The Baghdad Scene

BBC News reporter Anderw North writes about his latest experience in Baghdad and what the actuality is on the ground.

Here are some excerpts:

We were at the airport. Just before we were due to leave, the entrance car park was hit by a car bomb...

...While we waited with scores of other vehicles, mortars were fired at the airport. Fortunately for us they landed on the other side of the runway, plumes of smoke shooting into the air. You won't have heard about any of this because at the same time a series of other far more serious attacks was taking place.

One was at the Sadriya market in the city centre, where a massive car bomb killed more than 140 people.

...On our drive into the city, we encountered several Iraqi army checkpoints. But almost every vehicle - including ours - was being waved through. Many new checkpoints have been set up across Baghdad. But what is their purpose, many Iraqis ask, when they seem to stop so few people?

North reports that last month there were over 100 car bombings, an average of three per day. Yet we are constantly being told that the "liberal media" isn't reporting the good things happening in Iraq, especially in Baghdad, where John McCain took his ridiculous safe stroll a few weeks back, to show that the troop surge is working. The only thing the surge is doing is increasing the American troop causalty rate.

And what happens when the checkpoints do stop the cars and trucks? North writes, "...a couple of times we have been pulled over by Iraqi soldiers who ask us if we have any bullets to give them. "

Wally Schirra (1923-2007)

Walter M. “Wally” Schirra Jr., who as one of the original Mercury Seven astronauts combined the Right Stuff — textbook-perfect flying ability and steely nerves — with a pronounced rebellious streak, died Thursday at 84.

He was the only astronaut to fly in all three of NASA’s original manned spaceflight programs: Mercury, Gemini and Apollo.

For anyone who hasn't seen the movie, The Right Stuff, you should check it out.

Rice Plans Talks with Syria

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet Syria's foreign minister in the first high-level talks between the countries in years, a U.S. official said Thursday, and the chief American military spokesman in Iraq said Syria had moved to reduce ''the flow of foreign fighters'' across its border.

When Nancy Pelosi does it, it's called "emboldening the enemy" and "negotiating with terrorists". I guess when the Bushies do it, it's called "diplomacy".

Joan Baez Banned from Walter Reed

I suppose the Bush Crime Family is afraid Joan Baez will start patching the holes in the walls and fixing the plumbing, or maybe even sing because she is banned from Walter Reed Medical Center and from performing with John Mellencamp, whose "Our Country" has been the patriotic cry and all the rage last summer. Hell, it was used in Chevy commercials before it was released!

In a letter to The Washington Post published Wednesday, she said rocker John Mellencamp had asked her to perform with him last Friday and that she accepted his invitation.

"I have always been an advocate for nonviolence and I have stood as firmly against the Iraq war as I did the Vietnam War 40 years ago," she wrote. "I realize now that I might have contributed to a better welcome home for those soldiers fresh from Vietnam. Maybe that's why I didn't hesitate to accept the invitation to sing for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end, four days before the concert, I was not 'approved' by the Army to take part. Strange irony."

...in an e-mailed statement published Monday on RollingStone.com, [Walter Reed] spokesman Steve Sanderson said the medical center received the request for participation by Baez just two days before the concert.

Not so, says Baez's manager, Mark Spector, who told the Post that Mellencamp's management invited Baez to perform in March and handled all the arrangements. The Post said Mellencamp's manager, Randy Hoffman, did not return calls requesting comment and that Mellencamp's publicist said the singer was ill Tuesday and unavailable.

But Mellencamp earlier told RollingStone.com: "They didn't give me a reason why she couldn't come. We asked why and they said, 'She can't fit here, period.' "

Maybe they can invite Lee Greenwood instead and have him sing that "God Bless the USA" dirge, because after all aren't we "proud to be an American"? What's the next line? Oh yeah, "Where at least I know I'm free." Hmm... careful Lee, you might have to rewrite your lyrics at the rate we're going.

Chimpy's Veto

On the fourth anniversary on his now infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech and his spectacular photo op aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, Chimp in Charge has vetoed legislation that not only would have given him the funding he requested for his illegal war in Iraq, but also vital funds for crumbling Walter Reed Hospital and other worthwhile expenditures. Curious George vetoed the bill because of the timetable to pull out troops that Democrats would like to bring home, rather than have them die for a misguided, failed policy with no real strategy in place, contrary to GOP claims.

Bush said Democrats had made a political statement by passing anti-war legislation. "They've sent their message, and now it's time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds," the president said.
..."Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Bush said.

They certainly can you bastard. Rot in hell, you filthy son-of-a-bitch.

UPDATE: Keith Olbermann with Frank Rich on Countdown, May 1, 2007

Bill Moyers Journal: Jon Stewart

Bill Moyers interviewed Comedy Central's Jon Stewart this past week and it was an incredible interview, looking into the man behind the satirical news show, and getting beyond the comedy and see Stewart's serious side.

Here's a section of the interview:

STEWART: You know, one of the things that I do think government counts on is that people are busy. And it's very difficult to mobilize a busy and relatively affluent country, unless it's over really crucial-- you know, foundational issues. That come sort of sort of a tipping point.

But war that hasn't affected us here, in the way that you would imagine a five-year war would affect a country. I think that's why they're so really — here's the disconnect. It's sort of this odd and I've always had this problem with the rationality of it. That the President says, "We are in the fight for a way of life. This is the greatest battle of our generation, and of the generations to come. "And, so what I'm going to do is you know, Iraq has to be won, or our way of life ends, and our children and our children's children all suffer. So, what I'm gonna do is send 10,000 more troops to Baghdad."

So, there's a disconnect there between — you're telling me this is fight of our generation, and you're going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that's gonna do it. I'm sure what he would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can't, because he doesn't have them. And the way to get that would be to institute a draft. And the minute you do that,
suddenly the country's not so damn busy anymore. And then they really fight back, and then the whole thing falls apart. So, they have a really delicate balance to walk between keeping us relatively fearful, but not so fearful that we stop what we're doing and really examine how it is that they've been waging this.

You can watch the whole interview here.

Incompetence Knows No Bounds

As many of you know, when the tsunami that hit Indonesia in December of 2004 devastated that country, many in the world contributed with supplies for relief as well as monetarily help for the ravaged communities affected.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the US southern coast, causing devastation to New Orleans as well as parts of Mississippi and Alabama, the world again responded. Unfortunately, the incompetence is so rampant in the current criminal administration, that most of the helping hands were met with a "thanks but no thanks" response, or the assistance that was accepted has been sitting idle for the past 20 months while communities in New Orleans rot away.

As reported in the Washington Post on Sunday, April 29th, the U.S. government was turning down many allies' offers of manpower, supplies and expertise worth untold millions of dollars. Eventually the United States also would fail to collect most of the unprecedented outpouring of international cash assistance for Katrina's victims.

Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent.

...In one exchange, State Department officials anguished over whether to tell Italy that its shipments of medicine, gauze and other medical supplies spoiled in the elements for weeks after Katrina's landfall on Aug. 29, 2005, and were destroyed. "Tell them we blew it," one disgusted official wrote. But she hedged: "The flip side is just to dispose of it and not come clean. I could be persuaded."

...Overall, the United States declined 54 of 77 recorded aid offers from three of its staunchest allies: Canada, Britain and Israel, according to a 40-page State Department table of the offers that had been received as of January 2006.

...In another instance, the Department of Homeland Security accepted an offer from Greece on Sept. 3, 2005, to dispatch two cruise ships that could be used free as hotels or hospitals for displaced residents. The deal was rescinded Sept. 15 after it became clear a ship would not arrive before Oct. 10. The U.S. eventually paid $249 million to use Carnival Cruise Lines vessels.

Not coming clean has all too often been the modus operandi of the Bush Administration and its hapless cronies running government departments for which they have absolutely no qualifications. Just another example of the sad state of affairs that we've come to expect from our pathetic leaders in the West Wing.

Gary Hart to Giuliani: Keep Your Mouth Shut

Gary Hart bitchslapped Rudy Giuliani on his "Democrats=Terrorist Attack" rhetoric with a blog entry on Huffington Post. Here it is, short and sweet:

Dear Mayor Giuliani:

Since you have based your presidential campaign almost exclusively on your reaction to terrorist attacks on New York City, and since you have recently accused Democrats of being on the defense against terrorism and therefore guilty of inviting more casualties, I have one question for you: Where were you on terrorism between January 31, 2001, and September 11th?

The first date was when the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century issued its final report warning, as did its previous reports, of the danger of terrorist attacks on America. The George W. Bush administration did nothing about these warnings and we lost 3,000 American lives. What did you do during those critical eight months? Where were you? Were you on the defensive, or were you even paying attention?

Before you qualify to criticize Democrats, Mr. Giuliani, you must account for your preparation of your city for these clearly predicted attacks. Tell us, please, what steps you took to make your city safer.

Until you do, then I strongly suggest you should keep your mouth shut about Democrats and terrorism.

You have not qualified to criticize others, let alone be president of the United States.

Gary Hart
(co-chair, U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century)

P.S. You might ask these same questions of George W. Bush while you are trying to find a better reason to run for president.

"Rudy McRomney is not a conservative."

The hyenas are starting to attack each other. Not that I've devoted my life to politics to consider myself an historian, but I can't remember in recent history the Republicans going at each other like this. I had a feeling that Romney, McCain and Giuliani was a strange group for the GOP to be touting as their front-runners, and now my suspicions seem to be coming to fruition.

At a Republican dinner in Iowa this month, [former Virginia Gov. Jim] Gilmore took on his party's front-runners collectively, saying, "Rudy McRomney is not a conservative."

The top-tier Republican candidates are all suspect to solid conservatives, who fear they are losing their hard-won influence in the Republican Party.

"[We are] very concerned as to whether or not as a conservative movement we will be, in fact, the driving political force in the '08 election cycle," said another GOP presidential hopeful, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

When it comes to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans" -- GOP presidential candidates seem to be losing their religion.

The Latest Polls

From Bob Geiger's Blog:

For people who spend so much time lately talking about how unpatriotic Harry Reid and Senate Democrats are for their drive to end the Iraq war, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their Republican rubber-stampers in Congress seem blind to the fact that, for a long time, the vast majority of the American people have sided with Democrats and the troops on this and against them.

Latest CBS Presidential Poll on Iraq Showdown

...This poll, like all the others, shows that when Bush vetoes the Congressional mandate to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, the script is already being written for how to run against every Republican in the House and Senate who votes to uphold that veto.

You know the old saying, you lie with dogs, you're gonna get
fleas.

John Kerry: Fight Against Disinformation

From Kerry's Huffington Post Blog:

There's a very strange dynamic at play right now. ... I see an America that is sick and tired of politicians in Washington who refuse to change course in Iraq; an America that doesn't believe the words that comes out of Dick Cheney's mouth about everything from escalation in Iraq to global climate change; an America that wants our troops taken care of and knows that George Bush's policy has not just been a failure, but an unmitigated disaster of arrogance and isolation from day one.

We all need to speak up and protect our leaders when they speak their mind. Minutes after [Cheney] let loose with a steady stream of pejoratives about Harry Reid, I hit back at Dick Cheney. And I will continue to do so. It's important ... because if we don't stand up for our leaders no one will. This isn't about policy intricacies or a Democrat's syntax, it's about character - the character of a good man, Harry Reid, and the character of our Party which needs to stand up when one of our own is unfairly attacked.

And the worst part is, the whole attack is based on a completely out-of-context quote. This is what Harry Reid really said, "And as long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course - and we must change course." Any questions?...

I ask you to join me in hitting back. ...I set up a page on my site defending Harry Reid, and calling attention to Dick Cheney's long run of, yes, misleading and uninformed comments on Iraq. And, most of all, calling out the failure of this administration to make us safe.

Because that's what they're really trying to hide. ...We can't let them get away with it. We need to take the fight to them, and we can start by letting the media know that when it comes to Harry Reid speaking from his heart or Dick Cheney speaking from both sides of his mouth, we'll take Harry Reid's heart any day. Write letters to your local paper, call in to radio shows, write emails to the national media centers. These things make an enormous difference. I'll continue to speak out at every opportunity, and I ask you to join me.

Tenet "Slam Dunks" Cheney

NEW YORK TIMES: WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

... He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.

... Mr. Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of “Meet the Press” last September in which Mr. Cheney twice referred to Mr. Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark as the basis for the decision to go to war.

“I remember watching and thinking, ‘As if you needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to convince you to go to war with Iraq,’ ” Mr. Tenet writes.

The book entitled "At the Center of the Storm" is to be published by Harper Collins on Monday, April 30th, 2007 and can be purchased at Amazon.com.

McCain On Daily Show

John McCain was a guest on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on April 24th and I must say that in my opinion, he got his ass handed to him by Stewart. McCain was no more than a talking point robot spewing the usual rhetoric, and at one point early on, was apparently channeling Donald Rumsfeld when he started asking and answering his own questions.

Here's the interview. A must see.

The Politics of Fear

The Trouble with Rudy Giuliani

Haven't we had enough of fear tactics used as political tactics? Haven't we suffered though enough of the deception and lies and fear mongering? Apparently not enough for Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Here are some of Mr. Giuliani's lastest comments from his appearance at the Lincoln Day Dinner in New Hampshire on April 24th, 2007:

"We're going to win that war whether there's a Republican president or a Democratic president or any other president," he said. "The question is going to be: How long does it take and how many losses will we have along the way? And I truly believe that if we go back on defense for a period of time, we're going to ultimately have more losses and it's going to go on much longer."

"If [a Democrat] gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense," he said."We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense."

Do any of these hacks really believe the puke that comes out of their mouths? Hasn't the Republican Party beaten this dead horse to the bone? The thought that Giuliani would have the audacity to play the fear card after New York City was attacked on his watch the first time in 1993, for which he did next to nothing to improve the communications of emergency personnel, and then insisted on having the NYC's emergency control center moved to that very World Trade Center building after the 1993 attack is beyond me. Of course, after 9/11 the building came down along with our communications.

I'd continue on a rant because I'm so livid about this, but Keith Olbermann did it for me on April 25th's edition of Countdown.
Here is part of the transcript:

OLBERMANN: This is not the mere politicizing of the war in Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic 'softness' from a delusional vice president. This is casualties on a partisan basis, of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani's party knows all and will save those who have voted for it, and to hell with everybody else. And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment.

Even to grant that that formula, whether posed by Republican or Democrat, is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most un-American electioneering in our history, even if it is somehow acceptable to assign 'casualties' to one party and 'safety' to the other, even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party's property and the other's liability, on what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?

Which party held the presidency on September 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani? Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani? Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani? Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted, the postponement of our elections, and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani? Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in that same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani? Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani? Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik's organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani? Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani? Which party rode roughshod over Americans' rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani? Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani? Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani? Drop this argument, sir! You will lose it!

If this is where Giuliani is headed, it is only because he cannot speak on any other issue. As a Republican who is pro choice (unless he flip flops), pro gun control (unless he flip flops) , pro gay rights (unless he flip flops) and on his third marriage (the second of which fell apart while he had his mistress staying in the mayor's residence under the same roof as his wife!), he doesn't have a conservative leg to stand on. And because of this he resorts to fear mongering as a smoke screen.

Shame on you, you filthy, lying, egotistical, son-of-a-bitch.

OBAMA, CLINTON CRITICIZE GIULANI'S 9/11 REMARKS

The Bush Boogie

... There are no words... except perhaps, "Nero fiddled while Rome burned."

Time To Leave Barbara Bush At The Dog Track

Wow! Babs really can't open her mouth without sticking her foot in it. Asked whether voters should be wary or Mitt Romney, the Mormon Republican presidential primary candidate, Crazy Babs responded "not at all," noting there are "wild people" in many religions.

"I mean it was in 1897 that bigamy was outlawed in that church," she said. "You know we have a lot of Christian wild people too, and a lot of Jewish wild people and a lot of Muslim wild people. The Mormon religion takes care of its own, they don't have people on welfare."

She must be thinking of all those wild welfare people at the Superdome again. Oh that Babs! What a nut! Maybe she was auditioning for Don Imus' old job.

At least she's a straight shooter unlike the primate she bore who is currently stinking up the White House. I'm waiting for the day he'll get so mad at an increasingly irritating press corps that he'll start throwing feces during a press conference.

Chimpy's Increased Confidence In Gonzo

Welcome to Backwardsland, where people think the exact opposite of the general consensus of the rest of the world.

Chimpy had a brief press conference in the Oval Office today with General David Petraeus at his side. Of course Petraeus sat there looking like a frightened dog and said nothing, just like all the other military personnel Curious George has used as props for other conferences. He expressed concern about the progress in Iraq but stood in his foxhole against the notion of setting timetables to get out. "I believe strongly that politicians in Washington shouldn't be telling Generals how to do their job." Smug bastard.

He was then asked about Gonzales:

Q: "The Attorney General is still getting a lot of criticism over the US attorney situation. Was his explanation sufficient, or is there more he needs to do in order to turn things around?"

BUSH: "The Attorney General went up and, uh... gave a very candid assessment and answered every question he could possibly answer - honestly answer - in a way that, uh, increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.
One of the things that's very important for the American people to understand is that the Attorney General has a right, uh to recommend to me to replace US attorneys. US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President... in other words, we have named them, and uh, I have the right to replace them with somebody else. And uh, as the investigations - the hearings went forward, uh it was clear that the Attorney General broke no law, did no wrongdoing. Uh... and, some Senators didn't like his explanation but he answered as honestly as he could. This is an honest, honorable man in whom I have confidence."

Increased confidence after the hearing?! A pretty far cry from everyone else in the world who is demanding Gonzo's resignation in light of his abyssmal performance; a hearing which prompted the clearing of his calendar to begin preparations. Why does someone need weeks of preparation for something if all he has to do is tell the truth?

In other news, Boris Yeltsin is dead.


UPDATE (4/24/07 9am): NY TIMES - At Least the Boss Was Satisfied by Gonzales's Answers

“If the attorney general’s hearing performance increased the president’s confidence in his ability to lead the Justice Department, then he’s setting the bar fairly low,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in a statement on Monday.

One senior Republican Congressional aide at work in Washington on Monday, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, called Mr. Bush’s statement that his confidence in Mr. Gonzales had grown after his testimony “curious”; another senior Republican aide asked, “Was he watching the same hearing as everyone else?”

Paul Krugman: A Hostage Situation

Paul Krugman's Op Ed in Sunday's New Tork Times:

There are two ways to describe the confrontation between Congress and the Bush administration over funding for the Iraq surge. You can pretend that it’s a normal political dispute. Or you can see it for what it really is: a hostage situation, in which a beleaguered President Bush, barricaded in the White House, is threatening dire consequences for innocent bystanders — the troops — if his demands aren’t met.

If this were a normal political dispute, Democrats in Congress would clearly hold the upper hand: by a huge margin, Americans say they want a timetable for withdrawal, and by a large margin they also say they trust Congress, not Mr. Bush, to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq.

But this isn’t a normal political dispute. Mr. Bush isn’t really trying to win the argument on the merits. He’s just betting that the people outside the barricade care more than he does about the fate of those innocent bystanders.

What’s at stake right now is the latest Iraq “supplemental.” Since the beginning, the administration has refused to put funding for the war in its regular budgets. Instead, it keeps saying, in effect: “Whoops! Whaddya know, we’re running out of money. Give us another $87 billion.”

At one level, this is like the behavior of an irresponsible adolescent who repeatedly runs through his allowance, each time calling his parents to tell them he’s broke and needs extra cash.

What I haven’t seen sufficiently emphasized, however, is the disdain this practice shows for the welfare of the troops, whom the administration puts in harm’s way without first ensuring that they’ll have the necessary resources.

As long as a G.O.P.-controlled Congress could be counted on to rubber-stamp the administration’s requests, you could say that this wasn’t a real problem, that the administration’s refusal to put Iraq funding in the regular budget was just part of its usual reliance on fiscal smoke and mirrors. But this time Mr. Bush decided to surge additional troops into Iraq after an election in which the public overwhelmingly rejected his war — and then dared Congress to deny him the necessary funds. As I said, it’s an act of hostage-taking.

Actually, it’s even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill Congress will send won’t even set a hard deadline for withdrawal. It will include only an “advisory,” nonbinding date. Yet Mr. Bush plans to veto the bill all the same — and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.

The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said, in his great Cooper Union speech in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”

So how should Congress respond to Mr. Bush’s threats?

Everyone talks about the political risks of confrontation, recalling the backlash when Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995. But there’s a big difference between trying to force a fairly popular president to accept deep cuts in Medicare — which is what the 1995 confrontation was about — and trying to get a deeply unpopular, distrusted president to set some limits on an immensely unpopular war.

Meanwhile, there are big political risks on the other side. If Congress responds to a presidential veto by offering an even weaker bill, voters may well react with disgust, concluding that the whole debate over the war was nothing but political theater.

Anyway, never mind the political calculations. Confronting Mr. Bush on Iraq has become a patriotic duty.

The fact is that Mr. Bush’s refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security. Thanks to the demands of the Iraq war, we’re already a superpower without a strategic reserve, unable to respond to crises that might erupt elsewhere in the world. And more and more military experts warn that repeated deployments in Iraq — now extended to 15 months — are breaking the back of our volunteer military.

If nothing is done to wind down this war during the 21 months — 21 months! — Mr. Bush has left, the damage may be irreparable.

Edwards Against South Korea Trade Deal

This is directly from David Sirota's blog.

On Saturday, April 21st, 2007, Senator John Edwards will deliver the keynote address at the Michigan Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner and will announce his opposition to the South Korea trade deal. The Bush administration is finalizing details of the agreement and is expected to submit it to Congress for approval later this spring...[Edwards said trade deals] "must include strong labor and environmental standards and lift up workers in both countries...Congress should make it clear to the President that it will override any agreement that does not protect American jobs and American interests."

Big question: Will the other Democratic candidates join Edwards' call, or will they stay silent in deference to K Street and Wall Street?

Definitely a wedge issue for Democratic candidates who are receiving campaign contributions from K Street. It'll be interesting to see how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will react.

Gonzales: "I Don't Recall" 74 Times

"I don't believe that you're involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn't prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. "But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

Ouch. Not even Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, with perhaps the exception of Orrin Hatch, came to the defense of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. And could you blame them?

Gonzales said he takes full responsibility for the firings that he says were appropriate, but doesn't have a reason for firing the attorneys, except to say that it was recommended to him by his senior staff. He fired seven prosecutors and didn't even look at the paperwork for the reasons why until afterwards. Either he is lying or incompetent. Either way, he should be gone.

Meanwhile, it Backwardsland, Curious George continues to support Gonzo.

Q Dana, does Attorney General Gonzales's testimony on Capitol Hill have any bearing whatsoever on his job status?

MS. PERINO: As I've said many times, the President has full confidence in the Attorney General. The Attorney General looked forward to the hearing that is taking place right now. Of course, the President has not seen any of that testimony. As I told you, he's had a busy morning, and now we're on our way to Tipp City, Ohio. And I haven't seen any of the testimony, either. But clearly, we would hope that there were no preconceived notions, or canned talking points that the senators had in mind before they had this hearing. They said they wanted to get to the facts, and I'm sure that the Attorney General will be fully responsive to their request.

Q So is it fair to say that no matter what the testimony, no matter what the back-and-forth, that the President plans to stick with Attorney General Gonzales?

MS. PERINO: I think -- yes. I think the President has full confidence in the Attorney General and whenever that changes for any public servant, we'll let you know, and I see no indication of that.

Senator Durbin along with others asked whether he had conversations with Karl Rove regarding the attorneys in question. Why in the hell would the Attorney General of the United States be having a conversation with a political advisor, someone who has nothing to do with the Department of Justice? On that basis alone, Gonzo should go.

Senator Leahy questioning Gonzo. Now this is "Must see TV"!

Gonzales Postponed Until Thursday

The Senate Judiciary Committee postponed a hearing that had been scheduled for Tuesday in which [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales was to appear to defend his actions in the dismissals.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is the committee’s chairman, and Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, its senior Republican, delayed the hearing until Thursday because of the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech.

Okay, the tragic event that happened at the Viginia Tech campus is definitely something that could be considered worth postponing Gonzo's hearing for a couple of days. But am I being callous, or am I the only one who is already tired of the minute to minute coverage of this story by every cable media news outlet on television? Is it that slow of a news day that Tucker Carlson is actually doing a remote from the V.Tech campus? Do I really need to know about the entire life of yet another disturbed teenager?

At the very least, I would like to hear someone, anyone say that due to the tragedy, the Gonzales hearing was postponed. But I heard nothing. I would like to think that as another media frenzy develops (there seems to be one every week), that someone is keeping their eye on the rest of the world.

Charlie Rangel: Bush Is A Fraud

Speaking today at the National Press Club, Rep. Charles Rangel was asked the following question:

"You have said that the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq was the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. How do you defend this strong statement?"

RANGEL: "Well, we've lost 3,500 Americans, 30,000 seriously wounded, hundreds of thousands of people who have died; and the reason we lost them is because the President made a decision to make an appeal to Congress for the authority to go to war; and the reasons that he gave was that they had weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11, and that he was also connected to al-Qaeda. None of those things turned out to be true.

Now we could say that the President wasn't intelligent enough to understand the intelligence reports. Or we could say, 'Give the guy a break, he's never left Texas except to visit Mexico, so how could he know?'. Or we should say that everybody who was around him at the time indicating that he should follow Osama bin Laden, that he insisted he wanted to get Saddam Hussein.

Now maybe in these nice, prestigious halls, I should find a word that's more sophisticated - but in Harlem, it's fraud."

The follow up question was if that is his position, why isn't Congress starting impeachment proceedings for Bush and Cheney? He simply said, "Because we don't have the votes." He also added that in his opinion, he didn't think it was a good idea to impeach a president during a time of war.

Say what you want about the guy, but it's nice to hear honest words for a change. It's nice to hear 'lie' instead of 'misspeak'. It's good to call out someone for what they are, instead of worrying you'll be misquoted or fear backlash from your comments. Good for you, Charlie.

Everyone Wants Timetables Except Chimpy & Darth

Six Iraqi Cabinet members are abandoning their posts at the command of Muqtada al-Sadr, who is blaming the Iraqi leadership's refusal to respond to demands for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal.

So, the Democratic Congress wants a timetable, the Iraqis want a timetable. EVERYONE WANTS A TIMETABLE!... except Chimpy and Darth Cheney.

The Commander in Thief has the gall to ask Democratic leaders of Congress for a meeting regarding Iraq, only to insist it is not a negotaition, it is not a compromise, nothing will change his position. Then why have the damned meeting?!

To the credit of Congressional leaders, they declined the meeting. "What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept without any discussion the bill that he wants," Pelosi said at a news conference in San Francisco. "That's not worthy of the concerns of the American people, and I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind."

Where Have All The Bees Gone?

Months ago, there were reports of bee colonies with Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). It seems that CCD occurs "when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers... The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives."

Theories of what causes CCD have ranged from global warming to mites and pesticides. Now a new study is causing scientists to claim that radiation from mobile phones may be the problem for bees.

In the U.S., 60 % of the West Coast commercial bee population has been lost and 70% has been lost on the East Coast. But the problem has reached global proportions. CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

It's a little more alarming than trivial because most of the world's crops depend on bee pollination, exposing the delicate balance that we take for granted. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

Imus and Free Speech

I've just heard someone try to make the Imus issue a free speech debate. This is not a free speech issue.

US Constitution - Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Imus was not fired by the government.To my knowledge, there was no complaint that the FCC responded to that caused Imus' dismissal. If there were complaints, I didn't hear one word mentioned about it during the media feeding frenzy on Imus' comments regarding the Rutgers Women's Basketball team.

Imus was fired by the private corporation he worked for; that corporation has the right to tell him what he can and cannot say. Sponsors have the right to pull their advertising if they feel they may be harmed by what an on air personality says on his program which they support with their advertising dollars.

The free speech that was apparent on this issue were the protests and calls for Imus' firing. The air waves are public and the public responded. Was it sensationalized? Yes. Was it blown out of proportion? Perhaps. Is there a double standard? Definitely, but that doesn't make the comments made by Imus any less hateful, any less racial, any less sexually degrading to the people on the receiving end. Others have been fired for racially motivated comments, and for this there cannot be a double standard. Firing Imus, whose program was in the top 10 in the country as far as revenue was concerned, showed us that CBS had the guts to do the right thing, in my opinion, regardless of how it was going to affect them financially. Imus was bringing in $15 million annually.

If this is truly where we are headed as a community (and I think it's a good thing) then there has to be continued scrutiny on the truly hateful on air personalities that make a living spewing their hate-filled rhetoric. This cannot end with Imus. Let's keep an eye on the Rush Limbaughs, the Mike Savages, the Glenn Becks, and the Melanie Morgans of the airwaves.

Imus Fired

CBS fired Don Imus from his radio show Thursday, the final blow for the broadcaster who called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos.”

Imus initially was suspended for two weeks for calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos” on the air last week, but outrage continued to grow and advertisers bolted from his programs.

The Lost E-Mails

Just when you though it was safe to go back into the Department of Justice... WATERGATE REDUX!

So the 3000+ pages of documents and e-mails that the White House provided as part of their "generous offer" were filled with redacted pages, blocked out information, etc. etc. ... we all know that by now. We now learn that the White House "is being accused of improperly trying to hide e-mails about government business by using unofficial e-mail accounts.
Congressional investigators say they found communications on one account from top White House aides about official matters, like the December firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Those e-mails were discovered on a Republican National Committee e-mail domain called gwb43.com. That domain is not part of the official White House communication system."

GWB43... what a creative name! Especially for an e-mail system that no one is supposed to know about. These guys are soooooooo smart. Of course, the White House is defending its position by saying that the outside e-mail account was used for separating government business from political campaign work.

The Presidential Records Act, passed during the Nixon administration, requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president.

And here's the kicker: a chain of e-mails "...illustrated the type of exchange taking place on the account. The e-mails began with a February 2003 message from [from now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack] Abramoff to Susan Ralston, the former executive assistant to President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

In the chain, Abramoff advised Ralston that an upcoming Interior Department gaming compact with a Louisiana Indian tribe would be "an anathema to our supporters down there."

When an associate notified him that his e-mail had been forwarded to another White House aide, Abramoff replied, "Dammit. It was sent to Susan on her RNC pager and was not supposed to go into the WH (White House) system."

"Now we are learning that the 'off book' communications they were having about these actions, by using Republican political email addresses, have not been preserved," Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said on the Senate floor.
He added, "Like the famous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes, it appears likely that key documentation has been erased or misplaced. This sounds like the Administration's version of 'the dog ate my homework.'"

Leahy also vehemently said that he doesn't believe the e-mails were lost, deleted, or misplaced. "You can't erase e-mails. Not today. They've gone through too many servers. They can't say they've been lost."

Vote For Me - I Don't Care What You Think

I wasn’t going to blog about this because it’s now a four day old story and hopefully everyone knows about it. My cynical side unfortunately thinks that more people probably know who the father of Anna Nicole’s baby is than what John McCain had to say in a 60 Minutes interview. After going back and reading my previous posts however, I thought it best to comment on it and bring this McCain chapter to a close, albeit temporarily.

It seems that the Straight Talk Express has rolled off the highway yet again and admitted as much. John McCain, one of the Republican contenders for the Presidential Primary basically said he doesn't really care about the wants of the American people his struggling campaign is desparate for. Seems like the Bush "my way or the highway" attitude we so love.

PELLEY: I wonder, at what point do you stop doing what you think is right and you start doing what the majority of the American people want?

MCCAIN: Well again, I disagree with what the majority of the American people want.

Dead man walking. With that one sentence, McCain killed any hope of a Presidential run.

But there’s more. Mr. Straight Talk was then asked about certain comments that he made regarding the safety in Baghdad after his "safe stroll" though Baghdad's Shorja marketplace:

PELLEY: Before you came on this trip, you mentioned in an interview that General Petraeus sometimes goes into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, and that there were neighborhoods that you could walk throughout without being concerned for your safety.

MCCAIN: There is no unarmored Humvees -- obviously, that's the case. I'm trying to make the point over and over and over again that we are making progress. And there are signs of progress, that it's long, and it's hard and it's tough. To take one sentence of mine out of 1,000 -- you know, life isn't fair. But the fact is that's my message.

PELLEY: You were a little annoyed with yourself, I think, having said that.

MCCAIN: Oh, sure. But look, as long as you are as open to the media as I am, of course I'm going to misspeak. I have done it on numerous occasions, and I probably will in the future. I regret that when I divert attention to something that I've said from my message. But, you know, that's just life, and I'm happy, frankly, with the way that I operate. Otherwise, it'd be a lot less fun.

Substitute the word “lie” for the word “misspeak” and it’s all too clear. And he's happy with the way he operates? Sure, he'll lie if he can get away with it. If he gets caught, well, oops, heh heh, you got me.

And that line about “life isn’t fair” surely fits now, not for McCain but for 21 shopkeepers of the very market Mr. Straight Talk strolled through that were executed the day after his neighborhood walk. I haven’t heard very much about that in the liberal media. But I suppose "that's just life", right Maverick?

All aboard the Straight Jacket Express.

Imus' Apology and the FOX News Spin

Radio talk show host Don Imus has been suspended for making racially insensitive comments regarding the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, the Cinderella story of this year’s NCAA Women’s Tournament, reaching the finals but losing to Tennessee.

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.

The fact that Imus and his sidekicks have been making comments like this for years is not the point. What I find bizarre is that 1) its taken this long for Imus to fall out of the frying pan and into the fire and 2) the “punishment” is a two week suspension.

Two weeks? That is tantamount to a slap on the wrist. Many have been fired for comments less reprehensible. Imus has apologized and being a former listener, his apology sounded genuine to my ears. He definitely seemed embarrassed and humiliated. Many are still calling for his firing, including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Imus did make an appearance on Al Sharpton’s radio show. Here is his apology...

and part of the Sharpton interview.

Unfortunately, our decent, fair and balanced friends at FOX News took the opportunity to show how maligned conservatives are in the “liberal media” world, claiming that if this had been a conservative talk show host, he or she would have been skewered, but since Imus “leans left” it’s not a big deal. Conservatives are treated differently.

First of all, calling Imus left wing is way off the mark. What left winger has Mary Matalin, Joe Lieberman and Ann Coulter on as regular guests? But they are right about one thing: conservatives do get treated differently.

Has anyone called for the firing of John Gibson?

GIBSON: “Do your duty. Make more babies. That's a lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple of days.
First, a story yesterday that half of the kids in this country under five years old are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. You know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic. Why is that? Well, Hispanics are having more kids than others. Notably, the ones Hispanics call "gabachos" -- white people -- are having fewer.”

I’m sure the resignation of Glenn Beck is coming soon, isn’t it?

BECK (to Rep. Keith Ellison): “And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, ‘Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.’"

How about the King of the Swine, Rush Limbaugh?

LIMBAUGH: "Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American actress Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans," Obama said.
He didn't say it, but ..."

Yes, I suppose FOX News is right. Limbaugh and Beck and Gibson and Coulter and Hannity and on and on and on, don't really fall under the same standards. They are so poorly treated.

Here’s Dan Abrams subbing in for Joe Scarborough attacking FOX News for their spin on the Imus suspension.

Cheney Is Insane

I know that the above statement is probably not a surprise to anyone, but it seems to me that anyone who would continue to assert that Iraq was linked to Al-Qaeda five years after the start of the invasion of Iraq, when even the President has said there is no evidence of a link between Hussein and September 11th, has either got to be certifiably insane, an insidious, compulsive liar or both. My bet is on both.

On Thursday, Vice President Darth Cheney, speaking on the Rush Limbaugh show (of course) said "that al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda. Others in al-Qaeda planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
'He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,' Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. 'As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.'

Yet on that very day, THAT VERY DAY, the Pentagon declassified a report that shows "interrogations of the deposed Iraqi leader and two of his former aides as well as seized Iraqi documents confirmed that the terrorist organization and the Saddam government were not working together before the invasion."

But that doesn't matter to Cheney as he spews his lies on the Limbaugh show. They wouldn't want to lose the 30% base that is basically the audience still listening to the drug-addicted, child molester. At this point, wouldn't it be fair to say that Cheney (who actually has a lower approval rating than Bush if that's possible) can't be taken on his word for ANYTHING?

In that same interview, he maligned Speaker Nancy Pelosi for taking a trip to Syria, calling it "bad behavior on her part." Of course, he would never mention the fact that Pelosi was actually there to reinforce Bush administration policies and goals regarding Syria, and this is according to Republican Rep. David Hobson who accompanied her on the trip! But although five of the eleven politicians who have visited Syria in the past five days have been Republican, no mention or criticism of their trip has been apparent.

Diplomacy is not this administration's strong suit by a long shot, especially when most of the time they don't even consider it an option. So wouldn't a trip by an opposing party member extolling the Bush party line, and the Syrian government knowing that the Democrats aren't playing either, be advantageous to the administration? You'd think so, but since they are all crazy and live in Oppositeland, it completely makes sense to attack and smear. Just like this New York Post front page picture from March 31st, 2007.

God I hate these people.

Bush The Deceitful

An abuse of power to the Nth degree.

President Bush has appointed Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium. If you don't know who Sam Fox is, he was Chimpy's nominee for said appointment back in January. During his Senate Confirmation Hearing in February however, he hit a bit of a snag when questions arose on why he donated $50,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You remember them, don't you? They're the lying scumbags who smeared John Kerry during his Presidential campaign in 2004.

So there is Sam Fox, sweating in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, answering questions asked by... John Kerry, who is on the committee. Chickens coming back to roost anyone?

Well, knowing Fox didn't have the votes was just a bit too much to take for Curious George and on March 28th (just seven days ago) he withdrew Fox's nomination. So now what does this sneaky, evil, criminal son-of-a-bitch do? He waits for Congress to go on a one week recess and then APPOINTS SAM FOX Ambassador to Belgium!

"We view the recess appointment of Mr. Fox as a clear abuse of the President's recess appointment power," three Democratic senators wrote in a letter to the Government Accountability Office, Congress' auditing agency.

Apparently Bush thinks that this is a dictatorship, not a democracy. Talk about brass balls! The Democratic senators were outraged, and asked the Government Accountability Office Thursday, "If the U.S. Senate defeats the nomination of Mr. Fox, would Mr. Fox's recess appointment continue through the current session of Congress, or would it be terminated?"

But that's a longshot as Bush had done this before with the 2002 blocked nomination of Otto Reich as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs. Senator Chris Dodd blocked that nomination and the Chimp-Man gave Reich the job as a recess appointment. The GAO then cited the US Constitution in Bush's favor. Ironic isn't it?

And to add insult to injury, of course Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, (The "I" must stand for "imbecile") the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney "hailed the appointment." Why wouldn't they? It's just another end-around to subvert the checks and balances of the Constitution that Bush hides behind when it's in his favor, but disregards when it is not.

Our Cat Murray

Murray, our feline son, fell ill a few weeks ago. We originally thought it was an infection caused by bad teeth. Our vet took good care of him and Murray had three teeth pulled! Guess he takes after his dad when it comes to cavities. After a week of antibiotics, we thought he was on the way to recovery, but this past weekend he didn't look right, stopped eating and wasn't his normal self.

We went back to the vet and x-rays revealed a large mass behind his heart and a small one in front. Blood tests showed liver and pituitary damage. Murray had cancer.

After thinking about what we should do and speaking with the doctor, we decided that Murray had suffered enough and we should put him down. We made an appointment with the vet last evening, one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do. Murray, however, had his own plans.

He hated being kooked up in his pet carrier and despised the ride to the vet. After two trips in the last two weeks, he beat us to the punch and passed away peacefully at home a few hours before his last trip, a couple of months before his 7th birthday.

Murray was a very "talkative" cat and sometimes sounded like a baby when he meowed. He also liked wet cat food. We only fed him dry food, but he would dump a mouthful of food into the water dish, watch intently as he waited for it to sink, then scoop it out and eat it with his paws.

He would then proceed to track one wet paw around the house. What a nutty cat. He wasn't normally a nuzzly cat, but was a loud purrer and buried his head into your chin when you picked him up. He didn't need to be all over you but enjoyed being in the same room with you. As long as you were within eyesight, he was cool. As he got a little older, he became more affectionate and liked watching Keith Olbermann at night with his dad, lying on dad's legs which rested on the coffee table. The problem was, he was so damned heavy, dad's feet would fall asleep.

I know that he loved us, maybe even more than he loved pasta (but that's a close race). He will be sorely missed by his mom and dad and his brother Chester (from the same litter), but it's a relief to know that he's no longer in pain.

Take care of your pets. You never know how long you're going to have them.