George McGovern's Impertinent Questions

Eighty-four year old George McGovern spoke to at the National Press Club after writing a book with William Polk called "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now." He skewers Bush along the way with a series of "impertinent questions".

For example:
In your initial campaign for the Presidency, Mr. Bush, you described yourself as a "compassionate conservative". What is compassionate about consigning America's youth to a needless and seemingly endless war that has now lasted longer than World War II? And what is conservative about reducing the taxes needed to finance this war and instead running our national debt to nine trillion dollars with money borrowed from China, Japan, Germany and Britain? Is this wild deficit financing your idea of conservatism? Mr. President, how can a true conservative be indifferent to the steadily rising cost of a war that claims over $7 billion a month, $237 million every day? Are you troubled to know as a conservative that just the interest on our skyrocketing national debt is $760,000 every day. Mr. President, our Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, estimates that if the war were to continue until 2010 as you have indicated it might, the cost would be over a trillion dollars.

Mr. President, I ask have you kept your oath of office to uphold the Constitution when you use what you call the war on terrorism to undermine the Bill of Rights?

First Amendment in Jeopardy?

Steve Watson's latest post (at InfoWars.net) tells us that our First Amendment rights could be in trouble with the current Lobby reform bill. With the redefinition of "lobbying", bloggers could fall under same net as K Street type lobbyists.

"Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly to Congress the same as the big K Street lobbyists. Section 220 would amend existing lobbying reporting law by creating the most expansive intrusion on First Amendment rights ever. For the first time in history, critics of Congress will need to register and report with Congress itself."

The Bush/Hitler Comparison

There have been a lot of comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler in what I've heard and read over the course of the last couple of years. And at first I thought, as did many I'm sure, that this was a bit of an exaggeration. That the liberal left were branding him a fascist and going to extremes to make a point. But make a point they did - if you look at it in an historical, objective prospective, you'll start to get chills by the similarities.

In one of my earlier posts, I quoted Herman Göring on the power of nationalism: "Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." This was quoted during the Nuremberg Trials.

Bush has invoked September 11th over and over again. And I'm not sure if this is correct, but I cannot recall a Bush speech in recent memory concerning Iraq where he has failed to mention 9/11.

An article by Cheryl Seal documents the Hitler-Bush comparison well. Here are some higlights (my additions are in yellow):

No one expected Hitler to rise to power. He had failed at just about everything he had even undertaken until he discovered politics. Hitler was a fervent Christian until his egomania superceded faith in a "higher power." Substitute "Bush" for "Hitler"and this statement works just as well.

In Hitler's first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933, he pledged "to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation" and invoked God's blessing on the German government. He claimed to be a "uniter, not a divider."

The Nazis' battle cry throughout their campaign had been "down with the liberals!" Once in office, Hitler made "liberals" (a mass group into which he lumped social democrats, gays, Jews, and any threat to Hitler's model of Christian society) his sworn enemies.

Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary: "The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state [which included the judiciary]". In addition, he noted, "Radio and press are at our disposal." Think Karl Rove and Fox News.

Hitler believed that to consolidate his power, he needed to create an "enemy of the state." Contrary to popular belief, the first "enemy" Hitler formally targeted was not the Jews but the Communist Party. Why? Because they were the most outspoken activists against his regime. Hitler was thus the first to invoke the spectre of "the Red Menace." Enemy of the State = Saddam Hussein. Substitute "Red Menace" with "Axis of Evil".

The Fuhrer, becoming progressively more drunk with his new power, ...to facilitate his demonization of the "Reds," he sent provocateurs to orchestrate a staged act of "terrorism." Their dupe was a young revolutionary named Van der Lubbe, who was implicated in (i.e. framed for) the bombing of the Reichstag (the equivalent of the Congressional building). Now I'm not saying 9/11 was "staged", at least not the World Trade Center. I can't bear to think that would be the case, but I do question our lack of response on that day. Where was NORAD? Why were they told to stand down? Where was the plane wreckage at the Pentagon? Big hole in the wall... no plane wreckage?

This incident gave Hitler the excuse he needed for "cracking down" on "enemies of the state." He rallied the Germans against the "terrorists" and passed the odious "Enabling Acts," in which the government was granted the right to bypass any due process for "suspects." Here it is. The Patriot Act in all its glory.

Hitler began to isolate Germany from the rest of the world: One of his first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations. Bush decided what he would do regardless of what the United Nations thought.

Hitler made public dissent first all but impossible, then illegal. At first, whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall. Hitler also made sure that the media did not give provide the public with any coverage of dissenters or public protests because it was "encouraging of destructive elements." Boy does this sound familiar! How many times has Cindy Sheehan been arrested? How many times have the Secret Service or the CIA or FBI dragged protesters out of public speeches, not even for disrupting the proceedings, but for sitting there silently while wearing a T-shirt in opposition of Herr Bush? And how many times have we seen it on television?

Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. Mission accomplished.

Read Seal's complete articles for more similarities.

*****

Just recently, Bush spoke of Iran in his New Way Forward speech and how “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.” Compare that statement to the Gleiwitz incident.

The Gleiwitz incident was a staged attack on August 31, 1939 against the German radio Station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany on the eve of WWII in Europe. This provocation was one of several actions in Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland.

At the same time as the Gleiwitz attack there were other incidents orchestrated by Germany along the Polish-German border, such as house torching in the Polish Corridor and other propaganda. The entire project, dubbed Operation Himmler and comprising 21 incidents in all, was intended to give the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany.
On the day following the Gleiwitz attack, Germany launched the invasion of Poland — initiating World War II in Europe. In a speech in the Reichstag, Hitler cited the 21 border incidents, with three of them called very serious, as justification for Germany's "defensive" action against Poland.

This is all too scary to think about, but it's out there. George Santayana is quoted as saying "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." In this case, I think history was studied all too well with the full intention of repeating it.

John Edwards - Silence Is Betrayal

John Edwards spoke at Riverside Church in New York on Sunday, January 14th regarding King's stance on the Vietnam War and how it parallels the war in Iraq.

"If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel.
"Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war — use it."

"It is time, brothers and sisters, for America to be patriotic about something other than war."

Obama 2008?

Barack Obama has started an exploratory committee for a possible 2008 presidential run. He'll make his decision by February 10th. It gets more and more interesting every day. So far it's Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Vilsack on the Democratic side. Clinton is a probable. John Kerry and Bill Richardson are also thinking about it.

Let's Not Lose Our Heads

BAGHDAD, Jan. 15 — Iraq’s turbulent effort to reckon with the violence of its past took another macabre turn on Monday when the execution of Saddam Hussein's half brother ended with the hangman’s noose decapitating him after he dropped through the gallows trapdoor.

Can this possibly get any worse? I don't think you can write a script like this and have it be believable.

Stem Cell Passes in House

But will it get any further?




“By January 2009, we will have a president who favors embryonic stem cell research,” Ms. DeGette added, noting that at the moment the leading presidential candidates in both parties support it.
Of the three most emotional social issues of the day — abortion rights, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research — the last is the only one on which the public, by a growing majority, clearly favors the liberal position, said Michael Dimock, a pollster at the Pew Forum on People and the Press.

Ella Fitzgerald Stamp

While we're on the subject of music, I was listening to one of my favorite radio shows, Michael Bourne's Singers Unlimited on Sunday and he was focused on one particular legend, Ella Fitzgerald, in celebration of her US postage stamp. She's the 30th and latest honoree in the Postal Service's Black Heritage Series.

Congratulations, Ella.

Michael Bourne can be heard on WBGO, 88.3FM in the New York area. They're based in Newark, New Jersey. You can also catch them on the internet. If you're a jazz music fan, give it a listen and if you like what you hear, support the station as well. I believe that they are the only public station left in the US that runs 24 hours a day, with over 50% of their expense revenue coming from public support.

Michael Brecker 1949-2007

NEW YORK -- Michael Brecker, a versatile and highly influential tenor saxophonist who won 11 Grammys over a career that spanned more than three decades, died Saturday at age 57. Brecker died in a hospital in New York City of leukemia, according to his longtime friend and manager, Darryl Pitt.

This is very depressing. When I was in college, a friend turned me on to Brecker while he was with Steps Ahead. I was able to go see him play at The Bottom Line in NYC. It was just before the album Steps Ahead: Magnetic was released (probably 1985ish...Yes. Albums. Remember them?). I fell in love with his playing and his experimentation (like the EWI) and went out and tried to buy everything he recorded.
I wasn't around for John Coltrane's death, but I can't imagine this feeling any less painful. Michael Brecker was arguably one of the jazz giants of our generation.

His illness silenced his music at times, but raising awareness of bone marrow drives gave him a new focus.

"It's something that doesn't come naturally. ... I obviously miss playing and writing music," Brecker told The Associated Press in 2005. "On the other hand, this whole experience has allowed me to be a conduit to attract attention for a cause that's much larger than me ... for people to go get tested (for the marrow donor program) because I know a lot of lives will be saved."

Brecker's survivors include his wife, Susan; his children, Jessica and Sam; his brother, Randy; and his sister, Emily Brecker Greenberg. Memorial services are being planned.

In lieu of flowers, the Brecker family asks that donations be made to The Marrow Foundation's TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE FUND.

Here are a couple of videos. Enjoy.

STEPS AHEAD - TOKYO, 1986 Song: Beirut (Brecker's EWI solo is about 4 minutes in.)

Michael Brecker - Switzerland, 1998 - Song: Delta City Blues

Rest in peace, Michael.

Jimmy Carter's Latest Book

Jimmy Carter has been labeled an anti-Semite. This man, who has probably done more for the peace process in the Middle East than anyone else, who has won the Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development", is now involved in a controversy over his latest book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid".

Fourteen members of an advisory board to Jimmy Carter’s human rights organization resigned Thursday, January 11th, to protest his new book, which criticizes Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories.

Is this such a taboo subject, that we turn our heads away from what is factually happening in Israel? Many are fearful of broaching the subject for fear of being branded a "Jew hater." Yes, we all know the Holocaust happened, and it was a tragic and sad time in human history, but does that mean that we should look the other way at the system of segregation that is currently taking place in Israel?

I have yet to read the book, but have already ordered it. You can too by clicking on the book cover photo.

In the meantime, you can read this article by Shulamit Aloni. She is the former Education Minister of Israel. She has been awarded both the Israel Prize and the Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel.

EXCERPT: Jimmy Carter does not need me to defend his reputation that has been sullied by Israelophile community officials. The trouble is that their love of Israel distorts their judgment and blinds them from seeing what's in front of them. Israel is an occupying power that for 40 years has been oppressing an indigenous people, which is entitled to a sovereign and independent existence while living in peace with us. We should remember that we too used very violent terror against foreign rule because we wanted our own state. And the list of victims of terror is quite long and extensive.

Must Reads

Robert Scheer: Brooding Prince's Soliloquy

To win, perchance to dream. Few Americans, a mere 17 percent, according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll, think that sacrificing more Americans in patrols on the streets of Baghdad will reverse the slings and arrows of our outrageous Iraqi fortune, but giving a speech about it might provide our hapless Hamlet with some temporary political cover.



David Corn: Bush's Reality-Based Desperation

...here's the obvious question: given the president's history of false and misleading statements about the war and his record of poor decision-making related to the war, why should anyone accept anything he says or proposes now?


Sheldon Richman: Bipartisanship? Bah!

Where did all the wise heads get the idea that Americans voted for bipartisan cooperation last November? After six years of full Republican control, it looked to me as though the voters wanted divided government — blessed gridlock — do-no-harm government. Hear, hear!

Spiders On Drugs

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.)