What Does Congress Do Now?

So now that Bush has committed another 21,500 troops to Iraq, what do we do? What's the next step in Congress?

Keith Olbermann: Surge

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Countdown after Bush's speech to the nation regarding his proposed "surge".

"Who is left to go and fight, sir? Who are you going to send to interrupt the flow from Iran and Syria, Laura and Barney?"

"You speak of mistakes and of the responsibility resting with you. But you do not admit to making those mistakes."

"I read this list last night, before the President's speech, and it bears repetition, because its shape and texture are perceptible only in such a context.
Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital.
He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Last night he promised to embed them, in Iraqi units.
He told us about WMD. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubes. Yellow-cake.
He has told us the war is necessary because Saddam was a material threat. Because of 9/11. Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaeda. Terrorism in General. To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread Democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases. Because this was a guy who tried to kill his Dad.
Because 439 words in to the speech last night, he trotted out 9/11 again.
In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. To get Muqtada Al-Sadr.To get Bin Laden.
He sent in fewer troops than the Generals told him to.
He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government "De-Baathified."
He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence.
He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. Gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
He and his government told us "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".
He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary.
He has insisted it's up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.
He has trumpeted the turning points: The fall of Baghdad; the death of Uday and Qusay; the capture of Saddam; A provisional government; a charter; a constitution; the trial of Saddam; elections; purple fingers; another government; the death of Saddam.
He has assured us: we would be greeted as liberators with flowers; as they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about "stay the course." We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And last night, that to gain Iraqis' trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad.
He told us the enemy was Al-Qaeda, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria.
The war would pay for itself. It would cost 1.7 billion dollars. 100 billion. 400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night's speech alone cost another six billion.
And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people."

Is Iran Next?

As shown in my previous post, Bush announced in his “New Way Forward” speech of January 10th, 2006, that Iran was next on his list. My first reaction was that this couldn’t possibly happen. There is no way that there could be enough support to warrant attacking another country on another front. But as I began to think deeper about it, I started dreading that it could happen. So after listening to some progressive talk radio, I did a little research.

On January 3rd, crazy Evangelical Pat Robertson said that GOD told him of a terrorist attack on the United States in 2007. Any normal person would be committed. This guy has a television show.

A couple of days before Bush’s speech, there was a strange odor in parts of New York and New Jersey that smelled like a gas leak... or at least the chemical additive to natural gas so you could smell it. I don’t believe as of this point the source of the smell was ever found.

At the same time, parts of downtown Austin, TX were closed off due to the finding of 63 dead birds in the downtown area. The cause of was not immediately known.

And in Miami, “For the second time in two days at the Port of Miami-Dade, a terrorism scare proved unfounded. This time, a bomb squad found no explosives in a suspicious package.”

Now I’m getting a little antsy here. Why is it that every time Bush plans a speech to the nation, there is some scare like this? Is my conspiracy antenna going up again? Here’s what I’ve found in the press. No, not the American press. We all know we can’t get real information from the American press except for the latest Britney Spears story or why Justin Timberlake broke up with Cameron Diaz. The real press… the WORLD PRESS.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. Not a left winger by any stretch of the imagination.
He writes in CounterPunch:

On January 7 the London Times reported that it has learned from "several Israeli military sources" that "Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons."
The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

…On January 7 the Jerusalem Post reported that Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the Israeli newspaper that "Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable" and that "the use of force against Teheran remained an option." The Jerusalem Post notes that "Hoyer is considered close to the Jewish community and many Israeli supporters have hailed his elevation in the House." Hoyer was the Israel Lobby's first victory over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who preferred Rep. John Murtha for the post. Murtha was the first important Democrat to call for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

On November 20 the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported that President Bush said he would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran.

Bush showed that he was in Israel's pocket when he blocked the world's attempt to stop Israel's bombing of Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure.

Then I came across the story in a cross link from the previous story in Today.AZ from January 2nd, 2006:
Isreali Brigadier General Oded Tira said, "We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."

But the real kicker was written by Philip Giraldi way back in August, 2005 in The American Conservative:

In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

Oh my God… they’re going to do it. They are going to attack Iran… with nuclear weapons.

Also read: Robert Parry's article at Consortium News

Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I would like to congratulate you on your new position as Speaker of the House and know that you will serve it well.

You took the gavel in the spirit of “partnership, not partisanship”, and although your election for Speaker was secured, not one Republican representative voted in your favor. Not one of them offered an olive branch to you, in the spirit of partnership. I am not naïve enough to understand that the vote was purely political, but I thought it was still worth noting.

But the reason I am writing to you is of another matter.

In the lead up to the elections of November, I was receiving email after email from organization after organization asking for support of the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections, that the status quo was unacceptable, that “staying the course” was not an option for our current government as well as in Iraq. I received mailings from Rep. John Conyers regarding articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush in light of the faulty intelligence used to mislead the public, as well as misleading members of Congress, that Iraq posed a credible threat to the United States.

Once the war began, President Bush would roll out seemingly endless reasons for our pre-emptive strike and invasion of Iraq to suit his needs. We now know that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. We now know that there was no attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction despite fears of not wanting “the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” We now know that the aluminum tubes seen in satellite pictures were not intended for missiles to resume a nuclear weapons program. We know all of this. We know that this administration has used the fear of the American people to their advantage in invoking September 11th over and over again.

Yet after all of this, less than 24 hours after the Democratic Party regained control of the House and Senate in an incredible victory that echoed the voice of the people for change, you said, “Impeachment is off the table.”

When President Clinton was impeached by Congress, led by a Republican majority, we all heard the same thing. It wasn’t what he did that was offensive; it was because he broke the law by perjuring himself. The chants of “Rule of law!” were painfully heard. And President Clinton was impeached by nine votes in the House.

After six years of our system of checks and balances being kicked aside, I say to you Speaker Pelosi, that impeachment is not a choice. It is a Constitutional duty. Pursuing articles of impeachment is not about revenge or “getting even.” It is about restoring the rule of law. It is about accountability, and accountability transcends politics.

In his long awaited speech to the nation last night regarding his plans for a “New Way Forward” in Iraq, President Bush gave us some of the same rhetoric that we have wearily heard again and again. After weeks of consultation, with military commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and countless others, including the American people who oppose a “surge” of troops in Iraq, and all the while our men and women in uniform continued to die day after day, the President once again disregarded what the experts had to say and decided to do what we all knew he was planning on doing all along.

I applaud your stance in opposing escalation of the war, and of Senator Kennedy’s proposed legislation of Congressional approval for additional funds and additional troops to be deployed to Iraq. But there was something in the President’s speech last evening that frankly scared me:

“Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Is this to mean that instead of trying to contain the war to Iraq, will we possibly be trying to fight on two or three fronts and stretch our military beyond its limits? This has to be stopped in its tracks before it begins. It is confirmation that the President is detached from the reality of what is happening in the region. The only thing that will continue to “embolden our enemies” is the continued deployment of US troops and our consistent occupation of Iraq.

In November, the pendulum swung to the Democratic side of Congress. As history has shown, it is only a matter of time before it swings back. I hope that when the high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration come to light after all the hearings and investigations, that you, as Speaker of the House, will take steps toward the appropriate actions demanded by the Constitution of the United States; that you will begin criminal proceedings on those responsible for their actions, and those responsible for the United States losing face on the world stage. There is much to repair to make this country great again. There is much to repair to gain the trust of our allies around the world again.

In the past six years under the Bush Administration, Patriot Acts I and II have passed that have eroded Constitutional rights; the Iraq war continues to inflict death and destruction on a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; the response to Hurricane Katrina was an incredible debacle that continues to leave thousands homeless in Louisiana, as well as Mississippi and Alabama; the leak of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative for political gain endangered her life as well as those who worked with her in the field, and caused us to lose vital intelligence sources in that region; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was ignored to conduct illegal wiretapping without a warrant; and most recently President Bush’s latest signing statement of December 20, 2006, attached to a postal reform bill, claims federal officials can open US Mail without a warrant, in direct opposition to that very same bill that was passed by the House and Senate. And this short list only scratches the surface.

If these aren’t impeachable offenses, what are?

For the well being of the country and its citizens, the integrity of Congress and the survival of the Constitution of the United States, if after all the hearings and investigations you find that it is warranted, I pray that you will not hesitate. Please do not exclude impeachment from your plans “on the table”.

Frank Rich: The "Surge" is a Sham

Frank Rich's Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on Sunday is worth a read.

EXCERPT: Last month the Army and Marines issued an updated field manual on counterinsurgency supervised by none other than Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the next top American military commander in Iraq. It endorsed the formula that “20 counterinsurgents per 1,000 residents” is “the minimum troop density required.” By that yardstick, it would take the addition of 100,000-plus troops to secure Baghdad alone.

The “surge,” then, is a sham. It is not meant to achieve that undefined “victory” Mr. Bush keeps talking about but to serve his own political spin. His real mission is to float the “we’re not winning, we’re not losing” status quo until Jan. 20, 2009. After that, as Joseph Biden put it last week, a new president will “be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof.” This is nothing but a replay of the cynical Nixon-Kissinger “decent interval” exit strategy concocted to pass the political buck (to Mr. Ford, as it happened) on Vietnam.

Tonight's the Night

George Bush unveils his Iraq plan this evening amidst growing rancor on Capitol Hill and in front of a national audience that is weary with the prospect of further escalation in Iraq.

Bush's Iraq approval rating is now at 26%. A new record low. And his overall approval rating is at about 37% 61% of Americans are against a troop level increase.

While Bush considered his options over nearly three months, the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq passed 3,000, and Saddam was hanged for atrocities committed under his leadership.

"American voters expect us to help get us out of Iraq," said Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), a 2008 presidential hopeful and chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that heard independent experts on Iraq.
Republicans, too, were restless. "I do not want to embarrass the president, but I do not support a surge" in troops, said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who said he had told Bush as much last week."

Kennedy's Bill

Today, Sen. Ted Kennedy proposed legislation that requires Congress to vote before the President can send additional troops to Iraq.

Think Progress: "...no funds can be spent to send additional troops to Iraq unless Congress approves the President’s proposed escalation of American forces."

Kennedy: "Listen to this comment from a high ranking American official: 'It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course, we could help lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent region. If we faltered, the forces of chaos which smell victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear: We would stay the course and we shall stay the course.' That's not President Bush speaking, it's Lyndon Johnson speaking 40 years ago ordering 100,000 more American soldiers to Vietnam.
...Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam. ...Our men and women in uniform cannot force the Iraqi people to reconcile their differences."

So Much For Listening to His Commanders

Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon told reporters in a telephone conference call after a White House meeting that the president had told him and several other senators that the plan for 20,000 additional troops had originated with Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Maliki had made commitments that the Iraqi government and military would take steps to strengthen security in exchange for more U.S. troops, Smith said.

Meanwhile, in a sane part of the world, "Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a 'surge' of 20,000 extra soldiers."

Benchmarks Again?!

From the NY Times: "Mr. Bush is expected to refer to the benchmarks in a much-anticipated speech this week outlining his new Iraq strategy, including plans to send as many as 20,000 additional troops. Administration officials plan to make the benchmarks public sometime after the address."

Sometime after the address? It has taken him 5-6 weeks since the Iraq Study Group to even have this strategy ready. "Sometime after the address" had better mean IMMEDIATELY after.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday that as a practical matter, there was little that lawmakers could do to prevent Mr. Bush from expanding the American military mission in Iraq.
“You can’t go in like a Tinkertoy and play around and say you can’t spend the money on this piece and this piece,” Mr. Biden said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “He’ll be able to keep the troops there forever, constitutionally, if he wants to.”

This is bad. This is really bad. At this point, it seems to me that the troops in Iraq will stay there until we have a new president in the Oval Office. It's the only logical conclusion, isn't it? We know Bush is mad. And we've seen that he'll go to great lengths to surround himself with "Yes" men, constantly looking for those who are as crazy as he is in the guise of getting as much "advise" as possible to inform his decisions. But we all know at this point he is just looking for anyone who will agree with him so he can hang someone else out to dry when this next stategy fails. And it will fail. And thousands more soldiers will die. And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die.

And here is the quesiton: Why? What are these people dying for?

"...the new American operational commander [Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno] in Iraq said Sunday that his plan was to send additional American troops, expected to be part of the policy change, into Baghdad’s toughest neighborhoods, and that under the new strategy it may take another “two or three years” to gain the upper hand in the war.

Repeat that: It MAY take two or three years.

Without saying what the specific penalties for failing to achieve the goals would be, American officials insisted that they intended to hold the Iraqis to a realistic timetable for action, but the Americans and Iraqis have agreed on many of the objectives before, only to fall considerably short."

So what do you think the penalties for missing the "benchmarks" would be? What happens when Iraq fails to "stand up so we can stand down"? And it will happen. Do we leave? Is that the penalty? Because if that's the case, then let's get started so we can get the hell out of there. This whole thing is making my head hurt.

Oops!...My Bad.

Scientist: NASA found life on Mars - and killed it


"Two NASA space probes that visited Mars 30 years ago may have found alien microbes on the Red Planet and inadvertently killed them, a scientist is theorizing."




When reached by reporters regarding the news, Kang & Kodos had no comment.

Mail Call

Bush: "I don't email because of the different record requests that can happen to a president."

George Will's Minimum Wage

"[T]he minimum wage should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and defending the shores, should let the market do well what Washington does poorly."

This has got to be the most idiotic statement I've ever heard uttered in recent memory, including anything that the Chimp-man has said... well, maybe not everything.

George Will of the Washington Post actually wrote an article that appeared on January 4th opposing a minimum wage increase. Well, actually opposing a minimum wage at all. Then he goes through all this convoluted math and inane percentages regarding who makes what amount of money, trying to confuse the reader into thinking he might actually have a point. I had to read it twice through to try and figure out if I was missing something.


Here are a couple of gems:

"The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, so 29 states with 70 percent of the nation's workforce have set minimum wages between $6.15 and $7.93 an hour."

Okay, where does that leave the other 21 states and 30% of the "workforce"?

"The problem is that demand for almost everything is elastic: When the price of something goes up, demand for it goes down."

Really, George? I suppose gasoline and home heating oil is not in demand then.


You'll have to read the article for yourself to get even a hint of the twisted logic this guy is trying to talk you into.

But let's just use simple math, shall we? I live in New York, where the minimum wage is still $5.15 per hour. It's been like that since 1997. So, a worker's yearly salary, working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks at minimum wage, is $10,712. That's before taxes. You try living on $206 a week before taxes , George.

Of course, Will is no slouch when it comes to figures and data, including a statement that "the average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326, respectively."
I'm sorry to reveal this to you Mr. Will, but even $63K (about $1,200 per week before taxes) doesn't really go far for a family of four, where mom and dad have to work to make ends meet, adding day care costs to their bills. At least not in New York City.

But to say that the labor market should decide what to pay its employees is just a bizarre notion. How many jobs has the US already lost overseas to cheaper labor and unregulated working conditions?

I guess Will is longing for the good ol' days of child labor and sweatshops.

Open Letter to Bush from Pelosi & Reid

Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (God! I love saying that) have written an open letter to President Bush regarding his plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Excerpt: Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

From the Houston Chronicle: The prospect of increasing troop levels has been greeted with so much hostility that some lawmakers are questioning whether Bush is serious.

Virtually the only prominent voices advocating the surge option are Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and some neoconservative scholars.

What a surprise... Looks like that 51/49 fragile Democratic Senate majority really is a 50/50 split with Lieberman in the fold. Mark my words.

Keith Olbermann: Sacrifice

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the possible "surge and accelerate" that Bush plans to unveil next week.

"Mr. Bush, you do not own this country."

Cafferty on Iraq "Surge"

"...there's never been much of a market for reality in the Bush White House. It's all about the spin you know."

Still Got Your Limbs? You're Going Back.

We speak of the over 3,000 dead American soldiers but don't often think about the wounded. At this point, there are over 150,000 Iraq Veterans receiving diability benefits, according to the Veterans Administration. This is due, in part, to the medical advances that have happened in the last 30 years. Injuries, that in the past would have been fatal, can now be better treated on site and thus save the soldier. But now it seems that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is minor and treatable, according to the US Military, and soldiers suffering from PTSD can be redeployed. This is outrageous!


EXCERPT: On Christmas... Army Reservist James Dean barricaded himself in his father's home with several weapons and threatened to kill himself. After a 14-hour standoff with authorities, Dean was killed by a police officer after he aimed a gun at another officer, authorities told the Washington Post.

Veterans for America's [Steve] Robinson told Inter Press Service that Dean, who had already served 18 months in Afghanistan, had been diagnosed with PTSD. He had just been informed that his unit would be sent to Iraq on Jan. 14.

"We call that suicide by cop," Robinson said.

I don't know about you, and I can't imagine what these troops are going through, but I can only think that if I were in their situation, I'd want someone of sound mind next to me and not worrying if he'd taken his medication that day. Why would you want anyone who is medicated to have a firearm is his/her hand?

Read the story.

Bush is Certifiable About Mail

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

So now he wants to read our mail? Well, he can take all the junk mail out of my box. I'm sure he'll be keeping all the Victoria's Secrets catalogs... or would he be keeping the International Male catalogs?

Critics point out the administration could quickly get a warrant from a criminal court or a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge to search targeted mail, and the Postal Service could block delivery in the meantime.

But the Bush White House appears to be taking no chances on a judge saying no while a terror attack is looming, national security experts agreed.

There it is again... BOO!!! Terror! Terror! Run for you lives! We're trying to protect you!!!

[Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington] said that Bush is "using the same legal reasoning to justify warrantless opening of domestic mail" as he did with warrantless eavesdropping.

The Cocaine Question

Barack Obama's memoir written 11 years ago states that he used cocaine. It's the first time that a potential candidate has admitted to using drugs. Sure, Bill Clinton said he tried marijuana but didn't inhale. (I drink Coca-Cola...but I don't swallow.) And there were questions on whether Al Gore had used marijuana. But this is different.

Some would think that Obama's candor about the subject is a breath of fresh air. But leave it to the FOX pundits to try and make this an issue. Somewhere along the way however, it went wrong.

FOX reporter Kirian Chetry obviously didn't get the talking points memo for the "Obama Cocaine Confessions" segment and blurted out, "he [Obama] talks very candidly, as did our current president, who admitted to using cocaine, correct? Well, who wrote, somebody wrote in a book -- well, he admitted that he had an alcoholic, he had a drinking problem. Who was it who said they witnessed him using cocaine? It was somebody who wrote a book..."

Here's the video:

The denials from the other FOX heads are pretty funny. They don't remember anything like that.
Well, let me refresh some memories out there. A Google search of "Bush cocaine use" revealed 1,290,000 results. The first was a CNN article from August 20, 1999 entitled, "Bush faces new round of drug questions". I didn't really need to go any further from there.

From the article: "Bush Thursday denied using illegal drugs over the past 25 years, but refused to discuss his younger years for fear of sending 'a signal to children that whatever I may have done is okay.' "

So at this point in time, you are led to believe that prior to those 25 years, Bush used illegal drugs.

"Bush [had] been peppered with questions about drug use after he was asked in an interview with the Dallas Morning News whether he could pass a background check for federal employees.

That check has a question asking prospective appointees if they have used illegal drugs within the past seven years. Bush said he could pass that exam. On Thursday, he said he could have passed a background check when his father began serving as president in 1989.

Later, an aide clarified the remarks, saying Bush has not used illegal drugs in at least the last 25 years."

Read the entire article and subsequent ones on a cursory search and you'll find that Bush has never answered the question. If he had never used cocaine, why didn't he just answer no?

Here's the best part of the CNN article:

"A TIME/CNN poll of 344 Republicans nationwide taken Thursday show 56 percent prefer Bush as the GOP nominee...

Perhaps even more importantly, only 11 percent of all voters polled -- and only 9 percent of Republicans -- feel that proof of cocaine use in his 20s should disqualify Bush from serving as president. A resounding 84 percent of voters and 87 percent of Republican voters felt just the opposite -- that they did not feel proof of cocaine use in his 20s should disqualify Bush."

Can we now get on to the business of the country? Can we talk about more pressing issues like the deficit, the illegal war in Iraq, Halliburton's war profiteering, the Mississippi Gulf Coast or getting our troops home? Probably not.

Take That, Virgil!

I like this guy already! Keith Ellison, who has been attacked for his choice (especially by Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode) to use the Koran for swearing in during his photo-op, will use an English translation published in the 1750's that was owned by...wait for it.... THOMAS JEFFERSON!

Virgil Goode, "who represents Jefferson's birthplace of Albemarle County, had no comment yesterday."

Ahhhh.... I have a fuzzy, warm feeling right now.

Bush and Balanced Budget in the Same Sentence?!

Picture: George Bush and his Hole in the Head Gang

Bush: “One area where we must work together is that we’ve got to make sure we spend the people’s money wisely."

That dirty son-of-a-bitch.

The Washington Post reports that the Chimp-man "today pledged to submit a five-year budget proposal next month that would balance the federal budget by 2012, and he called on the new Congress to adopt key reforms, including the curtailment of lawmakers' pork barrel projects in spending legislation and committee reports."

I am really disgusted by this guy. The GOP goes spending willy-nilly for the last SIX YEARS and now that they've lost their power, they are already attempting to make the Dems look like the bad guys... before they've unpacked their bags. Where was this sense of bipartisanship for the last six years? I remember the moron saying he had "political capital" after the 2004 election and intended to spend it. And now he has the audacity to say "Congress needs to adopt real reform that requires full disclosure of the sponsors, the costs, the recipients and the justifications for every earmark. Congress needs to stop the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language. And Congress needs to cut the number and cost of earmarks next year by at least half."

Do you actually think these words would have come out of his mouth if the 2006 election had a different outcome? I tend to think no freakin' way!

Don't get me wrong, I think that balancing the budget, cutting pork, and heavy oversight on earmarks are a good thing. But why hasn't this been the case from Day One? And let's be honest (although I know that's impossible for these chumps). Bush "went on to tout his economic policies, which he said have 'allowed us to meet our goal of cutting the budget deficit in half three years ahead of schedule.'"

WHAT?! Well if you're going to use magical numbers from Fairyland, why not just say we're in a surplus? Because the real deal is that "after reaching a record $413 billion in 2004, the budget deficit dropped to $248 billion in the 2006 fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, thanks largely to higher tax receipts from corporations and individuals.

The claim that the federal budget deficit has been cut in half stems from the administration's original projection of a $512 billion deficit for 2004, a number that critics have said was inflated, especially since the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was forecasting $477 billion at the time."

Don't forget that these bastards took control of a $237 billion surplus in 2000.

So Bushie wants to balance the budget while all the time making his tax cuts permanent, which by the way, will cost the Treasury approximately $3.3 TRILLION by 2016.

If you really want to be fiscally responsible, Georgie, then the tax cuts that you think are stimulating the economy, but in actuality are costing "the Treasury more in lost revenue than has been gained from their economic stimulus effect", should be first on the list to be rolled back.


UPDATE: Read That Wacky George W. Bush Cracks Me Up by Bob Geiger.

Out Of Touch

I was reading the NY Times article today entitled "Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in '06, Bush Team Says" in which they infer a change from Gen. George Casey's plans. Here is part of the article:

Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey’s strategy.

General Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the United States Central Command, appeared to be like-minded. During the summer of 2005, General Casey had forecast “fairly significant reductions” in American troops by the summer of 2006, an assessment that the commander said reflected “feelers” from Sunni insurgents that they might be willing to negotiate and lay down their arms.
Some of General Casey’s aides have said that in developing troop withdrawal plans they were cognizant that the Bush administration had not taken any steps to expand the American military presence despite a persistent insurgency, and seemed to have little appetite for substantially expanding the war effort.

Visiting the Pentagon a few weeks ago for a classified briefing on Iraq with his generals, Mr. Bush made it clear that he was not interested in any ideas that would simply allow American forces to stabilize the violence. Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine commandant, later told marines about the president’s message.

“What I want to hear from you is how we’re going to win,” he quoted the president as warning his commanders, “not how we’re going to leave.”

Sounds like Georgie really never had plans on listening to the ISG, or anyone else for that matter, unless they were talking about staying, not leaving.

Then I came across Greg Sargent's post at TPM Cafe in which he astutely points out that the Administration has done nothing but praise Casey all year.

From Sargent's post:

On October 20, 2006, Cheney gave an interview to NPR's Juan Williams, in which he said:

QUESTION: Do you think you're getting good advice, good estimates from the generals who tell you that they have enough men on the ground and women on the ground to get the job done?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think we get honest advice from them. I think George Casey gives it to us straight in terms of what he thinks he needs...we'll give him whatever resources he thinks he needs. And my experience with George Casey is he's a first class officer, and he tells us what he wants....

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I -- I spent some time as Secretary of Defense myself, Juan. The men that we've got serving at the upper levels of the U.S. military today I think are some absolutely outstanding individuals. George Casey, John Abizaid sort of have the lead responsibilities in Iraq and for that region -- are outstanding officers. They know the region very well. Abizaid even speaks the language. They are, I think, very good advisors to the President, and they're the guys on the ground who have to, in fact, execute on the policy.

On September 15, 2006, Bush publicly said the following:
Can the President trust his commanders on the ground to tell him what is necessary? That's really one of the questions.

In other words, if you say, I'm going to rely upon their judgment, the next question is, how good is their judgment; or is my judgment good enough to figure out whether or not they know what they're doing? And I'm going to tell you I've got great confidence in General John Abizaid and General George Casey. These are extraordinary men who understand the difficulties of the task, and understand there is a delicate relationship between self-sufficiency on the Iraqis' part, and U.S. presence.

On June 26, 2006 -- after some of the horrific violence that according to the Times persuaded Bush that Casey was "more committed to withdrawal than victory" -- Bush stated explicitly that Casey was committed to achieving "victory" and that Bush trusted him:

But in terms of our troop presence there, that decision will be made by General Casey, as well as the sovereign government of Iraq, based upon conditions on the ground. And one of the things that General Casey assured me of is that, whatever recommendation he makes, it will be aimed toward achieving victory. And that's what we want. And victory means a free government that is able to sustain itself, defend itself; it's a government that will be an ally in the war on terror. It's a government that will be able to fight off al Qaeda and its desires to have a safe haven.
And so I did visit with General Casey, and I came away once again with my trust in that man.

Another day, another bunch of lies.

Saddam By Numbers

I know I seem to be obsessing on the whole Saddam thing, but this is the last one... I hope. Found this in The Telegraph:

148 - People murdered on Saddam's orders in Dujail in 1982. He was hanged for this crime against humanity.

5,000 - Civilians killed when Iraqi aircraft dropped a mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on the Kurdish town of Halabja in March of 1988.

48 - Palaces owned by Saddam furnished with marble, filled with his portraits, and gold toilets seats and taps.

24 - Years in power, from 1979 when he shouldered aside the aging Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, to 2003 when he fled the US-led invasion.

3 - Wives: married cousin Sajida Tulfah in 1963, then Samira Shahbandar and Nidal al-Hamdani after their husbands were made to divorce them.

2 - Sons-in-law murderd on Saddam's orders in 1996. They had defected to Jordan, but were persuaded to return after he gave them guarantees of safety.

1.7 million - Dead on both sides after Saddam started the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, one of the longest wars of attrition in the 20th century.

69 - Widely accepted age when he died, although his precise birth date is disputed. He said April 28, 1937, others claimed 1935.

3 - Professional Saddam "doubles" employed to minimize the risk of assassination, undergoing plastic surgery and being trained to mimic his gestures.

30 - Types of torture allegedly approved by Saddam, including gouging out eyes, cutting off sex organs, and roasting victims over a flame.

$2 Billion - Saddam's personal fortune as estimated by Forbes, the US business journal, in February 2003.

8 - Months on the run after the fall of Baghdad, from April 9th to December 13th, 2003, when US soldiers caught him hiding in a "spider hole" near Tikrit.

0 - Number of weapons of mass destruction found after Saddam's downfall. President Bush & British Prime Minister Tony Blair went to war claiming Saddam had WMD.

Saddam's Dead. Now What?

Death's Door Taunts at Saddam Probed (NY Daily News)

Saddam death 'ends dark chapter' (BBC)
Shias celebrated the pre-dawn hanging while some Sunni towns saw protests. About 70 people died in attacks in two mainly Shia areas after the execution.

Was Saddam's death dignified? (The Guardian)

After Saddam's death: Post-mortem notes (SF Gate)

Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, issued a statement that said: "Saddam Hussein's death does not vindicate in any way the ill-conceived and disastrous decision to invade Iraq. His execution does not make an illegal war legal, any more than it will put an end to the violence and destruction."

Anyone seen my briefcase?

Are you kidding me? I remember seeing this written into an episode of The West Wing - Congressman Santos' aides leaves his briefcase in a meeting room and the GOP gets hold of it.

Imagine this scenario:

WHITE HOUSE STAFFER: President Giuliani, I've looked everywhere, but I can't find your Missle Codes. Don't you remember where you had them last?

PRES. GIULIANI: Hmm, let's see... I remember looking at them in admiration on Tuesday... uh, then I put them in my jacket pocket... OH MY GOD! CHECK THE DRY CLEANERS!!!

(Click on cover for the story.)

Few Iraqis Are Gaining U.S. Sanctuary

Excerpts from the NY Times:

“We’re not even meeting our basic obligation to the Iraqis who’ve been imperiled because they worked for the U.S. government,” said Kirk W. Johnson, who worked for the United States Agency for International Development in Falluja in 2005. “We could not have functioned without their hard work, and it’s shameful that we’ve nothing to offer them in their bleakest hour.”

Some critics say the Bush administration has been reluctant to create a significant refugee program because to do so would be tantamount to conceding failure in Iraq. They say a major change in policy could happen only as part of a broader White House shift on Iraq.

State Department officials and some advocates for refugees agree that the United States is not likely to begin resettling large numbers of Iraqis anytime soon. New counterterrorism laws after Sept. 11 have slowed immigration, particularly from countries in the Middle East, and Iraqi applications would be bogged down by those security issues.

“I don’t know of anyone inside the administration who sees this as a priority area,” said Lavinia Limón, president of the United States Committee for Refugees and Immigrants...

A quicker way to help would be to increase financing to countries that are accepting Iraqis — Jordan, Syria and Lebanon — and press those governments to improve their treatment of Iraqis by allowing them to work and travel, officials and advocates said.

That would be a real service for Iraqis in Jordan, who speak of rude and sometimes abusive treatment. Jordanians often do not allow Iraqis to bring in suitcases, travelers said, and have been known to turn away young men, forcing families to continue on without them.

“Put yourself in my shoes,” said an Iraqi working in an American Army base who spent eight hours in the January cold last year with his wife and infant at the Jordanian border. “You take your family to another country and they interview you like you are a terrorist.”

A residency permit is required, and Iraqis must deposit 50,000 Jordanian dinars — about $70,000 — in a bank without drawing on it for a year to obtain one. The worker, who wanted to be identified only as Abu Hussein, eventually moved his family back to Iraq, to the south, because he could not afford to stay in Jordan.

“The Americans are in control of this country,” he said, talking about Jordan. “Why don’t they become angry at how they are treating us?”

Happy New Year

Troop Deaths Officially Hit 3,000

The death of a Texas soldier, announced Sunday by the Pentagon, raised the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq to at least 3,000 since the war began, according to an Associated Press count.

Healed The Country, Schmealed The Country

Another Woodward bombshell: "I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn't want to see my real friend have the stigma," Ford said in the interview.

Taylor Marsh's "NIXON PARDON: For Friendship, Not Country" post on HuffPo articulates it all so well.

So much for revisionist history.

Grand Canyon Apparently Not As Old As We Thought

Every time I think I can't possibly get any angrier at these idiots running the show, I come across something like this:

Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.'"

Yes, go ahead and read it again, I'll wait. I had to read it twice myself to actually fathom that something this ludicrous is happening within the borders of the US. And the topper is that for the last three years, the only book approved to be sold in the park bookstore is "Grand Canyon: A Different View". I'll wait again while you pick your jaw up off the floor.

Have I mentioned how much I hate these people?

Read the rest of the article.

Saddam, We Hardly Knew Ye

BAGHDAD (AP) - Saddam Hussein struggled briefly after American military guards handed him over to Iraqi executioners. But as his final moments approached and masked executioners slipped a black cloth and noose around his neck, he grew calm.

In a final moment of defiance, he refused a hood to cover his eyes.

Saddam's Done By Saturday

From the AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Saddam Hussein will be executed no later than Saturday, said an Iraqi judge authorized to attend his hanging. The former dictator's lawyers said he had been transferred from U.S. custody, but an Iraqi official said he was still in the hands of American guards.


And there you have it. Hussein will be executed. No interviews. No "tell all" book from prison. Maliki signed the death sentence, by Iraqi law. Oh, by the way, if he had refused to sign it, one of the two Iraqi vice presidents could have signed it. Oh yeah, if they also refused to sign it, Saddam would have been executed anyway. Nice law, huh?

He was officially guilty of this: An Iraqi appeals court upheld Saddam's death sentence Tuesday for the killing of 148 people who were detained after an attempt to assassinate him in the northern Iraqi city of Dujail in 1982.

1982? But that was before this:


Yes, that is Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand in December of 1983, over a year after the crime for which he was convicted. When we have use for them, they are our allies, but when they know too much...

Ford's JFK Connection

Jesse at TVNewsLies.org gives us his take on Gerald Ford.

Jesse from "So Gerald Ford Is Dead. So What?": "For those of you who do not already know this, Gerald Ford is a special man in American history in that he took part in not one, but two cover ups related to the JFK assassination. First off, he was one of the authors of the fictional piece known as the Warren Report. Then he pardoned Richard Nixon so that the real reason for the Watergate break-in would not be revealed."

There is evidence that Gerald Ford altered the autopsy reports on JFK. Ford's explanation: "My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory," he said. "My changes were only an attempt to be more precise." Unfortunately, his changes look like an attempt to make the "Magic Bullet Theory" more plausible. Read them for yourself.

For all you conspiracy "nuts", (and I have to admit, I'm slowly becoming one) this is something you have to see. If you read on and have the patience to watch the 90 minute video linked on Jesse's page regarding the ever-increasing evidence that has amassed over the last 40+ years, you probably won't have many doubts about the JFK assassination and cover up. Remember, this is just a theory, but a very viable one.

I personally never believed the JFK's assassination was the result of a lone gunman after I had the time to do some minor research. I do believe that Oswald was a patsy. If not, why are certain documents still classified? Who would be implicated if these documents were allowed to be seen? Hopefully, I'll still be alive when they finally release them.

Still, you have to see this video to understand the depths of what could have happened and how close-knit the people in power really are.

Here's the video. It took me two days to get through it. Sit back and concentrate.

In-the-Ground Truth in Iran?

This is direct from David Corn's website. I've copied and pasted instead of linking because, for some reason, you can't link to a specific column, only the main page, on Corn's site. Fix it, Dave!

David Corn: "The most important news story of this week (so far) was an 8-paragraph piece buried on p. A9 of [the Dec.26] Washington Post. The Associated Press story reported:
Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could virtually disappear by 2015, according to an analysis published Monday in a journal of the National Academy of Sciences.
Iran's economic woes could make the country unstable and vulnerable, with its oil industry crippled, Roger Stern, an economic geographer at Johns Hopkins University, said in the report and in an interview.
Iran earns about $50 billion a year in oil exports. The decline is estimated at 10 to 12 percent annually. In less than five years exports could be halved and then disappear by 2015, Stern predicted.

Hold on. If this is true, it changes the popular conception of the ongoing Iran crisis. In the conventional view, Iran is enriching uranium for one reason alone: so it can become a nuclear power, dominate the Middle East, and threaten the Israel and the United States. The Iran war hawks (formerly known as the Iraq war hawks) scoff at the notion that Iran might have other motives for enriching uranium. They dismiss Iran's claim that it is processing uranium as part of a civilian nuclear energy program. With all that oil? the hawks argue. No way.

The supposed implausibility of Iran's argument has been fueling the move toward confrontation--that is, war. And in recent weeks I've spoken to several outside-the-administration Iran experts who believe the Bush White House is intent on military action against Iran--probably air strikes. Yet what if the Iranians are essentially telling the truth?

I have no sympathy for the repressive theocrats of Tehran and do not counsel taking them at their word. But before there is another march to war, there ought to be close scrutiny of the reasons for that march.

The rest of the AP story depicts a more nuanced situation than the one depicted by the beaters of the drums of war:
Stern's analysis, which appears in this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, supports U.S. and European suspicions that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons in violation of international understandings. But, Stern says, there could be merit to Iran's assertion that it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes "as badly as it claims."
He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates. At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.
"With an explosive demand at home and poor management, the appeal of nuclear power, financed by Russia, could fill a real need for production of more electricity."
Iran produces about 3.7 million barrels a day, about 300,000 barrels below the quota set for Iran by the oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
The shortfall represents a loss of about $5.5 billion a year, Stern said. In 2004, Iran's oil profits were 65 percent of the government's revenues.
"If we look at that shortfall, and failure to rectify leaks in their refineries, that adds up to a loss of about $10 billion to $11 billion a year," he said. "That is a picture of an industry in collapse."
If the United States can "hold its breath" for a few years it may find Iran a much more conciliatory country, he said. And that, Stern said, is good reason to belay any instinct to take on Iran militarily.
"What they are doing to themselves is much worse than anything we could do," he said.
"The one thing that would unite the country right now is to bomb them," Stern said. "Here is one problem that might solve itself."

Doing nothing--starting no war--and solving a problem? That sounds pretty damn good. Whether Stern is right or not, what's happening within Iran deserves far more coverage within the US media. Without more information, the public will not be able to evaluate--or challenge--the next case for war."

Ford Disagreed with Bush on Iraq

"On July 28, 2004, former president Gerald R. Ford sat down for an interview with The Washington Post's Bob Woodward. The interview was conducted at Ford's Beaver Creek, Colo., house; the former president agreed that his comments could be published any time after his death."

"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."

...Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

Ford said he would not have gone to war, based on the publicly available information at the time, and would have worked harder to find an alternative.

UPDATE: Before this story came out, Bush had this to say about Ford on Tuesday: "With his quiet integrity, common sense and kind instincts, President Ford helped heal our land and restore public confidence in the presidency."

I wonder what George is saying about him now?

Robert Scheer: Ike Was Right

Columnist Robert Scheer has written a great article regarding Eisenhower's warning of the "military-industrial complex", a term he apparently created.

Excerpts:
[Eisenhower] chose in his farewell presidential address to the nation to warn that the war profiteers had an agenda of their own, one that was inimical to the survival of American democracy:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Dick Cheney and Halliburton anyone?

The big prize here for Bush's foreign policy is not the acquisition of natural resources or the enhancement of U.S. security, but rather the lining of the pockets of the defense contractors, the merchants of death who mine our treasury. But because the arms industry is coddled by political parties and the mass media, their antics go largely unnoticed. Our politicians and pundits argue endlessly about a couple of billion dollars that may be spent on improving education or ending poverty, but they casually waste that amount in a few days in Iraq.

As Eisenhower warned:"We should take nothing for granted, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. ... We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

It's Official

American troops killed in Iraq now exceeds the number of Americans killed in the 9/11 attacks.

Another six soldiers were reported killed on Tuesday, bringing the total number to 2,978. That's five more than those that were killed at the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
Just a little reminder: Remember this guy?

Yeah, Osama bin Laden. Wasn't he the one that was responsible for the deaths on 9/11/2001? You know, Georgie's friend. I remember something about "Wanted: Dead or Alive" ... am I dreaming this? Did I just imagine some "Bring 'em on", swaggering, cowboy wannabe asshole saying something like this? Guess he forgot.

Gerald Ford (1913-2006)

The Godfather of Soul

James Brown dies at the age of 73.

Merry Christmas

Asleep in the Bunker

Read David Corn's article at TomPaine.com

I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume.
--George W. Bush

Don Rumsfeld is the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had.
--Dick Cheney

"This is scary. The president of the United States of America has created a hellish disaster that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of American soldiers, and he's resting well. The vice president believes that the man responsible for three of the greatest military blunders in U.S. history (attacking Iraq without devising a strategy for securing the country after the invasion; dissolving the Iraqi army, creating armed and trained recruits for the incipient insurgency; and mounting an extensive de-Baathification campaign that destroyed the governing infrastructure of the nation) did his job well."