On Vacation

Sorry for the lack of posting these past few days. I am on my honeymoon in Italy with my lovely new bride and won't be back til next week. I'll tell you all about it when I return.

Republican Voters

Well, here's the problem. Republicans have a lackluster block of candidates, and yet listen to the responses you get (emphasis mine):

NEW YORK TIMES:

Mr. Goulet, 38, a welder foreman, voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, then did not vote in the next two elections. He now likes Mr. McCain, because of his military background. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself,” Mr. Goulet said.

Josh Schultz, 28, of Lancaster, Ohio, who drives a bulldozer and also works as a mechanic, said was starting to like Mr. Romney "because he seems downt to earth."

William Sedlak, 47, a flight attendant who lives in Aliso Viejo, Calif., said he liked Mr. Giuliani because “he’s conservative enough but he’s still a little liberal enough.”

Wayne Horton, 53, who works in construction as a house framer and lives in Burton, Ohio, has been mulling the field and has decided he likes Mr. Romney because he looks presidential... Mr. Thompson? “I really don’t know much about him. I’m not that informed. Really, I just rely on TV and what my wife tells me from reading the paper, and then we talk about it over supper. We’re out
trying to make a living, so we rely on the media to tell us about the candidates’ qualifications.”

And there, in a nutshell is the mentality of the Republican voter. "He looks presidential" is a perfectly good reason to vote for someone to be President of the United States.

Mr. Horton relies on the media for the candidates qualifications but admits he's not that informed. Tells you something about the media, doesn't it? Do you think Mr. Horton knows much more about Paris Hilton or Owen Wilson than Sam Brownback or Ron Paul? Mr. Sedlak wants to be a conservative but is a closeted liberal and therefore likes Giuliani. Mr. Goulet likes McCain for his military service but his quote is confusing. “It’s tough to send troops somewhere if you haven’t been there yourself.” Does that mean that since McCain has visited Iraq he knows what it's like and can send more troops or does he hope that McCain's Vietnam experience will prevent him from causing further chaos in the Middle East?

Someday, the GOP voters will start asking questions that matter. I'm not saying that issues like immigration and right to privacy aren't important but in my opinion, health care, the war in Iraq, our straining economy and diplomatic standing in the world are priorities over the wedge issues that the Republican party uses time and time again to divide the citizens of this country.

Craig Resigns

Senator Larry Craig's (R-ID) last day will be September 30th. Claiming that the constituants of Idaho deserve a Senator who can concentrate on his job 100% of the time, Craig said that his upcoming legal battle will prevent him from doing so and therefore be unfair to Idahoans.

And to top it off, Craig hired Billy Martin as his attorney. Who is Billy Martin you might ask? He's the 21st century Johnnie Cochran. Martin's latest defense case involved a certain football player named MICHAEL VICK!!!

Senator Craig had better hope that martin will do a better job on his case than he did on Vick's.

Tony Snowjob Resigns

The latest rat to desert a sinking lame duck ship,Tony Snow, White House Press Secretary will resign as of September 14th. Snow has been looking more and more feeble in his ongoing battle with cancer.

He will be replaced by "Legally Bland", Dana "Too Much Cappuccino" Perino. If you don't understand the cappuccino moniker, you will as soon as you hear her speak.

She's a hottie - unfortunately she becomes less and less attractive with each Republican talking point uttered from her mouth.

The Hillary Hate Factor

For quite a while now, I've been thinking about the Democrats running in the Presidential primary looking to get the votes needed to be the next nominee for President of the United States. As we all know, it's been Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who have been leading the pack in the polls, campaign contributions and in media exposure.

Both are worthy candidates, in my opinion, but there are always a couple of questions that come across my mind as I imagine either one as the Democratic nominee. Could one of these two actually win? It would be devastating for this country to elect another Republican. I don't say this because I'm a Democrat or a liberal or progressive or whatever label you want to put on it. I seriously believe that if we, as a nation, elect another Republican to the highest office in the land, we'll continue down this horrible road we've been traveling with Bush and his band, and the rest of the world will conclude that this is where we all want to be. Not just the people that vote Republican, but all of us, and needless to say, we're not anyone's favorites right now.

There may be an exception or two. I've been listening to Mike Huckabee on different talk shows and debates and he seems to have his head on straight on certain issues. But he's not a front runner. The leaders in polls on the Republican side show Rudy Giuliani holding a double digit lead over Fred Thompson, who hasn't even announced yet! And believe me as a New Yorker, living in a Giuliani world is not all its cracked up to be. Mike Huckabee has been holding steady at 3% for the last three months.

Anyway, back to my point. The Republican Party is on the ropes. Their base has had their head smashed in with scandal after scandal, the Iraq War is a mess, resignations are crippling White House computer printers and Congressional subpoenas are flying out of the Capitol Building fast than you can say "Alberto Gonzales". At this point, the Republican base will stay at home on Election Day. But the one thing they will rally around is who their political opponent will be .

Hillary Clinton has this hate factor that has manifested itself into an 800 lb. gorilla. And hell, where did it come from? What did Hillary do to make her so vilified, not only among Republicans, but some Democrats as well?

I had a conversation with a colleague at work who said she would vote for John McCain before Hillary. JOHN McCAIN!!! Mr. Baghdad Is Doing Great, Surge Is Working While Helicopters Protect Me From Overhead McCain. When I mentioned to her that there was probably no way McCain would get the nomination and asked her who she would vote for if it were Hillary or Giuliani, she begrudgingly said Hillary. "But I don't trust her as far as I could throw her" was her caveat. Why did this African-American woman not trust Hillary?

Is the distrust a culmination of Hillary's ambition to high office, so much so that she stood by her husband after it was revealed that he had an affair? Did my friend feel betrayed as a woman, perhaps thinking that Hillary lost some dignity in staying with Bill? We all assume the Clintons moved to New York so Hillary could run for office, but everyone does it, and I have to say that she's done a pretty good job as a New York Senator (despite voting for the war), so why is this so different? What is it about Hillary Clinton that pisses people off?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a strong Hillary supporter. I don't approve of what she says regarding her foreign policy. I do belive she's trapped herself in a corner and is now beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests. This is especially upsetting to me, because she's gone from being the most outspoken person on a national health care system as First Lady, to accepting campaign contributions from insurance and phamaceutical companies (that's for another post). But I'd still take her over ANYONE on the Republican ticket.

Barack Obama first got my attention at the 2004 Democratic National Convention with his Keynote Address. That great speech that literally took my breath away and got me excited about politics for the first time in a very long time:

"...there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

That galvanized me, and I hope most of the Democratic party, into thinking of what could be possible. It fell on deaf ears, however, to the other side. Before long, they were trying to make Obama the latest demon, calling him Barack Hussein Obama (his real middle name) in an attempt to associate him with Saddam, and saying he went to a madrassa when he was a boy. Now they claim his downfall is his inexperience, to which he replies, "Nobody had a longer resume than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and that hasn't worked out so well." I sensed the attacks coming, but what are you going to do?

My one hesitation about Barack: he's black. I have absolutely no problem with Obama's African-American heritage. However, I think too many other people in this country still do, including many in the Republican party. So the question there is: Is America ready to vote for an African-American to be President?

Which comes to my final point. This week's Time Magazine has a John Edwards article worth reading. I've always liked Edwards. He comes across as genuine to me. Not looking for the patented, rehearsed answer, or not saying what any particular audience wants to hear. But I believe he deeply cares about people and trying to make it better for everyone. He's big on health care and hasn't taken any money from lobbyists, corporations or political action committees.

His wife Elizabeth is quoted in the article regarding what I call the Hillary Hate Factor:

TIME MAGAZINE, Elizabeth Edwards: "The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers," says Elizabeth, the unfiltered voice of the campaign, during an interview on the bus a week before that speech. "Then the media folks say, 'See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates' ... It's enough to make you tear your hair out." Soon she's pressing the argument that her husband is the most electable candidate, the one who will help other Democrats win in the South and West--and she's managing to attack Clinton while defending her. "I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified. I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality."

My only reaction? She's right. But where do we go from here? Is middle America ready to vote for a woman? Or a black man? Can people who say they support either candidate be completely honest with themselves when they are all alone in the voting booth with no one looking over their shoulder?

Do yourself a favor and read the entire Edwards article in TIME (linked above).

(In the interests of total disclosure, I have donated to the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns.)

2nd Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina

Can you believe it has been two years already? I wonder how many Bush photo ops we'll see of Chimpy and his wife, Bubbles, in New Orleans today? Perhaps sitting in Jackson Square having a bignette at Cafe DuMonde or maybe they'll go visit a school! You know, it's all about the children, isn't it?

He can sit there and tell them how he's fucked up so badly, that the students and their own children someday will still be footing the bill for the War in Iraq. But don't worry, I'm sure the Bushies will pray for them.

Guardian Unlimited:

There are residents who want the city rebuilt as it was, but there are many others - city officials, engineers and environmentalists - who argue that there needs to be a more compact city, built on higher ground, more easily protected. Many of the areas to be abandoned would be the poor, black ones.

The Army Corps of Engineers, a mainly civilian organisation, has rebuilt the levees, pumps and locks over the last two years but admits that is not enough. There was nervousness in the city last week as the residents watched Hurricane Dean cross the Caribbean, and the hurricane season is not over yet.

Jeffrey Buchanan, Huffington Post:

When confronted with the failing Katrina recovery, President Bush and his various spokespeople continue to insist the federal government has done its job. The proof, they say, is "the big check" Washington has allegedly signed for the Gulf Coast, allegedly more than $114 billion.

Chris Kromm, executive director of the Institute for Southern Studies and I just issued a report to get to the truth and weed our way through the White House talking point on Gulf Coast rebuilding and why alleged federal funds had not made a greater impact.

You can read it as part of the report Blueprint for Gulf Renewal. We found less than $35 billion in federal funds actually available to rebuild the region. Most of the $114 billion Bush administration officials refer to was for the emergency response, not to help rebuild the region. Still the White House continues to mislead the public about our country's investment in rebuilding the Gulf Coast and New Orleans to avoid its obligations to aid in recovery and help families and communities rebuild.

The region suffered $150 billion in damages, more damage than the September 11th attacks, Hurricane Andrew and the Northridge Earthquake combined, and displaced over 400,000 people (the largest displacement in U.S. history) yet our federal government has relied on old systems and paradigms meant to repair damage from much smaller disasters.

Even more shocking: less than 42% of the money set aside for rebuilding has even been spent, much less gotten to those most in need.

Another Anti-Gay Republican Caught With His Pants Down

Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho is the latest in a string of "Family Values", anti-gay, conservative politicians in trouble with the law for illegal homosexual exploits.

The GOP may as well call itself the Gay Ol' Party after Senator Craig entered a guilty plea on "misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis airport."

Craig was arrested by an undercover agent in a Minneapolis airport after playing footsie with the man in the next stall. His excuse? "I have a wide stance."

He must need a wide stance to accomodate the size of the balls it takes to think the public would believe that excuse plausible. Of course, everyone is having a comedic field day with this one.

Here are a couple of goodies:

Martin Lewis, Huffington Post: Senator Larry Craig has not only been a vociferous opponent of the gay movement (except apparently his own gay movements) but it turns out to that he is yet another steaming hypocrite who has pandered to the vast gay-loathing base of the Republican Party.
Only like so many Republicans who have come before him (insert your own joke here) - he is revealed by his recent actions and guilty plea to be a self-loathing gay.

Nick Gillespie, Reason Magazine: The 62-year-old Craig doesn't just put the party back in the "Grand Old Party," though he certainly does that. Back in the day, he voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, a clearly anti-gay measure, and he supported the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
America is the land of opportunity and more power to Craig if he wants to have consensual sex with men in toilets (although, good libertarian that I am, I do believe the owners of said facilities should be allowed to regulate what behavior goes on in their crappers).
But I find it despicable that Craig would deny the option of matrimony to gay men who want it. Shouldn't the people he wants to fuck have the right to decide if they, like Craig, want to enjoy the bounty of marriage? (Not to mention, as seems likely in Craig's case, the right of divorce?)

Since his guilty plea, Craig has resigned from his post as a co-chairman of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Idaho Leadership Team, and is due to have a press conference in Boise, Idaho today at 4:30 EST.

UPDATE: Senator Craig denies any wrongdoing, blames the press, infers that the officer arresting him lied and claims, "I am not gay!" He starts his news conference with the unfortunate phrase, "Thank you for coming out today." If only you had, Larry, you might not be in this predicament.

Here's what hypocrite Craig had to say regarding Bill Clinton's heterosexual affair with Monica Lewinsky:

Reaction to Gonzo's Resignation

Here's some video I put together of the reaction and speculation that arose from the Alberto Gonzales resignation, including Hillary Clinton at the Livestrong Presidential Cancer Forum, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin and CNN Chief National Correspondent John King.

The Gonzales Spin Begins

Republican pundits everywhere are trying to spin the Gonzales resignation as a "win for the White House."

Tucker Carlson just called him a liberal!!!

Carlson: I'm not defending Gonzales, I just attacked him. I thought he was mediocre, another baby boomer... talking about himself and his stupid personal journey and he's doing better than his dad, like we care. I don't care.

However, the guy's actually kind of liberal. He's kind of inoffensive. Of all the people you could attack in the Bush administration... I get why the left hate Karl Rove, but this guy?

I guess Tucker was sleeping during the torture memos, the Patriot Act, firing US attorneys for political reasons and not remembering a single thing about it when asked.

Luckily, Rosa Brooks of the Washington Times slaps him back into place, and Tucker laughs it off like the punk that he is.

Gonzo Gone!

Alberto Gonzales Resigns

Of course, Bush called Gonzo "a man of integrity, decency and principle" and an "honorable person" whose "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons", but did you expect anything else? An honorable man to Bush is someone who will do your illegal bidding and take the fall for it.

I have a suspicion that there hasn't been a truly honorable man in Bush's presence in quite some time.

Iraqi Ministry and the Black Market Weapons Deal

It seems that this little story was mostly ignored by the mainstream media. Do you remember hearing of the $40 million black market arms deal between Iraqi and Italian partners for over 100,000 weapons? I'm sure the Fox News conservative pundits covered this, no?

Associated Press:

The Associated Press has learned that Iraqi government officials were involved in the deal, apparently without the knowledge of the U.S. Baghdad command — a departure from the usual pattern of U.S.-overseen arms purchases.

Why these officials resorted to "black" channels and where the weapons were headed is unclear.

The purchase would merely have been the most spectacular example of how Iraq has become a magnet for arms traffickers and a place of vanishing weapons stockpiles and uncontrolled gun markets since the 2003 U.S. invasion and the onset of civil war.

Some guns the U.S. bought for Iraq's police and army are unaccounted for, possibly fallen into the hands of insurgents or sectarian militias.

Some guns? SOME GUNS?! I don't think 190,000 missing assault rifles and pistols qualifies as "some". In my book, that qualifies as a "shitload".

"They really have no idea where they are," Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Centre for Defence Information, told the Washington Post, which reported the GAO's findings. "It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors."

Bad actors? Does that mean we'll see Steven Sagal or David Caruso roaming the streets of Baghdad with an AK-47 in their hands? I think you should replace "bad actors" with "the fucking insurgency", Ms. Stohl.

Here's the kicker: "...weapons distribution was rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly in 2004 and 2005. During that period, security training was led by General David Petraeus, now the top US commander in Iraq. "

And Petraeus, our fearless leader, the man who wrote the book on counterinsurgency, the savior of Iraq who'll give his long-awaited assessment of the results of the surge in September (which will be written by the White House), blames the missing weapons on a clerical error.

"Some percentage" of weapons the U.S. military provided to the Iraqi army and Iraqi police units were not tracked by serial number because there were no procedures in place to do so within the Iraqi units, Petraeus said in an interview broadcast [August 7th] on Fox News Radio's "Alan Colmes Show."

From a practical standpoint, Petraeus added, it was more important to get the weapons to the Iraqis as they started to enter the fight against a strong insurgency than it was to keep meticulous records.

Sure, why do we need to keep track of 190,000 weapons with silly little things like serial numbers? That's just a little technicality, right? I mean, why bother writing stuff like that down? There's no possible way that if you give an Iraqi officer or policeman a weapon, that he'll just turn around and sell it to the nearest local militia warlord to whom he's more loyal, right? That just doesn't happen, does it?

190,000 missing weapons chalked up to bookkeeping deficiencies... unbelieveable. Were these the same accountants in charge of the $9 billion missing in Iraq back in 2005 that's still unaccounted for?

What a bunch of clowns.

Advertising the War

Freedom's Watch, a right wing group headed by former Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, is bankrolling a $15 million, five-week advertising campaign putting pressure on lawmakers whose backing of President Bush's Iraq war strategy may be wavering.

...The ads will run in 20 states and will urge viewers to ask their member of Congress to stand by Bush's plan. Organizers of the effort would not identify the targeted lawmakers, but a review of the initial TV ad placements — done by a group opposed to the war — shows most of them are in Republican congressional districts.

Take a look at this ad. Iraq war veteran John Kriesel lost both legs in a blast near Fallujah. When asked, Fleischer didn't even know the name of the soldier who appears in his ad.

This is the height of insanity: advertisements selling the Iraq War in swing states attempting to persuade the local constituancies to pressure their Congressional leaders into siding with Herr Bush's failed war policy. Reminds me of propaganda movies like this:

Looking at Mr. Kriesel, I understand his great sacrifice and his anger against those who attacked us. It's just a shame that Herr Bush and his cronies decided to sidetrack us into a war for oil, profit and power and therefore pulled out of Afghanistan before the job was done.

They speak of supporting the troops, but delay in providing them the tools they need to make them safe. Bush authorizes a commission on veteran's care and fixing Walter Reed hospital, but then puts the Dole-Shalala Commission recommendations on the backburner. And they have absolutely no problem with using the military as a backdrop for their latest photo ops while opposing a Democratic effort to restore full educational benefits for returning veterans.

But using war heroes, families of fallen soldiers and images of planes running into the World Trade Center Towers to further disinform the misguided public into connecting Iraq with 9/11 -- using that as pro-war advertising is just beyond my comprehension and makes me sick.

The War As They Saw It

This was in the New York Times Op-Ed this past Sunday and I failed to mention it earlier.
Written by seven members of the US Army 82nd Airborne Division in Baghdad, it does nothing but tell us the truth and shows us the reality on the ground in Iraq. Please do yourself a favor and read the whole piece (linked above).

Here's an excerpt:

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

I wonder how soon it'll be before the warmongers start swiftboating these seven brave soldiers?

UPDATE: It didn't take long for me to find Tucker Carlson's take on this op-ed. The piece, by the way, was a response to assessments made in a previous op-ed by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack; and when [Carlson] interviewed Pollack, he did not challenge Pollack's opinions on whether progress is being made in Iraq, but he readily distrusts what actual military on the ground have to say.

Who are you going to believe? O'Hanlon and Pollack, or your lying eyes?

Daily Show: Barack Obama Interview

The Vietnam Comparison

Chickenhawk George had the nerve to compare the Iraq War to Vietnam. No, not in the sense that both were mindless wars which were/are unwinnable, but that if we were to pull out of Iraq now, it would have the same consequences as Vietnam.

Of course, cherrypicking bits of the Vietnam War while paying no attention to history, chronology or reality just doesn't work.

Watch as David Schuster donned his hipwaders and slogged through the "rhetoric". In my world, the definition of rhetoric is "bullshit".

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars

Presidential Advance Manual

Sensitive - Do Not Copy

I love living in a Democracy, don't you? Too bad we're slowly losing ours.

Herr Bush doesn't like dissent. We all know that. We can see it in his face when he is questioned by an occasional reporter who hasn't checked his testes at the door before walking into the White House Press Room. And we've all heard the stories of protesters being arrested by his henchmen (formerly known as local police and the Secret Service) at events just for wearing anti-war shirts or holding anti-Bush signs.

But who knew to what detail they would try to prevent Herr Bush from even having these protesters in view? Now we have proof.

WASHINGTON POST:

A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of "deterring potential protesters" from President Bush's public appearances around the country.

...The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for "folded cloth signs," it advises.

Why bother? Can Monkey Boy actually read?

They even have pointers on "rally squads" who should physically block the protesting and drown out the dissenters with chants of "USA! USA!" so Herr Bush doesn't see it.

The only reason we find this out is because of the lawsuits involving the people who were arrested.

For example, "Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended [a] Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing."

The White House of course, could not discuss the manual because it's an issue in two other suits.

Hail Caesar?

Digby over at Hullabaloo brings up a group called Family Security Matters. ... Very scary... you should go to their website and peruse. Anyway, he's been getting emails about the group and how they've been scrubbing their articles. He copied one off the Google cache (because nothing ever goes away) and posted it to his site so we could all see how insane some people are.

Here are a couple of excerpts, but you should read the whole thing:

Excerpts from:
Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise...

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead...

...By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome...

...If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court...

This is the mentality that's out there. I suggest we all send Mr. Atkinson an e-mail or two responding to this article and others he may have written if you care to look up further lunatic rants.
Either he'll admit to writing it, or he'll deny it because it's no longer on the website, in which case you can call him a coward for not admitting to something he wrote. I haven't been able to find a direct e-mail, but I think you can get something to Mr. Atkinson here.

Question Everything

“Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.” - Euripides

Let's see what's been happening for the last couple of days, shall we?

The new Brownie: Mine Safety Czar Richard Stickler's credentials have come into question amid the Utah mine disaster that not only has failed to reach six trapped miners in its 15th day, but has also taken the lives of three of the nine rescue workers attempting to reach them.

"After his nomination was twice rejected by [a Republican led] Senate, President Bush gave Richard Stickler the mine safety job with a recess appointment."

Should we really be surprised by yet another Bush recess appointee's lack of competence? "Stickler used to be a mining executive who - according to various media reports - ran mines which had several fatalities and '...an incident rate that was often twice the national average.'"


White House misses subpoena deadline... again!: Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) revealed that the White House had missed its 2:30 PM deadline to turn over documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding legal justifications for the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program. The Committee had already pushed back the original July 18 deadline twice after the White House requested more time.

During questioning, Sen. Leahy revealed that during the 109th Congress, they were about to issue subpoenas but that Vice President Cheney had barred then Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter from doing so. Great separation of powers we had during the Republican led Congress, huh?

Oh, by the way, Cheney is still claiming that his office is not part of the Executive Branch.


Another Category 5 Hurricane: Hurricane Dean hit the eastern coast of Mexico's Yucatan peninsula at 165 miles per hour. But don't worry, I'm sure global warming isn't to blame for the ever increasing force of hurricanes.

Sen. Levin wants Maliki out: After a three day trip to Jordan and Iraq, to view the effects of our "successful surge" first hand, Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has apparently found his gonads and called for the ouster of Iraq Prime Minister Norui al-Maliki.

"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Levin said.

Of course, those who continue to march in lockstep with Bush and the Republican Party, seize upon any positive statements from lawmakers returning from Iraq to portray Democratic leaders as wedded to failure there while the Democratic Party grows increasingly divided over the war's progress.

At times, such statements have been clearly taken out of context. When Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) returned from Iraq and said, "We're making some measurable progress," the GOP declared that the Democratic leadership had splintered on the war. What Republicans left out was the rest of Durbin's remarks: "We cannot win this war militarily. We just can't send enough troops."

At this point, can you trust ANY Republican in office to actually be realistic or truthful?

Stop Buying Products Made In China!

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Over the past few months, products originating in China have been getting tagged for the dangers they pose. It started with a seafood scare in which caricogens and antibiotics used on the fish are not approved. Toothpaste had been contaminated. Then we came across not one, but two different children's toy recalls, in which lead paint and loose magnets were discovered.

Now this:

BLOOMBERG NEWS: A global manhunt launched by Johnson and Johnson has tracked to China counterfeit versions of an at- home diabetes test used by 10 million Americans to take sensitive measurements of blood-sugar levels.

Potentially dangerous copies of the OneTouch Test Strip sold by J and J's LifeScan unit surfaced in American and Canadian pharmacies last year, according to federal court documents unsealed in June. New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J and J, the world's largest consumer-health products maker, learned of the counterfeit tests after 15 patients complained of faulty results last September.

Tipped off by J and J, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a nationwide consumer alert in October without disclosing the link to China. While no injuries were reported, inaccurate test readings may lead a diabetic to inject the wrong amount of insulin, causing harm or death, the agency said.

Two questions: 1) Why is it that Johnson and Johnson, and not the US government, is doing the investigation and 2) why did we just find out about this problem when complaints started last SEPTEMBER?!

Call me cynical, but could it be that since China basically has us by the balls financially, our government didn't want to cause waves? It is so comforting to know that our well-being is first priority with our leaders.

Stop buying products made in China. Do you think I'm kidding?
Read this: Tainted Chinese Ginger Target of Recall

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspects less than 1 percent of the food imported into this country. While FDA officials could not be reached for comment Monday, they have previously said they try to make the most of limited resources by focusing on high-risk items and products from countries with a history of problems. "

Does Congress Know What It Votes On?

When the Patriot Act was introduced in Congress at the height of terrorist fears after 9/11, Congress hastily signed it into law without so much as thoroughly reading the 300 page document. You'd think they would have learned their lesson.

NY Times: Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records...

...“This shows why it is so risky to change the law by changing the definition” of something as basic as the meaning of electronic surveillance, said Suzanne Spaulding, a former Congressional staff member who is now a national security legal expert. “You end up with a broad range of consequences that you might not realize.”

...The legislation gives the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broad discretion in enacting the new procedures and approving the way surveillance is conducted.

Although the mistake was initially made, Congress will seek to revise the surveillance legislation as soon as it returns from recess, even though it is only valid for six months. Administration officials said that "the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation."

Well, can you blame them? Even if the intent were pure, this administration has shown time and time again that when they have a choice to make, they will invariably take the low road when it comes to these types of matters.

There should never be any sort of rush when enacting any laws, especially those infringing on civil rights and liberties. I wonder when Congressional leaders will actually begin reading what they sign? It's akin to signing contracts with small print loopholes and getting screwed over and over again.