bin Laden, schmin Laden!

"I don't know whether we'll find him," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, said in a speech to the Rotary Club of Fort Worth. "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."

Hmmm... Osama bin Laden, mastermind of 9/11, murderer of over 3,000 American civilians, is capturing him really not that important? What is going on here? When did we become so lax?

Realistically, Schoomaker may be right. What if we get bin Laden? Then what? Al-Qaeda will most likely not fall apart, mainly because we're concentrating on Iraq instead. But it would do wonders psychologically for the citizens and a big boost to morale for the country and the troops, no?
Then again, perhaps this Administration doesn't want to fall into a habit of actually accomplishing missions.

Open Letter to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

Congressman Young,

Last week, you spoke on the House floor and apparently misquoted Abraham Lincoln when you said, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

I find it odd that Abraham Lincoln would have ever said something like that, and I was right. He never did. As you know probably know, just because you see it printed in a newspaper, especially the Washington Times or on a website that doesn’t check its facts, like Insight Magazine Online, doesn’t make it true. The same goes for the Nancy Pelosi plane request that she never requested and the madrassa that Barack Obama never attended. No, he isn’t a Muslim either.

Here is the Lincoln quote which I think you meant to recite:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

Lincoln wrote these words while America was at war with Mexico, under the presidency of James Polk, and while Lincoln was a member of Congress. But Lincoln did more than talk about the fraud that had been used to launch that illegal and imperialistic war. He introduced a resolution demanding that Polk provide proof. Polk claimed to have launched that war only after American blood had been shed on American soil. Lincoln's resolution required Polk to identify the spot where that blood had been shed.

When President Polk did not answer, Lincoln and John Quincy Adams sought a formal investigation of the president's pre-war intelligence claims, and of his use of secret funds to launch his fraudulent and illegal war. Under this pressure, Polk announced that he would not seek reelection. Lincoln, Adams, and their allies in Congress then passed a resolution honoring the service of Major General Zachary Taylor "in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."

So it would seem that Lincoln opposed the war for its illegality while at the ame time supporting the troops... interesting.

My question to you, Congressman Young, is how can anyone in public office see a quote this inflammatory, attributed to Abraham Lincoln, and not check to see if the quote was accurate? On its face, the thought that Lincoln would advocate the arrest, exile, or hanging of congressmen in disagreement with a war based on the premise that it would undermine morale is incredibly suspect. The fact is that Lincoln did just that very thing you state as being a hanging offense and falsely attribute it to Lincoln, albeit through ignorance.

I hope with this new information, you will go to the House floor and correct your statements for the record, although since the actual quote doesn’t suit your needs, you’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.

Conditions at Walter Reed Hospital

Okay, let's see how the administration handles this one.

"We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it," said Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. "We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling."

The common perception of Walter Reed is of a surgical hospital that shines as the crown jewel of military medicine. But 5 1/2 years of sustained combat have transformed the venerable 113-acre institution into something else entirely -- a holding ground for physically and psychologically damaged outpatients. Almost 700 of them -- the majority soldiers, with some Marines -- have been released from hospital beds but still need treatment or are awaiting bureaucratic decisions before being discharged or returned to active duty.

By now you have probably already heard of the deplorable conditions at Water Reed. Half-fallen down ceilings weighted with mold, mouse droppings and dead cockroaches, stained carpet and cheap mattresses. But the question remains, how is this administration going address it and answer for it? And how is the press corps in the White House going to ask the questions that need to be asked?

Here is part of an interview between Keith Olbermann and Jon Soltz, an Iraq war vet who is now Chairman of the political action committee VoteVets.org:

SOLTZ: Last year, the Republican Congress decided they were going to "brac" a lot of military installations around the country, which means "base realignment enclosure". Walter Reed came up on that list. So I think you're seeing the effects of that policy, which is "why are you going to fix the paint and clear the mice out of an institution that's closing?" I think the second striking thing about this piece is that this is actually a part of the Department of Defense. This is not the Veterans Administration which we know is woefully underfunded. The DoD is responsible for these soldiers until they leave active duty.
So basically, the same administration that brought us no body armor and no up-armored humvees is the same administration that brought us mice at Walter Reed. Their support for the war fighter is abysmal.

OLBERMANN: Even if this country had to pay full price at private hospitals so these guys, our neighbors and our friends, could get the care that they need... at full price - no insurance - could the cost possibly amount to more than a microscopic fraction of the billions we've seen vanish down the rabbit holes in Iraq?

JS: No sir, not at all. VoteVets.org, we did this big commercial with body armor and we blew up the body armor and it cost me $1,000 on Ebay to buy the piece; and when my unit went to Iraq , we were cross-leveling plates, we didn't have up-armored humvees and took public embarrassment for that. So the tactical equipment is actually not that expensive. What makes this so shocking is that the money is there for the Pentagon. They get what they request, they get the supplemental from Congress. So what this is, is an administration that is dedicated to the high end corporate contractors, the high end weapons systems in the sky, the super-duper missile defense systems that alienate our allies. These are the same people that are making $40 million a year on their corporate contracts, and that money is coming into the political system on one side. One of the things we do at VoteVets is try to fight for the war fighter and in this specific case, there's no reason why we can't spend the small money on the regular war fighter when we're spending the large money on weapons systems that aren't making a difference on the war on terror.

KO: Where are the Republicans speaking about the treatment of these maimed Americans? And where are the Democrats in their protest on this? Why is there no outrage about this extraordinary circumstance?

JS: I think this is a larger issue. A lot of people think supporting the troops right now means putting a $3 yellow magnet made in Hong Kong on the back of their Hummer and saying they support the troops. I think debate has been absent for a long time, that people would rather flip the channel than deal with the war.
As for the Republicans, the president just presented another budget that slams the VA two years down the road; it was woefully underfunded last year by $2 billion.
As for the Democrats, I think we're seeing movement in this direction. Congressman Murtha's plan here is basically not to let more guys go into Iraq unless they're trained properly, unless they're equipped properly. So this is the first time we're seeing oversight from Congress and I expect to see that. And there's no reason why the President and the Secretary of Defense shouldn't have an immediate investigation. I think Congress should demand hearings immediately on this because our troops deserve the best, and they deserve support worthy of the sacrifices they're making in this war.

Now we wait for the next step. Will there be investigations into yet another administration atrocity?

Watch the whole interview here.

Washington Post Sunday, Feb 18 piece here.

Bill Maher: New Rule - Misspeaking

Bill Maher's Huffington Post blog of February 16th concerning the way our Presidential nominees are chosen, or discarded as he case my be.

"There's more to being smart than just not misspeaking. The world is a complicated place. Sometimes it all feels like a runaway train of violence, resentment and insecurity - sort of like a family reunion at Ryan O'Neil's place. Which is why for this next election, we need to pick the smartest candidate, not the dullest one who simply never had a verbal gaffe and said a wrong word or phrase."

Read the whole post here.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS

Murdoch's New York Post

What the hell is going on here? The has to be the lowest point in the history of this rag. Take a look at the front page of Saturday's New York Post. The headline reads "TREASON". Apparently, the House of Representatives voting to disapprove of George the Liar's "plan" to surge is summed up this way: "COWARDS GIVE UP ON GIS - & GIVE IN TO EVIL"

Ralph Peters (who?) has written an article for the Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper. According to this halfwit, "We've reached a low point in the history of our government when a substantial number of legislators would welcome an American defeat in Iraq for domestic political advantage."

Yes, of course, that's exactly what this non-binding resolution does. It emboldens the enemy. We're "welcoming" defeat and in turn, "signaling our enemies that Congress wants them to win..." Is this moron serious? Just another hack stirring up the right wing propaganda and misleading the public of just what this vote was about.

Here's what the resolution states:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that _

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Well, after reading section 1, I'm not completely sure that is tantamount to treason. Is that what you'd call "providing aid and comfort to the enemy"? Where in this resolution does it say the funding will be cut? Where in this resolution does it tell you that the troops will be left out there to die?

And then this brainiac Peters, comes up with this: "And a word about those troops: It's going to come as a shock to the massive egos in Congress, but this resolution won't hurt morale - for the simple reason that our men and women in uniform have such low expectations of our politicians that they'll shrug this off as business as usual."

Well, which it is Repiglithans? Are we hurting morale or not? Are we "sending the wrong message to our troops" or do they even care what Congress thinks? These people make me sick.

All of this is moot, of course, because the Senate is filled with spineless, gutless Rethuglicans that won't even show up to vote. Yes, I'm talking about you, John McCain! What message does that send the troops, "Maverick"?

I happen to think that those who voted no to this resolution have just committed political suicide. They fell on their swords in the name of King George the Liar. Except for a few (17 Republicans in the House and 7 in the Senate), everyone else voted for in opposition of their constituency, the very people they were elected to represent. And I don't think the 70+% of Americans who are sick and tired of this illegal war in Iraq will soon forget how their "Representatives" voted come 2008.

You want to support the troops, you cowardly, bastards? How about sending our troops into Iraq with the proper equipment and body armor that you didn't feel like paying for the first time? How about sending our troops ARMORED Humvees instead of the death traps they have to ride in now? How embarrassing is it that the greatest fighting force in the world has to rummage for scrap metal in dumps to construct makeshift armor plating for their vehicles?!

Yes, the results of the vote on this resolution shows the world something, Mr. Peters. It shows the world how out of touch with reality people like you and George the Liar and the rest of his criminal administration are. It shows the world the disregard that this administration has for our troops by leaving them in harms way in the middle of a civil war; throwing another 20,000 into the meat grinder with no plan once they get there and no plan to get out; second, third, and fourth deployments of an already strained military, while trying to cut VA funding and veterans' benefits at home; leaving our borders and states unprotected with no National Guard.

It shows them a lot, Ralph. The world is watching and shaking their collective heads in disbelief at the ego, arrogance and stupidity of the murderer in the White House.

CNN's Ed Henry Spars with Snow

TruthDig.com has named CNN's Ed Henry "Truthdigger of the Week" after his ongoing match with Tony Snow and George the Liar this week regarding claims that the US had evidence that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government are supplying bomb-making materials to the Iraqi insurgency.

After questioning Tony Snow about the contradictions between the White House story and General Peter Pace's version, Henry then asked George the Liar the following day, which can be viewed on my previous post.


This is a must see video: Ed Henry confronts Tony Snow.

While watching this video, there is a split screen showing a nice PowerPoint presentation of the supposed Iranian weapons being used. I don't know if they are a dramatization of the weapons claimed to be used, or the actual weapons. If it is the latter, can anyone answer why there is English writing on the weapons? If they were Iranian, wouldn't they be marked in Farsi? Also, take a look at the date stenciled on the side of the bomb. "3-2006" would seem to be March, 2006. The US is the only country in the world to my knowledge that uses the month and year in that order. Everyone else uses the year first, then the month. Are we seeing pictures of our own weapons trying to be passed off as evidence of Iranian weaponry?

Finally, on Thursday, Henry reported that the White House was now saying that—oops—the anonymous U.S. military briefers in Baghdad had misspoken in claiming to have evidence that the “highest levels” of the Iranian government is supplying bomb-making materials to the Iraqis.
Click here for Henry's update with Soledad O'Brien.

GREAT JOB, ED! I hope the mainstream media is taking notes. Maybe they'll finally start waking up and take these people to task.

Snow: Nothing Went Wrong in Iraq

Why would anyone even fathom saying something like this? In the light of a 2002 review of a prewar invasion plan for Iraq, which showed a rosy picture and estimated that only 5,000 troops would remain at this time, Tony the Snowman was asked what went wrong in Iraq.

His answer: "I'm not sure anything went wrong."

Whaaaaaaaa?!! Yes, Tony Snow actually said he's not sure anything went wrong, because in his opinion, war plans are moot the second you engage the enemy. Does anyone in this administration have any sense of decency left? Does anyone in this administration have any sense of morals?

So let me get this straight. With this twisted logic, nothing went wrong because there really are no plans, you're making it up as you go along so how can you be wrong?


Here's what went wrong regardless of the prewar plans:

~WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

~George the Liar has told us the war is necessary because:

Saddam was a threat;
Because of 9/11;
Osama bin Laden;
al-Qaeda;
Because of terrorism in general;
To liberate Iraq;
To spread freedom;
To spread democracy;
To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states.

~In pushing for and prosecuting this war, we passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

~Fewer troops sent in than recommended.

~Disbanding the Iraqi Army.

~"De-Baathifying" the government.

~ Short changing Iraqi training.

~No plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

~Sending in troops without life-saving equipment.

~Jobs given to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

~ "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

~George the Liar has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

~Turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government, the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

~We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

~As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course'.

~The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran.

~The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1.7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

The question that should have been asked and warrants a much shorter answer is "what went right?"

Answer The Question!

It's amazing... why does George the Liar continue to have press conferences if he's not going to answer questions asked of him? He gives you nothing but the latest fear mongering in a desparate attempt to increase support for the failed war in Iraq, and now starts laying the foundation for Iran. How many times did he use the phrase "QUDS Force" in his conference yesterday?
And when asked, "What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?" he avoids the question with the same rhetoric he began the conference with. This man is shameless.

I hope there are more journalists out there like Ed Henry who will continue to badger George the Liar. He will eventually blow a gasket and say something other than what he's scripted to say.

Click here for the link and video on intelligence contradiction and accuracy question.


He was also asked questions regarding the Libby trial, which of course he wouldn't comment on.

That's a far cry from what he had to say on September 30th, 2003.
BUSH: "If there's a leak out of my Administration, I want to know who it is. And if that person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

Al Franken Runs for Senate

When I first started listening to Air America Radio, Al Franken's was the show I would listen to. I was a devoted listener, as my fiancee would attest. She hated the car rides we took because I barely listened to anything else.

Over the course of the next three years, Franken would have weekly guests on his show such as Newsweek's Howard Fineman, Slate.com's John Dickerson, Media Matters' President David Brock, Christy Harvey, from The Center For American Progress and Joe Conason, a columnist for Salon and The New York Observer.

I really started learning a lot from the Franken show and started reading his books, and although I actually got a little tired of his radio schtick (he is a comedian and a comic writer after all) he was well worth listening to. I would get frustrated because he sometimes had too many guests on and therefore they didn't have time to answer the questions he asked, especially when he kept interrupting to get his jokes in, but I kept listening and kept learning. Through all the Air America troubles, Franken stayed on and kept plugging away, and although I tailed off in listening to him (my driving time schedule changed) I admired the guy for what he was attempting to do.

Well, February 14th marked Al Franken's last show on Air America. He has announced his candidacy for US Senate from Minnesota. Good luck to Al Franken in his political career. He would be a fresh voice in the Senate and work for the lower and middle classes in his state.

Here's his announcement:

Happy Valentine's Day

Rep. Charlie Norwood 1941-2007

Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., died today one week after his office announced that he was forgoing further treatment for his cancer and would be returning to Augusta in order to receive in-home hospice care. He was 65.

The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk

Why I Refused to Testify Against the Clintons & What I Learned in Jail

When Susan McDougal refused to implicate the Clintons in the Whitewater fiasco, she was thrown in prison, left alone with murderers and her own stubborn dignity. Savaged by Republicans and abandoned by Democrats, she would emerge from that dark chapter of American history a hero.

I came across this at TruthDig.com. McDougal tells her story of trying to be coerced by federal prosecutor Ken Starr in the smearing of Bill Clinton during the Whitewater scandal. It takes about 45 minutes to get through her video interview with Robert Scheer, but it is well worth it.

You can purchase the book by clicking on the photo.

Also check out: The Hunting of the President

Lincoln's Birthday

I was thinking about this a couple of weeks ago and didn't bother to write it down. It was a fleeting thought during a subway ride and a two block walk to work when I thought about Presidents' Day.

Ah, Presidents' Day, that combination of Washington's and Lincoln's birthdays into an all encompassing day whose only significance to most people nowadays means another holiday sale.

With pretty much any poll regarding past presidents and their contributions or their greatness, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are usually at the top of the list. Washington involved with the birth of our nation, Lincoln at the helm for our rebirth during the Civil War.

Washington's birthday was officially a holiday in 1880 in DC, and expanded in 1885 to include all federal offices. Amazingly, Lincoln's birthday was never a federal holiday, although there are some states that claim it as a legal holiday.

But now, the idea of "Presidents' Day", a name that further obscures the original reason for this holiday in the first place, isn't associated with the celebration of an American patriot's birthday as much as it is another excuse for shopping sprees. One hears Presidents' Day and Memorial Day and the inevitable word "sale" usually follows.

Gabe Pressmen writes of this day: "The reverence for history, the patriotism embodied in past observances of the birthdays of these two statesmen has been lost. Congress took it away from us, back in 1968, with the Uniform Holidays Bill. Only Congress can restore these holidays to the honored place in our lives they deserve. "

Abraham Lincoln: "...As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy"
Letter, August 1858

Happy Birthday, President Lincoln.

Not Ready To Make Nice

Congratulations to the Dixie Chicks.

The Chicks, who ignited controversy four years ago when lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush on the eve of the Iraq war, won all five [Grammy] Awards for which they were nominated, including the big three: album of the year (for "Taking the Long Way"), song of the year and record of the year (both for "Not Ready to Make Nice").

"I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message," said Maines, paying tribute to other nominees with an oblique acknowledgement that the group was being honored as much for its stand as its music. "I'm very humbled."

Official Dixie Chicks Website

Sunday Reading

Here are a few links you should click and peruse. Happy Sunday.

Bob Geiger: Dumb Stuff Republicans Say on the Senate Floor

Nicolas von Hoffman: The Worst President Ever

Paul Rieckhoff: Anna Nicole Smith Died. So Did Three American Troops

Priorities and Perspective

On Thursday, February 8th, we received shocking news of the death of 39 year old Anna Nicole Smith. Over the course of the following 48 hours, I learned more about Anna Nicole than I could have ever imagined.

Let's see, off the top of my head, here's what I remember:

She was born Vicki Lynn Hogan in Texas, kept the name "Smith" from her first marriage and had a son by her first husband. Her second marriage was to a billionaire 63 years her senior, and after his death she was involved in court battles over the inheritance with the billionaire's son (who has since also died). She had a crazy TV reality show after she'd gained tons of weight, was mostly incoherent during that time, but lost it all again and was a TrimSpa spokesperson. Her son died at age 20 while visiting her three days after she gave birth to a girl in September of 2006. He died in her hospital room from a drug overdose. Her third marriage was to Howard K. Stern (not the shock jock). And of course, her tragic end, dying in a Hollywood Hard Rock hotel (that's Hollywood, Florida). I'm not sure if this is all correct, but it's just what I can remember and I'm not going to fact check for accuracy, because to tell you the truth, I don't really care all that much.

My point is this: I've learned all this through osmosis. I didn't actively seek out this information, but there it was, hour after hour on every TV channel, news or otherwise. Are they now going to lay her in state in the Capitol Building while her husband, her ex-boyfriend and Zsa-Zsa Gabor's husband wait for DNA results to find out who her daughter's biological father really is?

Don't get me wrong, I do feel badly for her. It was a "live-fast-die-young" tragic end to a beautiful woman who, by all accounts, was a very sweet, sensitive person. But the same day that Anna Nicole Smith died, something else happened. Anyone? C'mon, take a guess.

Congress received a report from the Pentagon on their investigation into prewar intelligence which criticized civilian Pentagon officials for "conducting their own intelligence analysis to find links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda".

"Working under Douglas J. Feith, who at the time was under secretary of defense for policy, the group 'developed, produced and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and Al Qaeda relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers'."

"Senator Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the report a 'very strong condemnation' of the Pentagon’s activities.
'I think they sought this kind of intelligence. They made it clear they wanted any kind of possible connections, no matter how skimpy, and they got it,' he said. "

The above italized paragraphs come straight from the New York Times online. I say this because I had to look it up. I didn't know this off the top of my head like the Anna Nicole story, even though I think I should have. It wasn't drummed into my head over and over again like Anna Nicole.

I even tried to actively seek this information out when I first heard about it that day. I flipped to MSNBC to see if Chris Matthews would cover it on Hardball, but when I got there do you know what I found? Matthews was pre-empted by, you guessed it, BREAKING NEWS of the death of Anna Nicole Smith. I sat there, dumbfounded. I get 125 channels on Time-Warner cable and I couldn't find one of them dealing with Douglas Feith, or Donald Rumsfeld, or the Pentagon report, or Senator Levin or anything to do with breaking news of what our government did to sell us an illegal war in Iraq.

What does this say about our country as a society? The apathy and indifference is startling. Do we really not care about criminality running rampant in the White House, or 3,100 dead American soldiers, or thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed, or torture memos or Abu Ghraib or Guantanimo? What does it say about our society when 38 million people tune in to watch American Idol or the current water cooler talk is about the Prince halftime show at the Super Bowl, but no one knows that another helicopter went down in Iraq? No one knows that Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch admitted trying to shape the agenda for the war in Iraq.

Murdoch: "We tried. We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East."

Fair and balanced? We knew it wasn't and now Murdoch admits it. Did anyone hear about this? Is this not newsworthy? Perhaps, but what I'm really excited for are those DNA results so we can put this Anna Nicole thing on TV for another week... sigh.

Name the Orator

On a recommendation, I recently came across this in part of a speech.

Read these statements and try to name the person associated with making these comments:

U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.

But Iran is a threat not only because of the hateful rhetoric spewed by its president, not only because of its nuclear ambitions, but because it uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements that are attacking innocent Israelis; and now we believe attacking American soldiers. Hezbollah's attacks on Israel this summer using Iranian weapons clearly demonstrate Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders.

...It is not enough for us to say the right things; we've got to be smart and tough enough to do the right things that will protect American and Israeli interests now and forever.


Hmmm... George Bush? No. Dick Cheney? No. Condoleeza Rice? ...No.

It was Hillary Clinton speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on February 1, 2007.

It gives one pause, doesn't it?

Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted

'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War

Washington Post: "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq," Sen. Carl Levin said yesterday. "The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

Tell us something we don't already know. We all know the intelligence was cooked. But sooner or later, heads had better start rolling or else all these investigations and hearings are for naught.

Anna Nicole Smith 1967-2007

Anna Nicole Smith reportedly collapsed in her hotel room at the Seminole Hard Rock Casino and Hotel in Hollywood, Florida, and was rushed to a hospital about 2 p.m. EST but was pronounced dead.
The cause of death will be determined by the Broward County medical examiner.
She was 39 years old.