) that, when Iraq's Prime Minister al Maliki gives amnnesty to murderers of Americans, it will change the conscience of the people, making more Americans much easier to target and kill. Although there is no realistic correlation, Goldberg transposes his feigned distaste about those who refuse to join him in supporting amnesty for murdering insurgents into hyperbole about Democrats wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq. Goldberg takes great pains to remain fact-free about the hundreds of entirely reasonable points that the Democrats made on the House floor this week about changing the course in Iraq while debating HR861. I guess he thinks no one was paying attention.

Blowhards come a dime a dozen these days, and I suppose Goldberg is one of the Kings of the Blowhards. I haven't seen him sign up to go and fight the war yet. I guess he'd rather sit behind a desk and make stuff up about Democrats while he defends 'get-out-of-jail-free' cards for the murderers of American troops.

He shows that he hasn't got the smarts to see beyond our military occupation in Iraq. (Or if he does have the smarts, he's reserving them for when he can best use them to make Republicans smell like roses). Dear God, I hope someone in power has the smarts to see beyond U.S. military involvement, because the time has come for the occupation in Iraq to end. For all their rhetorical complaining about Democrats having few ideas, the party enjoying majority status today has nothing to offer except for vacuous rhetoric and pundits that offer no creativity; no rationale that follows an acceptable moral course.

Fathers Day

Fathers Day


Me and Dad

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

"Certain is it that there is no kind of affection so purely angelic as of a father to a daughter. In love to our wives there is desire; to our sons, ambition; but to our daughters there is something which there are no words to express."

- Joseph Addison

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


1965

I'm wishing a Happy Fathers Day to every loving father, and a very special Fathers Day to my own Dad.

Tar Heel Tavern #69

Tar Heel Tavern #69

Erin Monahan hosted #69 beautifully. (Hey - we'll have no naughty comments!) She got a great response to her topic of Reciprocity: The joy of giving, and receiving in return. Thanks, Erin!

Rich: Dems Screwed By Lack of Narrative

Dems: Please don't tell us Karl Rove is going to push you into your corners again. 42 of you in the House voted for the vacuous HR861. Who on God's earth told you that would be a good move?


Rich: Dems Screwed By Lack of Narrative

Who knows how to spin a great web? According to Frank Rich, not many in the Democrats' camp. Last week, I read a post by "journalist3072" at the One America Committee blog about a lost opportunity for the left because of inefficient spokespeople. I saw the same thing happen throughout the last Presidential campaign. Karl Rove is a treasure to his party only because there's no Democratic spider who can spin a web quite like him. As Mr. Rich explains:

What's most impressive about Mr. Rove, however, is not his ruthlessness, it's his unshakable faith in the power of a story. The story he's stuck with, Iraq, is a loser, but he knows it won't lose at the polls if there's no story to counter it. And so he tells it over and over, confident that the Democrats won't tell their own. And they don't — whether about Iraq or much else. The question for the Democrats is less whether they tilt left, right or center, than whether they can find a stirring narrative that defines their views, not just the Republicans'.

What's needed, wrote Michael Tomasky in an influential American Prospect essay last fall, is a "big-picture case based on core principles." As he argued, Washington's continued and inhumane failure to ameliorate the devastation of Katrina could not be a more pregnant opportunity for the Democrats to set forth a comprehensive alternative to the party in power. Another opportunity, of course, is the oil dependence that holds America hostage to the worst governments in the Middle East.

Instead the Democrats float Band-Aid nostrums and bumper-sticker marketing strategies like "Together, America Can Do Better."

This war in Iraq is an issue that will never go away until we make it go away by bringing our troops home and concentrating on regaining some of the incredible amount of international respect and influence that we've lost. When the GOP is forced, by Democrats, to start facing some truth, we can get on with some kind of national reconciliation. Until then, the public will remain divided on the issue, deeply and bitterly so. And Democrats will take a hit at the polls for not standing up and hanging more tightly together with one clear message. If Democrats cannot stand up for one another and publicly reject the failed policy in Iraq, they could find the most creative, air-tight narrative in the world on all the other issues and still come up losers.

If I could tell Democrats anything, I would ask them to think about one of the last scenes from the film "The Wizard of Oz", where Dorothy discovers she never needed ruby slippers for power...she'd always possessed the power she needed to get where she wanted to go. If Democrats want to win, they have to stop looking to high-paid campaign consultants who create boring campaign slogans and listen to the people out here who are speaking from our hearts. They have to fight back like sentry dogs with a narrative so strong and tight that no Rovian teeth can break through its skin.

Last week, my high-school aged son spoke to two older friends who have come back from their respective tours of duty in Iraq and being a curious young man, he asked many questions about their war experiences. He came home and told me he'd learned a new word. FUBAR. Both soldiers had told him that they thought that the Iraq war is FUBAR (f**ked up beyond all repair). Last February, a survey of US troops found that 72 percent wanted to withdraw within a year. The troops' morale has slipped not because of what we say, but because of what they've seen.

Today's LA Times editorial sees things in a slightly different way. They seem to trust that the public will see right through the GOP's tactics this week with the meaningless resolution of flimsy rhetoric on Iraq. They give the hypocrisy of a couple of Bush's recent statements a decidedly kind treatment, saying that "there is, to put it mildly, a tension between" the two statements. Bush has said that "success in Iraq depends upon the Iraqis" while he tells us that Iraq cannot be left to the Iraqis just yet. He talks about not wanting to "fail" in Iraq, but he cannot tell us what "victory" would realistically look like or how we could expect to get there in any reasonable time frame. Do Republicans want to be in Iraq for another 10, 15, 20 years? Why don't the Democrats start asking them - or at least begin to create a narrative in which that is the case? If the totally disingenuous "cut and run" is Rove's battle cry, the Democrats can create a narrative surrounding the myriad Republican f**k-ups in Iraq, the squandering of billions of our tax dollars - a good chunk of which has never been accounted for; the legally authorized resort to torture of prisoners with official approval of the abandonment of Geneva convention agreements leading to kidnapping and mistreatment of our own troops; and the GOP's seeming desire (with their allergy to timetables, we can draw no other conclusions) for a 20-year quagmire in that same country while they fight a civil war (and the Iraqi government gives amnesty to those who kill our troops, making them fair game for murder-happy insurgents).

It wouldn't take a Charles Dickens to create a narrative that would convince the public that a change in course is not only necessary, but essential to the security of this nation.

What Neocons and Zarqawi Have in Common

What Neocons and Zarqawi Have in Common
They both would have loved the U.S. to make war on Iran

Juan Cole has something to say that I hope you will not miss. He says that the American hawks who've been connected with the Likud Party in Israel, such as Michael Ledeen and Michael Rubin, who've been hoping and "trying to get up an American war on Iran, have turned out to have the same goal as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi!

Professor Cole gives fair warning about the likelihood of an ugly outcome should the U.S. decide to do what the neocons and Zarqawi have wanted so badly:

It is the case that if you did want to see the US completely defeated and humiliated, you could not do better than have Washington open a second conventional front in Iran. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, more rugged in terrain, and 3 times more populous, and its population is politically savvy, literate and highly mobilized.

So, it doesn't matter whether you listen to Ledeen and Rubin on attacking Iran or to Zarqawi on the same subject. Either way, such a move spells disaster for the United States and should be opposed by genuine patriots who care about this country--until and unless Iran actually does something to the US that calls for a military response.

Gifts

Gifts


Sandy with Mariano Rivera

"When someone you love becomes a memory, the memory becomes a treasure."

This past week, I lost a treasure in my life. Her name was Sandy. We first met when she and her family moved next door to my childhood home when I was only six years old. Her husband worked with my Dad at the same company, General Electric. My mother and Sandy became immediate friends. My mother has always had an intuition for people and she knew Sandy was genuine in her feelings. That's what made them the best of friends for such a long time.

Sandy and her husband owned a marina in the Thousand Island region of New York State, where they'd spend each summer taking wonderful care of their clients. One customer (and friend) wrote this about Sandy:

We will cherish those nights on the porch at the Marina watching the sun set with a cup of coffee.

Even though life is not always beautiful, Sandy lived a beautiful life. She made sure that her family lived a beautiful life.

She loved to sing and play guitar - and she did both with complete joy. Her husband was a trained vocalist, too, and along with my own musical parents, I recall that my childhood was made sweet with all kinds of music. Her nephew had this to say, and I recall the song he's speaking of very well. I particularly remember Sandy performing it at one of my parents' wild and wacky Halloween parties.

I have very special memories of cousin Sandy when she played the guitar and sang "that chocolate ice cream cone".

1973 - My parents and my Uncle Howard looking a lot like Clooney's bunch in "Oh Brother Where Art Thou?"

A number of years ago, Sandy was once walking in the city when a would-be robber came from behind her and ripped her purse from her shoulder. She ran after the robber, and remained on his heels relentlessly screaming "You took my purse! Hey! That's my purse! Give it back! Drop it!" Stymied by Sandy's unusually strong will and overall excitement, the robber actually dropped the purse and ran away! Sandy's son Mark wrote this about her:

Mom would give you the shirt off her back without any hesitation. She also had a very strong will power as the thief that tried to steal her purse found out when she yelled to him to "drop it!"...

She was a major New York Yankees fan, and was thrilled to have made the acquaintance of closing Yankee pitcher Mariano Rivera while on a cruise (photo above).

What can you say when you know you have a treasure trove filled with unspeakable gifts left behind by a person that you spent so many years living with and loving? With so many years comes so much to say, yet we cannot say it all at once. It comes back to us, day by day - memory by memory. It provides warmth and reassurance on the days we feel we don't have a friend in the world.

My own brother recalled wonderful memories of childhood and the bittersweet time last Fall when my own dear mother asked for her sweet friend Sandy when Mom knew she was facing her final days on Earth. Sandy was there - with a friendship and faith never failing. She was a true and loyal friend to the end. Little did she know, when she was so selflesly tending to her best friend's last wishes, that she would soon discover that she also had a cancer that she would have to battle with valor and spiritual strength.


My grandfather with my mother (ctr) and Sandy (rt)
Note the trikes in the background

My brother Peter wrote this about his memories of Sandy:

Mike and Sandy were like my second parents, and I love them. I recall so much fun and laughter on Fremont Road. Sandy and Rose stayed the best of friends. Later in life, when my own mother was dying, Sandy was by her side always. Never missing a day. Faithful, and loving, never leaving my Mother's side. Sandy's gift of caring and giving was God given. We should all be so good. It came to her naturally. Why God takes such an Angel shall remain a mystery.

The greatest gift Sandy gave me was her lifelong example of how a good person should their life so it becomes worth more to her loved ones than all the gold in this world. She did it with faith, with humility, with hope, with caring, and with love.

How I'll miss her. Yet, I take comfort in knowing that I'll always have the gifts she left behind. I'm so very grateful. I hope to learn how to pass along those gifts myself someday.

The Angry Young Town Hall Boy

The Angry Young Town Hall Boy

This young man, who looks young enough to be my son, shows us the folly of the argument that requires a pot to call a kettle black. Says he:

"There's a reason the candidates Moulitsas backs always lose: He's a loser. The constituency he represents is an angry, radical constituency that is more concerned with being anti-Bush than pro-anything."

It seems that the only "angry" person, in this case, certainly seems to be the young gentleman (and I use the term loosely) who refers to another gentleman as "a loser." People who are real winners and who have a bit of class are generally congenial, collegial, - perhaps even conciliatory toward someone they perceive as the underdog. Make no mistake, this young man is one hundred times as angry as those who he claims harbor animosity. If young Ben Shapiro isn't angry, then it's quite possible that he's afraid that the object of his vicious comments is, indeed, a real threat.

If these possibilities do not apply, we can only surmise that this young man has little class and terrible manners.

Work a little harder at this, Ben. Even if you tell us you're not, your words make you look like an angry boy.

Dan Rather Leaving CBS

Dan Rather Leaving CBS

"Finishing details are being worked out for me to leave CBS News after 44 years," Mr. Rather said in a TelevisionWeek interview.

There's been much speculation about Dan Rather in cyberspace. The decidedly right-leaning NY Post had their snarky Page Six say:

Don't blame Katie Couric for the way CBS is treating Dan Rather, who's off the air and negotiating his severance from the network. "Katie had nothing to do with it," said one network insider. "This decision was made long before she got there." Some viewers with long memories assumed Rather, 74, was getting exactly what he gave to legendary Walter Cronkite in 1981 when he deposed Cronkite and took his anchor chair. Cronkite, known as the most trusted man in America, was eager to continue reporting for CBS News, but Rather kept him off the air. "Don't blame Katie," said our source. "They [CBS execs] just want to get rid of him." It was confirmed yesterday that CBS will not offer a new deal to Rather, whose contract expires at the end of the year. Earlier this week, Rather told The Philadelphia Inquirer he's not ready to retire: "My position is I want to work. Maybe it's my hubris, but I still think there are things I can contribute." But not at CBS

The truth would most likely be posted on CBS, so I went to check. Dan says he's leaving CBS. He said, "If it had it worked out for me to be an important contributor to CBS, I would have liked that...The work has not turned out what I hoped it would be.."

You can read between the lines.

David Blum talks about Rather's departure at the Huffington Post.

Bloomberg News Launches New Political Show

Bloomberg News Launches New Political Show

From ABC's Political Note:

Bloomberg News will launch a new weekend television show from Washington this Saturday, June 17: "Political Capital with Al Hunt." It will feature analysis of the top political, economic and international stories from Bloomberg reporters in Washington and around the world; "Simon Says" — a political debriefing from Roger Simon, Bloomberg's chief political reporter; an interview with a prominent newsmaker Sen. Obama this week, and a "Last Word" debate between Robert Novak and Margaret Carlson or Michelle Cottle.

Those in the know have been reading the text version of "Simon Says" for years — it is sort of a cross between Erma Bombeck, Richard Daley, and Jeff Zeleny's e-mail traffic.

Bloomberg television, of course, is carried in about half the cable homes around the country and also early mornings on the E! network which can be seen on virtually every cable system. More than 25 million additional homes can get Bloomberg on satellite. Because the key to Bloomberg is ametorization, "Political Capital" will air numerous times on Saturday and Sunday, starting at 6:30am (EST) and including 7:30 and 10:30pm on Saturday and Sunday mornings and afternoon.

Thank You, Reps Murtha, Skelton, Pelosi

"The American people are not naive. They know a failed policy when they see one. Iraq is a failed policy. It's time to redeploy."

- Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa) (link to story below)

Thank You, Reps Murtha, Skelton, Pelosi

We can see how you are bringing sanity and appeals for truth and reconciliation to the debate on the House floor over Iraq. When I saw little Patrick McHenry from North Carolina, who'd never seen a battlefield in his life, shaking his fists and spewing every sanctimonious Rove-flavored talking point he could remember while supporting this vacuous resolution on Iraq, I could clearly see how empty their arguments have become. I regret that they hold majority status in the House. They've abdicated a serious responsibility by drawing party lines around a meaningless "stay-the-course" slogan that is at the core of this resolution.

You are right, House Democrats. Stay strong. The Republicans in our House are acting as partisans in unison with a Pentagon-propanganda sheet by their sides. They are dividing the people of this country with their tactics. This time, however, because of your strong voices, the dividing line created by the meaningless rhetoric of this GOP resolution leaves many, many more Americans on the side of truth and reality, regardless of the outcome of this resolution.

I respect all of you House Democrats for standing up.

God bless you all.
May truth continue to prevail in the hearts of the American people after this divisive resolution vote has long passed.

_____________

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH by John Murtha

See the USA Today rebuttal that twists the truth to the extent that, if their opinion held water with reasonable peoople, it would mean that Democrats who ask for a real debate and responsiblity for oversight on the failed policy of the Bush administration in Iraq would not be honoring our troops. The opposite is true, most Americans know that, and we can only hope and pray that these misguided writers of the Fourth Estate learn that - soon. It's obvious that people with common sense and a patriotic spirit still have much to fear from misleading journalists - the same ones who followed along with the majority (with no objectivity) and contributed to the misleading wave that resulted in our nation going to a totally unnecessary war.

When will they learn?

Thank God for the Fifth Estate - the bloggers and writers of the alternative press.

The 2500th: Just a Number, Tony?

The 2500th: Just a Number, Tony?

Q: Tony, American deaths in Iraq have reached 2,500. Is there any response or reaction from the President on that?

MR. SNOW: It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something.

Just a number, Tony?

Hardly.

He (or she) was someone's baby; someone's husband (or wife); someone's friend; someone's love; someone's life.

Never just a number.

MyDD Posts Netroots Survey Results

MyDD Posts Netroots Survey Results

Chris Bowers has graciously posted results of a Netroots survey at MyDD (cross-posted at Daily Kos) that you may have not yet seen. It was the first conducted under BlogPac's new management.

If Netroots-Democrats could give Democratic candidates any advice, the thing they'd most want to tell them would be: "Stand for something!"

Senator John Edwards received the highest "favorable" rating of any potential Presidential candidate for 2008, sharing the highest "very favorable" ratings with Russ Feingold, who is greatly admired by the Netroots. (A tip of the hat to Benny).

Bush Republicans Obsessed With Sex

Bush Republicans Obsessed With Sex

This is unacceptable, immoral, indecent...so say those in government who are obsessed with making war on something that will harm few people, but will get them a few extra votes in November from voters with warped priorities. (Dick Cheney can say a major "F**k you" to his colleagues in the Senate whenever he likes, but a schmuck on the radio will be fined for it).



Meanwhile we lead our children to believe that the circumstances shown in photo below are perfectly acceptable - even honorable, as George W. Bush and his Republican rubber stampers were (and still are) obsessed with going to an unnecessary war with another country.



Everyone sees the hypocrisy. Everyone can see that the object of the Bush administration's obsessions are a product of misplaced values-priority.

Saving life, at all costs, is a moral venture. Going to unnecessary war increases the chance that you will lay innocent life to waste.

I'd rather look at a bare breast - maybe a thousand bare breasts - than to know a child died needlessly.

Maybe you'll say that's a false choice - and heaven knows the Bush Republicans never give us any of those!

Storm Troopers' Delight

Storm Troopers' Delight

Don't bother to knock.
Just break it down.
That's what liberty sounds like.
That's what liberty feels like.
Thanks, Right Wing Supreme court.